Introduction
University-based teacher education programs (TEPs) strongly connected to field placements support teacher learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006). However, some TEPs have been critiqued as ineffective in preparing new teachers to successfully implement progressive teaching practices (Fraser, 2007; Levine, 2006). This study offers a closer look at the specific structures and activities of one innovative TEP that bridged learning in the university and the field.

We examine how this TEP utilized Mediated Field Experiences (MFEs) during teacher candidates’ first quarter of a four-quarter MIT program.  Field experiences become MFEs when university instructors and partner teachers join candidates to interpret classroom events. MFEs were used to strongly connect university knowledge to the practical knowledge of learning in an urban, public school classroom.

We asked: 1) What are the university instructors’ goals for the MFEs, and how do the goals influence the methods course structure? and 2) How do the structures of the various MFEs draw on partner teacher knowledge?

Theoretical Framework
Utilizing concepts from Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Ellis, Edwards, & Smagorinsky, 2010), we conceptualize the MFE as its own activity system, and as the interaction of two activity systems, university and field, where the common object, or what is being “worked on”, is learning to teach. We utilize CHAT, because it holds that learning and development is a socially mediated activity (Roth & Lee, 2007). Through inter-institutional collaborations, such as MFEs, cultural and historical resources from different contexts are brought together to expand ways of doing and understanding complex activities, such as learning to teach (Engeström, 2001).

Secondary classrooms can be conceptualized as activity systems because they are an evolving, complex structure of mediated human behavior (Roth & Lee, 2007) intentionally designed for student learning. When a teacher candidate is placed in a classroom in a traditional field experience, the object of activity does not shift from student learning to teacher candidate learning.  This lack of shift produces contradictions in and between the two activity systems, resulting in the university-field gap. We use a CHAT perspective in order to understand how the MFE works to shift the object of activity to teacher candidate learning through its structures, goals, and practices.

Methods
We first collected data across all secondary content methods courses, including: language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and world language.  Second, in-depth data was collected around one secondary mathematics methods MFE.  Collectively, data include: 1) interviews with university faculty, practicing partner teachers, and select teacher candidates, 2) fieldnotes from observations of MFEs and methods classes, 3) videos of mathematics MFE debriefing sessions, and 4) online teacher candidate weekly reflections.  

Interviews allowed us to seek out goals, structures, experiences, and expectations of the MFEs. Interviews and observations built context for ways that MFEs used partner teacher knowledge. Data were analyzed using open coding (Merriam, 2009), which allowed themes and findings to emerge.  We further used the constant comparative method (Merriam, 2009), comparing one segment of data to another, in order to seek similarities and differences.

Results
First, we found that methods instructors had different goals for taking their students into the field for an MFE.  These goals determined the structure and activities of the various MFEs.  Second, although MFEs varied greatly in terms of structure and goals, each MFE utilized partner teacher knowledge as a way to support teacher candidate learning.  

The relationship between goals and structure.
All university instructors valued taking their teacher candidates into the field during the first quarter of the TEP. However, they chose to be in the field for different reasons. In language arts, the goal was to provide opportunities for the teacher candidates to build relationships with students from high needs backgrounds. The language arts methods course met every day at the partner school in order to develop candidates’ knowledge of community, and how that related to being a language arts teacher.  By contrast, the mathematics methods course met half on campus and half at the partner school. The MFEs were designed around the goal of shifting teacher candidates’ ideas of what it means to learn mathematics.  The observation and debriefing structure of the mathematics MFE allowed partner teachers and university instructors to “mediate” the observations of the candidates, by focusing their attention on a specific concept or practice.  

The partner teachers were intentional about aligning teaching practice with university course content.  In all cases, the goals for the MFE determined the structure in which the experience occurred. This innovative methods pedagogy worked to strengthen and bridge the teacher candidates’ field experiences with methods content.

Drawing on partner teachers’ knowledge
As secondary school teachers, partner teachers have knowledge of students as individual learners, knowledge that university instructors do not have.  For this reason, instructors in each methods course featured partner teachers’ expertise during the secondary school visits.  For example, candidates were given opportunities to debrief with partner teachers about what was observed and ask questions about the nature of teaching and learning in these classes.

The partner teachers of the math MFE were chosen because they had extensive knowledge and were experienced in implementing teaching practices aimed to promote equity and access in their classrooms, a primary focus of the methods course.  Although the structure and activities of the MFE were designed by the instructors, the partner teachers were the primary “teacher educators” during the MFE debrief.  The partner teachers began each debrief with a summary of their goals for the lesson, highlighting specific practices they implemented, and what their students understood as a result of the lesson.  The discussions of focal teaching practices (e.g. assigning competence, manipulatives) were centered on particular students in the class, drawing on what they knew about the students personally and mathematically.  Situating teaching in relationship to particular students allowed candidates to develop a more contextualized understanding of teaching practices.  

Significance
The innovative pedagogy of the methods courses in this study provided unique opportunities for teacher candidates to engage with secondary students and partner teachers in their classrooms.  Although the structures of the MFE varied depending on the goal of the MFE, all MFEs  were structured around candidate learning and drew on expert partner teacher knowledge. We found that candidates were provided opportunities to make sense of their university and field experiences within the context of an MFE.  Teacher Education needs ways to better connect teacher candidates’ university and school experiences (Zeichner, 2010).  This study reports on the way one university responded to that call.

References
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ellis, V., Edwards, A., & Smagorinsky, P. (2010). Cultural-Historical perspectives on teacher

education and development: Learning teaching. New York: Routledge.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.

Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing America's teachers : A history. New York: Teachers College Press.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation—Revised and

expanded from Qualitative research and case study applications in education, 2nd

Edition (1998). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roth, W.-M. and Y.-J. Lee (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity

theory. Review of Educational Research 77(2), 186-232.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences

in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,

61(1-2), 89-99.