Student Teaching and Urban Educator Aptness: The Significance of Similar Sociocultural Scenarios

Abstract

Drawing from the experiences and reflections of new urban educators, this study examines how teachers undergo their first year of teaching on account of their student teaching. Using Situated Learning Theory—with an emphasis on legitimate peripheral participation—this study explores how sociocultural and contextual elements of schools contribute to teacher development. Findings suggest that teachers who complete student teaching in environments that mirror their first-year school placements feel more confident and competent in their ability to teach and serve students than teachers who complete student teaching in environments that do not match their first-year school placements. Implications for urban teacher preparation and student teaching placement are discussed.

Keywords

student teaching urban teacher development situated learning theory

There is a crisis in urban education as schools become increasingly more segregated and under-resourced (Means, 2013; Weiner & Jerome, 2016). Families with school-age children are leaving urban areas at rapid rates as accountability data—primarily based on student test scores—perpetuate a need to find better schools (Highsmith & Erickson, 2015; Owens, Reardon, & Jencks, 2016). This outward movement contributes to the segregation of resources and is one reason why many urban schools disproportionately serve African American and Hispanic populations in areas of concentrated poverty (Ushomirsky & Williams, 2015).

But resources are not the only products leaving urban schools at a rapid pace. Today, teachers are also exiting the classrooms of urban schools in favor of work in schools with more resources and less poverty (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, & Wyckoff, 2008). This attrition not only contributes to issues of teacher quality (Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff, 2017) but also negatively impacts students’ developmental and academic success (Hoglund, Klingle, & Hosan, 2015). This attrition can also cause harm in students’ social development as students fail to trust and form relationships with teachers who are more likely to leave (Cooper, 2017).

One attempt at mitigating these high rates of teacher attrition and turnover in urban schools is to prepare teachers for the unique nuances and challenges of working and teaching in urban schools through carefully designed preservice coursework and field experiences (Taylor & Frankenberg, 2009). Many universities now offer urban-centered teacher preparation programs that emphasize teaching with unique skill sets and knowledge to successfully work in urban schools (Frankenberg, Taylor, & Merseth, 2010; Taylor & Frankenberg, 2009). Many of these programs incorporate justice-oriented pedagogies that focus on culturally relevant issues and also provide a historical context for students to better understand the structural, institutional, and political origins of power, privilege, and oppression in urban communities (Matsko & Hammerness, 2014).

Although there is plenty of research on the development of preservice teachers as they progress through newly designed urban teacher preparation programs (Feiman-Nemser, Tamir, & Hammerness, 2014; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014; Whipp, 2013), there is relatively little research that examines how preservice teachers experience their year of student teaching in comparison with their first year in the classroom (French, 2017). In light of this, more research is needed to understand how student teaching contributes to preservice teacher learning (Anderson & Stillman, 2013). Using the Situated Learning Theory—with an emphasis on legitimate peripheral participation—this study examines how new teachers undergo student teaching through context-specific immersion and then reacclimatize to new environments as teachers of record. This study contributes to the existing gap in the literature by examining how new teachers undergo their year of student teaching and how preservice experiences influence and affect not only preservice teacher learning but also first-year teaching practices, dispositions, beliefs, and attitudes.

Urban Schooling in America

Because this research contributes to the greater body of work around urban teacher preparation, I feel that it is important to address the definition of urban before I address the challenges of teaching and learning in urban schools. There is a lack of clarity and poor conceptualization around definitions of urban schools and around urban education (Whipp & Geronime, 2017). Many school districts are technically considered urban. In fact, the Merriam-Webster (2018) dictionary defines urban as, “of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city.” Under this definition, most schools in major metropolitan areas would fall under the definition of an urban school. However, in point of fact, this is often not the case as urban is used disproportionally to code for schools that are highly segregated by race—specifically Black and Latinx students—and are highly segregated by socioeconomic status (Watson, 2011).

Urban then has become a new expression to subtly mask the disproportionate number of Black and Latinx students in low-performing schools. This term—which is also deeply ingrained in the assertion of colorblindness (Pollock, 2004)—suggests that the flaws of urban schools are associated directly with the membership of their constituents and not the inherent White supremacism and systemic racism that still exists in this country today. Therefore, although I chose to use the word urban to enfold the research of this study—and contribute to the greater body of research on urban education in this country—I remain critical of the terminology because of the deficit connotations it perpetuates for students in highly segregated schools.

Teacher Attrition and Teacher Preparation

For the past 20 years, researchers have documented the challenges of working in and attending urban schools in America. Combinations of poverty, poor infrastructure, and other unfavorable circumstances have led to student disenfranchisement and teacher burnout (Weiner & Jerome, 2016). Issues such as absenteeism, classroom discipline, student pregnancy, and limited control over the curriculum also make it difficult for urban schools to recruit new teachers (Lippman, Burns, & McArthur, 1996). McIntyre (2009) found that teachers cited confusion, poor communication, and problems with the hiring process as reason for exiting the profession after their first year. However, when new teachers ultimately decide to leave teaching, they do so not because of any one factor but instead due to a complex system that Ng and Peter (2010) describe as “simultaneous and sometimes contradictory forces generated by prior expectations and immediate realities” (p. 123).

Urban schools have a history of severe teacher shortages and contentious teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Urban schools are also the likeliest to hire emergency certified teachers or teachers on probationary teaching certificates (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). In terms of impact on students’ test scores, less-qualified teachers are likely to make less contributions than their highly qualified counterparts and spend less time on instruction (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2011; Desimone & Long, 2010). Research has also shown that shortened instructional time leaves students less likely to attend college, earn high salaries, and live in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods (Chetty et al., 2011). Because less-qualified teachers disproportionally populate under-resourced urban schools, students of these schools fall victim to this misfortune.

One possibility in addressing the crisis of teacher attrition and quality in urban schools is to intentionally prepare and recruit more teachers for work in urban schools through specially designed urban teacher preparation programs. Many teaching candidates feel uncomfortable teaching in environments different from their own upbringing and cite challenging workplace conditions as a reason for avoiding urban schools for employment (Kozol, 1992).

Teacher preparation programs that explicitly address these concerns of teaching in urban schools could mitigate the complications new teachers face during their early-career years in urban schools. Hollins and Guzman (2005) suggests that a program specifically designed to address these concerns and provide authentic opportunities for critical examination of personal entrenched values, belief systems, and cultural heritage might better prepare preservice teachers for lasting work in under-resourced, urban schools.

Numerous urban teacher preparation programs have been launched across the country in attempt to prepare new teachers for work in these challenging settings, and early findings suggest that urban-centered teacher education programs could play an important role in reshaping urban schools (Taylor & Frankenberg, 2009). Preparing teachers for work in urban schools could also increase teachers’ commitments to staying in urban schools (Frankenberg et al., 2010)

Urban teacher preparation programs aim to prepare teachers for the many nuances and challenges associated with work in urban schools, but the newest research suggests that many urban teacher graduates still feel unprepared to meet the needs of their students and struggle to teach effectively (Rollert, 2015; Howard & Milner, 2014). One possibility in rendering teacher dissatisfaction and shortcomings is to not only provide preservice teachers with appropriate coursework that addresses the complexities of urban schools but also to provide preservice teachers with student teaching experiences that appropriately match the environment in which they will eventually teach (Goldhaber, Krieg, & Theobald, 2017). The implications of teacher-placement for student teaching could have significant effects on preservice teacher development—including their perceptions, dispositions, beliefs, and attitudes toward the communities they serve (French, 2017).

Sociocultural Theory and Teacher Development

Culturally competent preservice coursework is of little use if it gets discharged at the schoolhouse gate. Understanding how new teachers expand on and develop new knowledge during their student teaching may have bold implications for preparing and retaining teachers in all schools—and urban schools in particular. Although there is plenty of research to support the knowledge acquisition and development of teachers through coursework, fieldwork, and specific pedagogical exercises (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015), there is less research that explores how the situated context and socialization of these experiences uniquely affect teacher development. Recent research suggests that teachers are more effective if their current school placement matches the demographics of the school in which they did their student teaching (Goldhaber et al., 2017). However, understanding why this match leads to more effective teachers is relatively unknown. One reason why this match may be beneficial is rooted in the sociocultural context of schools and how this context influences the development of teachers as they learn how to teach and meet the needs and of their students.

The field of psychology often classifies this concept as sociocultural theory (hereafter SCT). Originally introduced by the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, SCT posits that human learning is a social process where “all higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). Vygotsky (1978) argues that children develop new mastery of something they cannot already do on their own when they have guidance from others. This guidance is often the product of continuous scaffolding strategies. This construct, commonly known as the zone of proximal development, is a spontaneous process that is situated in a social context where learning precedes development. More broadly, SCT suggests that the development of all cognitive processes, such as planning, reasoning, and attention, is rooted in social interactions. Through SCT, individuals develop and learn as part of a community and construct new knowledge as they continuously engage in and reflect on experiences within their community (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). This complex process allows for the individual to develop through an exposure to various psychological and physical tools that are shared in a unique cultural context (Vygotsky, 1978).

Although Vygotsky’s original theory was intended for child development, there is good merit to suggest that preservice teachers are undergoing a similar learning and developmental process in striving to be better and more knowledgeable professionals—an inherent process that is essentially the same for all ages (Eun, 2008). In light of this, it is possible to extend the concept of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development into school settings with preservice teachers during their year of student teaching as they develop and build new knowledge and perspectives with mediated guidance from existing school culture and veteran teaching experts.

Situated Learning Theory

A key component of every teacher preparation program is student teaching—where preservice candidates have the opportunity to apply knowledge and skills in real-life classrooms under the supervision of more experienced supervising teachers (Cuenca, 2011). Through student teaching, teachers have the opportunity develop their practice through repetition and receive routine feedback (Greenberg, Pomerance, & Walsh, 2011). However, teachers may also encounter unintended consequences of student teaching if they develop within and among social, environmental, and contextual variables that are in conflict with their preservice coursework (Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009).

Situated learning theory posits that learning occurs within—and often on account of—environmental, social, and collaborative contexts (Lave, 1991). As opposed to deliberate practice, situated learning occurs unintentionally through a process known as “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29) Through legitimate peripheral participation, new learners develop competency in their knowledge and ability based on the interactions, advice, and approval from the community in which they newly identify as a member. Therefore, knowledge that is decontextualized and removed from the sociocultural learning environment has limited sustainability unless it is already widely accepted and established as knowledge within the existing community.

Under the tenants of situated learning theory, preservice teachers experience student teaching and develop a competency in teaching based on contextual variables—which may or may not align with the mission and vision of their teacher preparation program. Although known research suggests that “teachers appear to be more effective when the student demographics of their school are similar to the student demographics of the school in which they did their student teaching,” there is limited research that examines why this type of student-internship match is important (Goldhaber et al., 2017, p. 325). Situated learning theory—and the sociocultural constructs of learning and development—may offer more insight into why some student teaching experiences are more effective in preparing teachers for work in urban schools than others.

Method

This study drew from the experiences of 13 brand new teachers working in urban schools. I collected data through semi-structured interviews and spent time in teachers’ classrooms observing their teaching practice. All of the teachers in this study had undergone specialized urban teacher training that emphasized a unique preparation for work in urban schools. This training ranged from exposure to urban-themed coursework to participation in an urban teacher preparation program (described in more detail in Table 1). All teachers were graduates of accredited university-based teacher preparation programs in the same state, and all teachers were working in urban schools during the time of study. Teachers were given pseudonyms for the protection of their privacy.

Table 1.

Participant Overview.

Participant	Racial identity	Specialized preparation	Current position
Ms. Davidson	White American	Teaching-in-urban-contexts coursework	Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced French
Ms. Kraus	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	Self-contained Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Special Education
Ms. Samuel H.	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	Ninth- and 12th-Grade Spanish
Ms. Candies	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	High School Social Studies
Ms. Jacobs	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	Second-Grade Math and Science
Ms. Rodgers	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	High School Band
Ms. Braxton	White American	Teaching-in-urban-contexts coursework	ASD Resource Room
Ms. Lew	White American	Teaching-in-urban-contexts coursework	Intermediate and Advanced German
Ms. Staffords	African America	Urban teacher preparation program	Eighth-Grade English Language Arts
Ms. Shaw	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	High School Math
Ms. Nichols	African American	Urban teacher preparation program	High School Math
Mr. George	White American	Teaching-in-urban-contexts coursework	Sixth-Grade Science
Mr. Bowman	White American	Teaching-in-urban-contexts coursework	Sixth- and Seventh-Grade Science

Research Questions

Because I was primarily interested in understanding how new teachers had experienced student teaching in comparison with their current job placement, I set out to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: How do new teachers make meaning of their participation within and across their preparation program and their new placement?

Research Question 2: How do new teachers reflect on their student teaching as preparation for their current position as teacher of record?

Data Collection and Analysis

I collaborated with university administrators and colleagues serving as K-12 administrators to locate new teacher graduates currently working in urban schools for participation in this study. I conducted over 30 interviews with teachers which lasted between 45 and 75 min. All interviews were transcribed.

I coded deductively and conducted a thematic analysis, aided by NVivo software, to analyze interview data from these semi-structured interviews. In particular, I followed Saldaña (2015) as a guide for deductive coding and the Braun and Clarke (2006) six-phase process for thematic analysis. In doing this process, I was able to identify themes across all 13 educators that addressed each of my research questions.

Assessing trustworthiness in qualitative studies can be a bit more complex than it is to assess in quantitative studies (Seale & Silverman, 1997). Given these constraints, it was important for me to address the credibility of my data and my research findings overall (Krefting, 1991). Although I did not fully immerse myself into data collection as I would have if I had conducted a true ethnography, the time I spent with all 13 teachers allowed me to gather a greater perspective than I could have gathered from just survey data alone. Because of this, I was able to use this data and my extensive notes, reflections, and ongoing memos to generate comprehensive descriptions of what had occurred for these teachers during their student teaching and also their first years of teaching. These inclusive descriptions allowed me to situate what teachers were reporting and portraying about their student teaching into context with their current teaching placement and experiences. Through this process, I was able to ensure the transferability of my findings in similar situations with similar constructs.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher assumes the role of study participant because of their direct relationships with data collection (Creswell, 2009). As a qualitative researcher, I could not distance myself from the study as one can do through quantitative research. My background as a former urban school teacher and past experience observing teachers in urban schools all led to my initial interest in this phenomenon of student teaching and grew greater during my literature review. Given these parameters, I was careful to immerse myself as a research participant while also attempting to remain as unbiased, fair, and as truthful as possible.

By being a research participant, I was careful to address any evidence to support a personal prejudice or bias and considered personal insights and feelings as strengths to understand the data more fully (Creswell, 2009). The process of analysis for this study followed an important two-step process of deductive coding and thematic analysis as my best attempt to deliver accurate and reliable findings.

Limitations

One limitation of this study—as with all qualitative research—is the idea of a social desirability bias. As participants responded to interview questions, they did so with their own agency, but as the social desirability bias posits, they could have also answered interview and survey questions in a manner that produced answers that would be viewed more favorably by others or the researcher (Grimm, 2010). Because of this, I assured participants of their anonymity in this study and that their answers would not be shared with any school staff administrators (for risk of retribution) as a way to elicit the most accurate responses and to help mitigate the effect of a social desirability bias.

Findings: The Significance of Student Teaching Placement

Findings from the 13 new educators suggest that teachers who underwent significant challenges during their student teaching were more prepared for work when they began their first year as teacher of record than teachers who did not experience significant challenges during their student teaching. Many teachers shared the significance of having a student teaching experience that matched the environment and demographic of their first-year teaching placement because it helped them to develop the skill sets, understandings, and attitudes that were specific and most appropriate for serving in the unique context of their school. Teachers defined demographics as characteristics of the school. Some of these characteristics included geographic location, socioeconomic status, the racial background of students (and, in some cases, if the school was highly segregated by a particular race), enrollment, graduation rates, and access to resources.

Trials, Tribulations, and Teacher Development

The teachers in this study who were most successful during their first year as teachers of record—in terms of connecting with students, delivering lessons, and being consistent with classroom management—struggled significantly as teachers during their student teaching and shared how much they learned during this tumultuous period. They felt that this authentic period of struggle allowed them to embrace challenge and overcome failure as they struggled to balance content-delivery, teaching pedagogy, and the development of student relationships. In reflecting on her student teaching compared with her first year as teacher of record, Ms. Staffords shared,

First and foremost, I feel like the internship drastically made a difference in benefiting myself as a professional [in how] it really felt like my first year of teaching. When I got my first professional job, it felt like I’d already taught a year due to the preservice experience. [As a student teacher] I realized you gotta get in quick and be on your toes . . . especially with student relationships. You can fumble a bit with the content, but if you fumble with the relationships, it’s bad. If those relationships are good, and they’re intact, they’ll help you pick up the content fumbles.

The teachers who experienced challenging student teaching also felt that is was important to conduct student teaching in an environment that was similar to the environment in which they now served as teachers of record. New teachers felt that it was beneficial to experience teaching and learning with the same student and community demographics because it allowed them to develop and learn more about the community and also ways to connect with students and families that were embedded in the sociocultural contexts and norms of the community. In reflecting on the importance of this demographic match, Ms. Nichols shared,

When I did [my] internship, I was in [a school with similar student demographics], which mirrors the environment I’m in now. Which was helpful. I was able to get an idea for what I would be seeing at other [similar demographic] schools.

This quote illustrates that Ms. Nichols felt she had an advantage as a new teacher because she had completed her student teaching in a school that was similar to the one she currently teaches in now. When other teachers reflected on their internship year that had been similar to what Ms. Nichols had undertaken, they shared statements such as, “Yes. It was challenging, but I don’t think more challenging than anywhere else” and that they had a chance to “see particular issues inside the classroom based on what was going on outside in the neighborhood and the community.”

These quotes also illustrate the importance teachers felt in serving in a community that was similar to the community they had served as preservice teachers because it allowed them to grow and learn how to best meet the needs of students and families in communities that shared common characteristics.

Simple Situations and Teacher Development

Although the teachers described in the previous section shared stories of student teaching that was very challenging but ultimately beneficial for their first year of teaching, other teachers shared different narratives. Unlike teachers who experienced a challenging internship year, teachers who did not participate in a challenging internship experienced significant difficulties in the classroom during their first year as teacher of record. In reflecting how her student teaching was so vastly different from her first year as a teacher, Ms. Davidson shared,

We all have this idea of teaching in our minds from student teaching, and it’s a great idea of what teaching is going to be like. But I didn’t have my own classroom, I didn’t make all the rules, I didn’t have a principal to report to, not all the initiatives and demands are just on you . . . So it’s all of those things that you have to do . . . this club, start this initiative . . . you didn’t really understand how stressful it is. You think it’s going to be so easy because student teaching was so easy, bull crap.

This quote illustrates how Ms. Davidson’s student teaching was much different and easier compared with her first year in the classroom. Her tone indicates that she also feels surprised—and a little misled—by her student teaching because it was so drastically different than her first year in the classroom. Another teacher shared his concerns about his experience student teaching in a community that was very different from the one he now currently serves. Mr. George shared,

[During my student teaching] students did all the work every time. I was like okay kids let’s start studying, it is time to be quiet, and they got quiet. It was like whatever you would say they were going to do [and] they were going to do it quickly. So, I just thought in my head this is how it is going to be. I said hey we’re taking a quiz tomorrow so study, and they would study and I thought this is how it is.

Mr. George’s story as a student teacher was vastly different than his present experience as a new teacher in his current school. Like Ms. Davidson, Mr. George underwent significant challenges as a first-year teacher trying to connect with his students, teach effectively, and manage his classroom in a way that is beneficial to his students’ growth and development. Mr. George alluded to the idea that if he would have learned how to teach and serve in a community like the one her currently serves, he might have had a better understanding of how to teach and connect with students.

Others teachers reflected on how their student teaching did not portray an accurate account of what teaching would be like once they assumed the position as teacher of record and how this mismatch made it more difficult for them to teach effectively during their first year. Ms. Nichols shared,

Some of the [student teaching] work I did, I don’t know that it really prepared me for what I’m doing now. I think because [the current city] is so different than the environment I’m teaching in now. It’s just a different dynamic. I really enjoyed working in [former city], but it’s a lot more diverse than [current city]. I don’t know that it necessarily prepared me for working in [current city] schools, but it prepared me better for working in different types of urban schools.

This quote illustrates that although Ms. Nichols still finds value in her student teaching—particularly in learning how to teach and connect with kids from a city with its own unique demographics—she does not feel that it prepared her for work in her current school. Many other teachers who experienced student teaching in environments that were different from their first-year placements also felt that they were unprepared for work in their new schools. One teacher who worked in an area with a more racially and ethnically diverse population shared that it was difficult to move from that environment to a school that served predominantly one race. She shared, “I was better prepared to work with a more diverse culture, not one set of students of the same population.” Other teachers who had not had productive student teaching experiences also reflected on how their preservice teaching could have been structured differently. Ms. Nichols shared, “It would’ve been nice to have had some experience in [current city] schools earlier on . . . We went to [another city], which was cool, but it still wasn’t [current city] schools. Just more exposure would’ve been helpful.” These quotes form Ms. Nichols illustrate that she wishes she would have had the opportunity to learn and develop in a sociocultural context that was similar to the one in which she now serves because it would have helped her learn how to best meet the needs and demands of her current students and colleagues.

Other teachers shared how their first year of teaching had been much different than they expected and experienced during their student teaching. Teachers felt that it was not only difficult to manage their own classrooms but also difficult to navigate and understand the sociocultural contexts, social dynamics, and political charges of schools and school personnel. As an example of this, Ms. Kraus shared,

I am having an internal battle nearly every day. It’s really the students that keep me going. I literally will wake up in the morning and lay in bed, dreading to go into work. It’s not my students. I love them with all my heart and would do anything in my power to help them. They are predominantly good students. It’s just the environment of [current district]. I don’t like the way the special education program is run . . . I feel like we are doing a disservice to them. I have a lot of difficulty getting the students the services that they need. I have seen a lot of people who do not want to do their job. And perhaps it’s because I’m fresh in the program, I’m excited to be here, I have many ideas I can’t wait to teach. Some of these people should just give it up, because they’re not doing anything to help this child’s future.

This quote illustrates that Ms. Kraus wants the best for her students and wants to prepare them the best way she can, but feels that there are limitations that prevent her from teaching to her fullest ability. In light of her new perspective, Ms. Kraus reflected on how her preservice experience could have been better structured. She shared,

Realistically I think they need to give us a real picture. Stop giving us an idealized student. They need to really lay down the issues that we will be dealing with. For instance, I had a lot of little people who really should’ve been EI. Their emotional issues take way more time than their academic issues.

This quote illustrates that Ms. Kraus yearned for an opportunity to learn and grow as part of an existing school community that serviced in a similar sociocultural context. She argues that because she was deprived of this experience, she learned other ways to meet the needs of students who are different in many ways than the ones she currently serves. She thinks that she could have benefited from student teaching that allowed for her to learn and grow in ways that could better meet the needs and wishes of her current students.

Other teachers also felt that their preservice experience had presented romanticized perspectives of teaching in urban schools. Ms. Samuel, a graduate of the urban-emersion program shared,

I think they need more trips to [current city] schools to show what it really is like, the [university] needs to discuss how there is a lack of resources, because the school I’m at doesn’t even have copy machines. There’s theft, computers get stolen, projectors, I had a student who stole a projector, and that was just so surprising. They need to make that known to the students, what that is like, to prepare them for those schools.

Ms. Samuel went on to share that her university program did a really great job with the literature part, but not in “teaching just how little respect teachers [get] in the real urban classroom.” These quotes illustrate that like many of the other teachers in this study, Ms. Samuel felt unprepared to teach in her current classroom because she developed a different skill set, disposition, and understanding of urban school teaching during her preservice experiences.

Collectively, these reflections illustrate how teachers felt more unprepared for their first year of teaching when they completed student teaching in learning environments that were different than the learning environments in which they now served. They felt that student teaching was a powerful period of time to really come to terms with pairing what they understood as theory with actual practice. In reflection, most teachers felt that because they were deprived of a rich student teaching experience in which they could have grown to understand more about the demographics and sociocultural factors of their current schools, they had not learned the best ways to connect with students and families and struggled more as first-year teachers.

Summary of Findings

The teachers in this study who completed their student teaching in areas that were similar to their current school placement as first-year teachers felt more prepared to effectively teach, manage their classrooms, and connect with students than teachers who completed their student teaching in schools that were different than their current school placement. These teachers also felt that the rich, albeit challenging, internship experiences had provided them with an opportunity to learn and develop skill sets that would have otherwise not developed without student teaching in these specific environments. Teachers who experienced student teaching that was challenging and also a demographic match between their student teaching placement and current school seemed to fare better in meeting and managing the needs of students and families than teachers who did not have this experience or demographic match. Teacher who experienced this match also felt grateful to have undertaken this authentic sense of struggle and learning opportunity where they could grow from their mistakes and develop a sense of competency in teaching in similar school environments. On the contrary, teachers who felt that their student teaching was relatively easy and did not have a demographic match between their current school and student teaching felt that their first year of teaching was incredibly challenging and difficult. These teachers also felt that it was difficult to connect with students and navigate the system in a school with different sociocultural contexts.

Discussion

Situated learning theory suggests that people learn and develop new competencies and understandings as a result of their engagement with an existing culture (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This process of learning and developing as a by-product of environmental, social, and cultural contexts gives learners an opportunity to grow and develop new skills—often through multiple bouts of trial and error—as they engage in regular interactions and knowledge development within a new community or practice (Lave, 2009). As preservice teachers embark on their student teaching, they have the opportunity to execute, develop, and improve teaching skills and engage with a new community and absorb existing school norms as part of the process of becoming a new community member. Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to this process of learning development and enculturation as legitimate peripheral participation. This form of situated learning “concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice” and encourages the development of new skills under the norms of standards of the existing community (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 33).

Therefore, as preservice teachers pursue their student teaching, they may do so through legitimate peripheral participation. In this experience, preservice teachers are developing competencies that appropriately apply under the contexts of the environment in which they serve. As they develop and grow toward a more concrete understanding of good teaching, their perception of this teaching could reflect the unique contextual elements that exist within their student teaching environment. This mastery—and competency—of teaching and learning is consequently specific to the community in which it was developed.

Although this type of learning and development is beneficial for student teaching that occurs in an environment that is similar to the environment in which a new teacher begins their career, it could be problematic for teachers who begin their career in schools and environments that are different. As evidenced by reflections from teachers in this study, many teachers had a false sense of competency in their ability to teach in urban contexts because their student teaching experience was so different than their first year of teaching.

It is likely that Mr. George, Ms. Davidson, and Ms. Kraus developed a competency in teaching to reflect the norms and expectations of the schools in which they did their student teaching instead of the norms and expectations of their current schools. This false sense of competency not only led to excessive stress for teachers in managing their classrooms and forming student relationships but also could have contributed to the deficit thinking that occurred for Mr. George who now believed that his new students were inferior to the students he had served during year of student teaching.

The significant emotional turbulence that was reported by other teachers suggests that what they learned as student teachers was not directly applicable—or even generally applicable—to the school community that they now served. Many teachers even shared that they were struggling during their first year of teaching because their internship was easy and/or had different contextual elements that made it nearly impossible to apply the same methods at both types of schools. In reflecting on how they could have better prepared for work in their new schools, all of teachers who were struggling cited the importance of having a student teaching in an area that accurately reflected the population they would one day serve as teacher of record.

Advantageous Outcomes From Challenging Circumstances

In comparison with teachers who experienced uncomplicated and less challenging student teaching, teachers who experienced a very challenging year of student teaching, and in an area that reflected their current first-year placement, felt confident in their ability to teach effectively and serve students appropriately. These teachers also shared that having experienced a student-internship that was challenging benefited their career and development as a teacher because it provided an opportunity to participate in a trial and error of what works and what does not work for their specific school environment and set of students.

Teachers who completed challenging student teaching were also more confident in their ability to teach at their new schools as teachers of record. In contrast to Mr. George, who developed a deficit perspective of his students in comparison with his students he taught during his internship year, teachers with challenging student teaching felt that their new students were not much different than any other kid and that would likely experience the same issues in other urban schools. These teachers felt that these issues could be addressed with the right combination of skill, compassion, and persistence. Teachers who completed challenging preservice experiences were also more likely to feel positive about teaching in urban schools. This positive perspective could shape not only effective teaching and learning but also long-term commitments to teaching and in urban schools.

Implications for Teacher Preparation and Development

Based on the literature of teaching in urban schools, it is possible that teachers will experience more challenge in teaching, managing their practice, and developing a repertoire with students than they might encounter in non-urban areas (Weiner & Jerome, 2016). Because of this, it is important that teachers continue to learn about the historical, theoretical, sociocultural, and political narratives and instructional structures that shaped the state of urban schools in this country. Given the findings from this study, it is also important that the teachers from urban preparation programs have the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in an urban environment that authentically represents the many challenges associated with teaching in urban schools. When teachers have the opportunity to experience challenge through student teaching—and in an environment that mirrors the contextual elements of their future classrooms—they may develop a unique competency and confidence in teaching in urban schools and connecting with students. As exemplified by teachers in this study who experienced very difficult internship years, the first year of teaching is easier to manage when there is something similar to serve as a comparison.

Given the current statistics on teacher attrition in urban schools where 50% are likely to exit the profession within their first four years of teaching (Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Ingersoll, 2004), this study offers suggestions on how teacher preparation programs can prepare teachers to better manage the emotional turbulence of the first year (Moir, 1990). If teachers have an opportunity to face challenges and learn from experience about how to address the many nuances of learning in urban environments during their student teaching, then teachers may feel more equipped to deal with challenges that often lead to rapid rates of teacher attrition.

Contributions to the Literature

Just as Goldhaber et al. (2017) found that a student teaching and first year teaching student demographic match matters, findings from this study also suggest that new teachers fare better when they experience their student teaching in an environment that is similar to that of their new environment as teacher of record. This study extends the work for Goldhaber et al. (2017) to suggest that teachers may also fare better in urban schools when they encounter challenge during their student teaching placement as this allows for a genuine experience of and exposure to the issues that are common to urban school teaching. As teachers combine theoretical perspectives with concrete examples of teaching and learning in urban classrooms, they also may internalize a better understanding of the underlying systemic issues that face urban communities.

This study builds on the existing knowledge of how student teaching affects teaching performance by suggesting that new teachers need valid student teaching to best prepare them for work in urban schools. It also portrays how unchallenging internships can lead to problematic first-year experiences and deflated confidence in teaching. In light of these findings, more work is needed to examine the longevity of teachers’ careers and how much of their commitment to urban communities is based within their student teaching. New teachers possess a unique vulnerability in their decision-making and belief formation as they embark on their first years in the classroom. If they are learning what is fair based on the sociocultural contexts of their environment—based on the idea of situated learning theory—then it is also possible that their beliefs toward a specific community or demographic of people could also be shaped by this situated learning experience during a time of great vulnerability and belief formation (Author, 2017; Brock & Grady, 2007; Levin & He, 2008). More research is needed to understand the intersection of belief formation and early-career teaching and development experiences.

Conclusion

This exploratory research examined the student teaching and first-year experiences of 13 new educators as they reflected on their preservice student teaching in comparison with their current school placements. Although the stories of each new educator were unique, many teachers who experienced internships in schools that were different demographically and had different sociocultural elements experienced greater struggles during their first year of teaching than teachers who completed their internships in schools that were demographically similar.

Giving the findings of this study, teachers with challenging student teaching may begin their career with a more accurate perception of what to expect from their first year of teaching. Teachers who complete student teaching that is unchallenging in comparison with their first year of teaching may begin their year with an inaccurate perception. The choices these two groups of teachers make in regard to connecting with students, delivering lessons, managing classrooms, and dealing with unexpected conflict are likely to vary significantly. This significant variation could be due, in part, to how teachers experienced the process of legitimate peripheral participation as they developed their knowledge and competency in teaching and learning as teachers learned how to teach based on the situated perspectives and influences of their student teaching. Although these perspectives were helpful in shaping teachers for schools in areas that mirrored the environments of their student teaching, they could have also been unhelpful—and even detrimental—for teachers who completed student teaching in environments that were vastly different from the environment of their new school community.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kate Rollert French

Author Biography

Kate Rollert French is a postdoctoral fellow in educational leadership and policy studies at Wayne State University. Her research interests focus on the organizational routines and sociocultural context of schools as a part of new teacher development.

References

Adnot

Dee

Katz

Wyckoff

(2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 54-76.

Anderson

L. M.

Stillman

J. A.

(2013). Student teaching’s contribution to pre-service teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83, 3-69.

Boyd

Lankford

Loeb

Rockoff

Wyckoff

(2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 793-818.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Brock

B. L.

Grady

M. L.

(2007). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding beginning teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2011, January). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (NBER Working Paper No. 17699). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cochran-Smith

Villegas

A. M.

Abrams

Chavez-Moreno

Mills

Stern

(2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 109-121.

Cooper

K. S.

(2017). Using affective data in urban high schools: can we equalize the graduation rate? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21, 104-121.

Creswell

(2009). Research design: Quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Cuenca

(2011). The role of legitimacy in student teaching: Learning to “feel” like a teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 117-130.

11.

Darling-Hammond

(1999). Target time toward teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 31-36.

12.

Desimone

L. M.

Long

(2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and White and high-and low-SES students in the early grades. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3024-3073.

13.

Eun

(2008). Making connections: Grounding professional development in the developmental theories of Vygotsky. The Teacher Educator, 43, 134-155.

14.

Fantilli

R. D.

McDougall

D. E.

(2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 814-825.

15.

Feiman-Nemser

Tamir

Hammerness

(2014). Inspiring teaching: Preparing Teachers to succeed in mission-driven schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

16.

Frankenberg

Taylor

Merseth

(2010). Walking the walk: Teacher candidates’ professed commitment to urban teaching and their subsequent career decisions. Urban Education, 45, 312-346.

17.

French

K. R.

(2017). Advancing or inhibiting educational opportunity: The power of new teachers to reinforce or deconstruct social reproduction in urban schools. In Elmesky

R. M.

Yeakey

C. C.

Marcucci

(eds.) The power of resistance: Culture, ideology and social reproduction in Global Contexts (pp. 31-57). Emerald Publishing Limited.

18.

Goldhaber

Krieg

J. M.

Theobald

(2017). Does the match matter? Exploring whether student teaching experiences affect teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 325-359.

19.

Greenberg

Pomerance

Walsh

(2011). Student teaching in the United States. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521916

20.

Grimm

(2010). Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing. Chichester, UK: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057

21.

Highsmith

A. R.

Erickson

A. T.

(2015). Segregation as splitting, segregation as joining: Schools, housing, and the many modes of Jim Crow. American Journal of Education, 121, 563-595.

22.

Hoglund

W. L.

Klingle

K. E.

Hosan

N. E.

(2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 337-357.

23.

Hollins

E. R.

Guzman

M. T.

(2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

K.M.

(eds.) Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477-548). New York.

24.

Howard

T. C.

Milner

H. R.

(2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In Milner

H. R.

IV Lomotey

(eds.) Handbook of urban education (pp. 199-216).

25.

Ingersoll

(2004). Is there really a teacher shortage? GSE Publications. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=gse_pubs

26.

Kozol

(1992). I dislike the idea of choice, and I want to tell you why. Educational Leadership, 50(3), 90-92.

27.

Krefting

(1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.

28.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.

29.

Lave

(1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 2, 63-82.

30.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Levin

(2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 55-68.

32.

Lippman

Burns

McArthur

E. K.

(1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty (NCES 96-184). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

33.

Matsko

K. K.

Hammerness

(2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 128-144.

34.

McIntyre

(2009). The difficulties of inclusive pedagogy for initial teacher education and some thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 602-608.

35.

Means

(2013). Schooling in the age of austerity: Urban education and the struggle for democratic life. New York, NY: Springer.

36.

Moir

(1990). Phases of first-year teaching (Originally published in California New teacher project newsletter). Retrieved from http://prodev.dadeschools.net/MINTMentorSupport/PHASES%20OF%20FIRST%20YEAR%20_2_.pdf

37.

J. C.

Peter

(2010). Should I stay or should I go? Examining the career choices of alternatively licensed teachers in urban schools. The Urban Review, 42, 123-142.

38.

Owens

Reardon

S. F.

Jencks

(2016). Income segregation between schools and school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1159-1197.

39.

Packer

M. J.

Goicoechea

(2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35, 227-241.

40.

Pollock

(2004). Race wrestling: Struggling strategically with race in educational practice and research. American Journal of Education, 111, 25-67.

41.

Rollert

(2015). Perspicacity, tension, and purpose in under-resourced urban schools: implications for urban teacher preparation models. National Teacher Education Journal, 8(3).

42.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Seale

Silverman

(1997). Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. The European Journal of Public Health, 7, 379-384.

44.

Taylor

Frankenberg

(2009). Exploring urban commitment of graduates from an urban-focused teacher education program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42, 327-346.

45.

Ushomirsky

Williams

(2015). Funding gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the most. Education Trust. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf

46.

Urban. (2018). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urban

47.

Valencia

S. W.

Martin

S. D.

Place

N. A.

Grossman

(2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 304-322.

48.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

49.

Watson

(2011). What do you mean when you say “urban”? Speaking honestly about race and students. Rethinking Schools, 26, 28-50.

50.

Weiner

Jerome

(2016). Urban teaching: The essentials. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

51.

Whipp

J. L.

(2013). Developing socially just teachers: The interaction of experiences before, during, and after teacher preparation in beginning urban teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 454-467.

52.

Whipp

J. L.

Geronime

(2017). Experiences that predict early career teacher commitment to and retention in high-poverty urban schools. Urban Education, 52, 799-828.