Preservice Teachers Taking Action: Enacting Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Theories in an After-School Literacy Club Field Experience

Abstract

This article examines the teaching practices and pedagogical theories preservice teachers (PSTs) enacted in a newly designed after-school literacy club field placement. We draw from sociocultural and activity theories to analyze data collected in the qualitative study that examined the following research questions: (1) What teaching practices do PSTs enact in an after-school literacy club field placement? (2) What pedagogical theories guide their choices about which teaching practices they enact in the after-school literacy club field placement? and (3) In what ways does this field placement afford and constrain PSTs’ appropriation of these practices and theories? Findings consider three ways that the field experience afforded—and at times also constrained—the opportunities made available for PSTs to enact teaching practices and pedagogical theories related to their learning in coursework including learning from and with fellow PSTs, developing ownership over curriculum, and making connections to university coursework.

Keywords

field experiences English teacher education self study

As far as observing in a school and being in an actual classroom, you’re sort of not aware of what you’re really supposed to do, like the teacher has their own agenda. . . . They have learning objectives and everything, and in that sort of environment we’re supposed to just kind of be helping hands. In the after-school club we are more a part of that creation process and facilitating process so we are just sort of naturally supposed to be more engaged. (Nathan, preservice teacher)

Field experiences have long been an important feature of Teacher Preparation Programs, providing opportunities for preservice teachers to connect theories they learn about in coursework to practice across contexts of schools and communities. Yet as Nathan, a secondary English preservice teacher enrolled in a university-based Teacher Preparation Program, noted in his comments above, field experiences provide different kinds of experiences, challenges, and opportunities for preservice teachers (Bomer & Maloch, 2019) depending on multiple contextual factors (Smagorinsky, 2018). Nathan’s comments, in particular, highlight a tension familiar to many preservice teachers we have collaborated with across the years in our work as teacher educators: they experience challenges in navigating in-the-moment decisions about whether, how, and what to contribute as participant observers in weekly classroom-based field experiences. In the years prior to their year-long student teaching internship, the typical field experiences our preservice teachers experienced as part of their coursework included in-class tutoring, supporting a reading intervention program, and observing a middle or high school English teacher for 4 hr a week. Although the preservice teachers taught a few mini-lessons in this observational field placement, most of their time was spent observing the mentor teachers teach, and mini-lessons tended to be based on curriculum provided by the mentor teachers.

While observational field experiences provide valuable insight for preservice teachers as they observe a mentor teacher in action with students (Marciano et al., 2019), we sought to provide new opportunities for preservice teachers we work with in a secondary English education program at a university in the U.S. Midwest to play a more active role in the “creation process and facilitating process” of teaching and learning, as Nathan noted, while meeting field experience requirements of the Teacher Preparation Program. In addition, these tutoring experiences and observational field placements did not always afford preservice teachers opportunities to enact the kinds of teaching stances they learned about in their teacher preparation coursework; thus, we wanted to create a field experience that provided more opportunity for preservice teachers to plan for and enact teaching practices related to the pedagogical theories valued in our program.

In this article, we examine the experiences of Nathan and 12 additional secondary English preservice teachers who participated in an after-school literacy club field experience. Specifically, we examine how the field experience supported preservice teachers in enacting teaching practices and pedagogical theories as they sought to learn alongside middle school students and make in-the-moment decisions about curriculum and instruction.

Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Theories Supported in Field Experiences

Field experiences serve multiple purposes in Teacher Preparation Programs, including providing opportunities for preservice teachers to interact with students, learn from mentor teachers, and make connections between educational theory and practice. Robust field experiences have been found to be an important factor for preservice teachers’ learning as more time spent participating in field experiences is predictive of positive outcomes such as early career teacher retention and perceptions of preparedness (Ronfeldt et al., 2014). Yet, different types of field experiences afford different learning opportunities. Tutoring, or service learning, is often a preservice teacher’s first contact with students. According to a review of 65 studies on literacy tutoring, preservice teachers were afforded opportunities to learn about literacy, pedagogical skills, instructional strategies, relationship-building, culturally responsive teaching, and asset-based views of students (Hoffman et al., 2019). However, Hallman and Burdick (2011) found that preservice teachers tutoring at a local middle school and high school focused less on the task of teaching and more on talking about life outside of school. While this talk time at snack time or other seeming downtime afforded opportunity for preservice teachers to build relational capacity with students, tutoring may have limited preservice teachers’ opportunities to participate in other teaching practices or enact other pedagogical theories they learn in Teacher Preparation Programs.

In a large-scale study of English Teacher Preparation Programs, Pasternak and colleagues (2017) found that while preservice teachers were involved in activities such as tutoring, small and whole group instruction, observation of a mentor teacher was a dominant portion of the field experience. However, as our own preservice teachers had noted, these traditional mentor and preservice teacher placements had limited opportunities for preservice teachers to participate in the full complexity of teaching. For example, Anderson and Stillman (2010) studied the learning opportunities for elementary preservice teachers in student teaching and found that preservice teachers reported little opportunity to see their mentor teachers plan or to plan with them. Some scholars, including Simonset al. (2020) sought to improve the typical model of one mentor teacher with a preservice teacher by studying the affordances and constraints of a pair of preservice teachers working with one mentor. In comparison to traditional singular field experiences, the paired model allowed for increased communication between the preservice teachers and with the mentor teacher. Several other studies corroborate these affordances, noting time and collaboration aided preservice teachers in noticing students’ needs and making decisions in response (Soslau et al., 2019), preservice teachers had more opportunities to discuss their learning, and providing rationales for decisions, both in the enactments of teaching and in planning with the co-teacher and mentor teacher (Bullough et al., 2002). These studies point to a promising opportunity afforded by paired teaching, that preservice teachers had access to more types of teaching opportunities as well as increased interaction with the mentor and a colleague to reflect on the pedagogical theories related to their teaching practices. At the same time, the particular teaching practices and pedagogical theories the preservice teachers participate in vary widely depending on the particular teaching context (Newell et al., 2001; Smagorinsky, 2018).

Community-based experiences also afford unique learning opportunities for preservice teachers (McDonald et al., 2013). Brayko (2013) found that preservice teachers’ learning about literacy in school settings typically focused on students’ learning of literacy skills, often from a deficit perspective of what students did not know. However, in after-school community-based field experiences, preservice teachers, while still focusing on skills, also noticed the varied goals and purposes students brought to their literacy practices. In addition, preservice teachers built relationships with students in the community settings and “leveraged the rich relationships and knowledge of students in the effort of teaching and learning of literacy content and literacy skills” (Brayko, 2013, p. 55). Similarly, Gallego (2001) studied the effects of preservice teachers participating in two concurrent field experiences: one in a school and one in the community, finding that

participation in concurrent and contrasting field sites allowed teacher education students to step back from their familiarity with schools, the roles of teacher and student, and standard curriculum within their contexts rather than accept them as assumed and naturalized practices. (p. 321)

As these various types of field experiences invite preservice teachers to participate in different types of teaching practices informed by differing pedagogical theories, when Teacher Preparation Programs like ours, and others as Pasternak et al. (2017) found, create opportunities for preservice teachers to participate in tutoring, small group teaching, and traditional student teaching, preservice teachers’ potential to learn is maximized. At the same time, we wondered if a new type of field placement, an after-school literacy club at a middle school, entirely planned and run by preservice teachers, might allow for preservice teachers to experience opportunities to enact more teaching practices rooted in the pedagogical theories foregrounded in their coursework.

Theoretical Framework

We frame our inquiry through the lens of sociocultural theory generally and activity theory in particular, as it is taken up in teacher education research. Sociocultural theory is an orienting framework that explains individual learning as taking place through social interactions in sociocultural contexts (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1980). These contexts, often referred to by Vygotskian scholars as settings, are inherently social, made up of people who are acting in goal-oriented ways that are mediated by the social and cultural histories and motives of the setting (Smagorinsky et al., 2008). As Rogoff (1990) described, each sociocultural setting has a “social matrix of purposes and values” (p. 6) that determine the knowledge, strategies, and tools available to solve problems as well as what problems are worth posing and solving.

Activity theory is particularly interested in sociocultural settings and how these activity settings afford and constrain the types of social activity people in the setting can participate in. Within teacher education research, activity theory offers analytic tools to better understand “under what circumstances do particular kinds of changes take place?” (Grossman et al., 1999, p. 4). The “kinds of changes” activity theory-oriented teacher education research is interested in are preservice teachers’ appropriation of practical and theoretical tools for teaching (Grossman et al., 1999; Newell et al., 2001). Practical tools are teaching practices, such as leading discussion, conferencing with students on writing, and providing written feedback, while theoretical tools are pedagogical theories and frameworks that inform teaching practices, such as constructivism, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and so on. The activity setting shapes how, if at all, people in that setting appropriate various practical and theoretical tools based on the goals and values of the setting, its sociocultural histories, and the activities, roles, and relationships made available in the setting (Newell et al., 2001). In the case of field placements, the kinds of teaching practices and the level of participation made available for preservice teachers to participate in is key as “[f]undamental to appropriation is the learner’s active role in these practices” (Grossman et al., 1999, p. 15).

The after-school literacy club is thus a particular activity setting with its own matrix of goals, values, and activities made available to preservice teachers. In our English Education program, we focus on teaching practices related to stances of culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris, 2012), Critical Race English Education (Johnson, 2018), dialogic pedagogy (Caughlan et al., 2013; VanDerHeide & Johnson, 2020), and strengths-based perspectives of students (Watson, 2018) and their interactions with peers (Marciano, 2017). Taken together, these frameworks call for pedagogical stances and practices that listen to and make space for students’ already-present (Watson, 2018) language and literacy practices and identities and enact teaching that foregrounds students’ voices toward critical ends (Marciano & Warren, 2019). To support preservice teachers in taking up practical tools that draw on these theoretical tools (Macaluso et al., 2016), in our teaching methods courses, we teach them practical tools such as eliciting students’ interests and strengths, planning student-centered lessons, leading small and whole group discussions, integrating diverse texts, and providing feedback in strengths-based ways. In the remainder of this article, rather than draw on the term tools, which at times can cause confusion with instructional tools such as technology or graphic organizers, we choose to use more widespread terms to discuss the same concepts, referring to practical tools as teaching practices and theoretical tools as pedagogical theories.

Developing a Field Experience

Due to the central role field experiences play in teacher preparation, they serve as a productive starting point for considering opportunities to improve Teacher Preparation Programs, including whether they are aligned with “program philosophy, programmatic vision, and content presented in campus courses” (Lacina & Collins Block, 2011, p. 345). We wanted to connect what students had learned across their coursework in the broader university-based Teacher Preparation Program to their required field experience in their final year of the program prior to a year-long teaching internship. The field experience we subsequently designed and facilitated (described in further detail below) is one that supported preservice teachers in enacting teaching practices and pedagogical theories to learn from and with students in ways that drew from students’ experiences as strengths in curriculum and teaching across formal and informal interactions. For example, preservice teachers were directly involved in planning and facilitating each weekly after-school club session they participated in, including individual, small group, and whole group instruction. Preservice teachers further observed one another’s teaching, provided feedback to one another about their teaching, reflected on their own teaching experiences, and sought to develop relationships with middle school student participants. Taken together, we argue that the interaction, planning, facilitation, and reflection preservice teachers experienced independently and in collaboration with one another generated a unique field experience where preservice teachers were able to enact teaching practices and pedagogical theories. Specifically, we consider the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What teaching practices do preservice teachers enact in an after-school literacy club field placement?

Research Question 2: What pedagogical theories guide their choices about which teaching practices they enact in the after-school literacy club field placement?

Research Question 3: In what ways does this field placement afford and constrain preservice teachers’ appropriation of these practices and theories?

Method

Our examination of preservice teachers’ participation in the after-school club field experience is situated in a broader qualitative study of preservice teachers’ and middle school students’ experiences in a series of after-school literacy club sessions.

Contextualizing the Research Site

Jen and Joanne are both faculty members of secondary English education in a university-based Teacher Preparation Program in the U.S. Midwest. At the time of the study, Jen taught the English Methods courses and participated in the after-school club as a co-teacher, mentor, and researcher. Joanne was preparing to teach the English methods course during the 2020–2021 academic year, and participated in the after-school club as a researcher and informal mentor to preservice teachers. We both have extensive experience as English language arts teachers ourselves: Jen taught high school English and Journalism for 7 years followed by 2 years of literacy coaching; Joanne taught high school English for 13 years.

The after-school literacy club began after we approached the principal at Marshall Middle School, a public middle school serving approximately 900 students in Grades 6 to 8 situated one mile from the university, to ask if we could offer an optional, free after-school literacy club for any interested students enrolled in the school. As parents of children who attended the school, we were aware that opportunities for students to participate in after-school programming were limited, particularly for students who did not participate in athletics. As teacher educators, we wanted to offer an opportunity for the preservice teachers we work with to interact with students, teach about a variety of multimodal genres and digital literacies, and plan curriculum and instruction that built with students’ experiences and perspectives as strengths. The principal agreed that the club could be beneficial for both the middle school students and the preservice teachers, and offered the school’s media center as a location for the sessions to be held. We advertised the club on the school’s parent email listserv and social media pages and during the school’s daily announcements to students. These advertisements noted that the club would be led by preservice teachers enrolled in the university and supported by us. A total of 45 students chose to participate across three different 5- to 6-week long themed sessions from September 2019 through March 2020 (with several of the 45 attending all three clubs). Each 5- to 6-week session met twice a week for an hour right after school. The fourth and final after-school club session was canceled after COVID-19 led to the closure of school.

The first themed session, called Marshall Magazine Club, supported middle school students in designing and producing a printed and digital magazine comprising a variety of genres. The second session, Listen Up! Club, taught students to produce their choice of music, podcasts, or audio narratives on topics of their choosing. The third session (#Trending Club) introduced students to a variety of social media including photography, TikTok videos, Instagram quizzes, and more, and helped them explore how to create media that shared a message they cared about. In this article, we examine data collected during the first club session, the Magazine Club. A total of 25 sixth- through eighth-grade students chose to participate in this first after-school club session.

We emailed and sent consent forms home with each student who attended the after-school club, noting that we would be conducting research during each session. The forms explained we were interested in learning about the experiences of preservice teachers and middle school students participating in the club, and invited students to participate in our qualitative study. We further noted students who did not elect to participate in the research study could still participate in the club. A total of 25 students out of the 45 returned consent forms indicating they and their parent/guardian agreed they could participate in the research study.

Preservice Teachers’ Participation

Thirteen university-based preservice teachers co-designed and co-facilitated instruction throughout the club sessions. The preservice teachers were enrolled in two senior-year university English Education methods courses and were required to participate in a field placement 4 hr each week. Before the course started, Jen reached out to all preservice teachers in the course to share field placement options. Planning and facilitating the after-school literacy club and participating in a middle or high school English classroom for 2 hr a week was one option. These 13 preservice teachers chose this option for a variety of reasons, ranging from interest in the club setting to fit within busy schedules. In addition to teaching one of the 2 days at the middle school club and participating in a classroom 2 hours a week, preservice teachers all met together in a teaching lab at the university where they planned curriculum for the club and reflected on the previous week’s sessions (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Weekly Schedule for Magazine Club.

Week	TuesdayUniversity Lab(all PSTs attended)	WednesdayMiddle School(5 PSTs attended)	ThursdayMiddle School(8 PSTs attended)
1	Planning and reflecting	Snack	Snack
		Community-building	Community-building
		Choosing magazine theme	Drafting station choices:
			• Writing from images
			• Black-out poetry
			• Story writing from found objects
			• About me poems
			Reflection time
2	Planning and reflecting	Snack	Snack
		Drafting station choices:	Drafting stations (swap halfway):
		• Journalism	• Photography
		• Review	• Memes
		• Parody
		Reflection
3	Planning and reflecting	Snack	Snack
		Workshop	Workshop
		Reflection	Reflection
4	Planning and reflecting	Snack	Snack
		Workshop time divided into stations:	Workshop time: layout magazine Reflection
		• Drafting
		• Peer review
		• Revising
		• Explore layout
5	Planning and reflecting	Snack	No session: Half day due to Parent-Teacher Conferences
		Celebrate magazine
		Open Mic
		Focus group interviews

Note. Preservice teachers spent an additional 2 hr a week in a secondary English classroom.

The preservice teachers knew we were conducting a research study examining their experiences and the experiences of students participating in the after-school literacy club; we invited them to participate in the study and informed them that there would be no adverse effects if they chose not to participate. All 13 preservice teachers chose to participate in the study and provided informed consent indicating their decision to participate.

Data Collection and Analysis

As with other practitioner research studies where teacher educators study their own teacher preparation programs (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015; McDonald et al., 2013), we note that our participation as researchers is inherently intertwined with our work as teacher educators. Throughout our engagement in the after-school club, we enacted roles of researcher and teacher educator. We see these various roles as providing valuable insight into the greater school and community contexts the club existed within. Yet, we remain aware of our embeddedness within the club context and continuously push ourselves to reflect on our own positionality to/in the data, always returning to our theoretical framework to make sense of our analytic decisions and interpretation of the findings.

We were supported in the broader research study from which data for this article are drawn by two doctoral students who did not participate in data analysis or the writing of this particular manuscript. Mike McLane taught the preservice teachers during the weekly 2-hr-long lab, during which they planned for the after-school club and reflected on their experiences during the club sessions. Mike also attended the after-school club sessions and supported preservice teachers in the site. A second doctoral student, Darshana Devarajan, new to the United States and interested in learning about U.S. schools and qualitative research methods also participated as a researcher in the site, collaborating with Joanne to take observation notes during the club sessions, interview preservice teachers, and interact informally with the preservice teachers and middle school students.

We drew on ethnographic methods for data collection. During each session, two researchers took ethnographic field notes on laptops, following groups of students and preservice teachers as they moved around the media center and out into the halls and onto outdoor school spaces. At the end of the 5- to 6-week-long club session, each preservice teacher was interviewed and asked questions about their experience facilitating the club, including what they learned, their decision-making processes, how this field experience was similar and different to other field experiences, and any tensions they experienced. Data analysis was iterative and on-going. For example, we wrote “preliminary jottings” (Saldana, 2013, p. 20) during and after the club sessions and engaged in formal and informal conversations about what we were seeing in the field. We then transcribed the preservice teacher interviews verbatim and uploaded the transcripts to the online qualitative data analysis program Dedoose. We next engaged in first cycle coding (Saldana, 2013) of the interview transcripts, generating descriptive codes from the data related to the actions the preservice teachers were taking and their reasoning for taking those actions. First round codes included listening, talking, asking, watching, observing, planning, and reflecting, among others. We then collapsed similar codes (i.e., watching and observing) and grouped them into categories (Saldana, 2013). Categories included what preservice teachers did in the after-school club (teaching practices) and why they did it (pedagogical theories). We next reviewed the data to consider when and where preservice teachers said these teaching practices and pedagogical theories were enacted during the club session. We returned to our observation data and preliminary jottings to contextualize preservice teachers’ interview responses. We then generated themes that considered how this particular after-school field experience both afforded and constrained preservice teachers’ enacted teaching practices and pedagogical theories as they collaborated with students and one another in the literacy club.

Findings and Discussion

To respond to our research questions, we illustrate the kinds of teaching practices and pedagogical theories the preservice teachers enacted by sharing the practices and theories enacted in three different teaching opportunities in the after-school club field placement and discussing cross-cutting themes.

Building Relationships During Snack Time

In the moments leading up to the end of the school day, the preservice teachers gathered in the school’s second floor library. Often, they stood together, elbows propped on chest-high bookshelves, talking about their plans for what would happen once students arrived. Someone pulled a stack of yellow folders from a cardboard box tucked away in a storage closet between sessions. Individually packaged bags of popcorn, granola bars, and fruit snacks were spread across a nearby table. A sign-in sheet was set out on top of a bookshelf next to the library’s entrance. Moments later, as the dismissal bell sounded, sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students could be seen through the library’s glass windows as they moved through the hallways from classrooms, to lockers, and beyond. Several students walked into the library, setting water bottles on round tables and slinging school bags over chair backs before grabbing their folders and a snack. Some students talked excitedly with friends they hadn’t seen since lunch in the first floor cafeteria hours earlier, while others quietly found seats at empty tables that began to fill as more students entered the library and the minutes after school stretched on.

This scene unfolded on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons throughout the 5 weeks the Marshall Middle School Magazine Club met after school, providing opportunities for preservice teachers to interact with students in the informal moments before their work together began. Such moments emerged as integral to establishing relationships between students and preservice teachers as invitations to engage in conversation were taken up, dismissed, or rendered again in new ways across time and space. During the initial sessions, preservice teachers were hesitant to approach students as they waited for the session to begin. Unlike the traditional field placements the preservice teachers had previously participated in, where a mentor teacher did the planning and interacting with students, the after-school club required preservice teachers to take the lead in teaching and talking with students. These initial interactions generated some discomfort for preservice teachers, most of whom had not previously interacted with middle school students. In an individual interview, Grace later recalled standing at the bookshelves as students entered the library, unsure of whether to approach students until Jen encouraged her to do so. Grace explained, “I think the first week we felt really awkward just standing there.” During their next planning session, the preservice teachers discussed their feelings of uncomfortability and decided to enact a new teaching practice to make their interactions during the opening moments of each session, when students arrived and settled into the space, more purposeful. Grace explained,

We were like, yeah we need to go talk to them. So we started setting goals. Like, let’s talk to two students a day, or something like that. So it was more like let’s make sure we don’t talk to [just] one. But also don’t just say hi to everyone. Like get to actually have meaningful conversations.

Grace’s comment reflected preservice teachers’ teaching practices in response to the “awkward” feelings they experienced in the first week. In reflecting on their interactions with students in the field experience, preservice teachers identified a feeling of awkwardness as a challenge in their work, developed a plan to address the challenge, and tried out a new teaching practice—seeking to interact with two students during each snack time.

In subsequent sessions, preservice teachers’ interactions with students during the opening moments of each after-school club session evolved. Rather than pass out materials or share instructions, as they had during their initial meetings with students, preservice teachers asked students questions to initiate conversation. Sarah said, “I would ask stuff like what do you like to do outside of class. Try to share my own so that they don’t feel like they’re being interviewed or interrogated.” Although we do not know whether the students felt “like they’re being interviewed or interrogated,” Sarah’s perception that students could feel that way influenced the decisions she made about how to approach them, which questions to ask, and what to talk about. The questions preservice teachers asked varied, reflecting differences in their approaches. Grace recalled,

I remember we talked about Mario Kart, because I used to do that too . . . just finding ways to relate rather than talking about just my own experiences and just asking them questions about their lives . . . I’m thinking of this one instance where this girl had a cracked phone and I related to that and was like, hey my phone’s cracked too. And I asked her how that happened and she gave me this whole story behind it.

Like Sarah, Grace’s recollection of her conversations with students reflects an interest in making connections between her experiences and those of students. Jack similarly sought to talk with students about popular culture in the hopes that a shared interest would emerge through conversation. He said,

[I] just kind of go up and ask them, I don’t know, just introduce myself like “how was your day” and then bridge it into I don’t know if they’re wearing something or doing something that gives me some sort of indication of what they’re interested in, find some common interests that I can relate to them about.

The after-school field experience further generated opportunities for preservice teachers to initiate teaching strategies they wanted to use to develop relationships with students during the snack time portion of the session, when preservice teachers had the most flexibility for choosing how they would interact with students. Caden, for example, sought to enact a student-centered approach by asking students open-ended questions about their interests as a way to foreground student perspectives rather than his own, enacting a stance toward teaching that positioned him as a learner, curious about students’ interests as he sought to develop relationships with them. Caden’s relational approach considered what he was saying to students, as well as when and how he invited them to interact. Caden said,

I quickly learned not to bombard them. . . if they’re sitting there and then one of us comes up and asks them you know, Hey how’s your day? Hey, what do you do today? They answer that and that person gets up and then the next leader kind of fills in the spot and does the same thing back and just totally derail and not accomplish getting to know them because they just feel like probably it’s superficial.

Often, during the 5-week-long session, Caden could be seen sitting with students at their tables during snack time, looking around the room before making his way to another table. In explaining his approach, Caden foregrounded what he thought students’ perspectives might be, even as it was unclear whether students had told him they found it superficial when approached by multiple preservice teachers during the informal snack time or if Caden just assumed they would feel that way.

The snack time portion of the after-school club provided preservice teachers opportunities to participate in the following teaching practices: interacting with students, planning for interactions, setting goals, asking questions, sharing experiences, and making connections. These practices reflect elements of pedagogical theories the preservice teachers were learning in their university coursework. In particular, by foregrounding students’ interests and experiences in their questions and responses, the preservice teachers were enacting culturally relevant and sustaining educational approaches (Paris, 2012). Because snack time afforded sustained opportunities for the preservice teachers to interact socially with several students for longer periods of time than typically afforded between classes, preservice teachers had more practice with these interactions and ideally were able to incorporate what they learned about students into future lessons and activities.

Supporting Students’ Writing During Work Time

During the work time portion of each session, students were often spread out across the library. Some continued to sit at the tables near the door, where the session began with snack time, while others moved to sit at tables across the library adjacent to a group of desktop computers lined up against the wall. Additional seats were available at a small group of couches at the center of the library, or at one of several rows of desktop computers off to the side. Preservice teachers walked through each area of the library, pausing to talk to students as they worked. At times, preservice teachers sat side-by-side with a student, conferencing at length about their writing or designing.

The preservice teachers organized each session of the field experience to include whole-group instruction followed by either small group or independent work. The latter portion of the session generated opportunities for preservice teachers to extend the practices they enacted during snack time to make decisions about when, how, and why to interact with particular students to support their writing. In reflecting about how they decided which students to approach during the work time, a common practice emerged. If students appeared engaged in their work, preservice teachers chose not to interrupt them. For example, Grace explained, “I felt odd just asking them questions just while they were working cause I didn’t want to distract them since they’d get into it.” Tim similarly recalled,

I’d try to check in with everybody but if I knew somebody was working really hard and really focused on something I wouldn’t really bother them because that’s something that we want to see and we want to let that happen.

Choosing not to “interrupt” students who “were working quietly and getting a lot done” meant preservice teachers focused their attention on students they perceived as being off-task. Tim explained, “If I saw a student maybe getting off track I’d go over there and ask them what’s going on. Or if I saw a couple students distracting each other, maybe I try to intervene.” In positioning himself as someone who should “intervene” when students were not actively engaging in work, Tim considered his role during the workshop time differently than during the informal snack time which did not require students to complete a particular task. While Tim’s use of the word “intervene” needs further unpacking, his comment reflects a stance taken up by preservice teachers throughout the session: preservice teachers felt a responsibility to ensure students were working in ways preservice teachers interpreted as productive during independent and small-group work time. Yet preservice teachers’ focus on student engagement during the work time raised questions about the kinds of student behavior preservice teachers were privileging in the after school space, providing insight into the pedagogical theories they drew from in enacting particular teaching practices. An emphasis on quiet, independent work reinforced meritocratic notions of individual achievement that center White middle-class norms traditionally privileged in formal school settings. Moreover, students who preferred to engage in more collaborative approaches to teaching and learning could be positioned at a deficit, particularly if the activities they were being asked to “engage” were not of interest to them.

Preservice teachers’ understanding of what was going to happen in each after-school session further supported their interactions with students during the work time. Preservice teachers’ confidence in being able to provide the support students needed to stay engaged generated new opportunities for preservice teachers to support students compared with typical classroom-based field placements. Maranda, for example, explained that she felt “obligated” to make sure students were on-task because she knew what they needed to complete by the end of each session to meet their goal of producing a magazine. She said, “I did feel obligated to go approach someone who wasn’t done with their work . . . I felt like I needed to do something.”

In addition to choosing when and how to approach students to offer support, preservice teachers also made decisions as they sat with students about how to best support them as they wrote content, drew pictures, or designed layouts. At times, these conferences were short moments to check in or redirect, but at other times, they were long, 10- to 20-min work sessions with the students, supporting them at various points in the composing process. For example, Tim sat with a student for an extended period of time helping her to plan out a short story. He asked her questions about the various characters she could include in the story and prompted descriptions of the setting. As he described this practice, Tim explained,

I remember I was working with a student about coming up with her story for the magazine and I would kinda help her imagine some of the characters. It’s their creation, their words, but I’m just helping them put that on paper. And then, once I feel like they have a good understanding, I’d let that go, and let them develop it from there.

Similarly, Natalie spent extended time with a student as she revised a poem she was working on. They moved line by line through the poem discussing Natalie’s response to each line and potential revisions. Natalie described one moment in particular that stuck with her:

There was one time when she wrote a line and was like, “Oh I don’t know if I like this,” or she just asked my opinion on it, and I said that it was great because it was great. And she said, “oh you have to say that because you’re a teacher, you’re an adult, you just have to tell me and be nice to me.” I said, “I don’t have to be nice to you . . . I don’t have to treat you any certain way. I’m treating you like a human being because you’re a human being. I’m going to tell you if something is good or if something needs to be improved.” I feel like she would ask me, “Oh do I need to change this?” I was like, “this is your writing, if you want to change it, change it, but if you don’t want to you don’t have to. This is your writing, your piece.” And I feel like a lot of people haven’t told them, this is yours. When you’re writing something, that’s your voice, not the teachers’ voice that’s supposed to be coming out of your pencil.

Both Tim and Natalie used the extended conferencing time to listen to students and help them shape their writing toward the writing the student wanted to create.

Work time, then, afforded opportunities for preservice teachers to enact the teaching practices of monitoring student work time, redirecting student behavior, and conferencing with students. The preservice teachers’ descriptions of their actions during this time indicate a range of pedagogical theories. Tim and Natalie’s focus on the writing the students wanted to produce illustrates an enactment of both an asset-based theory that foregrounds the already-present literacy practices (Watson, 2018) of students and a theory of writing pedagogy that positions the teacher as a guide for the student writer (Graves, 1994). At the same time, other preservice teacher comments align with more traditionally held views of student and teacher roles that the teacher must redirect student behavior to align with the teacher’s goals for the curriculum and learning outcome as shown by the preservice teachers’ concern with students who were “off task” or did not have enough composed for the upcoming publication deadline.

Enacting Lessons During Team Teaching

Four preservice teachers led the photography group, gathering half the middle schoolers from snack time to stand by the library doors, one preservice teacher carrying five iPads and another carrying a wrapped, unopened box of chalk. Anna led the twelve students down the open stairway and onto the expansive sidewalk in front of the middle school. A warm, sunny September day, many other students hung out in clusters on the sidewalk as they waited to be picked up. Natalie gave directions for what they would be doing: “We’re taking photographs of change, so you want to take a picture of the sidewalk with the iPad to show what it’s like before. Then you’ll draw something with the chalk that’s about change, and then you’ll take another picture of the sidewalk to show how it’s been changed.” After the directions, the four preservice teachers stood together with the iPads and unwrapped chalk while the club members stood together facing them waiting for more directions. Jen suggested that Grace help the students get into groups and then pass out one iPad per group for them to take a before picture. Sarah then worked to open up the box of chalk, struggling to break through the plastic overwrap and passing it to Anna for help. Students started to move into groups, spread out along the sidewalk, while Grace passed out an iPad to each group. When Anna finally opened the chalk, Natalie grabbed a couple pieces and started drawing a picture on the part of the sidewalk closest to the school doors.

Each week, the preservice teachers planned for activities such as the one in the vignette above during Tuesday’s lab time. While Mike supported them through posing questions to help them reflect on the previous week and plan for the coming week, preservice teachers did the main work of planning. The first few minutes of this activity show several opportunities for learning made available to the preservice teachers as they participated in team teaching. First, preservice teachers created the idea for the activity, building off the magazine’s theme of change but drawing on a new modality and media, photographed images, for their students to compose in. They also brought the appropriate materials for students to compose the chalk drawings and photographs, prompting Mike to buy a box of sidewalk chalk and procure the five iPads from the university.

Being able to plan the full activity with peers was distinct from any field experience the preservice teachers had participated in previously, where they either planned individually for a tutoring situation or observed or helped a mentor teacher with an already-planned lesson. As Jack explained, “This was by far the most hand I’ve had in the actual creation of what we’re doing. Like had much more autonomy and obviously much more in planning the lessons and actually having to follow through on them.” However, the preservice teachers had not thought through many details for how to organize the students and the materials, focusing more in their planning document on what students should do and less on the specific practices they as teachers would each need to enact. Although there was no mentor teacher in the field placement, in this activity, Jen could step in and provide suggestions for how the preservice teachers could move forward in organizing the activity after directions were given.

Team teaching also provided time and space for the preservice teachers to reflect on the current teaching experience and take action if something was not working. While Jen was initially surprised that Natalie took time during the activity to draw her own picture, Natalie explained she realized one reason the students might have been slow to start up the activity is that they did not have a model for the drawing. Natalie decided it would be helpful for students if she drew a model of what she meant by a drawing about change. As the other group leaders moved between the different groups, Natalie was able to reflect during the activity about how students were responding, make a conjecture about why students were not responding as she expected, and take action by drawing a model picture.

In addition to planning for instruction, team teaching also was a time when preservice teachers made in-the-moment instructional decisions in response to students. Several minutes into this activity, most students were busy chatting and drawing with chalk. Most stayed in the initial groups Grace put them in, but a couple had branched off to create their own drawings, which the leaders allowed or did not notice. However, one student, Kylea, stood off on her own, leaning against the brick school building, just watching the others draw. Anna was the first preservice teacher to approach Kylea. She recalled,

When we did the chalk photography outside, one of our students, Kylea, wasn’t interested in doing it at all. So I was trying to talk to her, and I could tell she was upset and she wouldn’t really open up about why. I know I needed to give her some space because I know when I’m upset I don’t want people around.

Anna noticed that Kylea was not participating and approached her, but chose to give her some space. After watching Anna and then another preservice teacher, Grace, approach Kylea, Natalie chose to take a different approach.

I asked her about her day and she told me that one of her teachers was mean to her. And I asked her what she wanted to be doing and I think she said something about a poem that she wrote . . . We were just talking about the poem that she wrote . . . and I was like, oh you like poetry? Do you want to write a poem? And that’s how she got into it.

Following this interaction, Kylea crafted a poem in chalk on part of the sidewalk. Natalie took the time to listen to what was going on with Kylea and then in the moment made a decision to change the task to better suit Kylea’s interests and strengths.

Team teaching, like the lesson described here, afforded preservice teachers opportunities to collaboratively plan lessons, plan and organize materials, enact a lesson, listen and respond to students, and change expectations for individual students. Planning the curriculum for the club allowed preservice teachers to enact several pedagogical theories they were learning at the university, theories on multimodal composing (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001), dialogic pedagogy (Caughlan et al., 2013), and student-centered approaches to teaching writing (Graves, 1994).

Impact of Field Placement on Preservice Teachers’ Learning Opportunities

Across the various parts of the after-school club, we found three primary ways that the field experience afforded—and at times also constrained—opportunities made available for preservice teachers to enact teaching practices and pedagogical theories related to their learning at the university.

Learning from and with other preservice teachers

A key affordance of this field placement setting was the other preservice teachers. Working together prompted them to discuss their lesson plans in detail and reflect on students’ responses during previous club sessions. As Eric explained, “this was more of a team collaborative effort and so because of that we knew how to best engage the students based on prior knowledge as well as each other’s feedback.” The preservice teachers also provided informal mentoring for each other, learning by observing each other teach during team teaching and also leaning on each other for help when they struggled. The preservice teachers looked for strategies enacted by others that they expected to be weaknesses for themselves. For example, Maranda explained,

I learned a lot from Caden . . . I think he had a really nice way of calming them down and redirecting their energy and their focus back to the group and what we had to get done . . . the way he would talk to them was very mild mannered but also assertive.

Similarly, several preservice teachers called each other “confident,” and “excited” and described “taking mental notes” about how to get students’ attention or explain activities. Teaching alongside multiple co-teachers also afforded time, time to notice individual students’ responses to instruction, time to reflect in the moment on their teaching, and time to spend working one-on-one with a student. The benefits of this extra time were visible when Natalie and Tim held extended conferences, when Natalie chose to create a chalk model during the activity, and when preservice teachers worked with Kylea to engage her in the activity. Although this element of time is not one that will extend into their future teaching, the availability of it in this field placement provided extended opportunities for preservice teachers to practice key teaching practices that they can enact in future teaching.

While there are certainly learning opportunities afforded by team teaching, there is a particular challenge associated with this dimension of the field experience that is atypical of tutoring or teaching individually: sharing teaching space with a large group of co-teachers. Jessica explained that when she tutored she had her own students and knew she would not step on any other preservice teacher’s toes, but the club was “at first kind of awkward because none of us wanted to overstep and be like, I’m going to be the leader you guys are my helpers or be like that.” Several other preservice teachers named learning to teach together as a main tension they experienced in the field experience, supporting Simonset al. (2020) finding that learning when to step in and intervene was a challenge of parallel and sequential team teaching. Even so, the need to take turns in teaching created opportunities for preservice teachers to make specific goals related to their participation, such as planning more specifically for who would take the lead in particular parts of the whole group teaching. Nathan explained that he planned specific goals such as taking leadership on leading the closing whole group session. The challenges of coordinating leadership during team teaching may be worth it for the benefits of collaboration, emotional support, and learning afforded by teaching together (Bullough et al., 2002).

Ownership of curriculum and instruction

Another way the field placement supported preservice teachers’ enactment of teaching practices and pedagogical theories was the lack of typical constraints associated with teaching in classrooms. Because the after-school club took place outside the school day, there was no mandated curriculum or expectations for student achievement and progress. This allowed the preservice teachers to try out the kinds of teaching practices they were learning in the university, such as multimodal composing or asset-based pedagogies, without needing to add these elements onto a prescribed curriculum. In addition, because the preservice teachers planned in full all of the activities, they had freedom to build in social time like snack time, which afforded them the opportunity to interact differently with students than they could in a regular school day with more time constraints.

That the preservice teachers had control over planning and that they were the teachers in the space, rather than visitors, allowed the preservice teachers to make in-the-moment decisions in response to student interactions. Thinking back to Kylea’s participation in the chalk activity, because the preservice teachers planned the activity, knew their goals for it, and felt agency and ownership over the activity, Natalie felt agency in the moment to change the task for Kylea in a way that met Kylea’s interests as well as the overall goal of the activity. Natalie did not need to ask a mentor teacher or even her fellow leaders for permission to make the change as she felt ownership over the planned activity. Natalie explained this agency as a key difference in this field experience from previous ones:

A lot of times you’re in a classroom, and then it’s an awkward in between of, do I have permission to talk to students? Or what am I allowed to talk to them about? How much am I actually a part of this classroom? But with this, since we are actually running the club, you don’t really have those questions of, “Am I a part of this space? Am I not? Am I just a weird in between?” And so, I think that’s the difference, you feel more connected inside it than an outsider in the classroom who comes in once a week.

Although it could be argued that the lack of constraints in the after-school space creates a context too unlike future teaching contexts, it may be that preservice teachers used the after-school field experience as a contrast to past, present, and future classroom-based field experiences, to “step back from their familiarity with schools, the roles of teacher and student, and standard curriculum within their contexts rather than accept them as assumed and naturalized practices” (Gallego, 2001, p. 321).

Connection to university

The final way the after-school club field experience supported preservice teachers’ teaching practices and pedagogical theories is the ways the club space was connected to their university coursework. In their weekly lab class, Mike supported preservice teachers in developing lessons and materials, and prompted them to draw on what they were learning in their English methods courses. This mentorship supported preservice teachers in taking pedagogical risks related to their valued pedagogical theories, such as when they took the students outside to photograph chalk drawings about the magazine’s theme of change, incorporating multimodal composing. During the after-school club, Mike and Jen provided mentoring by providing suggestions, stepping in and modeling, or prompting particular preservice teachers to take action in some way. Caden explained how this club experience was different from his previous field experiences, saying, “it’s just a totally different dynamic. You have layers of support. Again the lab is a workspace for us, to workshop things then we’ve got layers of instructors within our department working alongside of us.” Caden’s description of the kind of support he experienced participating in the after-school club illustrates how the alignment across methods courses, the lab course, and the field experience respond to Lacina and Collins-Block’s (2011) call to “make field experiences more consistent and more closely tied to program philosophy, programmatic vision, and content presented in campus courses” (p. 345).

Implications for Teacher Education

Our findings point to implications for teacher educators across multiple contexts. First, we assert that preservice teachers should be afforded opportunities to engage in field experiences that allow them to collaboratively design and facilitate learning experiences for students. While there is much to be gained from preservice teachers interacting with mentor teachers in traditional field placements, such as classroom observations or student teaching, the after-school literacy club generated new opportunities for the secondary English preservice teachers in our study to interact with and learn alongside students in a context different from their previous interactions with students in university-required field experiences. In planning, enacting, and reflecting on each of the after-school sessions, preservice teachers were able to try new teaching practices for interacting with and learning from students. For example, the snack time and workshop portions of the sessions provided opportunities for preservice teachers to develop relationships with students as they learned about their experiences through informal conversations, and sought to support their work in generating content for the magazine. The small group instruction portion of the session further afforded opportunities for preservice teachers to collaborate with and learn from one another as they navigated in-the-moment instructional decisions and enacted pedagogical theories connected to their coursework. Preservice teachers’ ability to observe one another while leading different portions of each session also provided support as they considered possibilities for teaching and learning that extended beyond their own decision making and action taking.

We encourage teacher educators to consider how they may generate similar opportunities for preservice teachers across content areas and grade levels to collaborate with peers in field placements that allow them to enact teaching practices and pedagogical theories with students. Our examination of preservice teachers’ experiences in the after-school session further points to opportunities for teacher educators to support preservice teachers in reflecting upon and analyzing their work with students in ways that could directly inform their practices from 1 week to the next. More research is needed into how these experiences can support preservice teachers in enacting culturally sustaining teaching practices (Paris, 2012). Through our analysis, we noted moments that preservice teachers, in seeking to draw on students’ interests and support students in their work, responded to students in potentially problematic ways. Further research is needed about how to reflect with preservice teachers about these moments and support them in responding differently.

Our work with secondary English preservice teachers throughout the after-school literacy club leads us to believe that providing access for preservice teachers to participate in after-school clubs as field experiences provide new ways to support their development as teachers and learners. While we imagine it is possible for some aspects of the after-school club field experiences to take place in classrooms during the formal school day, we argue the after-school context afforded time, space, and freedom from curricular mandates and standards that supported preservice teachers in designing and facilitating each session, generating opportunities for them to enact teaching practices and pedagogical theories. Certainly, challenges exist in seeking to generate these kinds of field experiences. For example, this kind of experience requires teacher educators to develop partnerships with schools and/or community-based organizations that support both the needs of the teacher preparation program, and the needs of the school and/or community. Efforts to develop such partnerships are worthy of our attention, as we continue to seek out new ways to support preservice teachers in growing as teachers and learners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express appreciation to doctoral students Mike McLane and Darshana Devarajan for their contributions to the after-school literacy club and research team.

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 iDs

Jennifer VanDerHeide

Joanne Marciano

Author Biographies

Jennifer VanDerHeide is an associate professor of English education in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University and a former public high school English teacher and literacy coach. Her work focuses on dialogic approaches to teaching writing and preservice teacher education.

Joanne Marciano is an assistant professor of English education in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University and a former New York City public high school English teacher. She is co-author with Michelle Knight-Manuel of the books Classroom Cultures: Equitable Schooling for Racially Diverse Youth and College Ready: Preparing Black and Latina/o Youth for Higher Education—A Culturally Relevant Approach.

References

Anderson

Stillman

(2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-needs schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45(2), 109–141.

Bomer

Maloch

(2019). Lessons for leaders on the preparation of literacy educators. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 259–264.

Brayko

(2013). Community-based experiences as contexts for disciplinary learning: A study of literacy teacher education outside of school. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 47–59.

Bullough

R. V.

Young

Erickson

Birrell

J. R.

Clark

D. C.

Egan

M. W.

Berrie

C. F.

Hales

Smith

(2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-experience teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68–80.

Caughlan

Juzwik

M. M.

Borsheim-Black

Kelly

Fine

J. G.

(2013). English teacher candidates developing dialogically organized instructional practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 212–246.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

S. L.

(2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.

Gallego

M. A.

(2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325.

Graves

D. H.

(1994). A fresh look at writing. Heinemann.

Grossman

P. L.

Smagorinsky

Valencia

(1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1–29.

10.

Hallman

H. L.

Burdick

M. N.

(2011). Service learning and the preparation of English teachers. English Education, 43(4), 341–368.

11.

Hoffman

J. V.

Svrcek

Lammert

Daly-Lesch

Steinitz

Greeter

DeJulio

(2019). A research review of literacy teaching and mentoring in initial teacher preparation: Toward practices that can transform teaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 233–251.

12.

Johnson

L. L.

(2018). Where do we go from here? Toward a critical race English education. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(2), 102–124.

13.

Kress

Van Leeuwen

(2001). Multimodal discourse. Oxford University Press.

14.

Lacina

Collins Block

(2011). What matters most in distinguished Literacy Teacher Education Programs? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319–351.

15.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.

16.

Macaluso

McKenzie

VanDerHeide

Macaluso

(2016). Constructing English: Pre-service ELA teachers navigating an unwieldy discipline. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 15, 174–189.

17.

Marciano

(2017). “We’re friends, we have to be in this together”: Examining the role of culturally relevant peer interactions in urban youth’s college readiness and access. The Urban Review, 49(1), 169–187.

18.

Marciano

Farver

Guenther

Wexler

Jansen

Stanulis

(2019). Reflections from the room where it happens: Examining mentoring in the moment. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(2), 134–148.

19.

Marciano

Warren

(2019). Writing toward change across Youth Participatory Action Research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(5), 485–494.

20.

McDonald

M. A.

Bowman

Brayko

(2013). Learning to see students: Opportunities to develop relational practices of teaching through community-based experiences in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 115(4), 1–14.

21.

Newell

G. E.

Gingrich

R. S.

Johnson

A. B.

(2001). Considering the contexts for appropriating theoretical and practical tools for teaching middle and secondary English. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(3), 302–343.

22.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.

23.

Pasternak

D. L.

Caughlan

Hallman

H. L.

Renzi

Rush

L. S.

(2017). Secondary English teacher education in the United States. Bloomsbury.

24.

Rogoff

(1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.

25.

Ronfeldt

Schwarz

Jacob

B. A.

(2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–46.

26.

Saldana

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

27.

Simons

Baeten

Vanhees

(2020). Team teaching during field experiences in teacher education: Investigating student teachers’ experiences with parallel and sequential teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 24–40.

28.

Smagorinsky

(2018). Literacy in teacher education: “It’s the context, stupid.” Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 281–303.

29.

Smagorinsky

Jakubiak

Moore

(2008). Student teaching in the contact zone: Learning to teach amid multiple interests in a vocational English class. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 442–454.

30.

Soslau

Gallo-Fox

Scantlebury

(2019). The promises and realities of implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 265–279.

31.

VanDerHeide

Johnson

(2020). Preservice teachers’ narratives of learning to teach from a dialogic stance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87.

32.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

33.

Watson

V. W.

(2018). Envisioning the already-present learning and literacy of youth. English Journal, 107(5), 10–13.