Instruction Theory and Instructional Practice: One World, Not Two

As a mentor teacher in the Social Studies Educator Preparation Program, I host pre-student teachers at Scarlett Middle School. From that experience I can tell that student-teaching interns feel like they live in two worlds at once: university coursework, where instructional theory and best practices are discussed, and the classroom, where teaching unfolds in real time with real students. Not only can they feel separate, but also unconnected. This tension led me to my central research question: How can we help student teaching interns make connections between their university coursework and their student teaching experiences? To begin exploring this question, I started by reaching out to University of Michigan faculty whose work sits at the intersection of coursework and field experience.

My first conversation was with Darin Stockdill, who has taught the literacy and methods courses for U of M interns pursuing Social Studies certification—the same group of Social Studies student teaching interns I work with in my classroom. I shared my observations that, as a mentor teacher, I often notice interns struggling to make connections between their university coursework and their fieldwork placements. Darin echoed that this was a persistent challenge he had also observed. As we talked, we repeatedly returned to the importance of communication among mentor teachers, field instructors, and university faculty, particularly the need for a shared vocabulary for naming instructional practices. We discussed the potential of identifying a core set of instructional practices, developing consistent language around those practices, and then creating opportunities for interns to see these practices in action. Examples of practices we named included designing learning experiences with attention to problem-framing, scaffolding disciplinary content, using instructional practices aligned with the discipline, facilitating small-group work, accommodating learning differences, and cultivating student-centered classroom environments. At the same time, we acknowledged a significant challenge: U of M student teaching interns are placed across different grade levels, classrooms, and teaching contexts, which complicates efforts to standardize language and experiences. While developing a shared set of instructional practices and common language with mentor teachers felt feasible, we recognized that it would be unrealistic to expect those practices to align perfectly with the specific curriculum being taught in every field placement at any given moment.

Next, I spoke with Kevin Hankinson, who coordinates field placement sites for secondary teaching interns at Michigan. Kevin shared research that emphasized the importance of not only helping interns make connections between their university coursework and field placement experiences, but also supporting them in taking an active role in implementing instructional practices from their coursework within their field placements. The first study was a case analysis of a graduate-level teacher preparation program in Australia. Interviews with graduate students revealed that they found their fieldwork most meaningful when it aligned with the methodologies being discussed in their university coursework. The second article emphasized the importance of student teaching experiences that intentionally move interns from peripheral participation—such as observing, helping, and complying—toward legitimate participation, including co-planning, instructional decision-making, and ownership of classroom practice. Together, this research highlighted the need for explicit structures, such as mentoring, shared language between university and school contexts, and intentional opportunities for reflection, to support interns in making this transition. Again, the challenge that emerged was ensuring that the methodologies discussed at a particular moment in the seminar could be meaningfully implemented in the classroom without disrupting the flow of the curriculum.

These conversations also made me think back to the embedded courses that were a key part of my coursework during the ELMAC program at U of M. Embedded courses solve the problem of ensuring alignment between university coursework and fieldwork placements. The nature of embedded courses requires close collaboration between mentor teachers and U of M faculty. U of M faculty can identify the relevant core instructional practices that interns will experience and align the scope and sequence of university coursework with what interns will be experiencing in the classroom. U of M faculty can also collaborate with mentor teachers to create teaching assignments for interns that allow them to plan lessons that utilize core instructional practices without disrupting the curriculum.

Thinking about those experiences has me feeling inspired to explore how I might be part of an embedded course at U of M myself. I want to connect with faculty—ideally those teaching the methods or literacy courses that my current Social Studies interns are enrolled in—to design a learning experience where interns can see, practice, and lead lessons using the instructional practices from their coursework.