interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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-
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
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
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.