interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during...

17
Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews Se´ bastien Chalie` s a, , Luc Ria b , Ste´fano Bertone c , Jean Trohel d , Marc Durand e a SOI-GRIDIFE, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıˆtres de Toulouse, France b PAEDI, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıˆtres de Clermont-Ferrand, France c LIRDEF-GRIFEN, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıˆtres de Nice, France d CREN, UFR STAPS de Rennes, France e LIRDEF, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıˆtres de Montpellier, France Abstract This study analysed the relationships between (a) the nature of the interactions between preservice teachers and their cooperating teachers and (b) the knowledge that the teachers constructed, validated or invalidated during post-lesson interviews. Six interview excerpts, chosen as having been particularly instructive, were analysed from the perspective of the semiotic theory of the course-of-action (Theureau, Le cours d’action: analyse se´ mio-logique [The course of action: A semiological analysis], Berne, Peter Lang, 1992). The results showed that the knowledge constructed, validated or invalidated most concerned the pedagogical contents when the teachers shared the same concerns, the same expectations, and at least a part of the same knowledge being mobilized and/or constructed. The conditions for effective professional collaboration are discussed. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher training; Post-lesson interview; Interaction; Knowledge 1. Introduction Whichever reference model is used (‘‘peer coaching’’, ‘‘clinical supervision’’, ‘‘clinical part- nership’’, ‘‘contextual supervision’’), the post- lesson interview is a time for passing on instruc- tions and knowledge and for reflection (Klein, 1996). It contributes to the development of the preservice teachers’ professional experience and identity, notably enabling them to examine, alter and construct new knowledge (Fairbanks, Freedman, & Kahn, 2000; Sandford & Hopper, 2000). During the post-lesson interview, the cooperating teachers make the connection between ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.001 Corresponding author. IUFM de Midi Pyre´ne´es, 118, route de Narbonne, 31 078 Toulouse Cedex 4, France. Tel.: +33 5 62 25 21 77. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Chalie`s).

Upload: sebastien-chalies

Post on 29-Oct-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspondide Narbonne,

+33 5 62 25 21 7

E-mail addre

sebastien.chalies

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers andknowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

Sebastien Chaliesa,�, Luc Riab, Stefano Bertonec, Jean Troheld, Marc Durande

aSOI-GRIDIFE, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıtres de Toulouse, FrancebPAEDI, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıtres de Clermont-Ferrand, FrancecLIRDEF-GRIFEN, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıtres de Nice, France

dCREN, UFR STAPS de Rennes, FranceeLIRDEF, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıtres de Montpellier, France

Abstract

This study analysed the relationships between (a) the nature of the interactions between preservice teachers and their

cooperating teachers and (b) the knowledge that the teachers constructed, validated or invalidated during post-lesson

interviews. Six interview excerpts, chosen as having been particularly instructive, were analysed from the perspective of

the semiotic theory of the course-of-action (Theureau, Le cours d’action: analyse semio-logique [The course of action: A

semiological analysis], Berne, Peter Lang, 1992). The results showed that the knowledge constructed, validated or

invalidated most concerned the pedagogical contents when the teachers shared the same concerns, the same

expectations, and at least a part of the same knowledge being mobilized and/or constructed. The conditions for effective

professional collaboration are discussed.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher training; Post-lesson interview; Interaction; Knowledge

1. Introduction

Whichever reference model is used (‘‘peercoaching’’, ‘‘clinical supervision’’, ‘‘clinical part-

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2004.09.001

ng author. IUFM de Midi Pyrenees, 118, route

31 078 Toulouse Cedex 4, France. Tel.:

7.

sses: [email protected],

@toulouse.iufm.fr (S. Chalies).

nership’’, ‘‘contextual supervision’’), the post-lesson interview is a time for passing on instruc-tions and knowledge and for reflection (Klein,1996). It contributes to the development of thepreservice teachers’ professional experience andidentity, notably enabling them to examine,alter and construct new knowledge (Fairbanks,Freedman, & Kahn, 2000; Sandford & Hopper,2000). During the post-lesson interview, thecooperating teachers make the connection between

ed.

Page 2: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781766

the theory imparted at university and the practicalexperience obtained in school (Koerner, 1992).Cooperating teachers are a source of implicit,contextualized, expert, professional knowledge forpreservice teachers (Sandford & Hopper, 2000;Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt, & Van Driel, 1998),provide technical support (Pajak, 2001), are an aidto reflective practice (Black & Halliwell, 2000;Sandford & Hopper, 2000) and help them developtheir own teaching style (Black & Halliwell, 2000;Pajak, 2001).The post-lesson interview is generally structured

in three successive phases (Chalies & Durand,2000). The cooperating teachers present theirobservations on the lesson during the ‘‘report’’phase. Next, the preservice teachers analyse orjustify their actions during the ‘‘response’’ phase.Finally, during the ‘‘program’’ phase, a dialogue isestablished that is used as a training source. Theeffectiveness of the post-lesson interview reliesparticularly on how well this ‘‘program’’ phase isadapted to the real needs of the preservice teacher(Fairbanks et al., 2000). Initially the post-lessoninterview is directed, prescriptive and pragmatic,but later it becomes more collaborative, reflectiveand theoretical (Caruso, 2000; Fairbanks et al.,2000). It is then a ‘‘professional partnership’’,within which the preservice teachers and theircooperating teachers learn from each other (Fair-banks et al., 2000). It has been noted, however,that preservice and cooperating teachers some-times adopt contradictory roles during the post-lesson interviews, which then become artificial andsuperficial, and lack rigor (Hargreaves & Dawe,1990; Lemma, 1993). Cooperating teachers bothtrain and assess preservice teachers, who areconsidered to be their work peers (Graham,1997). By trying to avoid conflict, and to helpwithout imposing their ideas (McNally, Cope,Inglis, & Stronach, 1997), they can promote anenvironment of excessive neutrality (Haggerty,1995), and appear indulgent towards their pre-service teacher (Feiman-Nemser, Parker, & Zeich-ner, 1993). They avoid comments that are tooharsh (Cameron-Jones & O’Hara, 1997) andregularly overestimate the preservice teacher(Brucklacher, 1998). The latter want to befavourably assessed and take on a passive role of

receiving information (Puk & Haines, 1999),adopting the knowledge and teaching strategiesof their cooperating teacher (Hawkey, 1997).All of these studies taken as a whole indicate

that the effectiveness of the post-lesson interviewdepends on (a) the nature of the teachers’interactions and (b) the knowledge mobilizedand/or constructed by the preservice and coop-erating teachers. Yet to our knowledge, noresearch has specifically focused on these twodeterminants of effectiveness. This study thereforehad the objective of analysing (a) the nature of theinteractions between preservice teachers and theircooperating teachers, (b) the knowledge that theymobilize and/or construct during post-lesson inter-views, and (c) the relationship between the natureof their interactions and the knowledge mobilizedand/or constructed.

2. Semiotic theory of the course of action

Our study of post-lesson interviews used asituated-cognition approach that highlights twotraits of the ‘‘situativeness’’ of psychologicalprocesses (Greeno, 1989; Hutchins, 1995; Lave,1988). First, an actor’s activity is considered to beindissociable from the situation in which it arises.The situation that gives rise to activity is thusalso—and simultaneously—constructed by theactor. This ‘‘coupling’’ of activity and situation isthe object of our study. More specifically, sinceduring post-lesson interviews the activity of oneteacher depends in part on the activity of the other,we have chosen to focus on this dependency as thecoupling of two individuals’ activity–situationcouplings which we have termed ‘‘articulation’’.Second, activity is considered to be cognitive(Theureau, 2003) because the actor is continuouslymobilizing, validating or invalidating knowledge.We have analysed this knowledge in relation to thetypes of articulation operating between the activ-ities of preservice teachers and those of theircooperating teachers.The framework for our study is the course-of-

action theory (Theureau, 1992), which has alreadyhelped to expand empirical research in the fields ofteaching and training (Durand, 1998; Flavier,

Page 3: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 767

Bertone, Meard, & Durand, 2002; Leblanc, Saury,Seve, Durand, & Theureau, 2001; Ria, Seve.Theureau, Saury, & Durand, 2003). Based onPeirce’s semiotics (Peirce, 1931–1935), this theorymodels the level of activity that is meaningful to anactor; that is to say, that can be shown, told andcommented on. It assumes that this level oforganization is relatively autonomous in compar-ison to other levels accessible for analysis, but thatit is also representative of an actor’s global activity(Theureau, 1992).

2.1. Analysing individual activities during the

interview

The course of action is a continuous series ofelementary units of activity that can be shown,told and commented on by the actors. These unitsmay be practical actions, communications orinterpretations. We hypothesized that each unitof activity is a semiotic manifestation of fiverelated components: the Representamen (R),Concerns (C), Expectations (E) the KnowledgeRepertoire (K), and the Interpretant (I). Thearticulation of these five components is syntheti-cally expressed by the Unit of activity (U)(Theureau, 2003).The Representamen (R) corresponds to the

element that an actor is taking into account atthe instant under study in order to act. It is aperceptual (‘‘I’m perceiving this’’) or mnesic (‘‘I’m

recalling this’’) judgment. In the example shown inTable 1, the teacher is perceiving that hiscolleague’s request to open the window is themeaningful element of the situation. This elementdirectly contributes to defining the Concerns (C),Expectations (E), and Knowledge Repertoire (K)of the instant under study.Concerns (C) are all the actor’s overt concerns

at the instant under study (‘‘Marking papers as

quickly and accurately as possible’’; ‘‘Show teacher

A that he is disturbing him in his work’’).Expectations (E) correspond to the actor’s

anticipations about the situation at the instantunder study, given his concerns (‘‘Expectations

about a rapid return to marking papers’’).The Knowledge Repertoire (K) corresponds to

all prior knowledge mobilized by the actor for use

at that instant (‘‘It’s not right to disturb someone

who’s working’’; ‘‘Teacher A is inconsiderate’’).The Interpretant (I) corresponds to the knowl-

edge being constructed, validated or invalidated atthe instant under study. Knowledge being con-structed is new and thus does not belong to theactor’s Knowledge Repertoire (K); validated andinvalidated knowledge do belong. Knowledge isvalidated when its reliability is increasing at theinstant under study and invalidated when relia-bility is decreasing. In the example shown, teacherB is validating an element of knowledge (‘‘Teacher

A is inconsiderate’’).

2.2. Analysing the local articulation of individual

activities during the interviews

The post-lesson interview was considered as acollective activity co-constructed by the individualactivities of the preservice and cooperating tea-chers. This collective activity resulted from thearticulations in the synchronous unfolding of thetwo actors’ courses of action; that is, from thestep-by-step articulations of the two actors’ unitsof activity (Theureau, 2003), which we havetermed local articulation. More precisely, therewas a point of articulation in the two coursesof action each time a Unit of activity (U) ofone teacher (a communication type) was theelement taken directly into account [Representa-men (R)] by the other teacher in order to act.The articulation of courses of action dependslocally on the balance between a Unit of activity(U) of the locutor and the element [Representamen(R)] being taken into account in order to act.Three types of local articulation could be ob-served.

Type A local articulation was identified whenone of the teachers (or both simultaneously) wasinvolved in a separate interpretive process inparallel to his participation in the discussion. Ascan be seen in the following example, the elementbeing taken into account for action at the instantunder study [his Representamen (R)] included thestatement being addressed by the other teacher aswell as the interpretive product [Unit of activity(U)] of his own earlier Unit of Activity. HisConcerns (C), Expectations (E) and mobilized

Page 4: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Example of a two-part protocol and the local articulation of the two teachers’ courses of action

Part 1

Observable behaviours actors A and B

Teachers A and B are working, seated at the same table teachers’ common room of a middle school.

Teacher A, sitting opposite the window, is preparing his next lesson. Teacher B, sitting with his back to the window, is marking pupils’

homework.

Teacher A straightens up and addresses teacher B: ‘‘Could you open the window, please?’’

Teacher B straightens up and stares at teacher A.

Part 2

Actor A’s self-confrontation Actor B’s self-confrontation

Researcher: Can you go back over that instant? Teacher B: Actually there, I’m giving him a firm look to show

him that I refuse to get up [to go and open the window]y

Teacher A: There I’m marking homework and I’m really hoty

I’m sweating. So I ask him, as he’s near the window, if he can

open ity I’m trying to make us feel a bit better and just make it

more comfortable to work y

Researcher: What do you mean by ‘‘I’m giving him a firm

look’’?

Researcher: OK. Teacher B: I’m looking at him firmly there, to show him that his

request is inappropriate. I’m trying to show him that he is

actually annoying me while I’m trying to quickly mark this

homeworky So that I can get straight back to my work of

marking papers.

Teacher A: The more comfortable the conditions are, the better

our work isy But, actually, this room is stuffy.

Researcher: OK.

Teacher B: Because, well it’s true that it’s not really right to

disturb people when they’re workingy I realize there that he is

really inconsideratey

Local articulation of courses of action [Actor A/Actor B]

Actor A Actor B

U/Asks teacher B if he can open the window. U/Angry, looks firmly at teacher A showing him his refusal.

R/The feeling of heat and the position of teacher B near the

window.

R/Teacher A’s request to open the window.

C/Feel more comfortable in the room. C1/Mark the papers quickly and accurately.

E1/Expectations associated with his request being accepted by

teacher. B

C2/Show teacher A that he is disturbing him while he is

working.

E2/Expectations associated with improved work conditions. C3/Make teacher A aware that his request is inappropriate.

K1/The work is done much better if it executed under good

conditions.

E/Expectations associated with quickly resuming his work of

marking papers.

K1/It is not right to disturb a person who is working.

K2/Teacher A is inconsiderate.

I/Construction of K2/This work room is stuffy. I/Increasing the validity of K1 and K2.

Note. U=Unit of activity; R=Representamen; C=Concerns; E=Expectations; K=Knowledge Repertoire; I=Interpretant.

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781768

Knowledge Repertoire (K) were not shared withthe other actor (Table 2).In the excerpt in Table 2, Thierry (the cooperat-

ing teacher) had just prompted Damien (thepreservice teacher) to admit that the pupils hadnot worked enough during the javelin lesson and

he had then encouraged him to make suggestionsabout how to increase the number of throws theyperformed. In response to Damien’s hesitation,Thierry suggested increasing the number ofthrowing areas. While reflecting on this (sittingback in his chair and remaining silent), Damien

Page 5: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Type A local articulation of the two courses of action

Part 1

Post-lesson interview between Damien

(the preservice teacher) and Thierry (the

cooperating teacher)

Behaviours Damien (PT) Behaviours Thierry (CT)

Damien (51’52): It’s true that, there

[during today’s lesson], they didn’t throw

[the javelin] much and they [the pupils]

didn’t work [practice] muchy It’s true

that they didn’t get in many throws during

the time they had to practicey

Sitting opposite Thierry, his elbows

resting on the desk between them.

Sitting opposite Damien. Sitting back

from the table, his notebook on his lap.

Thierry (52’14): You see, I would start

from the fact that they should throw more

y I would start from there, you seey

because, well, I think that actually in

terms of the number of throws [executed

by each of the pupils], well, something

could be doneyAnd so, starting from

there, well, um, I would increase the

number of throwing areasy You see, like

that, they would throw more, each of

themy

Damien (52’21): Yeah, no buty Sits back in his chair. Looks at the

ceiling.

Advances towards the desk.

Thierry (52’28): I think you can’t really

afford to cut down on the number of

throwing areasy It would allow each of

them [each pupil] to throw more, anyway.

Damien (52’38): Yeah, no but I agree.

But, well, you see, compared with the last

time [the previous lesson], the fact of

making more areas caused me a lot of

problemsy Especially in terms of safety,

you seey So that’s why I reduced them

there [during today’s lesson], if you

likey

Part 2

Thierry’s self-confrontation (CT) Damien’s self-confrontation (PT)

Thierry: There I’m actually trying to

convince him [Damien]!

Researcher: Are you resisting his suggestion [to increase the number of throwing areas],

there, actually?

Researcher: What do you mean? Damien: No, it’s not that I’m resisting but, well, I’m trying to make him understand why I

actually went about it in a different way, if you likey I have the feeling that the students in

this class are not self-sufficient enough yet to work alone.

Thierry: Well, there, you see, he’s

hesitatingy

Researcher: What do you mean?

Researcher: What makes you say that? Damien: Well, that [increasing the number of throwing areas], if you like, it’s something

that I’d tried to set up the first time and then, well, it was actually too difficult to deal

withy The more you increase the number of work groups, actually, the more the students

take advantage of it to mess around y And then, well, with javelins it’s pretty dangerous,

reallyy

Thierry: Well, he’s not answering me

anymore, therey He’s repeating himself,

there...

Researcher: OKy

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 769

Page 6: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2: Actor’s self-confrontation

Researcher: OK, so he’s hesitating and

youy

Damien: So that’s why, there, well, I’m trying to explain to him why I actually preferred

reducing the number of areas instead, if you likey I’m telling him that I’ve already done it

and that, well, it didn’t really go very well, so that, well, we could try to see what else we

can doyThierry: Well, there, it’s more that I’m

trying to convince himy The idea is that

increasing the number of throwing areas

will mean that the students actually throw

morey So, there, I’m actually insisting

on that, in a wayy because, well, it’s true

that if we leave it there, well, we won’t

really be able to discuss it [the

suggestion] you seey We won’t be able

to look for concrete, you know, practical

ideas, about thaty We really need to

both agree on the facts you seey To start

withy

Local articulation of courses of action [Thierry (CT)/Damien (PT)]

Thierry (CT) Damien (PT)

U/ While thinking that Damien is

hesitating, insists on his suggestion

about increasing the number of throwing

areas to allow the pupils to throw more.

U/Tells Thierry that he has already tried increasing the number of throwing areas and

that it posed problems.

R/Damien’s perceptible hesitation. R/The feeling that the pupils in his class are not yet self-sufficient enough to work alone.

C/Convince Damien of the validity of

the suggestion to increase the number of

throwing areas.

C/Justify his choice to reduce the number of throwing areas.

E1/Expectations associated with

continuing the discussion about the

suggestion to increase the number of

throwing areas.

E/Expectations associated with looking for new solutions to increase the pupils’ work in

the next lesson.

E2/Expectations associated with looking

for concrete solutions to put into

practice the suggestion to increase the

number of throwing areas.

K1/When the pupils are dispersed among many throwing areas, they take advantage of

the situation to misbehave.

K1/The preservice teacher’s repetition

indicates that he is hesitating.

K2/The organisation of a lesson is planned beforehand.

K2/You can only look for solutions

when the cooperating teacher and the

preservice teacher interpret the identified

problem in the same way.

I/Increasing the validity of K2. I/Not identified.

Note. PT=preservice teacher; CT=cooperating teacher; U= Unit of activity; R=Representamen; C=Concerns; E=Expectations;

K=Knowledge Repertoire; I=Interpretant.

Table 2 (continued)

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781770

remembered the difficulties he had encounteredduring the previous lesson and thought that thissuggestion could not be considered, because therehad been so many safety problems. At the instantunder study, Damien (the preservice teacher) wasengaged in an interpretive process that led to a

disparity between his Concerns and Expectationsand those of Thierry (the cooperating teacher).Damien attempted to justify his choice of reducingthe number of javelin-throwing areas in order tominimize the risk of accidents. Thierry tried toconvince Damien of the validity of the suggestion

Page 7: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Type B local articulation of the two courses of action

Part 1

Post-lesson interview between Philippe (the

preservice teacher) and Michel (the cooperating

teacher)

Behaviours Philippe (PT) Behaviours Michel (CT)

Philippe (12’12): Actually, it’s also only the

second time [lesson] I’ve asked them [the pupils]

to do that really [to defend individually]y I think

that, well, you really have to give them a bit of

timey Don’t you?

Sitting opposite Michel, elbows on

the desk between them. Looking at

Michel.

Sitting opposite Philippe. His

notebook is resting on the desk.

Looking at Philippe.

Michel (12’21): Yes, of course. It’s going to fall

into place graduallyy But well, you, perhaps you

could try to make the thing easier, couldn’t you?

Philippe (12’29): Yeahy In that lesson?

Michel (12’31): Yeahy Help them to get

organised [collectively] more easily!

Philippe (12’34): There I, therey I can’t see how

I can help them more.

Looking at his notebook.

Michel (12’53): For a start, I think that if you

kept the same teams, well, for a start they’d know

each other better, I thinky And also there, you’re

going from an exercise with practically no

constraints, if you like, to matches that actually

involve an enormous pressurey I would stay with

played situations, myself, you see, exercises or

matches, and then, well, with stable teamsy

That’d help them quite a lot [to organise

collectively].

Part 2

Michel’s self-confrontation (CT) Philippe’s self-confrontation (PT)

Michel: The thing is, there I suggest [to Philippe]

actually, to make less of a distinction between the

exercises, you see, and the game situation that he

does at the end [of the lesson]y Actually, to

present the exercises more in a played format, you

see y Like that, it’s easier for the students to use

afterwards what they learned or put into practice

during the exercises, you see, in the matchy Do it

in such a way that the transition isn’t completely

disconnected.

Researcher: There, are you paying attention, there?

Researcher: So you’re actually trying to suggest

ideas there?

Philippe: Yes, very much so, yesy I’m trying to find ideas actually to do with that

problem of organizing the students and then Michel is giving me some

fundamentalsy So, well yes, I’m paying attention therey Especially to see what

to do next time [lesson].

Michel: Yes, well, him, there, he’s hesitating there

y He’s having trouble suggesting ideas therey

So there, I’m trying to find ideas to relieve that

problemy I’m trying to suggest things that are

quite concrete, you see, so that, well, next time he

could try to connect his exercises more, with, well,

his match situation, you seey

Researcher: What do you mean by ‘‘fundamentals’’?

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 771

Page 8: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2: Actor’s self-confrontation

Philippe: Actually there, he’s [Michel] suggesting that I make the learning

exercises less separate from the match afterwards, you seey That the exercises

should actually be more played, if you like, so that it’s less different from the

match afterwardsy And it’s true that if you do an exercise, you see, gently with

no real pressure from your opponents, it’s not the same in terms of [collective]

organisation, as when you do a matchy By making them more similar [the match

and the learning exercises], well, that can help the students, you knowy

Local articulation of courses of action [Michel (CT)/Philippe (PT)]

Michel (CT) Philippe (PT)

U/Suggests to Philippe that he presents the

exercises in a played form.

U/Listens attentively to Michel’s suggestions.

R/The difficulties encountered by Philippe in

suggesting ideas to make it easier for the pupils

to go from the exercises to a match situation.

R/Michel’s suggestion to make the exercises less disconnected from a match

situation, notably by always presenting the exercises in a played form.

C/Suggest ideas to Philippe to connect the

exercises more with a match situation.

C/Find ideas to make it easier for the pupils to put into practice during a match

situation the collective team organisation that had been established during the

exercises.

E/Expectations associated with Philippe using

his ideas in the next lesson.

E/Expectations associated with using the solution suggested by Michel in the

next lesson.

K/When the exercises are presented in a played

form it is easier for the pupils to put what they’ve

learned into practice in a match.

K1/Collective team organisation is not subject to the same constraints during

learning exercises as in a match situation.

K2/The pupils put their collective organisation into practice all the more easily

in a match situation if the exercises were presented to them in a played form.

I/Not identified. I/Increasing the validity of K1.

Note. PT=preservice teacher; CT=cooperating teacher; U= Unit of activity; R=Representamen; C=Concerns; E=Expectations;

K=Knowledge Repertoire; I=Interpretant.

Table 3 (continued)

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781772

to increase the number of throwing areas in orderto give the pupils the opportunity to throw moreoften. The two actors utilized different knowledgein relation to Damien’s management of the pupils(e.g., ‘‘When the pupils are dispersed among many

throwing areas they take advantage of this situation

to misbehave’’) and during Thierry’s interview(e.g., ‘‘You can only look for solutions when the

cooperating teacher and the preservice teacher

interpret the identified problem in the same way’’).Type B local articulation was identified when, as

in the following example, the statement addressedby the locutor [Unit of activity (U) of commu-nication] was being perceived and directly takeninto account [Representamen (R)] by the inter-locutor in order to act. At this instant, Concerns(C), Expectations (E), and the mobilized Knowl-edge Repertoire (K) were shared by the twoteachers (Table 3).

In the excerpt in Table 3, Michel (the cooperat-ing teacher) first prompted Philippe (the preserviceteacher) to pick out all the problems observedduring the lesson and to classify them in order ofimportance. The main problem that Philippeidentified was that the pupils did not use thedefensive organization during matches that theyhad learned during the exercises. When Michelquestioned him, Philippe tried to find the causes ofthis problem. The main cause put forward relatedto the fact that the pupils were being asked to learnsomething that was new to them. He thereforethought it necessary to give them more time inorder that each of them should learn to defendindividually. Judging Philippe’s explanation to bevalid, Michel showed his agreement. Next heprompted him to follow his thoughts through byasking him if there was a way in which thislearning could be facilitated. Philippe hesitated

Page 9: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 773

and gave no answer. Michel suggested that hecould keep the same type of learning situationthroughout the lesson. He illustrated this sugges-tion by indicating that he could just organizeplayed situations in the form of exercises ormatches, and always keep the same number ofplayers in the teams. At the instant under study,the two actors had complementary Concerns andExpectations. Michel tried to offer Philippe con-crete solutions so that the latter could improve hisnext lesson. Philippe, for his part, looked forsolutions that would address the problem that hehad identified in his lesson. His Expectations wereassociated with obtaining Michel’s help to preparehis next lesson. Some mobilized knowledge relat-ing to the organization of the pupils’ work wasshared by Philippe and Michel (e.g., ‘‘When the

exercises are presented in a played form, it is easier

for the pupils to put what they have learnt into

practice in a match’’).Type C local articulation was identified when the

statement addressed by the locutor [Unit ofactivity (U) of communication] was being per-ceived and directly taken into account [Represen-tamen (R)] by the interlocutor in order to act. Atthis instant, Concerns (C), Expectations (E),mobilized Knowledge Repertoire (K) and anyknowledge being constructed, validated or invali-dated [Interpretant (I)] was being shared by thetwo teachers at the instant under study (Table 4).In the example in Table 4, Patrick (the

cooperating teacher) and Sebastien (the preserviceteacher) reached the same interpretation: duringthe gymnastics lesson, all the pupils in the twogroups situated opposite a large window hadencountered difficulties when executing hand-springs. Patrick asked Sebastien to think aboutthis problem. Sebastien thought that the pupilswere failing because of their fear of falling againstthe large window when they landed. They had notbeen able to execute handsprings correctly becausethey were afraid. Patrick then prompted Sebastiento expand on his explanation. Notably, hesuggested that he should think about the con-sequences that this fear could have on themperforming handsprings. Sebastien hesitated, un-able to answer the question. Patrick therefore gavehis own interpretation. In his opinion, the pupils’

fear caused them to reduce the speed of theirapproach. Because speed is essential to executingthe rotation in the handspring, they had notmanaged to achieve the task. At the instant understudy, the two teachers had shared Concerns andExpectations. They tried simultaneously to explainthe problem in performing handsprings that thepupils in the two groups situated opposite the largewindow had encountered. They expected to under-stand the problem together and find solutionsthat could be applied in the next lesson. Theknowledge that was being mobilized, constructed,validated or invalidated was also shared. Someof the knowledge related to the constitutiveelements of executing a handspring (e.g., ‘‘The

pupils do not execute handsprings correctly when

they do not build up enough speed during their

approach’’).

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

This study took place in France in teachertraining centres (IUFM: Instituts Universitaires deFormation des Maıtres) and in schools. Sevendyads volunteered to participate, each consistingof a preservice teacher still in initial professionaltraining (second year at the IUFM) and acooperating teacher. The preservice teachers weremen, between the ages of 23 and 25 years, and heldthe ‘‘Certificat d’Aptitude a l’Enseignement del’Education Physique’’ (a competitive examinationfor entry into the second year of training to be ahigh school physical education teacher). They hadacquired 5–7 weeks teaching experience beforetheir course. This was the first time that they hadresponsibility for a class for a whole academicyear. The cooperating teachers were men betweenthe ages of 39 and 45 years. They each had at least14 years of professional experience and wereconsidered to be expert teachers—they weretrainers for continuous education and were onthe selection panel for the recruitment of studentteachers. Only three of these seven were consideredto be highly experienced cooperating teachers,with a minimum of 8 years of experience in this

Page 10: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Type C local articulation of the two courses of action

Part 1

Post-lesson interview between Sebastien (the

preservice teacher) and Patrick (the cooperating

teacher)

Behaviours Sebastien (PT) Behaviours Patrick (CT)

Patrick (21’46): I agreey Maybe they [the

pupils] are afraid [to execute handsprings

opposite the large window]y But, well, beyond

that, what’s making them fail, there, in their

handsprings?

Sitting next to Patrick in the

gymnasium.

Sitting next to Sebastien in the

gymnasium.

Sebastien (21’55): Yeah, I don’t knowy No, but

I think that it’s more the fear actually that’s

holding them back and so, after, welly They

can’t manage it, you knowy

Looking at the large window. Looking at Sebastien.

Patrick (22’09): No, but I agree with you there.

But, well, beyond this apprehension about the

window, therey I think the thing is that they’re

lacking speed, actually, above all y Don’t you

think?

Sebastien (22’21): Yeah, the lack of speedy Looks at Patrick.

Patrick (22’22): Actually, because they’re

essentially frightened [of the large window], well,

they reduce their run upy Automatically, if you

like. And so, at the end, they can’t do the

[handspring] rotation, you know? Do you see

what I mean?

Sebastien (22’37): Yeahy No but yes, yesy

Patrick (22’41): Do you understand what I mean?

Without speed, it’s noty

Sebastien (22’45): Yeah, yeahy No but yeah,

without speed, it’s true thaty

Part 2

Patrick’s self-confrontation (CT) Sebastien’s self-confrontation (PT)

Patrick: Yes, well, there I’m telling him

[Sebastien] what I’m thinking, you know.

Actually, if you likey Well essentially at first,

they [the pupils] are afraid of falling [against the

large window] so, essentially they take fewer

risksy. They reduce the speed of their run up,

essentiallyy

Sebastien: Yeah, there he’s [Patrick] righty it’s true that, out of fear of falling

against the window they’ve [the pupils] automatically reduced their momentum

[their speed of approach], you know. And so, it’s true that without momentum,

they didn’t have enough speed afterwards, you know, to turn [to execute the

rotation of the handspring]y

Researcher: Yes OKy Researcher: And that, is that something you sensed?

Patrick: And so from then on, it’s true that, well,

without speed, well, they can’t turn, actually

[execute the rotation of the handspring].

Sebastien: Let’s say that I hadn’t actually got into explaining it, myselfy As far as

I was concerned, well, they were afraid, so they were putting less effort into it, you

seey

Researcher: There, do you want him to accept

your explanation?

Researcher: And so there, when he said that to you?

Patrick: No but there it’s more that he’s searching

and, if you like, he can’t do ity So there, yeah,

I’m trying to help him find an idea [an

explanation to the problem], you see, therey To

validate [the explanation of the problem] you see,

so that he can actually use it and then take it into

account the next time [the next lesson], you see.

Sebastien: Well, there, it’s an interesting explanationy I’m trying, myself, to

explain why they [the pupils] were managing less well opposite the window and he’s

[Patrick] telling me that it’s because they’re afraid that they build up less

momentum and therefore they can’t turn any morey So there, yeah, it’s really

something [an explanation] to remember, yeah, for the next timey

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781774

Page 11: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2: Actor’s self-confrontation

Local articulation of courses of action [Patrick (CT)/Sebastien (PT)]

Patrick (CT) Sebastien (PT)

U/Explains to Sebastien that the pupils cannot

execute handsprings because they reduce their

approach speed through fear of falling against

the large window.

U/Thinks that Patrick’s explanation is interesting.

R/The difficulties encountered by Sebastien to

explain the failure of the pupils to execute

handsprings in the groups situated opposite the

large window.

R/Patrick’s explanation, according to which the pupils execute handsprings less

well opposite the large window, because they reduce their speed of approach.

C/Help Sebastien to find an explanation for the

pupils’ failure to execute handsprings.

C/Find an explanation for the failure of the pupils to execute their handsprings

opposite the large window.

E/Expectations associated with Sebastien taking

into account the explanation given to the

problem.

E/Expectations associated with memorizing and putting Patrick’s explanation

into practice in the next lesson.

K1/The pupils take fewer risks in the execution

when they are worried about falling.

K1/The pupils do not execute handsprings correctly when they do not build up

enough speed during their approach.

K2/The pupils do not execute handsprings

correctly when they do not build up enough

speed during their approach.

I/Increasing the validity of K2. I/Increasing the validity of K1.

Note. PT=preservice teacher; CT=cooperating teacher; U= Unit of activity; R=Representamen; C=Concerns; E=Expectations;

K=Knowledge Repertoire; I=Interpretant.

Table 4 (continued)

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 775

role. Thus, only the three dyads of these cooperat-ing teachers and their preservice teachers wereselected for analysis is this study.

3.2. Procedure

Each of the three dyads was observed duringthree lessons and the following post-lesson inter-views. The observations took place in the secondtrimester of the school year, so the preserviceteachers had already been observed while teachingand thus had had five to seven post-lesson inter-views. The lessons were conducted by the pre-service teachers, who had the responsibility of theclass, under the supervision of their cooperatingteacher. The lessons were in three sport disciplines:gymnastics, basketball and athletics, and weregiven to high school pupils (28–32 pupils in eachclass, between the ages of 15 and 19 years). Thepost-lesson interviews were held on the same dayas the lessons. It should be noted that this study ispart of a much larger research project investigating

the effectiveness of mentoring in teacher training.Because not all of the post-lessons interviews hadbeen effective, we selected those interview excerptsthat had been chosen by the teachers themselves asinstructive. At the end of the post-lesson inter-views, the teachers met separately with one of theresearchers to identify the excerpts of the interviewthey considered to be most valuable from atraining perspective. No selection criteria weresuggested to the teachers as to which excerpts tochoose. As an aid, the teachers were able to referto the video recording of the interview. Acomparison was then made between the excerptsselected by the preservice teacher and thoseselected by the cooperating teacher. Only theexcerpts chosen by both were retained. Sixexcerpts lasting between 9 and 17min wereanalysed. These excerpts, considered as the mostrepresentative of the entire corpus, met thesaturation criterion: additional data would nothave yielded any new or different results (Strauss& Corbin, 1990).

Page 12: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781776

3.3. Data collection

Two categories of data were collected: videorecording and self-confrontation data. The videorecording data were collected during the lessonsand the post-lesson interviews that followed, usinga video camera and a HF microphone worn by thepreservice teachers and the cooperating teachers.The camera was set back in a corner of thegymnasium, stadium or interview room, andfilmed the actions of the preservice teacher andthe cooperating teacher in a wide-angle view. Theself-confrontation data were obtained duringseparate interviews with each of the teachers,during which they were confronted with the videorecording of their actions. They were encouragedto describe and comment on what they were doing,what they were thinking, what they took intoaccount to act, and what they perceived or felt.The researcher questioned the teachers in such away as to obtain precise, unambiguous descrip-tions. The researcher and the teachers each had aremote control that enabled them to regulateindividually the progress of the videotape. Theseinterviews were also recorded.

3.4. Data processing

The data were analysed in four steps: the firstthree dealt separately with the activity of each ofthe teachers and the fourth dealt with thearticulation of their courses of action (Table 1).

Step 1. Constructing the two-part protocols: Thisstep consisted of presenting the data in two parts.Part 1 presented the verbatim transcriptions of thepost-lesson interviews and any observable beha-viours other than communications of the preser-vice and cooperating teachers. Part 2 presented thecorresponding verbatim transcriptions of the self-confrontation interviews of each of the teachers.

Step 2. Analysing the course of action of each

actor: This analysis consisted of identifying anddocumenting the Units of activity (U) and thesemiotic components of the courses of action. TheUnits of activity (U) were identified and labelledon the basis of the responses to the followingquestions: What is the teacher doing? What is hesaying? What is he thinking? The Representamens

(R) were identified and labelled from the responsesto the question: What elements being perceived orrecalled about this situation are meaningful to theactor at this instant? Concerns (C) were identifiedand labelled from the responses to the question:What is the actor concerned about at this instant?Expectations (E) were identified and labelled fromthe responses to the question: What are the actor’sexpectations at this instant? The KnowledgeRepertoire (K) was identified and labelled fromthe responses to the question: What knowledge isthe teacher mobilizing at this instant? And last, theInterpretant (I) was identified and labelled fromthe responses to the question: What knowledge isthe teacher constructing, validating or invalidatingat this instant?

Step 3. Categorizing the knowledge: All the unitsof knowledge constructed, validated or invalidated[Interpretant (I)] by the preservice teachers andtheir cooperating teachers were first compiled. Theywere then categorized by adopting the proceduresrecommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) withinthe framework of Grounded Theory. The categorieswere defined step by step, with a new categorycreated for each unit that did not fit into an alreadyexisting category. The knowledge units were as-signed to categories on the basis of their content;that is, the object with which they were concerned.

Step 4. Local articulation of preservice and

cooperating teachers’ courses of action: The localarticulation of the teachers’ courses of action wasaccomplished in two steps. First, the articulationsof courses of action unfolding synchronously wereidentified. Units of activity (U) occurring at thesame time, as well as semiotic components of eachcourse of action, were identified, beginning withthe Representamen (R) of each interlocutor. Eachtime that this element corresponded completely orin part to the communication of the locutor [Unitof activity (U)], an articulation of the two coursesof action was assumed to have occurred. In thesecond step, we labelled each identified localarticulation. The semiotic components of the twoarticulated courses of action were compared. Theywere considered to be shared when their contentswere judged to be in common or convergent by thetwo researchers and unshared when their contentswere only partially in common or convergent, or

Page 13: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 777

different. All three types of local articulation wereobserved in the courses of action of the preserviceteachers and their cooperating teachers.

3.5. Validity of the data

The data processing was carried out separatelyby two of the researchers, and the agreement rateat the end of each step was greater than 85%. Incases of disagreement, a discussion among the fourresearchers was held until consensus was obtained.

4. Results and discussion

The results are presented in the following order:(a) the types of local articulation of the preserviceand cooperating teachers’ courses of action, (b) theknowledge mobilized and/or constructed, vali-dated or invalidated by the preservice andcooperating teachers, and (c) the relationshipsbetween the types of local articulation and theknowledge mobilized and/or constructed.

4.1. Types of local articulation of the preservice and

cooperating teachers’ courses of action

We identified 164 points of local articulationwhen the preservice teachers’ courses of actionwere mapped to the corresponding courses ofaction of their cooperating teachers. The resultsshowed a regular fluctuation in these articulationsduring the post-lesson interviews. The occurrencesof types A, B, and C were, respectively, 81%, 14%and 5%. Although this study focused only onthose excerpts chosen by the participants them-selves as the most instructive, the interactionsbetween the preservice teachers and their coop-erating teachers could be characterized as super-ficial most of the time. The teachers interactedwithout presenting either the same concerns or thesame expectations, and they did not mobilize thesame knowledge (Type A). Nevertheless, at timesthe interactions showed greater depth: at thesemoments, the preservice teachers and their co-operating teachers shared the same concerns andexpectations and at least some of the sameknowledge that was being mobilized (Type B) or

constructed, validated or invalidated in the situa-tion (Type C).

4.2. Knowledge constructed, validated or

invalidated by the preservice teachers and their

cooperating teachers

An inventory of 286 units of constructed (25%),validated (67%) or invalidated (8%) knowledgewas drawn up and analysed. These units wereclassified according to the objects to which theyrelated: pedagogical content (39%) (Schulman,1986), the post-lesson interview (10%), the co-operating teacher (21%), or the preservice teacher(30%) (Table 5).The knowledge concerning pedagogical content

related to three sub-categories of related knowl-edge: the pupils, discipline-specific content andinstruction. Usually, such knowledge associatedtwo of these elements. For example, they con-cerned the pupils and discipline-specific content(e.g., ‘‘Learning the fosbury flop requires that the

pupil first overcomes his or her fear of the space

behind him’’) or the pupils and instruction (‘‘In-

creasing the number of groups in the gymnastics

lesson enables each of the pupils to work more’’).The knowledge concerning the post-lesson inter-

view related to its organization (e.g., ‘‘At first, the

themes broached must be left to the initiative of the

preservice teacher’’). Knowledge relating to thepost-lesson interview was also about its content(e.g., ‘‘The cooperating teacher repeats his observa-

tions and his advice from one interview to the next,

to create a continuity in the training’’).The knowledge concerning the cooperating

teacher related mainly to his function as a trainer(e.g., ‘‘The cooperating teacher directs the thoughts

of the preservice teacher towards the fundamental

problems’’). Some knowledge related to his teach-ing function (e.g., ‘‘The status of the cooperating

teacher in the establishment and his experience

means that it is easier for him to oppose a disruptive

pupil and exclude him or her from the lesson’’).Knowledge about the preservice teacher related

mainly to his function as a learner (e.g., ‘‘The

preservice teacher has a tendency to appropriate the

cooperating teacher’s suggestions without question-

ing them much’’). Some knowledge concerned his

Page 14: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Contents of the constructed, validated or invalidated knowledge in terms of the type of teacher and the different types of local

articulation of the courses of action

Knowledge

Type of teacher and types of agreement Pedagogical content Post-lesson Interview Cooperating teacher Preservice teacher

Preservice teacher

Type A local articulation 42 18 44 16

Type B local articulation 22 — 2 —

Type C local articulation 10 — 2 —

Total 74 18 48 16

Cooperating teacher

Type A local articulation 28 8 10 60

Type B local articulation 8 4 2 8

Type C local articulation 2 — — —

Total 38 12 12 68

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781778

function as a teacher (e.g., ‘‘The preservice teacher

does not adapt his lesson plan much according to the

events of the situation’’).The knowledge being constructed, validated

or invalidated depended on the type of teacher(Table 5). The preservice teachers validated (57%)and invalidated (6%) certain units of knowledgefrom their Knowledge Repertoire, but also con-structed new knowledge (37%). This knowledge,both old and new, concerned pedagogical content(47%), the cooperating teacher (31%), the post-lesson interview (12%) and the preservice teacher(10%). The cooperating teachers validated (80%)and invalidated (11%) certain knowledge fromtheir Knowledge Repertoire and also constructednew knowledge (9%). This old and new knowledgeconcerned the preservice teacher (53%), thepedagogical content (29%), the post-lesson inter-view (9%) and the cooperating teacher (9%).

4.3. Relationships between the types of local

articulation and the knowledge mobilized and/or

constructed

The knowledge constructed, validated or inva-lidated was related to the nature of the interactionbetween the preservice teachers and their coop-erating teachers. When the interactions weresuperficial (Type A), the knowledge tended to berelevant to the unfolding interview situation.When the interactions were more in-depth (Types

B and C), the mobilized knowledge was moregreatly focused on the preservice teacher’s priorclassroom situation. Specifically, for Type A localarticulations, knowledge concerned the pedagogi-cal content (31%), the preservice teacher (34%),the cooperating teacher (24%) and the interview(11%). For Type B, knowledge concerned thepedagogical content (65%), the preservice teacher(17%), the cooperating teacher (9%) and theinterview (9%). For Type C, knowledge concernedthe pedagogical content (86%) and the cooperat-ing teacher (14%); no knowledge was mobilizedconcerning the preservice teacher or the interview.

5. General discussion

This study enabled us (a) to examine in detailthe interactions between preservice teachers andtheir cooperating teachers, (b) to identify andcategorize the knowledge constructed, validatedand invalidated by the teachers, and (c) to describethe relationships between the nature of theinteractions and the knowledge that was con-structed, validated or invalidated.

5.1. Nature of the interactions between the

preservice teachers and their cooperating teachers

Although this study focused exclusively on theinterview excerpts chosen by the teachers them-

Page 15: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 779

selves as being most instructive and valuable, theinteractions between the preservice and cooperat-ing teachers were most often superficial (Type Alocal articulation). The preservice teachers or theircooperating teachers (sometimes the two simulta-neously) were involved in both discussion with theother teacher and in a separate and internalprocess of interpretation. This posed a dilemmafor them: how to think about one thing whileconversing about another. At times, they pre-sented their own personal concerns and expecta-tions, and at times they shared the concerns andexpectation of the other teacher.The cooperating teachers were, for example,

regularly confronted with the concern ‘‘To give

time to the preservice teacher so that he can

understand the solutions suggested before accepting

them’’ whilst simultaneously trying to ‘‘Raise the

greatest number of problems during the post-lesson

interview’’. During the post-lesson interview, thepreservice teachers and their cooperating teacherswere therefore frequently engaged in both discus-sion and a process of reflection. They simulta-neously tried to understand and respond to theinterventions of the other, whilst thinking aboutthe way to make use of these interventions toredirect the interview towards more personalconcerns and expectations. The cooperating tea-chers were also regularly confronted with threetypical dilemmas: to help the preservice teachers orto evaluate them, to transmit their own knowledgeor to help them think for themselves, and to helpthem to teach or to learn how to teach (Chalies &Durand, 2000).Periodically, the interactions between the pre-

service and cooperating teachers became richer(Type B local articulation). During these instants,they thus shared not only their concerns andexpectations but also a part of the knowledgemobilized to act. This result confirmed theconclusions of several studies that noted thatpreservice teachers and their cooperating teacherswere engaged in a ‘‘professional partnership’’during the post-lesson interview (Fairbanks etal., 2000). The teachers were thus engaged inthinking together about the problem that had beenraised. The cooperating teachers tried to offer thepreservice teachers real opportunities for learning

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). They prompted andhelped them to think about the problem, whileavoiding handing over their own knowledge as aready-made solution (e.g., ‘‘The preservice tea-

cher’s professional training is not possible if the

cooperating teacher sets himself up as a model to

copy’’). Simultaneously, the preservice teacherswere involved in thinking and did not seek solelyto appropriate the expert solutions of theircooperating teachers (e.g., ‘‘The status of the

cooperating teacher in the establishment and his

experience means that it is easier for him to oppose

a disruptive pupil and exclude him or her from the

lesson’’). Assisted in their reflection by thecooperating teachers, the preservice teachers gra-dually constructed their own professional knowl-edge (e.g., ‘‘It is possible to increase the number of

groups and thereby increase the pupils’ work, when

the latter are paying attention’’).More rarely, the preservice teachers and co-

operating teachers shared their knowledge beingconstructed, validated or invalidated (Type C)during the interview excerpts. When this knowl-edge was shared, it was relevant to the pedagogicalcontent. The study also showed that the learningprocess (by construction, validation or invalida-tion of knowledge) implemented by the preserviceand cooperating teachers was related to their levelof experience: often, when the preservice teacherswere constructing knowledge (e.g., ‘‘The more the

proposed classroom exercise responds to the stu-

dents’ motivation, the greater their investment’’),the cooperating teachers, who already possessedthe knowledge, were validating it.

5.2. Knowledge constructed, validated or

invalidated during the post-lesson interview

The results of this study corroborated theconclusions of previous studies that found thatboth preservice and cooperating teachers learn inthe post-lesson interview (Arredondo & Rucinski,1998; Puk & Haines, 1999; Zanting et al., 1998;Zanting, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2001). Moreover,the validation of prior knowledge was the learningprocess most often employed by both types ofteacher; the post-lesson interview was rarely thesource of new knowledge construction. Last, these

Page 16: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781780

interviews were highly specific situations and thepreservice and cooperating teachers had to learnabout them: both types of teacher constructed,validated or invalidated knowledge about post-lesson interviews, preservice teachers and coop-erating teachers. The post-lesson interview thusfulfilled in part its function of assisting profes-sional learning, especially for the preserviceteachers. The need for interview-specific learningundoubtedly contributed to the relatively lowimportance given to the learning related toteaching. Less than half (39%) of the constructed,validated or invalidated knowledge was concernedwith teaching in the post-lesson interviews that weanalysed.

5.3. Knowledge constructed, validated or

invalidated in relation with the nature of the

interactions: implications for teacher training

The type of interaction between the preserviceteacher and the cooperating teacher assumesparticular importance during the post-lesson inter-view (Bullough et al., 2002; Stanulis, & Russell,2000). Preservice teachers learn all the moreeffectively when their interaction with the coop-erating teacher is based upon dialogue andreflection (Fairbanks et al., 2000). Although thepresent article only deals with the excerpts frompost-lesson interviews considered to be the mostinstructive by the preservice and cooperatingteachers, it nevertheless adds to the findings ofthese studies by describing in considerable detailthe relationships between the nature of theinteractions and the nature of the knowledgebeing constructed, validated or invalidated. Whenthe preservice and cooperating teachers interactedby sharing their concerns, expectations, and a partof their mobilized and constructed knowledge(Types B and C local articulations), the knowledgewas principally related to the pedagogical content.In contrast, when the teachers interacted withoutpresenting the same concerns or expectations, andwithout mobilizing any knowledge in common(Type A local articulation), the knowledge con-cerned diverse objects (pedagogical content, theinterview, the cooperating teacher and the pre-service teacher).

Two ways of optimizing the interactions be-tween preservice teachers and cooperating teacherscan be envisaged. The teachers might more easilyestablish a true professional collaboration bysetting out their shared concerns and expectationsbefore the post-lesson interview. This collabora-tion, which gives importance to conviviality,confidence and a close relationship (Brucklacher,1998; Borko & Mayfield, 1995), would help buildthe preservice teacher’s professional experience(Zanting et al., 1998). Innovations of this typehave been implemented in several French teachertraining institutes. Preservice teachers and theircooperating teachers are now more regularlyinvited to end the training year with a collabora-tive teaching activity. For example, once they havethoroughly evaluated a sequence of lessons, theyare asked to plan a new lesson sequence togetherthat will then be taught as a co-intervention.Training cooperating teachers in interview

techniques also appears to be indispensable(Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Zanting et al., 2001).This would enable them to help the preserviceteachers, notably making it easier for them to beexplicit about their own professional knowledge. Itwould also assist them in constructing and guidingthe interview as a means to collective thinking,integrating and associating their thoughts andthose of the preservice teacher towards a sharedendpoint: learning how to be a teacher.

References

Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. (1998). Using structured

interactions in conferences and journals to promote

cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Journal

of Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 300–327.

Black, A. L., & Halliwell, G. (2000). Accessing practical

knowledge, How? Why? Teaching and Teacher Education,

16, 103–115.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of cooperating

teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501–518.

Brucklacher, B. (1998). Cooperating teachers’ evaluations of

student teachers: all ‘‘A’s’’? Journal of Instructional Psychol-

ogy, 25, 67–72.

Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark,

D. C., Egan, M. W., Berrie, C. F., Hales, V., & Smith, G.

(2002). Rethinking field experience: partnership teaching

Page 17: Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Chalies et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 765–781 781

versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 53, 68–80.

Cameron-Jones, M., & O’Hara, P. (1997). Support and

challenge in teacher education. British Educational Research

Journal, 25, 15–23.

Caruso, J. J. (2000). Cooperating teacher and student teacher

phases of development. Young Children, 55, 75–81.

Chalies, S., & Durand, M. (2000). L’utilite discutee du tutorat

en formation initiale des enseignants (The discussed

usefulness of mentoring during teachers’ training). Re-

cherche et Formation, 35, 145–180.

Durand, M. (1998). Teaching action in physical education.

Cagigal Lecture at the AIESEP World Conference, Adelphi,

July.

Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (2000). The role

of effective mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher

Education, 51, 102–112.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach:

lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of

Teacher Education, 52, 17–30.

Feiman-Nemser, S., Parker, M. B., & Zeichner, K. (1993). Are

mentor teachers teacher educators? In D. McIntyre, H.

Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: perspectives on

school based teacher education (pp. 103–120). London:

Kogan Page.

Flavier, E., Bertone, S., Meard, J. A., & Durand, M. (2002).

The meaning and organization of physical education

teachers’ action during conflict which opposes them with

student(s). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1),

20–38.

Graham, P. (1997). Tensions in the mentor teacher-student

teacher relationship: creating productive sites for learning

within a high school English teacher education program.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 513–527.

Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative

knowledge. In D. Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex

information processing (pp. 285–328). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Haggerty, L. (1995). The use of content analysis to explore

conversations between school teacher mentors and student

teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 183–197.

Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional

development: contrived collegiality, collaborative culture

and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 6, 227–241.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in

mentoring: a literature review and agenda for research.

Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 325–335.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Klein, P. D. (1996). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning

and knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42,

361–377.

Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: an ambivalent

participant in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 43, 46–56.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: mind, mathematics and

culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Leblanc, S., Saury, J., Seve, C., Durand, M., & Theureau, J.

(2001). An analysis of a user’s exploration and learning of a

multimedia instruction system. Computers & Education, 36,

59–82.

Lemma, P. (1993). The cooperating teacher as a supervisor.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8, 329–342.

McNally, J., Cope, P., Inglis, B., & Stronach, I. (1997). The

student teacher in school: conditions for development.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 485–498.

Pajak, E. (2001). Clinical supervision in a standards-based

environment: opportunities and challenges. Journal of

Teacher Education, 52, 233–243.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). The collected papers of C.S. Peirce.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Puk, T. G., & Haines, J. M. (1999). Are schools prepared to

allow beginning teachers to reconceptualize instruction?

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 541–553.

Ria, L., Seve, C., Theureau, J., Saury, J., & Durand, M. (2003).

Beginning teacher’s situated emotions: study about first

classroom’s experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching,

29(3), 219–233.

Sandford, S., & Hopper, T. (2000). Mentoring, not monitoring:

mediating a whole-school model in supervising preservice

teachers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46,

149–166.

Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 4–14.

Stanulis, R. N., & Russell, D. (2000). ‘‘Jumping in’’: trust and

communication in mentoring student teachers. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 16, 5–80.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.

London: Sage.

Theureau, J. (1992). Le cours d’action: analyse semio-logique

(The course of action: a semiological analysis). Berne: Peter

Lang.

Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and course-of-

action centered design. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Handbook of

cognitive task design (pp. 55–81). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Student

teachers eliciting mentors’ practical knowledge and compar-

ing it to their own beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education,

17, 725–740.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J. D., & Van Driel, J. H.

(1998). Explicating practical knowledge: an extension of

mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher

Education, 21, 11–28.