Professional relationships

The fourth dimension of teachers’ work, professional relationships, related directly to the stakeholders to whom pre-service teachers were responsible. That is, their students, parents, colleagues, administration, the education system and professional learning communities. It recognised the need for teachers to build positive professional

relationships with their stakeholders. This involved effective communication skills such as verbal, non-verbal and written communication, fostering inquiry, collaborative decision making and supportive classroom interactions. It included developing a classroom climate that encouraged a sense of belonging for the students and encouragement to reach their potential (Maloney & Barblett, 2003). The previous section on knowledge of learners covered the pre-service teachers’ relationships with students.

Pre-service teachers’ views about parents were found to centre around the quality of relationships with parents, meeting students’ basic needs and the role of parents in education (Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004; Sumsion, 1999). Generally, pre-service teachers believed that the quality of the teacher/parent relationship would be challenging, and were anxious about conflict and criticism. Pre-service teachers were also worried about having to meet the basic needs of students in ways that respect parents’ rights and confines. Pre-service teachers were also found to be quick to pass judgement on parents. Pre-service teachers’ understanding of the role of parents in classrooms was generally to assist the teacher. Baum and McMurray claimed that this role, as a helper, needed to be extended to include benefits for their students and parents.

Pre-service teachers’ views about their supervising (mentor) teachers identified supervising teachers as the major source of conflict, and that this conflict was more often about classroom management or a mismatch between the supervisor’s leadership style and pre-service teacher’s developmental level (Glickman & Bey, 1990). Glickman and Bey stated that pre-service teachers’ key issue with supervising teachers was

classroom management, whereas problems with university supervisors generally related to teaching skills. A number of studies reported that pre-service teachers were helped and learnt more from supervising teachers than university supervisors (Allen, 2009;

Grootenhoer, 2006). Guyton and McIntyre (1990) proposed that pre-service teachers valued being given opportunities to develop self-concepts and experiment during their practical experiences.

The Dutch study by Tigchelaar, Vermunt and Brouwer (2014) on career

switchers’ experiences of learning to teach found that pre-service teachers held different roles from their mentors. Pre-service teachers saw their mentors as having a direct teaching role—that is, giving pre-service teachers hints and advice when they saw ‘gaps’ in their knowledge about teaching. Some pre-service teachers saw the mentor’s role as guiding teaching, in which mentors built on the prior experiences of the pre- service teacher’s lesson by observation and reflection afterwards. A third role of mentors was to counsel learning by supporting the pre-service teacher as they reflected on their lessons, and grow from the experience of reflection. A final role of the mentor was to facilitate learning by being on equal terms with the pre-service teacher, creating a mutual reciprocal relationship between the mentor and pre-service teacher.

The research on relationships in professional learning communities such as universities implied relationships between pre-service teachers and teacher educators, and between fellow pre-service teachers could enhance or inhibit learning (Capraro et al., 2010). Faculty and schools acted as cultural groups, where members learnt to act and talk together in socially acceptable ways. Dinsmore and Wenger (2006) referred to this as cohorts of culture. In pre-service teacher education programs, participants had a variety of prior knowledge, peer interaction and faculty support, which worked for or against the development of a community-minded culture. Successful programs were characterised by social and academic integration through communities of learners (Tinto, 1993). There was a basic need to achieve, belong and feel significant. Positive relationships meant pre-service teachers spent more time studying together and learning from each other. Further benefits of positive relationships included the formation of

supportive peer groups and pre-service teachers became more actively involved in cooperative learning, and as a consequence of the increased time spent learning they learnt more (Koeppen, Huey, & Connor, 2000; Tinto, 1998). In essence, the teacher educators were largely responsible for the development of such learning communities by using responsive teaching techniques that focussed on negotiation and collaboration.

Dinsmore and Wenger (2006) investigated pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the important factors that contributed to their learning. Data analysis revealed clear positive and negative relationships between peers within the cohort group. The positive relationships were thought to develop because pre-service teachers were together in a minimum of four classes per semester, known as cohorts. Pre-service teachers reported getting to know each other very well, both socially and academically. Other areas significant to learning were a sense of belonging, positive consequences of working cooperatively, getting to know each other’s strengths, learning with and from one another towards a common goal; and a sense of trust and reliance on others for feedback. Peer relationships that inhibited learning were cited as peer isolation of members (i.e. cliques) and frustration when members did not ‘pull their weight’, meet scheduled demands or contribute to the group. Dinsmore and Wenger concluded that learning was enhanced by working together in an inclusive classroom situation.

In the study by Kildan et al. (2013) professional relationships were related to parent-teacher and social relations. In terms of preparation for teaching, pre-service teachers in their study felt most confident about their ability to sustain positive

relationships with parents, family and school. Hence, professional relationships between pre-service teachers, fellow classmates and teacher educators are likely to change over the course of the four years as a consequence of becoming more familiar with one another and being part of a cohort group. The nature of relationships at university, their effect and how they change will be important to my study. While practicum experiences

are more varied, the role of the mentor teacher is likely to be regarded as very important to the pre-service teachers, either having teaching and learning beliefs that align or being given some freedom to trial teaching practices and develop a teaching identity.

Thus, my study was interested in how pre-service teachers’ relationships with all stakeholders were developed, and what factors enhanced or inhibited the relationships. Pre-service teachers will also be asked about their level of confidence in professional relations and causes of concerns.