Transcript
Page 1: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefsabout the relational dimensions of teaching

Michelle Bauml*

The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 1 University Station D5700, Austin, TX 78712, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 September 2008Received in revised form26 December 2008Accepted 24 February 2009

Keywords:Preservice teachersTeacher educationTeacher characteristicsKnowledge base for teaching

* Tel.: þ1 512 292 1028; fax: þ1 512 471 8460.E-mail address: [email protected]

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.015

a b s t r a c t

Research on preservice teachers’ beliefs about professional teaching capabilities indicates strong atten-tion to the relational dimension; these studies have contributed to a portrayal of preservice teachers assimplistic and overly optimistic about the teaching profession. In this article, I position preserviceteachers’ attention to teacher–student relationships as a form of professional knowledge. Drawing fromfindings of a qualitative study of U.S. elementary (prekindergarten-Grade 4) preservice teachers whowere asked to describe professional characteristics of effective teachers, I suggest their beliefs revealsurprisingly nuanced understandings about the complex nature of teaching.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Establishing and maintaining positive relationships withteachers is a fundamental factor in children’s social, emotional,physical, and intellectual development (Bredekamp & Copple,1997). The prevalence of scholarship devoted to relational aspectsof teaching (e.g. Goldstein, 1999; Hargreaves, 1998; Noddings, 1984;Zembylas, 2007) signifies the central place of relationship in theprofessional lives of teachers. Few experienced teachers woulddisagree that the relational domain of teaching plays a significantrole in their classrooms on a daily basis, or that their professionalknowledge base is informed in part by the relational interactionsthey engage in with their students. When asked to indicate char-acteristics of effective teachers, practicing teachers have beenshown to strongly value relational characteristics such as caring(Johnson, 1997; Murphy, Delli, & Edwards, 2004; Perry & Rog, 1992).

Studies of preservice teachers’ beliefs about effective teachersalso reveal an emphasis on relational characteristics (Book, Beyers,& Freeman, 1983; Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver, 2005;Weinstein, 1989). In this literature, however, participants’ strongfocus on the relational aspects of teaching is often cause forconcern: findings of these studies indicate that preservice teachersare simplistic and overly optimistic about the profession (Fajet et al.,

All rights reserved.

2005; Goldstein & Lake, 2000; Johnston, 1994; Jones, Burts,Buchanan, & Jambunathan, 2000; Weinstein, 1989; Whitbeck,2000). These researchers are rightly concerned when preserviceteachers’ attention to relational traits of teaching eclipses cogni-zance of the hallmark of effective teachingdstudent learning.Indeed, as Fajet et al. (2005) have pointed out, education studentswho favor relational aspects of teaching may deem pedagogical andsubject matter knowledge unnecessary. However, given its saliencein the literature, it seems appropriate to explore attention to therelational domain of teaching more deeply, particularly amongpreservice teachers.

In this article, I draw on findings from a recent qualitative studyof elementary (prekindergarten-Grade 4) preservice teachers’beliefs and position their attention to relational facets of teachingas an early indication of professional knowledge to be refined anddeveloped with the support of teacher educators. Framed by theirpre-student teaching internships, university coursework, and lifeexperiences, my participants defined professional characteristics ofeffective teachers during semi-structured interviews. Interestingly,in addition to providing descriptions of effective teacher charac-teristics commonly identified in similar studies (e.g., caring, fair-ness, organization), participants in this study revealed surprisinglynuanced beliefs with regard to the role teacher–student relation-ships play in instruction and classroom management. Usingexcerpts from interviews with six preservice teachers, I highlightevidence of unexpectedly sophisticated understandings about thecomplexities associated with being an effective teacher andconclude with implications for teacher education.

Page 2: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

1 All names are pseudonyms.

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908 903

2. Teacher–student relationships in the literature

The pervasive role of the relational dimension of teaching isevident in the vast body of literature it supports. Numerous scholarshave written on the topic of caring in teaching (e.g. Deiro, 2003;Goldstein, 1998; Hargreaves, 1998; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006;McBee, 2007; Noddings, 1995; O’Connor, 2008). Others have sug-gested teacher–student relationships are powerful influencers ofstudent learning (Darby, 2005; Goldstein, 1999; van Manen, 1999).

In the literature, when experienced K-12 teachers are asked toidentify and/or rank characteristics of effective or excellentteachers, relational traits such as caring and warmth are amongthose consistently reported in the findings (Johnson, 1997; Murphyet al., 2004; Perry & Rog, 1992; Walls, Nardi, von Minden, & Hoff-man, 2002). Such widespread attention to the relational dimensionof teaching among seasoned professionals is generally unquestio-neddteachers are expected to establish strong interpersonal rela-tionships with children to create and maintain learner-centeredclassroom environments (Noddings, 1984). Supporting this notionare studies suggesting teacher–student relationships in earlyschooling affect student learning (Birch & Ladd, 1997) and readinessfor school (Palermo, Hanish, Martin, & Fabes, 2007).

Researchers have also documented preservice teachers’conceptions of effective teacher characteristics at the early child-hood/elementary level (Lin, Hazareesingh, Taylor, Gorrell, & Carl-son, 2001; Skamp, 1995; Skamp & Mueller, 2001; Yoder, Shaw,Siyakwazi, & Yli-renko, 1993) and in studies of elementary andsecondary preservice teachers (Fajet et al., 2005; Minor, Onwueg-buzie, Witcher, & James, 2002; Murphy et al., 2004; Strickland,Page, & Page, 1987; Walls et al., 2002). Findings suggest preserviceteachers at all levels identify interpersonal and strong managementskills as primary descriptors of effective teachers. Althoughsubstantial attention to relational aspects of the profession isconsidered acceptable and appropriate for practicing teachers,among preservice teachers this same attention is typicallyconstrued as a limitation (Fajet et al., 2005; Weinstein, 1988, 1989).Indeed, preservice teachers are only beginning to formulate thewisdom of practice (Shulman, 1986) that would enable them toconceptualize the incredibly complex processes of effectiveteaching. Researchers who interpret preservice teachers’ expressedbeliefs as evidence of their lack of knowledge tend to characterizethem as oblivious to nuances of teaching and unable to conceive ofteaching as a deeply complex profession.

Other researchers have suggested preservice teachers are capableof more sophisticated thinking about teaching than they are typicallycredited. For example, in her response to Kagan’s (1992) recom-mendation that preservice teachers should focus heavily on securinginstructional and managerial routines in their preparation programsbecause of where they are developmentally, Grossman (1992) assertsher belief that preservice teachers are capable of wrestling with moredifficult questions about the ethical and intellectual demands ofteaching over and above procedures. Additionally, citing a review ofthe literature (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), Hammernesset al. (2005) note preservice teachers’ beliefs and understandingsabout teaching and learning vary widely and are inclusive of beliefsthat are ‘‘. more nuanceddand extend across a wider range ofpossibilitiesdthan many people had imagined’’ (p. 369).

Despite a trend in the literature claiming prospective teachershold simplistic beliefs about teachingdespecially because rela-tional teacher traits are held in such high esteemdit is important toconsider the implications of methodological decisions that maymask deeper, more complex understandings obscured by heavyreliance on surveys and open-ended written questionnaires.Interviews with early grade preservice teachers who have fieldexperiences to refer to as they consider effective teacher

characteristics are rare (Murphy et al., 2004; Skamp, 1995; Skamp &Mueller, 2001; Weinstein, 1990). Findings that suggest simplisticnotions of teaching among preservice teachers may have beeninfluenced by participants’ lack of field experiences or by theabsence of probing for deeper understanding of participants’responses via interviews. This study was designed to address thisissue by exploring preservice teachers’ beliefs in a way that allowsthe participants to justify and explain their thinkingdto tell uswhat they know descriptively from experience. Through an inter-pretivist lens, early childhood preservice teachers’ thinking abouteffective teacher characteristics is examined here from an experi-ential, qualitative perspective.

3. Method

In this study, I set out to explore preservice teachers’ conceptionsof what it means to be an effective teacher. I conducted semi-structured interviews with elementary preservice teachers who hadcompleted one semester of professional coursework and a field-based internship to investigate preservice teachers’ contextualizedunderstanding of effective teacher characteristics in their ownterms, framed by their personal experiences as interns in the field.This design gave the preservice teachers an opportunity to richlyarticulate their beliefs about effective teachers beyond what can beascertained via questionnaires or surveys, and it enabled me to askclarifying questions to further my understanding of their responses,particularly concerning the relational domain of teaching. Qualita-tive methods of data collection and analysis (Miles & Huberman,1994) were used to explore how early childhood preservice teachersdefine the professional characteristics of effective teachers.

3.1. Participants and context

Participants were full-time students in an undergraduate cohortof 24 preservice teachers pursuing an early childhood-Grade 4teaching certificate at one of the United States’ largest accreditedurban public universities. As is typical of degree-seekers in thisprogram, all seven volunteer participants had recently completedmethods courses in science, early childhood, and language arts aswell as a course in human learning and the first of three semesters ofinternship (1.5 days per week for 13 weeks) in assigned pre-kindergarten or kindergarten classrooms. I served as the fieldsupervisor for the cohort during their internships, observing lessonsand providing feedback on instruction and classroom management.

My decision to recruit volunteers from a cohort of preserviceteachers with whom I was working was deliberate. I evaluatedthese cohort members on their instructional practices during theirfield experience, so I knew that I could probe and question froma place of established rapport with the participants. Recruitmentand interviews took place in between semesters, at a time when Iwas not directly involved in participants’ supervision to minimizeethical complexity and conflict of interest to the degree possible.

The participants, all female, included 21–22 year old seniorsexpecting to graduate in spring 2008 with a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in Applied Learning and Development and an early child-hood-Grade 4 teaching certificate. One participant, Maria,1 is Latinaand the other six are Caucasian, and all could be considered typicalteacher candidates at this university. Not surprisingly for a group ofcollege students intending to devote their professional lives toworking with young people, all seven participants had some type ofexperience working with young children before beginning theinternship (e.g. babysitter, camp counselor, swim instructor,

Page 3: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908904

religious education teacher). Additionally, before enrolling in thethree semester professional development sequence, all early child-hood/elementary education majors at this university tutor youngstudents in local schools as a prerequisite course requirement.

Most participants in this study were placed in schools sur-rounded by middle-class neighborhoods where, according to thestate’s Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for 2006–2007,just over half the student population was white and the percentageof ‘‘economically disadvantaged’’ students fell between 23 and 35%(Texas Education Agency, n.d.a.). One participant, Leslie, completedher field experience at a school in the same district where the2006–2007 AEIS report indicates students of color comprised 99%of the student body and 94% of students were classified aseconomically disadvantaged (Texas Education Agency, n.d.a.).

3.2. Data collection and analysis

Data for this study were collected during semi-structured audiotaped interviews. Each participant was interviewed for 45–60 minthree times; once after each required 13 week internship inprekindergarten-Grade 5 classrooms. Participants were asked todescribe their conceptions of professional characteristics of effec-tive teachers, their observations of those characteristics in earlychildhood classrooms, and their personal engagement with thosecharacteristics. Data presented here were collected during the firstinterview following the first internship.

Immediately following each interview, I spent between 20 and40 min recording my initial reactions to the interviews as well asquestions that arose as a result of the reflective process. I continuedto record analytic memos throughout data collection, interviewtranscription, and data analysis. After transcribing the interviews, Igave each participant a copy for a first level member check. Three ofthe seven participants responded by indicating that the transcriptslooked ‘‘great,’’ but no modifications were suggested.

I relied on existing literature to generate a ‘‘start list’’ of codes asrecommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) that enabled me tobegin organizing teacher characteristics identified in the transcriptswhile remaining open to unforeseen themes (Jones et al., 2000).Specifically, I referred to Weinstein’s (1998) categories of inter-personal relationships, classroom management, and pedagogyfrom her study of early childhood, elementary, and secondarypreservice teachers’ responses on a Teacher Beliefs Survey aboutestablishing caring and order in their future classrooms. Becausethey were grounded in the literature (Fajet et al., 2005; Minor et al.,2002; Walling & Lewis, 2000; Walls et al., 2002; Witcher,Onwuegbuzie, & Minor, 2001), Weinstein’s (1998) three categoriesprovided a logical framework for initially examining the lists ofeffective teacher characteristics obtained from the transcripts.Furthermore, Weinstein’s three categories helped me identifycomments that connected the three categories, as many of the traitsparticipants described applied to more than one category.

Efforts to establish the trustworthiness of my conclusions weremade throughout the study’s duration. Researcher reflexivity, peerdebriefing, and first level member checks took place during datacollection. Peer debriefing and reflexivity continued into dataanalysis and interpretation. Furthermore, I maintained an audittrail, repeated the data coding and analysis process (Creswell,2003), and searched for dis/confirming evidence of participants’responses to the research question by combing through transcriptsmultiple times.

4. Results

In accord with findings from other studies of preservice (Fajetet al., 2005; Weinstein, 1989; Yoder et al., 1993) and experienced

teachers (Murphy et al., 2004; Walls et al., 2002), my participantsidentified relational characteristics of effective teachers such ascaring for, respecting, and getting to know students morefrequently than instructional traits. However, my participants notonly acknowledged the critical role of relational qualities enactedby effective early childhood teachers, they also seemed to valuethese qualities in terms of their impact on student learning andbehavior. Close examination of the relational characteristicsmentioned during the interviews surrounded by descriptivecontexts suggests these preservice teachers believe relationshipswith students can serve a purpose to foster learning and promoteappropriate student behavior. Indeed, positive teacher–studentrelationships in the early grades are so significant that the UnitedStates’ National Association for the Education of Young Childrenspecifies in its research-based position statement, ‘‘Positiveteacher–child relationships promote children’s learning andachievement’’ (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 13).

Altogether, six of seven participants named effective teachercharacteristics linking relational dimensions of teaching with eitherinstructional or managerial qualities. Four of the preserviceteachers (Maria, Rebecca, Theresa, and Stephanie) made statementsconnecting relational traits to instruction, and four (Maria, Rebecca,Leslie, and Hilary) linked relational and managerial aspects ofteaching. Examples from some of the interviews illustrate thisconnectivity.

4.1. Relational and instructional connectedness

My participants’ descriptions of effective teacher characteristicsincluded numerous traits exclusively in the relational domain (e.g.getting along with children; mutual respect between teacher andstudent) and the instructional domain (e.g. high standards;preparing fun lessons). However, at times participants’ descriptionsconnected relational and instructional dimensions of effectiveteaching, exposing a more complex view of the profession than isgenerally credited to preservice teachers in the literature. For theseparticipants, getting to know students personally and being able tocommunicate with them effectively serve an important purpo-sedthese actions promote academic progress. Excerpts from Maria,Rebecca, Theresa, and Stephanie’s interviews offer evidence of theirbeliefs.

Maria, Rebecca, and Theresa were interns in kindergartenclassrooms at the same campus built within a middle-classcommunity. My reflexive notes written immediately followingMaria’s interview reveal my initial impression that ‘‘Maria’s inter-view was different than the others so far in that she spoke very littleabout specific lessons she taught and seemed to be heavily inter-ested in the relational aspects of teaching’’ (Reflexive notes, 8/30/07). Maria, who considers teaching her calling, spoke repeatedlyabout the importance of relating to students on a personal level, butrelationship was not the extent of her conception of effectiveteaching. For Maria, the instructional element is also salient, and itis enhanced when teachers know their students on a personal level.She explained, ‘‘The better you know your students, the better youcan teach them because . you can either relate the material to stuffthat they’re interested in . or just how to teach themdthe type ofmethods to use with that certain child.’’

Using figurative language, Maria attempted to articulate herview of effective teaching at its core. The following is an excerptfrom her transcript:

Maria: I don’t know if you can explain it or put words to it also,but on top of all the [effective teacher characteristics] we’retalking about, it’s like a little extra something. It’s like the cherryon the cake.

Page 4: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908 905

Michelle: What is that? What is the cherry on the cake?Maria: I really think out of everything I would say would be thatit’s like a spark or a light inside, or a personal connection . butthere’s also a level of effective teachers where you get into thecoursework and the material, where you have to challenge thekids and stuff like that. It’s still a learning environment. So it’sa mix of personal relationships and challenging [students]mentally.

Maria’s description of an effective teacher as one who bothchallenges students and relates to them personally in order to tailorinstruction for individual needs reveals her awareness thata teacher’s relationship with students can serve to enhance thelearning environment to promote student learning. Although Mariafocused strongly on relational aspects of teaching overall, hercomments offer evidence of a developing awareness that teacher–student relationships ultimately lead to cognitive development(Goldstein, 1999).

Rebecca shared Maria’s strong attention to relational aspects ofteaching in her own way, expressing confidence in her ability torelate to students as she reflected on her strengths. ‘‘I know that I’mnurturing,’’ she noted earnestly without any hint of conceit, ‘‘and Iknow that I’m warm and inviting.’’ For Rebecca, relational andinstructional elements of teaching intersect in the teacher’s stra-tegic application of knowledge about students to move them gentlyforward. She explained,

I think an effective teacher is one who genuinely cares and takesthe time to meet the students, to play to their strengths, to get toknow their families, to involve them in activities and roleswhere they feel comfortable. And by making them feelcomfortable, then [teachers] can challenge their students toundertake tasks that are out of their comfort zone because theyfeel capable within their comfort zone .. So the teacher whoknows that a student doesn’t talk very much . can engage themin conversation in class to the degree that they feel comfortableraising their hand as the school year progresses. And a lot ofgrowth and development [takes place] through nurturing andgenuinely caring.

According to Rebecca, protecting a child’s comfort level whilepromoting growth and development is a delicate facet of effectiveteaching. Her description seems to favor relationship overacademics, echoing findings from other studies of preserviceteachers’ beliefs about effective teacher characteristics (Book et al.,1983; Fajet et al., 2005; Weinstein, 1989). Nevertheless, Rebecca’srecognition that teacher–student relationships and instruction areintimately linked provides evidence that she is capable of concep-tualizing teaching as a complex endeavor, an ability largelyundocumented in the literature about preservice teachers.

Theresa’s description of communication as an effective teachercharacteristic combined instructional technique with a heavysprinkling of dialogue to ensure that students understand thematerial. Speaking from personal experience with professors whofailed to explain their expectations clearly, Theresa asserted,

You can be a very, very bright person, but if you can’t relate thatinformation to first or second graders, it’s not really going to doyou any good. The way you communicate the information isalways important. Obviously the teachers understand whatthey’re trying to say, but [make] sure that the students under-stand what you’re saying.

In her own practice, Theresa explained, she frequently ques-tioned her kindergarteners to check for understanding beforemoving on in a lesson: ‘‘I find myself asking [questions] a lotbecause I know what I’m trying to say and I want to make sure that

[the students] understand what I’m trying to say.’’ One lessonTheresa taught from her mentor teacher’s lesson plan was intendedto introduce the kindergarteners to the concept of constellations.Reflecting on the constellation lesson with me in a later conversa-tion, Theresa critiqued her delivery of the material by confessingthat she ‘‘didn’t really know how to relate the information’’ to 5 and6 year olds and didn’t think there was enough ‘‘interaction going onthat was really helping the discovery and the explanation of whata constellation was.’’ She recalled, ‘‘I felt like it was me talking thewhole time.’’

Whether or not the constellation lesson Theresa led wasappropriate for the students and/or for her at the time, Theresa’sbelief that effective teachers invite active participation fromstudents to check for understanding is evident in her comments.These statements suggest Theresa has already rejected the ‘‘simpleand rather mechanistic ‘transfer of information’’’ approach toteaching through which students acquire information as theylisten, read, and memorize factsdan approach believed to bewidely held by preservice teachers (Hammerness et al., 2005, p.369). Rather, Theresa sees that effective teachers deliberatelyinteract with their students as they strive to promote under-standing using constructivist pedagogical techniques (Tytler, 2003).While one might expect senior level Human Learning and Devel-opment majors with a semester of field experience to recognizelimitations within the information transfer model, Theresa’s sol-utiondteacher–student communicationdincorporated a relationalcomponent to direct instruction by way of making material acces-sible via dialogue and thus suggests nuance in her conception ofeffective teaching. As Ozgun-Koca and Sen (2006) found in theirqualitative study of preservice teachers’ conceptions of ‘‘goodteachers,’’ Theresa knows that teacher–student communication isa vital component of the instructional process as it leads to cogni-tive growth.

Further evidence that preservice teachers may hold deeperunderstandings about the complex nature of teaching than they aretypically credited came from another participant, Stephanie. Ste-phanie also interned in a middle-class kindergarten classroomwhere she was given opportunities to facilitate small group activ-ities regularly and teach whole group lessons on occasion.

Stephanie described an effective teacher as ‘‘someone whoreally cares about each student’s progress.’’ When I asked Stephanieto describe her conception of the overall goal of teaching, sheresponded without hesitating, ‘‘Making your students passdto beready to go the next grade. I definitely do not want to be thatteacher [who hears], ‘Oh, my gosh. You did not teach themanything.’’’ Her nascent vision of the goal of teaching offersevidence that Stephanie recognizes student learningdpassing tothe next gradedas a major outcome of teachers’ work. Stephaniealluded to the relational means through which teachers get theirstudents ‘‘ready to go to the next grade’’ as she continued,

I feel like you really need to get to know your kids on a personallevel because even though they are 5 or 8 years old, they stillhave things that they like and things they don’t like. They don’tlike to be told to do things.

To illustrate her point, Stephanie related her observation of hermentor teacher’s use of knowledge about one kindergarten boy’sinterest in playing baseball after school to motivate him to finish hiswork. The teacher and the boy’s parents had agreed that if the childfinished his work as expected each day, he would be allowed tocontinue playing baseball. Stephanie explained,

That was his big thing. He loved baseball. And once you told him,‘Come on, Stewart. You’re not doing your work. You don’t get toplay baseball this afternoon,’ he would get it done. So I feel like if

Page 5: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908906

you know a kid like that, and you know how they work, youknow how to get them focused.

Whether or not this particular strategy was appropriate forStewart, the situation offered Stephanie a means of articulating herbelief that getting to know students personally is a key to theinstructional domain of effective teaching because it helps teacherswith ‘‘making their students pass.’’ Stephanie’s nascent under-standing of the link between relational and instructional aspects ofteaching is apparent in her observation of the motivational strategyher mentor employed with Stewartdone that in Stephanie’s eyesresulted in both teacher and student getting what they wanted.The mentor was able to see Stewart complete his work, and Stewartwas able to play baseball.

These four preservice teachers are understandably in the earlystages of conceptualizing the complexities of effective teaching.Their beliefs and illustrations do not necessarily reflect develop-mentally appropriate practices or fully informed notions abouteffective teaching. Nevertheless, participants’ discussion ofteacher–student relationships as contributing factors towardacademic growth suggests they have already begun to think aboutcertain nuances of the profession that rely heavily on the relationaldimension of teaching. Their recognition of the key role relation-ships play in learning (Darby, 2005) is indicative of a moresophisticated view of teaching than preservice teachers are typi-cally afforded in the literature.

4.2. Relational and managerial connectedness

In their discussions with me about effective teacher character-istics, four participants blended relational and managerial teacherqualities together. As was the case with the instructional domain,these participants’ descriptions signified their recognition that therelational dimension of teaching serves an important purpose formanaging classroom operations and student discipline. Here, I useexcerpts from Hilary, Rebecca, and Maria’s interviews illustratetheir understandings about how teacher–student relationshipscontribute to well-run classrooms.

Hilary marveled at her mentor teacher’s ability to maintainclassroom order and elicit appropriate student behavior consis-tently in the ways she related to kindergarteners. Hilary describedher teacher as ‘‘not particularly touchy-feely,’’ although she ‘‘loved[her students] in other ways’’ by allowing students to choose prizesfrom the treasure box, by reading books about topics relevant tostudents’ out of school interests, or by giving students a high-five ora hug at the end of every day.

Hilary insisted that despite the absence of ‘‘touchy-feely’’ teacherbehaviors, the kindergarteners knew their teacher cared about themand responded well to her approach: ‘‘It was . like a respect thing .when they disappointed her, you could tell they felt bad.’’ Hilarycontended that even the most disruptive kindergarten students oncampus who were occasionally sent to her teacher’s classroombehaved appropriately under her mentor teacher’s watchful eye.Clearly in awe at her teacher’s skill, Hilary mused, ‘‘She just had somekind of power.’’ According to Hilary, timely positive reinforcementand avoidance of over-praise appeared to be key ingredients to herteacher’s ‘‘power’’ and effectiveness.

Hilary’s observance of the relational dynamics between hermentor teacher and the students to sustain a positive, respectful,orderly classroom shows Hilary thinking beyond classroommanagement as simply the implementation of rules, rewards, andconsequences. Hilary knew her mentor teacher was operating ata highly sophisticated level and an intangible relational componentcontributed to the behavioral effects she saw in the teacher’sclassroom. Hilary’s recognition and appreciation for what she

considers effective teaching is an important step toward thedevelopment of her own capabilities in this area.

Whereas Hilary’s image of effective teaching involved a seam-less integration of relational and managerial factors, Rebeccaappeared to view the two as separate elements working together intandem. Rebecca expressed her belief that effective teachers shouldbe able to act ‘‘silly’’ and even ‘‘goofy’’ with their students whilemaintaining classroom discipline. When I asked Rebecca howa teacher is able ‘‘to be goofy and be disciplined,’’ she explained,

I think creating a respectful environmentdrespect for oneanother’s peers, respect for the teacher, and the teacherrespecting the studentdallows the teacher to be goofy. Butshould there be an issue or something . the teacher has to beable to shift into disciplinary mode. And because [the teacher is]so caring and nurturing and giving, the disciplinary mode is notthreatening to the students because they’ve establisheda rapport with them as being goofy and fun. It’s difficult. It’sbalance.

‘‘Balance’’ was a word Rebecca used several times during theinterview. In fact, for Rebecca, ‘‘effective teaching, in the end, is allabout balance.’’ The non-threatening ‘‘disciplinary mode’’ Rebeccaspoke of seems to be achieved by balancing rapport with behaviormanagement. For Rebecca, a relationship with students serves tosoften disciplinary actions by the teacher. Given the tensionpreservice teachers tend to face between caring for students andmaintaining order in the classroom (McLaughlin, 1991; Weinstein,1998), bringing the two into balance is advantageous according toRebecca. Weinstein (1998) cautions that teachers who seek topreserve interpersonal relationships with their students at theexpense of establishing behavioral norms risk catalyzing behaviorthat is inappropriate and disrespectful. By positioning personalrelationships and behavioral norms together in a balance, Rebeccademonstrates awareness of the danger Weinstein warns againstand provides evidence of surprisingly nuanced understandingabout the way effective teachers manage student discipline.

Similarly, Maria alluded to co-existence between relational andmanagerial aspects of effective teaching in her discussion of theway early childhood teachers use their voice in various contexts:‘‘.the tone of the voice you use, it’s got to be soft enough so that it’ssoothing, but it’s firm. If you use baby talk, that doesn’t fly.’’Drawing from her experience in a kindergarten classroom, Mariaobserved, ‘‘When we play, [my voice] gets a little lighter, but it’s notever weak. When we’re learning though, it’s different. It’s moreauthoritative but not too intimidating.’’ Maria has discovered thata teacher’s voice is a powerful relational tool to be used strategicallyin different circumstances to communicate different messages.Furthermore, she seems to know a teachers’ responsibility tooccupy a place of authority is constant, even during play. Theseaspects of Maria’s conception of effective teachingdfeaturingrelational connectivity between teachers and studentsdareanything but simplistic.

Hilary, Rebecca, and Maria have identified teacher–studentrelationship as an integral facet of classroom management ineffective teaching. Other participants acknowledged the role rela-tionships play in instruction. At first glance, my participants’ beliefsmight have associated them with typical portraits of preserviceteachers who lionize relationship as the pinnacle of effectiveteaching. However, deeper consideration of their comments revealssurprisingly complex understandings about the craft of teaching.

5. Discussion and conclusions

In the literature, experienced (Johnson, 1997; Murphy et al.,2004; Perry & Rog, 1992; Walls et al., 2002) and preservice teachers

Page 6: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908 907

(Book et al., 1983; Fajet et al., 2005; Weinstein, 1989; Yoder et al.,1993) are consistently found to emphasize relational traits assignature characteristics of overall good teaching. To a great extent,the findings of this study echo those of previous investigations.Relational characteristics identified by this study’s participantsoutweighed those in the managerial and instructional domains. Anumber of factors may have contributed to participants’ heavyemphasis on relationships, such as their prior experiences workingwith children, the university’s teacher education program curric-ulum and/or the course content presented by their instructors.Regardless of such influences, researchers have tended to construepreservice teachers’ emphasis on relational aspects of teaching assimplisticdattributable to their lack of experience and naiveassumptions adopted while watching their own teachers from anearly age in what Lortie (1975) calls an ‘‘apprenticeship of obser-vation.’’ However, I suggest their attention to the relationaldimension of teaching indicates a degree of sophistication in thesepreservice teachers’ developing professional knowledge base.

The preservice teachers in this study defined professionalcharacteristics of effective teachers in terms of pedagogicalstrengths enhanced by interpersonal connections with students,thereby indicating nuanced understandings about the craft ofteaching. In the present study, Maria alluded to the pivotal place ofrelationships in effective teaching (Goldstein, 1999; O’Connor &McCartney, 2007; Raider-Roth, 2005) as she reasoned that teacherswho get to know their students personally are better able to chooseappropriate pedagogical methods for instruction and can relate thematerial to students’ interests. Additionally, Rebecca and Stepha-nie’s sense of getting to know students in order to use thatknowledge of their preferences and interests to address individualneeds, and Theresa’s belief in the importance of effectivelycommunicating the material on the students’ level are indicationsthat they view relationships in teaching as important catalysts forcognitive growth.

Connectivity between relational and instructional teachingdimensions has been a significant topic of investigation for manyyears. For example, McBee (2007) cites numerous researchers whohave examined caring as an element of student achievement usingframeworks of ‘‘morality, resilience, and multiculturality’’ (p. 33).O’Connor (2008) and Noddings (1984) advance teacher caring asa conscious decisiondan integral component of the profession.Furthermore, Goldstein (1999) has argued in her discussion of therole teacher–student relationships play in cognitive development,‘‘. relationships are the main route to intellectual development’’(p. 653). Preservice teachers must begin to understand the influ-ence of teacher–student relationships on academic performance ifthey are to meet the demands of today’s high stakes educationalclimate when they enter the profession.

Less often explored in the literature but comparatively signifi-cant (Noblit, 1993; Weinstein, 1998), three participants discussed inthis study spoke about exercising relational aspects of teaching toaugment orderly classroom operations and student behavior.Hilary’s reference to managerial-relational connectedness emergedin a description of her mentor teacher as an exemplar of effectivemanagement. Selective praise, positive reinforcement, and anintangible element Hilary called ‘‘some kind of power’’ contributedthe relational elements in her mentor’s abilities to that end.Rebecca claimed that effective teaching requires balance; disciplineand nurturing relationships complement each other in a teacher’spurposeful balancing act to promote an effective classroom envi-ronment. Maria identified the teachers’ use of voice as a powerfulrelational mechanism for communicating authority and expecta-tions to students in various circumstances. All three of theseparticipants have taken a critical step in their professional growthby demonstrating a nascent understanding of the interconnectivity

between positive student–teacher relationships and effectivelymanaged classrooms.

This study’s findings disrupt the prevailing deficit view ofpreservice teachers by showing how they are capable of recog-nizing the nuanced, purposeful role of teacher–student relation-ships in helping effective teachers manage learner-centeredclassrooms and set the stage for learning (Wubbels & Levy, 1997). Ifteacher educators are to help preservice teachers develop andrefine their professional knowledge base, empowering them torecognize complex inner workings of the teaching professionbefore exiting our programs, we must listen to our preserviceteachers carefully. Preservice teachers who acknowledge the rela-tional nature of effective teaching have taken an important firststep toward developing professional teaching capabilities that willenable them to become effective teachers themselves. Careful,strategic support to scaffold preservice teachers’ development asnovices (Hammerness et al., 2005) equipped for today’s complexclassroom settings begins by hearing what preservice teachers tellusdnot only about what they do not know regarding effectiveteaching, but also about what they do know. We may be surprisedby what we hear.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Lisa S. Goldstein for her valuable feedbackon earlier drafts of this manuscript. I am also grateful for theinsightful comments provided by Antonio J. Castro and StephanieIsrael, the peer reviewers for this project, and the constructiveresponses offered by the journal reviewers.

References

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s earlyschool adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79.

Book, C. L., Beyers, J., & Freeman, D. J. (1983). Student expectations and teachereducation traditions with which we can and cannot live. Journal of TeacherEducation, 34(1), 47–51.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, S. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practices in earlychildhood education. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in earlychildhood programs: serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Wash-ington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research inScience Education, 35(4), 425–445.

Deiro, J. A. (2003). Do your students know you care? Educational Leadership, 60(6),60–62.

Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J. L., & Shaver, A. N. (2005). Preserviceteachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21(6), 717–727.

Goldstein, L. S. (1998). More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: applying the ethicof care to early childhood education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,12(2), 244–261.

Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: the role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647–673.

Goldstein, L. S., & Lake, V. E. (2000). ‘‘Love, love, and more love for children’’:exploring preservice teachers’ understandings of caring. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 16(8), 861–872.

Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: an alternate view on professionalgrowth in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 171–179.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J. D., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M. A., et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. InL. Darling-Hammond, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changingworld: what teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 14(8), 835–854.

Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 120–134.

Johnson, B. L. (1997). An organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effectiveteaching: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation inEducation, 11(1), 69–87.

Page 7: Examining the unexpected sophistication of preservice teachers’ beliefs about the relational dimensions of teaching

M. Bauml / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 902–908908

Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role ofexperience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 199–208.

Jones, L. D., Burts, D. C., Buchanan, T. K., & Jambunathan, S. (2000). Beginningprekindergarten and kindergarten teachers’ beliefs and practices: supports andbarriers to developmentally appropriate practice. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 21(3), 397–410.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.

Lin, H. L., Hazareesingh, N., Taylor, J., Gorrell, J., & Carlson, H. L. (2001). Earlychildhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Early Child-hood Teacher Education, 22(3), 135–150.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.McBee, R. H. (2007). What is means to care: how educators conceptualize and

actualize caring. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 33–42.McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). Reconciling care and control: authority in classroom

relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 182–195.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice

teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effectiveteachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 116–127.

Murphy, P. K., Delli, L. A., & Edwards, M. N. (2004). The good teacher and goodteaching: comparing beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers, andinservice teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 69–92.

Noblit, G. W. (1993). Power and caring. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1),23–38.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 675–679.O’Connor, K. E. (2008). ‘‘You choose to care’’: teachers, emotions and professional

identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126.O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and

achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 44(2), 340–369.

Ozgun-Koca, S. A., & Sen, A. I. (2006). The beliefs and perceptions of pre-serviceteachers enrolled in a subject-area dominant teacher education program about‘Effective Education’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 946–960.

Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2007). Preschoolers’ academicreadiness: what role does the teacher–child relationship play? Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 22(4), 407–422.

Perry, C. M., & Rog, J. A. (1992). Preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs abouteffective teaching and the sources of those beliefs. Teacher Education Quarterly,19(2), 49–59.

Raider-Roth, M. B. (2005). Trusting what you know: negotiating the relationalcontext of classroom life. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 587–628.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Skamp, K. (1995). Student teachers’ conceptions of how to recognise a ‘‘good’’primary science teacher: does two years in a teacher education program makea difference? Research in Science Education, 25(4), 395–429.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about effectiveprimary science teaching: a longitudinal study. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 23(4), 331–351.

Strickland, J. E., Page, L. A., & Page, E. M. (1987). Preservice teachers’ perceptions ofteaching. Education, 108(2), 252–262.

Texas Education Agency (n.d.a.). 2006–2007 Academic Excellence Indicator Systemreport. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2007/index.html.

Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: developing a framework for describingeffective science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(3),273–298.

van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and the primacy of studentexperience. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: methodologies and prac-tices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 13–27). London: Falmer Press.

Walling, B., & Lewis, M. (2000). Development of professional identity amongprofessional development school preservice teachers: longitudinal andcomparative analysis. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 65–72.

Walls, R. T., Nardi, A. H., von Minden, A. M., & Hoffman, N. (2002). The characteristics ofeffective and ineffective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 39–48.

Weinstein, C. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year ofteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 31–40.

Weinstein, C. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching.Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 53–60.

Weinstein, C. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching:implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 279–290.

Weinstein, C. (1998). ‘‘I want to be nice, but I have to be mean’’: exploringprospective teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 14(2), 153–163.

Whitbeck, D. A. (2000). Born to be a teacher: what am I doing in a college ofeducation? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 129–136.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research onlearning to teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.

Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effectiveteachers: perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 45–57.

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1997). Paying attention to relationships. Educational Lead-ership, 54(7), 82–86.

Yoder, J., Shaw, L., Siyakwazi, B., & Yli-renko, K. (1993). Elements of ‘‘good teaching’’:a comparison of education students’ perceptions in Botswana, California, Finlandand Zimbabwe, Comparative and International Education Society. Annapolis,Maryland: ERIC.

Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional ecology: the intersection of emotional knowledgeand pedagogical content knowledge in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 23(4), 355–367.


Top Related