This document summarizes key literature on the student teaching experience. It discusses four main aspects: personal relationships, expectations, reflective practice, and power structure. Regarding personal relationships, the relationship between the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor is important. Positive relationships can facilitate learning, while negative ones can inhibit growth. Clear expectations are also important, but studies find expectations are often unclear. Communication between all parties can help address this. Reflective practice allows student teachers to learn from their experiences. The power structure within student teaching placements influences the experience; cooperating teachers have significant influence over student teachers. Proper preparation of cooperating teachers is important to support student teachers.

1. Update
1­–8
© 2015 National Association for
Music Education
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/8755123315610386
update.sagepub.com
Article
The transition from the conceptual world of the student to
the pragmatic world of the teacher can be jarring and dif-
ficult. Researchers have found that one of the more useful
educational experiences for facilitating this transition is
that of student teaching (Brand, 1982; Conway, 2002;
Conway, Michael-Mays, & Michael-Mays, 2005; Jones,
Kelsey, & Brown, 2014; Killian, Dye, & Wayman, 2013;
Schmidt, 2010; Tabachnick, 1980). “Student teaching is
generally considered to be the most important and unify-
ing experience of music teacher training programs”
(Brand, 1982, p. 255). This key element of preservice
teacher growth has been referred to “as the most valuable
experience [student teachers] had before beginning to
teach, the time which they learned the most about being a
teacher” (Tabachnick, 1980, p. 122). Many current teach-
ers have referred to their student-teaching experience as
an influential part of the transition between being merely
a student and that of being a professional educator, and
have spoken of the impact that cooperating teachers had
on their learning (Albasheer, Khasawneh, Nabah, &
Hailat, 2008; Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen, 2014).
Relationships between the university supervisor, coop-
erating teacher, and student teacher can greatly affect pre-
service teachers’ perceptions of the student-teaching
process (Draves, 2013; Duling, 2000; Fredrickson &
Pembrook, 1999; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman,
2009; Williams et al., 1998). As such, cooperating teachers
have a central role in students’education, with the ultimate
goal of student teachers assimilating their cooperating
teacher’s professional knowledge and skills (Albasheer
et al., 2008; Clarke et al., 2014). Researchers have found
that cooperating teachers have the ability to influence not
only the basic environment, such as how much instruction
the student teacher is allowed to give, but other equally
important support aspects including emotional support and
guidance (Anderson, 2007; Valencia et al., 2009).
To provide the curricular and personal support neces-
sary to increase the effectiveness of the student-teaching
process, cooperating teachers and university supervisors
may need to be aware of the relevant concerns and be
prepared to support the student teacher (Albasheer et al.,
2008; Draves, 2013; Legette, 2013; Nesheim, Moran, &
Pendleton, 2014). Draves (2008) identified characteris-
tics needed to provide support for music student teachers,
including flexibility, communication skills, interpersonal
skills, and knowledge of the curriculum. These character-
istics served to shift focus toward the concept of teacher
education and center the experience on the growth of the
student teacher—not just on what assistance the student
teacher can provide the cooperating teacher.
610386UPDXXX10.1177/8755123315610386UpdateDenis
research-article2015
1
University of North Texas, Denton, USA
Corresponding Author:
John M. Denis, Division of Music Education, University of North
Texas, 1155 Union Circle Drive, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Email: johndenis@my.unt.edu
Key Aspects of the Student Teaching:
A Triumvirate Approach
John M. Denis1
Abstract
The transition from the conceptually focused world of the student to the professionally pragmatic world of the
teacher can be jarring and difficult. One of the more useful educational experiences for facilitating this transition is that
of student teaching. This review of literature examines the personal relationships, expectations, reflective practice,
and power structure inherent in the student-teaching experience in both general and music classroom contexts.
These facets were selected due to their prevalence in the literature and their potential impact on stakeholders’
approaches toward student teachers. Aspects of cooperating teacher preparation in light of the highlighted areas are
then discussed, with potential suggestions including communication concerns, possible cooperating teacher framework
characteristics, and balancing the conflicting nature of both the student teacher and the university supervisor.
Keywords
cooperating teachers, curriculum, practicum, preservice teachers, student teaching, teacher characteristics, university
supervisors
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2. 2 Update 
Williams et al. (1998) identified the following five
mentor functions as essential to successful student teach-
ing in the general education setting, (a) providing unre-
stricted dialogue between teachers, (b) opening the
student teacher to the perspectives of others in his or her
teaching, (c) modeling, (d) guiding through the use of
constructive feedback, and (e) a supporting the student
teacher. Many of these concerns can be distilled into key
aspects, such as the relationship between the university
supervisor, cooperating teacher, and student teacher
(Russell & Russell, 2011). The authors also referenced
the earlier work of Furlong and Maynard (1995), who
suggested that the “mentor begins by acting as a model
and moves through phases as coach, critical friend, and
co-enquirer, mirroring the progression of the student”
(Williams et al., 1998, p. 237). It has been clear in the
research and in the anecdotal experiences of educators
that the cooperating teacher has many important roles.
This review of literature examines the (a) personal
relationships, (b) expectations, (c) reflective practice, and
(d) power structure inherent in the student-teaching expe-
rience to inform new university supervisors and cooperat-
ing teachers. These facets were selected due to their
prevalence in the literature (Duling, 2000; Williams et al.,
1998) and their potential impact on stakeholders’
approaches toward student teachers (Albasheer et al.,
2008; Anderson, 2007; Butler & Cuenca, 2012; Draves,
2013; Fredrickson & Pembrook, 1999; Nesheim et al.,
2014; Russell & Russell, 2011; Valencia et al., 2009).
Aspects of cooperating teacher preparation in light of the
highlighted areas are then discussed, with potential
suggestions.
Personal Relationships
The personal relationship between the student teacher
and cooperating teacher has been found to be essential for
successful student-teaching experiences in the general
(Anderson, 2007; Williams et al., 1998) and music class-
room (Draves, 2008, 2013; Duling, 2000). General edu-
cation studies have shown that student teachers desired
patience, support, confirmation of teaching, agency, and
general encouragement from their cooperating teachers
(Nesheim et al., 2014; Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop,
2007; Sivan & Chan, 2003); in music settings, teachers
have come to expect such support (Cannon, 2002). In one
education study, both cooperating teachers and student
teachers mentioned their desire for a positive and sup-
portive relationship; however, cooperating teachers
downplayed its critical nature (Williams et al., 1998).
Unfortunately, student teachers, in both general and
music settings, have perceived experiences as more nega-
tive when differences in attitudes, beliefs, and values
between themselves and their cooperating teachers were
either present or assumed (Anderson, 2007; Butler &
Cuenca, 2012; Nesheim et al., 2014; Rajuan et al., 2007;
Schmidt, 2013). Hsu (2005) surmised that a lack of emo-
tional connection may lead some secondary education
student teachers to avoid their cooperating teachers when
seeking help, instead gravitating toward other student
teachers for assistance. Researchers have found this may
be due, in part, to cooperating teachers’ self-concept as
imparters of knowledge, giving ready-made tips and
delineating the correct and incorrect methods of teaching
instead of developing emotional connections with student
teachers (Leatham & Peterson, 2010; Rajuan et al., 2007).
Valencia et al. (2009) noted that such limited conceptual-
ization of the cooperating teacher role possibly stemmed
from the belief that student teachers were nothing more
than temporary guests, which in turn might further
impede the formation of positive relationships. Hsu
(2005) indicated that difficulties between student and
cooperating teachers may contribute to the large amount
of help student teachers sought from peers. Peer commu-
nication, however, should not be dismissed as a valid
source of support, and Bowles and Runnels (1998) sug-
gested having prescheduled times for such discussion
among music student teachers.
The quality of the relationship with the cooperating
teacher could affect student teacher success, with nega-
tive relationships inhibiting student teachers’ growth and
success or even motivating them to quit (Draves, 2008;
Russell & Russell, 2011; Williams et al., 1998).
Researchers have found that choosing pairings thought-
fully, and providing time for students and cooperating
teachers to meet before the student-teaching responsi-
bilities begin may be beneficial (Anderson, 2007;
Draves, 2013; Nesheim et al., 2014). Music education
researchers have also suggested that promoting mean-
ingful discourse about curricula, procedures, and person-
alities during meeting times could provide a foundation
for the development of positive relationships (Cannon,
2002; Draves, 2013; Stegman, 2007). Such discourse can
also provide cooperating teachers with information about
their student teachers, leading to more specificity in
mentoring styles to meet individual student needs.
Schmidt (1998) found that student teachers in music
appreciated cooperating teachers who accepted them as
developing teachers—not just students. Likewise,
researchers have found that cooperating teachers desired
proper personal and professional characteristics (such as
professional dress) from their student teachers initially in
general education (Atkinson, 2008; Leatham & Peterson,
2010; Nesheim et al., 2014; Russell & Russell, 2011) and
music research (Draves, 2008, 2013), and may be more
likely to form a bond when these characteristics are pres-
ent. “Music teacher educators must make this implicit
knowledge of effective personal and professional
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

3. Denis 3
characteristics explicit to preservice teachers. This will
ensure a positive student-teaching experience for all par-
ticipants” (Draves, 2008, p. 187).
These studies highlight the need for intentionality in
developing personal relationships between all members
of the student-teaching triumvirate. Doing so may require
setting aside assumptions, developing healthy and regular
lines of communication, and making adjustments in time
commitments. The institution may also want to provide
structures for peer communication, thus extending the
network for greater support. Further research is needed
on the efficacy and structure of potential support struc-
tures for interpersonal relationships in the music student
teacher setting.
Expectations
Growing out of personal relationships, university and
cooperating teacher expectations for student teachers ide-
ally should be clear, although researchers have found that
many expectations were not (Albasheer et al., 2008;
Cannon 2002; Clarke et al., 2014). Cannon (2002), in
identifying areas of concern in the student-teaching pro-
cess, found “the second most important area cited in the
ranking was the need for expectations of the music stu-
dent teacher to be more clearly defined prior to the stu-
dent teaching event” (p. 137). Researchers have found
that better communication between the university faculty
and the cooperating teachers improved on the under-
standing of expectations (Albasheer et al., 2008; Bowles
& Runnels, 1998; Cannon, 2002; Russell & Russell,
2011). Therefore, active and consistent preparation of
cooperating teachers has been cited as one possible
method to convey expectations (Albasheer et al., 2008;
Bowles & Runnels, 1998; Brand, 1982; Nesheim et al.,
2014; Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011).
Cooperating teachers in music have expressed the
desire for preparation and believe it should be the respon-
sibility of the university to provide preparation experi-
ences (Cannon, 2002; Williams & Soares, 2002).
Williams and Soares (2002) also noted that schools often
operate in isolation, which could make it difficult to
engage potential cooperating teachers in preparation.
Some language arts cooperating teachers have, in lieu of
formally presented expectations, resorted to reviewing
the student teachers’course syllabi (Valencia et al., 2009).
In developing and implementing a plan to meet the expec-
tations of both parties, having university supervisors,
music cooperating teachers, and student teachers be
involved as colleagues in developing a structured plan for
the student teacher has been presented as a possible solu-
tion (Bowles & Runnels, 1998; Nesheim et al., 2014).
Logistics such as start and end dates, student teacher
responsibilities, cooperating teacher expectations, and
lesson planning all can be addressed during this time.
During the development of such a plan, research has cited
the need for the cooperating teacher to be respected as an
active and important part of the education process (Bubb
& Early, 2007; Draves, 2008; Peery, 2004).
Approaches to both personal relationships and expec-
tations can often be influenced by the preexisting beliefs
of individuals (Brand, 1982; Juntunen, 2014; Nesheim
et al., 2014; Rajuan et al., 2007; Schmidt, 2008, 2013;
Stegman, 2001; Valencia et al., 2009). Jamil, Downer,
and Pianta (2012) found that personal perceptions and
beliefs influenced self-efficacy in general education
classrooms, which in turn influenced perceptions about
early teaching experiences. Researchers have remarked
that cooperating teachers may have structured their
beliefs about, and approach to, the student-teaching expe-
rience in reaction to their own time spent as student
teachers (Jamil et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2013; Valencia
et al., 2009). Prior experiences as a cooperating teacher
may have also affected the development of personal
expectations and led to a greater focus on the practical
aspects of music education (Cannon, 2002; Jones et al.,
2014; Russell & Russell, 2011).
Research findings have also revealed pragmatic con-
siderations that have been essential and highly sought
after by student teachers, such as classroom management
skills and lesson planning (Hsu, 2005; Rajuan et al.,
2007). Similarly, Rohwer and Henry (2004) found that
teacher educators’ highest rated skill for effective teach-
ing was classroom management. Madsen, Standley, Byo,
and Cassidy (1992) suggested that cooperating teacher
awareness of the differences between student teachers’
self-evaluations and the evaluations of expert teachers
could allow for more effective mentoring with regard to
student on-task behavior. Information about students,
discussing problems, dealing with crises, and many other
practical knowledge considerations may also be impor-
tant to cooperating teachers (Fredrickson & Hackworth,
2005). This can lead to the general expectation of a
guide, or helper relationship (Clarke et al., 2014; Rajuan
et al., 2007). Cannon (2002) emphasized the importance
of discussing and agreeing on proper expectations, in
spite of past situations. By making each party aware of
expectations and concerns, steps can be taken to bridge
the gap that can isolate the disparate participants (Rajuan
et al., 2007).
Due to the unique individual and institutional expecta-
tions brought to each student-teaching triumvirate, com-
munication becomes essential for success. Cooperating
and student teachers may need a clear presentation of uni-
versity expectations, possibly in written form. Similarly,
the personal relationship building between the cooperat-
ing and students teachers might benefit from time specifi-
cally dedicated to discussing individual (and campus)
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4. 4 Update 
expectations. While general pragmatic concerns and
expectations have appeared in research (Hsu, 2005;
Killian et al., 2013; Rajuan et al., 2007), additional exam-
ination of both explicit and implicit expectations, particu-
larly in the music setting, could better inform decision
making.
Reflective Practice
Researchers have shown that one of the most important
individual aspects of the student-teaching process is
reflection (Butler & Cuenca, 2012; Juntunen, 2014; Paul
et al., 2001; Williams et al., 1998). Studies have accentu-
ated the role of cooperating teachers in fostering reflec-
tion and critical thinking (Butler & Cuenca, 2012;
Schmidt, 1998; Williams & Soares, 2002) and may be
“essential to guiding the student teachers in the process of
reflective practice” (Stegman, 2007, p. 77). Similarly,
Stegman (2007) also found that student teachers in music
were more probing and thoughtful when guided by coop-
erating teachers in reflection. As such, reflection time
should be viewed as an important teaching moment, per-
haps using open discussions instead of direct lecturing to
foster critical thinking (Conway & Zerman, 2003; Grant
& Drafall, 1996; Stegman, 2001, 2007; Williams et al.,
1998). Valencia et al. (2009) noted “a lack of systematic
postlesson discussions between cooperating teachers and
student teachers” (p. 314). They defined systematic post-
lesson discussions as containing the topics: (a) manage-
ment, (b) planning, (c) procedures, (d) language arts, (e)
logistics, and (f) praise.
While the Valencia et al. (2009) study was primarily
concerned with a language arts context, such discussions
may be equally applicable in the music setting. Stegman
(1996) suggested diverse, systematic, postlesson reflec-
tion opportunities, including written journals and small
group discussions in music as an important part of suc-
cessful student teaching. Grant and Drafall (1996) found
that consistent reflective practice influenced develop-
mental growth in areas of self-critique, teaching skills,
and perceived impact on students. Schmidt (2008) pos-
ited that allotting adequate time for reflection can be dif-
ficult, particularly for music teachers, due to extra
demands on time such as traveling between campuses
during planning periods or combining planning and lunch
times. Stegman (2007) found that reflective discussions
between student teachers and their cooperating teachers
in music seemed to be most effective when:
(a) [reflection] occurred on a regular basis, (b) the student
teacher was permitted to initiate the course of the discussion,
(c) the questions and process were modified to meet specific
circumstances, (d) the cooperating teacher probed for further
inquiry, and (e) the cooperating teacher guided inquiry
toward more significant levels of reflection and offered
related experiential advice. (p. 79)
Videotaping has also been proposed as a useful
aspect of reflective practice, especially with music stu-
dent teachers, but only with reflection and feedback
provided by appropriate sources (Broyles, 1997;
Cannon, 2002; Draves, 2013). Barry (1994) found that
peer teaching, completing a self-evaluation, and journal
writing all held high ratings for reflective thought
among students in an elementary methods course. In
addition to the benefits to music instruction, Conway
et al. (2005) found reflection time helped establish bet-
ter interpersonal relationships and lower instances of
conflict between student teachers and their cooperating
teachers. Miksza and Berg (2013) called for a closer
examination of focus and quality of reflective practice
among music student teachers. This call lends credence
to the need for both cooperating teacher training and
the allocation of specific time for reflective discussion
between the student teacher and the cooperating teacher.
Studies structurally similar to Barry’s (1994) examina-
tion of reflective practices in an elementary music
methods course could be extended into the music stu-
dent-teaching experience to further understand effec-
tive approaches to reflection.
Power Structure
Power and control between cooperating and student
teachers have been noted as central causes of stress and
conflict during the student-teaching experience
(Fredrickson & Pembrook, 1999; Russell & Russell,
2011; Schmidt, 1998). Cooperating teachers often have
power or control over aspects of the student-teaching
experience, such as podium time, which in turn can influ-
ence student teachers (Fredrickson & Pembrook, 1999).
Such influence may conflict with feelings of agency and
self-determination in student teachers. Both student
teachers and cooperating teachers have been found to
straddle two worlds, each with unique and separate
motives and goals (Anderson, 2007; Smagorinsky, Cook,
Jackson, Fry, & Moore, 2004). Student teachers want to
be accepted as music educators and to meet communi-
cated expectations, but are still accountable to the univer-
sity (Draves, 2008). Cooperating teachers try to support
student teachers, but are accountable to the public school,
university, community, and their students (Anderson,
2007; Draves, 2008). Such inherent differences may be
further exacerbated by student teachers’ and cooperating
teachers’ widely varying past experiences as secondary
students (Juntunen, 2014). These separate (and some-
times conflicting) loyalties and motives are often a prime
source of tension between student teachers and
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

5. Denis 5
cooperating teachers (Anderson, 2007; Rajuan et al.,
2007; Valencia et al., 2009).
Studies have documented that sharing power can be
difficult (Anderson, 2007; Butler & Cuenca, 2012;
Rajuan et al., 2007), particularly for music teachers
(Draves, 2008). The performance aspect of a music class-
room, especially at the secondary level, has been found to
play “a role in the balance between student teacher auton-
omy and cooperating teacher intervention” (Draves,
2008, p. 153). Ultimately, the cooperating teacher main-
tains authority in the classroom. This fact might lead to a
sense of powerlessness and subservience in student
teachers in order to maintain a positive relationship with
the cooperating teacher, particularly if formal evaluations
are involved (Anderson, 2007).
Thus, striking a balance between too much restriction
and too much unsupported freedom has been found to
affect student teacher growth (Tabachnick, 1980; Valencia
et al., 2009). In a music classroom, this could mean the
cooperating teacher might allow the student teacher more
instruction, or podium time (Cannon, 2002; Fredrickson
& Pembrook, 1999). Opportunities for guided experi-
mentation, such as scaffolding, can also contribute to
growth (Valencia et al., 2009). Schmidt (2008) warned
that aggressive approaches, such as directing or teaching
students from the back of the room, could undermine
confidence and breed resentment, therefore impeding the
personal relationship so valued by student teachers. As is
the case in interpersonal matters, student teachers in
music may also need to remain willing and open to the
ideas of their cooperating teachers (Draves, 2008).
Ultimately, power structure concerns may stem from
various causes, such as miscommunications, a lack of
relational foundation between the necessary parties,
structural/logistical realities, or ego. Our understanding
of the inherent power struggles in the student-teaching
process is limited, and therefore narrowing down specific
causes may prove to be difficult at this time. Matching
student teachers with suitable cooperating teachers may
facilitate smoother resolution of power concerns.
Similarly, cooperating teacher preparation may help
inform cooperating teachers of potential power concerns.
Magaya and Crawley (2011) found that both university-
defined cooperating teacher selection criteria and any for-
mal cooperating teacher preparation were consistently
lacking. This lack was in spite of various studies that sup-
port the positive impact preparation has on the student-
teaching experience (Albasheer et al., 2008; Bowles &
Runnels, 1998; Brand, 1982; Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell
& Russell, 2011). Coupled with cooperating teachers’
expressed desire for guidance, researchers have sug-
gested that development of preparation programs for both
cooperating and student teachers would also benefit the
student teachers (Albasheer et al., 2008; Bowles &
Runnels, 1998; Cannon, 2002; Rajuan et al., 2007;
Williams & Soares, 2002).
Conclusions
There are ideas that can be gleaned from previous research
on aspects of student teaching. In order to serve not only
the young teachers from the university, but also their
future students, it may be valuable to have a clear, orga-
nized, research-based curricular approach to the student
teaching semester. Each individual university will have
specific information unique to that institution as well as
variables that constantly change, such as specific calen-
dar dates, the manner and frequency of observations, and
expectations for the duties of cooperating and student
teachers. Likewise, the cooperating teacher and his or her
unique school will have its own collection of idiosyncra-
sies. The need for a clear method of communicating this
information, however, is prevalent in the literature, with
active and consistent cooperating teacher preparation
offered as a possible solution in both general education
(Albasheer et al., 2008; Magaya & Crawley, 2011; Rajuan
et al., 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011) and music educa-
tion classrooms (Bowles & Runnels, 1998; Brand, 1982;
Cannon, 2002). Furthermore, the need for proper and
supportive personal relationships, clear expectations, reg-
ularly scheduled reflection, and a power-sharing structure
are pervasive in research in both general and music edu-
cation contexts (Anderson, 2007; Draves, 2013; Duling,
2000; Fredrickson & Pembrook, 1999; Magaya &
Crawley, 2011; Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell & Russell,
2011).
Building a framework for student teaching on the
emotional needs of student teachers, personal and profes-
sional characteristics of successful student teachers,
expectations from all parties, reflection practices, and
power sharing concerns might increase positive percep-
tions of student teaching (Anderson, 2007; Bowles &
Runnels, 1998; Cannon, 2002; Fredrickson & Hackworth
2005). Cannon (2002) stated that,
understanding of the expectations of the music student
teacher during the practicum, the setting of common criteria
for evaluation, the structure of the practicum, and the
procedures to be followed were all considered to be very
important issues in the present study. (p. 154)
Draves (2008) found several implications for practice,
such as the importance of matchmaking between cooper-
ating and student teachers, intentional opportunities to
interact and reflect on teaching and learning, and the
potential benefits of cooperating teacher training.
In designing a curriculum for possible cooperating
teacher preparation, faculty might find it useful to have
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6. 6 Update 
multiple activities prepared to allow for adjustments dur-
ing the day to accommodate different levels of experience
and beliefs among cooperating teachers. Without a
quickly established feeling of respect and collaboration,
cooperating teachers have been found to be much less
likely to engage in cooperating teacher preparation (Bubb
& Early, 2007; Peery, 2004). Reticence to attend or to
absorb content could be further aggravated by the various
ages, levels of experience, and educational paths of the
cooperating teachers. In an attempt to mitigate these fac-
tors, investing in time to build relationships with cooper-
ating teachers may be helpful. Once a relationship has
been established, university faculty could make contact
by inviting all cooperating teachers to the training, stress-
ing the importance of creating the best environment for
the student teacher. If any incentives would be offered,
such as continuing education credit or resource texts, they
could be touted after communication had been estab-
lished. Unfortunately, due to concerns such as schedul-
ing, it can be very difficult to have complete cooperating
teacher attendance. Videoconferencing sessions or prepa-
ration videos might be possible ways to offset attendance
problems.
Including student teachers themselves in the process
might also help build trust in their cooperating teachers
and university supervisors, as well as providing an under-
standing of the student-teaching process. This could
begin in the course structure, leading up to student teach-
ing by drawing specific connections between course cur-
riculum and likely student-teaching experiences. Field
experiences and peer teaching prior to student teaching
may also help preservice teachers develop a greater con-
text for thinking about their own teaching, educational
needs, and growth (Conway, 2002; Schmidt, 2010). These
preservice experiences offer opportunities to expose stu-
dents to various reflective practices and to foster com-
munication skills in questioning themselves, peers, or
authority figures.
Similarly, field and peer teaching can provide oppor-
tunities for students to express their own thoughts about
teaching experiences. Method class coursework can be
intrinsically and meaningfully relevant to the develop-
ment of skills necessary for student teachers to have suc-
cess during student teaching. The core aspects of
personal relationships, expectations, reflective prac-
tices, and power sharing could also be addressed through
various formal activities, such as discussions between
the cooperating and student teacher or learning activi-
ties in a preparation session. For example, the cooperat-
ing and student teachers could examine case studies to
consider how each would address a situation. During
this activity, personal relationships may develop, expec-
tations for handling potential situations may be dis-
cussed, and power concerns may surface. By having
both cooperating and student teachers interact, either
individually or in a preparation session, it can be possi-
ble to create a foundation for interaction, communica-
tion, reflection, and power sharing that might facilitate
both a smoother transition and greater growth for the
student teacher. Variable information, such as calendar
dates, observation specifics, and university expectations,
can be adjusted as needed inside the overall framework
of the preparation protocol for each separate institution,
and these components can be presented during the train-
ing session.
To further encourage the development of the profes-
sional relationship between student and cooperating
teachers, interaction outside of the formal schedule could
be encouraged. This would allow for the various parings
of the triumvirate of student teacher, cooperating teach-
ing, and university supervisor to lay interpersonal foun-
dations that in turn may allow for more effective
participation in the process of student teaching. The
informal quality of such interactions may also help create
a better understanding of the collaborative nature of stu-
dent teaching and to build the personal relationships nec-
essary for success. As with cooperating teacher training,
various potential conflicts could hinder the effectiveness
of outside interactions, particularly for those who student
teach in fall semesters, due to differences such as institu-
tional calendars or work schedules. For those who are not
local residents, the difficulty in managing travel and liv-
ing arrangement may also be a hindrance.
In their roles as both supervisors and colleagues, uni-
versity faculty members maintain a challenging position.
Specific pedagogical and curricular decisions remain
under the purview of cooperating teachers; however, stu-
dent teachers must meet institutional requirements to
graduate. Therefore, faculty members are called to strike
a delicate balance between the roles of mentor, supervi-
sor, and colleague with both student and cooperating
teachers. Open communication can provide necessary
groundwork for developing the properly differentiated
balance for each combination of student and cooperating
teacher. In this vein, asking questions about expectations,
beliefs, and logistics might be helpful for both informa-
tion gathering and establishing rapport. Building relation-
ships with potential cooperating teachers outside of the
student-teaching experience may also help facilitate stu-
dent teacher placements and general communication.
Breaching the perceived gap between practitioners and
the ivory tower can create a better overall environment
for the student teacher. Ultimately, the university supervi-
sor role is one of service, attempting to help both the stu-
dent and cooperating teachers have the most effective
experience.
Ideally, all three members of the triumvirate invest in
maximizing the necessary aspects of the student-teaching
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7. Denis 7
process to allow for success. Research has highlighted
topic areas for possible consideration in helping develop
the relational bonding that often characterizes successful
student-teaching experiences. Increased awareness of the
(a) personal relationships, (b) expectations, (c) reflective
practice, and (d) power structure may help improve music
educators’ approach to student teaching.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Sean Powell and Dr. Michelle Herring
for their guidance and feedback in the creation of this article.
Author’s Note
John M. Denis is currently a doctoral student at University of
North Texas.
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.
References
Albasheer, A., Khasawneh, S., Nabah, A. A., & Hailat, S.
(2008). Perceptions of student teachers towards the effec-
tiveness of co-operating teachers, school principals and
university supervisors participating in the teacher educa-
tion program in Jordan. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 27, 693–705. doi:10.1080/02601370802408340
Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers’ power
in student teaching. Education, 128, 307–323.
Atkinson, B. (2008). Apple jumper, teacher babe, and bland
uniformer teachers: Fashioning feminine teacher bodies.
Educational Studies, 44, 98–121.
Barry, N. H. (1994, November). Promoting reflective practice
among undergraduate education majors in an elemen-
tary music methods course. Paper presented at the Annual
MeetingoftheMid-SouthEducationalResearchAssociation,
Nashville, TN. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/con-
tentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED388641
Bowles, C. L., & Runnels, B. D. (1998). The need for collabo-
ration in the student teaching experience. Journal of Music
Teacher Education, 8(1), 15–24.
Brand, M. (1982). Effects of student teaching on the classroom
management beliefs and skills of music student teachers.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 255–265.
doi:10.2307/3345299
Broyles, J. W. (1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role
development of student teachers in music (Doctoral disser-
tation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 9728706)
Bubb, S., & Early, P. (2007). Leading and managing continu-
ing professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Paul
Chapman.
Butler, B. M., & Cuenca, A. (2012). Conceptualizing the roles
of mentor teachers during student teaching. Action in
Teacher Education, 34, 296–308.
Cannon, R. M. (2002). Music student teaching in Texas: A
Delphi study of issues in the new millennium (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3076235)
Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating
teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the
literature. Review of Educational Research, 84, 163–202.
Conway, C. (2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers,
their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice
music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 50, 20–36. doi:10.2307/3345690
Conway, C. M., Michael-Mays, C., & Michael-Mays, L.
(2005). A narrative study of student teaching and the
first year of teaching: Common issues and struggles.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
165, 65–77.
Conway, C. M., & Zerman, T. (2003). Perceptions of an instru-
mental music teacher regarding mentoring, induction,
and the first year of teaching. Research Studies in Music
Education, 22, 72–83.
Draves, T. J. (2008). Nurturing our future colleagues:
Cooperating music teachers’ relationships with their student
teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3312680)
Draves, T. J. (2013). Transition from student to teacher–student
teaching:Thecapstoneexperience.JournalofMusicTeacher
Education, 23(1), 50–62. doi:10.1177/1057083712474935
Duling, E. (2000). Student teachers’ descriptions and percep-
tions of their mentors. Update: Applications of Research in
Music Education, 19(1), 17–21.
Fredrickson, W. E., & Hackworth, R. S. (2005). Analysis of
first-year music teachers’ advice to music education
students. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 23(2), 4–11. doi:10.1177/8755123305023002
0102
Fredrickson, W. E., & Pembrook, R. G. (1999). “I got to teach
all day!” Perceptions of student teachers. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 36–40.
Grant, J. W., & Drafall, L. E. (1996, April). Developmental
thinking in the student teaching experience. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
Hsu, S. (2005). Help-seeking behaviour of student teach-
ers. Educational Research, 47, 307–318. doi:10.1080/
00131880500287716
Jamil, F. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Association
of pre-service teachers’ performance, personality, and
beliefs with teacher self-efficacy at program completion.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4), 119–138.
Jones, C. K., Kelsey, K. D., & Brown, N. R. (2014). Climbing
the steps toward a successful cooperating teacher/student
teacher mentoring relationship. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 55(2), 33–47. doi:10.5032/jae.2014.02033
Juntunen, M. L. (2014). Teacher educators’ visions of pedagog-
ical training within instrumental higher music education.
A case in Finland. British Journal of Music Education, 31,
157–177. doi:10.1017/S0265051714000102
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8. 8 Update 
Killian, J. N., Dye, K. G., & Wayman, J. B. (2013). Music
student teachers pre-student teaching concerns and
post-student teaching perceptions over a 5-year period.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 63–79.
doi:10.1177/0022429412474314
Leatham, K. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2010). Secondary mathemat-
ics cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the purpose of stu-
dent teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
13, 99–119. doi:10.1007/s10857-009-9125-0
Legette, R. M. (2013). Perceptions of early-career school music
teachers regarding their preservice preparation. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 32(1), 12–
17. doi:10.1177/8755123313502342
Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., Byo, J. L., & Cassidy, J. W.
(1992). Assessment of effective teaching by instru-
mental music student teachers and experts. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 10(2), 20–24.
doi:10.1177/875512339201000206
Magaya, A., & Crawley, T. (2011). The perceptions of school
administrators on the selection criteria and training of
cooperating teachers; Strategies to foster collaboration
between universities public schools. International Journal
of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(2). Retrieved
from http://cnx.org/content/m38306/1.2/
Miksza, P., & Berg, M. H. (2013). A longitudinal study of
preservice music teacher development application and
advancement of the Fuller and Bown teacher-concerns
model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 44–62.
doi:10.1177/0022429412473606
Nesheim, N. E., Moran, C. M., & Pendleton, M. (2014). Building
bridges: How to increase the efficacy of teacher mentors and
student-teacher programs. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 17(3), 48–58. doi:10.1177/1555458914543376
Paul, S. J., Teachout, D. J., Sullivan, J. M., Kelly, S. N., Bauer,
W. I., & Raiber, M. A. (2001). Authentic-context learn-
ing activities in instrumental music teacher education.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 136–145.
doi:10.2307/3345865
Peery, A. (2004). Deep change: Professional development from
the inside out. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The role of the
cooperating teacher: Bridging the gap between the expecta-
tions of cooperating teachers and student teachers. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15, 223–242.
Rohwer, D., & Henry, W. (2004). University teachers’ per-
ceptions of requisite skills and characteristics off effec-
tive music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education,
13(2), 18–27. doi:10.1177/10570837040130020104
Russell, M. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships:
Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on mentoring student
interns. The Professional Educator, 35(2). Retrieved from
http://www.theprofessionaleducator.org/articles/com-
bined%20spring_11.pdf
Schmidt, M. (1998). Defining “good” music teaching: Four stu-
dent teachers’ beliefs and practices. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 138, 19–46.
Schmidt, M. (2008). Mentoring and being mentored: The story
of a novice music teacher’s success. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 635–648. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.015
Schmidt, M. (2010). Learning from teaching experience:
Dewey’s theory and preservice teachers’ learning.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 131–146.
doi:10.1177/0022429410368723
Schmidt,M.(2013).Transitionfromstudenttoteacher:Preservice
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Music Teacher
Education, 23(1), 27–49. doi:10.1177/1057083712469111
Sivan, A., & Chan, D. W. K. (2003). Supervised teaching
practice as a partnership process: Novice and experienced
student-teachers’ perceptions. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 11, 183–193.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Jackson, A. Y., Fry, P. G.,
& Moore, C. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach:
Accommodation and the development of a teaching iden-
tity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8–24.
Stegman, S. F. (1996). An investigation of secondary choral
music student teachers’ perceptions of instructional suc-
cesses and problems as they reflect on their music teach-
ing (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9624737)
Stegman, S. F. (2001). Perceptions of student teachers in sec-
ondary choral classrooms. Journal of Music Teacher
Education, 11(1), 12–20.
Stegman, S. F. (2007). An exploration of reflective dialogue
between student teachers in music and their cooperating
teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 65–
82. doi:10.1177/002242940705500106
Tabachnick, B. R. (1980). Intern-teacher roles: Illusion,
disillusion and reality. Journal of Education, 162(1),
122–137.
Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P.
(2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost
opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education,
60, 304–322. doi:10.1177/0022487109336543
Williams, A., & Soares, A. (2002). Sharing roles and responsi-
bilities in initial teacher training: Perceptions of some key
players. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 91–107.
Williams, E. A., Butt, G. W., Gray, C., Leach, S., Marr, A., &
Soares, A. (1998). Mentor’s use of dialogue within a sec-
ondary initial teacher education partnership. Educational
Review, 50, 225–239.
at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on January 7, 2016upd.sagepub.comDownloaded from