Student Teachers' Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Practicum and Practicum Supervisors

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Ajman University Network of Science and Technology Journal, Volume 15, Issue 2, 2010

7

Student Teachers' Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Practicum and Practicum Supervisors

Dr. Amin Abdullah AL-Mekhlafi [email protected] Ajman University of Science and Technology Faculty of Education and Basic Sciences

ABSTRACT The practicum experience of each individual student teacher (ST) is influenced

by a multitude of integrated and interrelated factors. These include, but not limited to, the

host school environment, the duration period of practicum, the university supervisors (USs),

the cooperating teachers (CTs), and the nature of feedback STs receive. To shed some light

on the effectiveness of practicum and practicum supervision on STs' practicum experience,

researchers need to uncover the multi faceted nature of such factors and investigate their

impact on the success or failure of STs' practicum experiences. To this end, the current study

has investigated the perceptions of 158 female undergraduate STs majoring in teaching

English as a foreign language on the effectiveness of practicum and practicum supervision

on shaping STs' practicum experiences. It also investigates whether or not there are any

significant differences in the effectiveness of USs and CTs. The results of the study have

shown that STs had positive perceptions towards most of the factors in question. At the same

time, some significant differences in the STs' perceptions have been found in relation to the

effectiveness of USs and CTs. The findings have further confirmed the importance of

continuously evaluating the effectiveness of practicum factors for the improvement and

development of practicum, practicum supervision, and teacher education programs.

mailto:[email protected]


8

1. INTRODUCTION

Practicum is a vital stage in the preparation of prospective teachers. It provides them with real

teaching opportunities where they can put into practice the theoretical knowledge they have

acquired during their course of study and interact with the complexities and intricacies of the

school environment (Yost, et al. 2000; Ganser, 2002; Haigh et al. 2006). Consequently, it

ought to have a great impact on STs' learning/teaching experience. For this reason, teacher

preparation programs, as expressed by several researchers such as Darden, et al. (2001),

Woods and Weasmer (2003), Smith and Lev-Ari (2005), and Andrew (2007), devote a

considerable portion of the curriculum to the art of teaching pedagogy. Thus, practicum is

regarded by several researchers (Ganser, 1996; Koskela and Ganser, 1998; Darden, et al.

2001; Haigh et al. 2006; Wilson, 2006) as the capstone in any teacher preparation program.

There is a critical need, especially in the Arab region, for a body of knowledge on the

effectiveness of practicum, the appropriateness of host schools, the adequacy of the duration

period of practicum, the effectiveness of practicum supervisors, and the consistency and

nature of feedback STs receive. Investigating complex issues as such may shed greater

insights into the complex nature of practicum, enable educators to gain better understanding

of it, and help to find various ways to improve the level of practicum effectiveness.

Furthermore, the accumulation of such a body of knowledge would help to restructure and

develop not only the practicum, but also the teacher education programs themselves since

they are the melting-pots where the professional make up of prospective teachers is molded.

To this end, this study has been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of some of the

various practicum factors. A 25 item closed-ended questionnaire was distributed to 158 TEFL

female STs to seek answers to the following research questions:

1. To what extent do the participants believe that they have benefited from practicum and

practicum supervisors?

2. To what extent do the participants believe that the duration period of practicum is adequate?

3. To what extent do the participants believe that the host school environment is appropriate?

4. What are the profiles of the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness of university supervisors?


9

5. What are the profiles of the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness of cooperating teachers?

6. To what extent do the participants believe that they have received consistent feedback and guidance from both practicum supervisors?

7. Are there any significant differences in the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness of university supervisors and cooperating teachers?

2. PRACTICUM AT THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Practicum is the culmination stage of a four-year course of study in the TEFL program at

Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST). AUST, through the Training Unit,

ensures that STs are provided with school environment where they can put into practice what

they have learned throughout their course of study. The College of Education at AUST adopts

an approach to practicum in which STs join schools for a full semester (16 weeks). Practicum

unfolds into a five-stage project. The first stage is an orientation stage that lasts for two weeks

spent at the campus. During this stage, STs are familiarized with the practicum program: its

objectives, the supervisors' roles and responsibilities, STs' rights and duties, host schools, the

curriculum, and the evaluation process. STs are also engaged during this stage in micro-

teaching and/or watching and evaluating actual teaching lessons using video episodes. The

orientation stage is followed by an observation stage which also lasts for two weeks. STs,

herein, join the host schools for the first time where they are acquainted with the school

environment, textbooks, policies, and facilities. Each ST, at this stage, is assigned to a

particular cooperating teacher. STs are expected to attend classes in their specialization with

their US and then join in for discussion and feedback sessions. The third stage, the partial

teaching stage, starts at the 5th week and lasts for two weeks, too. STs are expected to

gradually get into partial teaching, analyze particular lesson contents, prepare daily lesson

plans, and teach certain parts of particular lessons. The full-lesson teaching stage begins at the

eighth week and extends over eight weeks. During this time, STs are supposed to assume full

responsibilities just like other regular teachers. They are expected to takeover full-period

teachings, attend meetings, and participate in most school activities. During this stage, the

USs and CTs are required to make a number of observation visits to oversee the STs' teaching


10

performance and hold periodical feedback sessions to discuss the strengths and pitfalls of their

performance. Then, each supervisor is required to make at least two evaluation visits during

which s/he evaluates the ST's performance. The final week of practicum comprises the

feedback stage in which STs together with the USs get back to the campus. During this week,

a number of feedback sessions are held to discuss: the effectiveness of practicum, the

problems and difficulties STs have faced during practicum, as well as suggestions and

recommendations for development and improvement of future practicum experiences.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 School Environment and Practicum Duration

Most teacher preparation programs entail that STs should spend a sufficient period of time in

host schools where they can be provided with opportunities to put into practice what they

have learned at college and consequently attain a greater understanding of the teaching

environment and acquire solid knowledge of the various aspects of teaching. Research has

shown that the nature of the school environment (Edwards and Protheroe, 2003) and the

duration of practicum (McCullick, 2001) play a very significant role in the success or failure

of the STs' practicum experiences. Despite this assertion, some other researchers (see Hickson

et al., 2006) have conjectured that the length of practicum may have nothing to do with its

quality.

3.2 Practicum Supervisors The effectiveness of practicum supervisors depends on the nature of the roles and

responsibilities they play (Adey and Speedy, 1993; Kettle and Sellars, 1996; Hawkey, 1997,

1998; Sandholtz and Shannon, 2000; Baniabdelrahman, 2004). Such roles and responsibilities

have changed in the last few years as stated clearly in the practicum manuals of most teacher

education programs and shown, in practice, by various research studies (e.g., Zeichner, 2002).

Additionally, practicum supervisors, in recent years, are no longer being looked at as testing

forces, but rather as facilitators, promoters, guides, and important sources of emotional

support (Wallace, 1991; Beck and Kosnik, 2000, 2002; Levin and Rock, 2003; Caires and

Almeida, 2007). They are also counted as valuable resources available for STs to refer to

whenever they need. This requires practicum supervisors to adopt a coaching approach in


11

which they lead the STs into a productive teaching/learning process throughout the training

period. In this approach, STs are valued and provided with encouraging gestures, constant

emotional and professional support (Smith and Ardle, 1994; Beck and Kosnik, 2000, 2002;

Hamman et al. 2006; Caires and Almeida, 2007). Valuing STs’ contribution to the overall

practicum process may encourage STs to experiment with new pedagogical ideas, as indicate

by Talvitie, et al. (2000).

A number of research studies have examined the participants' perceptions of the ideal

qualities and behaviors of practicum supervisors. In a study done by Allan and Jan (1996), the

researchers have investigated the actual and the ideal professional, procedural, and personal

characteristics of USs. They have concluded that being fair, consistent, approachable, and

supportive are among the most desirable characteristics. Their study has also shown, among

other things, that practicum supervisors should be keen in developing STs' experience,

providing STs with constructive feedback, sharing their experiences with STs, providing them

with constructive advice and effective communication skills, etc. Similar findings have also

been found in Edwards (1987). The study comes up with a list of the most highly valued ten

characteristics. Some of which are: attentive listening, establishing rapport, providing

constructive feedback and support, showing awareness of STs' progress, demonstrating

knowledge of practicum requirements, and encouraging self-evaluation during feedback

discussions.

In an extensive study on 1104 participants done by Enz et al. (1996), the researchers have

generated a comprehensive description of the essential functions USs should play as

perceived by STs, CTs, and USs themselves. The findings have shown that USs are expected

to play three distinctive roles as mentors, professional resources, and interpreters. Among the

USs most important functions are: 1) observing STs while teaching actual lessons; 2)

providing them with feedback; 3) providing them with appropriate moral support and

encouragement; 4) providing them with instructional advice that enhances their teaching

experiences; and 5) helping in solving conflicts that might face STs in their course of training.

STs spend most of the time with CTs more than they do with USs since CTs are available

most of the time at the host school. Thus, CTs, as indicated by several researchers such as

Castillo (1971), Copas (1984), Grimmett and Ratzlaff, (1986), and Hamman et al. (2006), are


12

expected to help STs adjust to the host school, allow them access to all teaching resource

materials, discuss with them planning and evaluating various learning experiences, engage

them in conferencing regarding their teaching performance, and evaluate their progress and

development based on regular observation and feedback. Thus, CTs' influence on STs'

performance ought to be paramount and goes beyond classroom pedagogical practices

(Woods and Weasmer, 2003). In other words, STs are expected to learn from the ways CTs

deal with everyday issues at school such as meeting students' parents, dealing with others at

school, and even in self-posting: clothing, language, and conduct (Dobbins, 1996; Haigh and

Ward, 2004).

3.3 Feedback Feedback is considered an essential element in the development of STs' professional,

personal, and procedural skills. The nature and the frequency of feedback have a great impact

on the development of STs' practicum experience. In this sense, consistent feedback is very

significant whereas inconsistent guidance, as indicated by Zeichner (1990), is a sign of

weakness in practicum and its impact is damaging to STs' experience. In addition, other

research studies such as Bourke (2001) have stressed that it is not enough to give STs an oral

feedback since it could be forgotten and in that sense will not bring about the desirable

outcomes. Therefore, practicum supervisors should engage STs in what Bourke (2001) calls

task-based approach in which all participants are engaged in face to face interaction that

focuses on discursive scaffolding rather than right and wrong judgments. In a similar line,

Gaffery and Porter (1990) and Hawkey (1998) constant communication and common frames

of reference amongst practicum supervisors are very critical for consistent feedback which,

consequently, results in stability and assurance for STs and success in practicum.

The above studies have led, at least, to two conclusions. First, they stress that USs and CTs

are key participants in practicum and their effectiveness on practicum plays a great role in the

success or failure of STs' practicum experiences. Second, they have shown the importance of

investigating the effectiveness of practicum not only from the supervisors and/or

administrators' perspectives, but also from the perspectives of the STs themselves since they

are the ones who are immediately positively or negatively influenced by the overall practicum


13

experience and could give an accurate account of practicum. Therefore, the current research

study has made this as the sole focal point of investigation.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The overall experience of STs during practicum is a byproduct of the interaction between all

factors directly or indirectly related to practicum such as: the school environment, STs

themselves, practicum supervisors, practicum administrators, the length of practicum period,

etc. These factors individually and/or collectively play a significant role in the success or

failure of STs' practicum experience. Using descriptive statistics, the current study

investigates the effectiveness of certain practicum factors on STs' practicum experiences.

4.1 Questionnaire Development In order to answer the research questions mentioned earlier, a 25 item Likert-type

questionnaire was developed to collect data pertaining to STs' perceptions of those practicum

factors delineated in the research questions. The perception measures were formed in

statements to which the participants were asked to rate their perceptions on a five-point scale

ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The questionnaire was given to three

experts in TEFL and education to check its content and face validity. Based on their

comments and suggestions a second version was created and administered to a group of STs

(N=26) to rectify any difficulties the respondents had and at the same time to re-check face

and content validity. Some minor changes were made and a final version of the instrument

containing 25 items was created. Copies of the final draft were distributed to 158 female

TEFL STs during the last weeks of practicum in the second semester of the academic year

2006-2007. 109 copies were collected constituting a 69% return rate. The reliability of the

questionnaire was measured using Guttman split-half correlation analysis. A 0.83 reliability

estimate was achieved using Unequal-length Spearman Brown Prophecy Correction Formula.

4.2 Participants

The participants were in the fourth and final year of their study in the TEFL undergraduate

program at AUST. They joined practicum since they had already completed 105 or more

credit hours and took the required courses in the art of pedagogy. The university supervisors


14

randomly placed the STs into 20 UAE schools in three major educational zones (Sharja,

Ajman, and Fujairah). STs were also assigned to cooperating teachers immediately after they

arrived at the host schools. They were also allowed to register for some courses at the college

in the afternoon period. The USs were supposed to visit STs sporadically (once a week)

whereas CTs' supervision of the STs was almost daily. The STs' final evaluation grade was

divided as follows: 70 % for USs, 20% for CTs, 10% for school principal.

4.3 The Significance Of The Study

Teacher education programs assign great human and material resources for practicum every

year to guarantee its success and effectiveness. Thus, research studies in this area are of great

importance and value for teacher education programs, practicum, practicum supervisors, and

prospective teachers themselves. Such studies help educators and program designers make

sound decisions related to practicum and practicum supervision and base such professional

decisions on solid grounds. Therefore, the need for more research studies on the effectiveness

of practicum and practicum supervision continues to be necessary especially for those studies

that investigate the perceptions of the STs themselves since they are the immediate

beneficiaries of practicum. Consequently, the current study is expected to add to the creation

of a body of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of practicum and practicum supervisors.

It could also be a source for the development of practicum, the re-conceptualization of

practicum supervision, and the further research activities.

4.4 Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study include, but not limited to, the scope and size of the sample and

the methodology of data collection. All the participants in the current study are of one major

(i.e., TEFL) and the research methodology is limited to the use of closed-ended questionnaire.

Thus, triangulation of the findings is necessary for future studies and this requires the

employment of other research methodologies such as interviews, observation, document

analysis, and the use of open-ended questionnaires.


15

5 RESULTS

The data was computed using SPSS analysis and the results are displayed in Tables (1-12)

below. Each table contains numerical summaries of the participants' perceptions of each

specific parameter. These figures facilitate understanding of the range of responses to each

parameter and allow comparing the participants' responses. Means, minimums, maximums,

standard deviations, and sometimes percentages are used to present the results and provide

answers to the research questions outlined earlier. The following section is a presentation of

the results.

5.1 The Overall Benefit from Practicum and Practicum Supervisors

To what extent do the participants believe that they have benefited from practicum and

practicum supervisors? The benefit was measured by the overall benefit STs obtained from

the overall practicum experience, the USs, and the CTs. The means and small standard

deviations shown in Table 1 indicate that the majority of the participants have high and

positive perceptions towards these three factors.

Table 1: The Overall Benefit of Student Teachers from Practicum and Practicum Supervisors

N0. % Min Max M SD Overall Practicum

University Supervisors

Cooperating Teachers

109

108

108

100

94.5

92.6

4.00

2.00

1.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.68

4.60

4.44

.47

.64

.74 5.2 The Sufficiency of the Practicum Duration Period

To what extent do the participants believe that the duration period of practicum is adequate?

As illustrated in Table 2, the participants' perception of the adequacy of the practicum

duration period shows a slightly low rating compared to the ratings of the other factors. The

duration period of practicum has received a statistical value of (M=3.63, SD=1.29) which is

still higher than the benchmark average (M=3.0). However, about one quarter of the

participants (22.2%) have indicated a negative perception about the adequacy of the practicum

period and about 10.2% of the respondents were unsure of their perception.


16

Table2. The Adequacy of Practicum Duration Period

N0. % Min Max M SD Practicum Duration Period 108 67.6 1.00 5.00 3.63 1.29

5.3 The Appropriateness of Host School Environment

To what extent do the participants believe that the host school environment is appropriate?

General and specific statements about the host school environment: its appropriateness, the

availability of teaching resources, the number of opportunities available for STs to teach, and

the general atmosphere at school as presented by CTs are used to measure the appropriateness

of the host school environment. The statistical figures shown in Table 3 indicate that the

majority of the participants have high and positive perceptions about the appropriateness of

the host school environment.

Table 3: The Appropriateness of the Host School Environment

N0. % Min Max M SD

Appropriateness of School Environment 109 93.1 2.50 5.00 4.39 .52

5.4 University Supervisors' Effectiveness

What are the profiles of the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness of university

supervisors? Nine items have been designed to collect data to answer the fourth question. As

shown in Table 4, the effectiveness of USs obtained a significant statistical value of M=4.5

and SD=.54. These figures indicate that most STs have positive perceptions regarding the

influence of USs on their practicum experience.

Table 4: University Supervisors' Effectiveness on Student Teachers' Practicum Experience

N0. % Min Max M SD

University Supervisors' Effectiveness

109 2.44 5.00 4.5 .54


17

5.5 Cooperating Teachers' Effectiveness

What are the profiles of the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness of cooperating

teachers? Table 5 summarizes the overall participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of CTs

on STs' practicum experience. As shown in Table 5, the SPSS analysis has resulted in a

significant statistical value (M=4.24, SD= .63). These statistical values are indications of the

positive perception that most STs have regarding the impact of the CTs on STs' practicum

experience.

Table 5: Cooperating Teachers' Effectiveness on Student Teachers' Practicum Experience

N0. Min Max M SD

Cooperating Teachers' Effectiveness

109 1.67 5.00 4.24 .63

5.6 Practicum Supervisors' Effectiveness on Various Parameters

The participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of the practicum supervisors has been

further analyzed and classified into three main parameters (i.e., professional, personal, and

procedural) as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Practicum Supervisors' Effectiveness on Various Parameters

N0. % Min Max M SD

Professional

Personal

Procedural

109

109

109

91.70

92.83

90.90

3.00

2.75

2.13

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.43

4.43

4.30

.44

.52

.56

5.6.1 Professional Parameter

The professional parameter refers to the practicum supervisors' guidance and feedback related

to the art of pedagogy and the overall professional concerns. To be specific, the professional

parameter was measured by asking STs to rate their perceptions on: the overall benefit STs

gained from practicum supervisors, the usefulness and clarity of the feedback, and the form of

the feedback STs received. The effectiveness of the practicum supervisors on STs'

professional parameter obtained a high statistical value of M=4.43 and SD=.44 as shown in

Table 6. This indicates that the majority of the STs believe that the supervisors are effective in

their guidance and feedback regarding the art of pedagogy. Table 7 shows the statistics of a


18

further item analysis of the professional parameter. This analysis has shown that the

participants have high and positive perceptions of the benefit gained from practicum

supervisors (94.5%), the clarity and usefulness of feedback (90.8%), and the provision of

written feedback (89.9%).

Table 7: Supervisors' Effectiveness on the Professional Parameter

N0. % Min Max M SD Gained Benefits

Usefulness of Feedback

Written Feedback

109

109

109

94.5

90.8

89.9

2.00

1.00

2.50

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.48

4.42

4.35

.55

.65

.58

5.6.2 Personal Parameter

The personal parameter refers to the nature of the relationship and the general atmosphere

created between practicum supervisors and STs. The practicum supervisors' effectiveness on

the STs' personal parameter was measured by asking STs to rate their perceptions on: the

supervisors' emotional support and their role in solving problems STs faced during practicum.

The participants have ascribed a high statistical value (M=4.43, SD=.52) to the effectiveness

of practicum supervisors on this parameter as shown in Table 6. Further item analysis has

been also carried out on the personal parameter as shown in Table 8. It shows that 96.8% of

the participants seem to believe that the practicum supervisors are a source of emotional

support to STs and 88.9% believe that the supervisors are effective in solving problems STs

face during practicum.

Table 8: Supervisors' Effectiveness on the Personal Parameter

N0. % Min Max M SD Emotional Support

Solving Problems 109

109

96.8

88.9

2.50

2.00

5.00

5.00

4.59

4.21

.47

.77

5.6.3 Procedural Parameter

The procedural parameter refers to the steps and routines followed by practicum supervisors

in carrying out the professional and personal assistance and guidance. This parameter was

measured by asking the participants to rate their perceptions of the supervisors' in advance

check of STs' lesson plans, accessibility and availability, and the number of observation and

evaluation visits. The majority of participants (M=4.30, SD=.57) have shown positive


19

perceptions towards the effectiveness of practicum supervisors on the procedural parameter

with a marginal difference as shown in Table 6. Further item analysis has also been carried

out on this parameter, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Supervisors' Effectiveness on the Personal Parameter

N0. % Min Max M SD Lesson Plan Checks

Supervisor Accessibility

Observation Visits

Evaluation Visits

109

109

108

109

87.40

93.95

93.40

88.85

1.50

1.00

2.00

1.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

4.20

4.37

4.30

4.36

.75

.71

.70

.83

The analysis shows that the majority of the participants have indicated that the supervisors

checked their lesson plans in advance (87.4%), made themselves accessible for the STs

(93.95%), and observed the number of observation and evaluation visits (93.4% and 88.85%,

respectively).

5.7 Feedback Consistency

To what extent do participants believe that they have received consistent feedback and

guidance from university supervisors and cooperating teachers? Table 10 illustrates the

participants' perceptions on the consistency of the feedback STs have received from practicum

supervisors and whether or not the supervisors share identical views on basic teaching styles.

It is assumed that if the two practicum supervisors have identical views on basic teaching

styles, they will provide STs with consistent guidance. The statistical analysis illustrated in

Table 10 shows that STs have moderate perceptions on supervisors' feedback consistency (M

= 3.73, SD = 1.31) and identical teaching styles (M = 3.89, SD = 1.06).

Table 10: The Practicum Supervisors' Feedback Consistency

N0. % Min Max M SD

Feedback Consistency

Basic Teaching Styles

109

109

74.5

70.6

1

1

5.00

5.00

3.73

3.89

1.31

1.06

5.8 Perception Differences on Practicum Supervisors' Effectiveness

Are there any significant differences between the participants' perceptions on the effectiveness

of university supervisors and cooperating teachers? One way ANOVA has been used to


20

answer this question. The analysis shows that there is a significant difference in favor of USs

(p = .05 and df = 17), as shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Perceptions Differences on Practicum Supervisors' Effectiveness

Sum of Square df Mean

Square F Sig

Between Groups

Within Groups Total

10.34

32.18

42.52

17

91

108

.61

.35

1.72 .05

Further analysis using Pearson Chi-Square Tests has been carried out to identify the areas

where the presumed differences exactly exist. Based on the statistics illustrated in Table 12,

statistically significant differences have been found in the following areas: the clarity and

usefulness of the feedback (Value = 19.19, p = .001), the written feedback (Value =12.16, p =

.016), solving Problems STs faced (Value = 13.70, p = .008) checking lesson plans in advance

(Value = 25.55, p = .00), and number of evaluation visits (Value = 10.06, p = .04).

Table 12: STs' Perceptions of Differences on Practicum Supervisors' Effectiveness

Items

University Supervisors Cooperating Teachers Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Count Agreement rate %

Count Agreement rate %

Value df Sig (2-sided)

Prof

essio

nal

Para

met

er Overall Benefit

103

95.4

101

93.5 4.09 4 .39

Clear/useful feedback

99 91.7 97

89.8 19.19 4 .001 *

Written Feedback

101 92.6 95 87.2 12.16 4 .016 *

Pers

onal

Pa

ram

eter

Friendliness and Support

104

96.3

106

97.3 4.48 3 .21

Help to Solve Problems

97 89.1 94 88.7 13.70 4 .008 *

Proc

edur

al

Para

met

er

In Advance Lesson Plan 103 95.4 85 79.4 25.55 4 .00 *

Accessibility

102 93.6 99 94.3 3.522 4 .48

No. of Observation Visits

98 91.6 100 95.2 3.54 4 .47

No. of Evaluation Visits

97 89.0 95 88.7 10.06 4 .04 *

* The statistic calculated values is found to be 9.49 and p = 0.05.

6 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of

practicum, in general, and the effectiveness of practicum supervisors, in particular, on STs'


21

practicum experience. The results have indicated that the effectiveness of the practicum and

the practicum supervisors on the STs' practicum experience was positive as perceived by the

majority of the participants. The statistical figures shown in Table 1 indicate that all

participants (100%) benefited from practicum. Similarly, the majority of the participants

(93.5%) have pointed out that they benefited from practicum supervisors. These findings are

in line with what has been revealed in several other research studies (e.g Guyton and

McIntyre, 1990; Ovens, 2003; Smith & Lev-Ari, 2005; Anderson, 2007; Haigh et al. 2006) in

which the researchers have asserted the importance of practicum for STs to acquire various

teaching skills in planning, executing, and creating effective learning activities and evaluating

students' performance.

The time-factor in the current study obtained the lowest rate (M = 3.63, SD = 1.29) amongst

the rest of the practicum factors as shown in Table 2. These figures indicate that a good

number of the respondents believe that the practicum duration period (i.e., 16 weeks) was

moderately adequate. In subsequent formal and informal follow up discussions, some USs,

CTs, and STs expressed that they preferred if the period of practicum would be broken into

two or three stages each taking place at separate period of time. This view was also bluntly

expressed by some TEFL graduates and school teachers and representatives during the visit of

the academic accreditation committee to the TEFL program at AUST College of Education in

2008. Such voices did not question the length of the period which is necessary to understand

the intricacies of the school environment and students of various ages and grade levels

(McCullick, 2001)

The STs' perception of the appropriateness of host school environment was measured by three

main factors: the availability of teaching resources, the number of teaching opportunities

available for STs every week, and the general atmosphere at school measured by the STs'

relationship with the CTs. The findings have revealed positive perceptions and satisfaction

towards the host school environment (M = 4.33, SD = .51), as shown in Table 3. This is

supported by other research findings found in Cameron and Wilson (1993), Edwards and

Protheroe (2003), Ovens (2003), and Haigh et al. (2006) in which these researchers have

indicated that the school environment represented by the staff room and resource availability

is an effective enabler or hinderer of practicum to many STs. Other researchers such as Haigh

et al. (2006) have shown that the host school environment goes far beyond the immediate


22

school and classroom walls to include the broader political, cultural, and social elements that

could have a great impact on the STs' practicum experience.

The study also focuses on the effectiveness of USs and CTs on STs' practicum experience.

The findings have indicated that the majority of the participants revealed positive perceptions

regarding the effectiveness of USs and CTs on STs' practicum experience, as shown in Tables

4 and 5. Other research findings found in Edward (1987), Allan and Jan (1996), and Enz et al.

(1996) have confirmed that STs attribute the success of practicum and the pedagogical

knowledge they gain to the powerful influences of USs and CTs.

As mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of practicum supervisors is classified into

professional, personal, and procedural parameters, each of which focuses on a number of

issues pertaining to the overall composition of that parameter. Professionalism constitutes the

backbone of the teaching process. This justifies the attention given by the practicum

supervisors to the professional parameter, as shown by the statistics in Tables 6 and 7. The

majority of the participants agreed that the practicum supervisors were effective at the

professional level. They seem to lay a special emphasis on the nature and frequency of the

feedback and they not only provided STs with clear and useful feedback, but they also

provided them with written feedback to refer to at any time. Similarly, the majority of the

participants as illustrated in table 6 and 8 indicated that the practicum supervisors were

effective in the personal parameter: they were a source of emotional support (96.8%) and they

helped in solving problems STs faced during practicum (88.9%). Furthermore, most of the

STs expressed positive perceptions towards the practicum supervisors' effectiveness on the

procedural parameter, as shown in Tables 6 and 9. The practicum supervisors appear to

adhere to their roles as prescribed in the practicum manual. They constantly checked the STs'

lesson plans in advance (87.4%), were accessible for the STs (93.95%), and observed the

number of the required observation and evaluation visits (93.4% and 88.85%, respectively).

Such findings are supported by evidence revealed in various other research studies mentioned

in the literature review in which USs and CTs are looked as effective sources of professional

information related to planning lessons, designing and executing teaching activities,

evaluating students' performance, tackling discipline problems (Cameron and Wilson, 1993;

Enz et al., 1996; Haigh et al., 2006; Wilson, 2006; and Caires and Almeida, 2007), and a

source of emotional support (Wallace, 1991; Smith and Ardle, 1994; Beck and Kosnik, 2000).


23

On the other hand, other researchers have stressed that carrying out practicum within an

atmosphere of friendship and trust boosts STs' confidence and encourages them to experiment

with new innovative teaching techniques (Talvitie et al. 2000).

The data analysis has shown that a reasonable number of the STs (74.5%) believed that the

USs and CTs provided them with consistent feedback and guidance and a slightly smaller

number of STs (70.6%) indicated that the practicum supervisors shared similar views on basic

teaching styles. The figures presented in Table10 show that STs seemed to appreciate the

practicum supervisors' feedback. In spite of this, still a considerable number of the

participants (25.5%, in the first case and 29.4%, in the second one) indicated negative

perceptions or, at least, they were not sure of their perceptions towards these two issues.

These findings show the critical need for further research work on the nature of feedback STs

receive during practicum and the necessity for creating proper and effective communication

channels between practicum supervisors.

Despite the fact that the majority of STs seem to have high perceptions of the practicum

supervisors' effectiveness on their practicum experience, one way ANOVA analysis of

variance has shown some statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of USs and

CTs in favor of USs, as shown in Table 11. Furthermore, a paired-item analysis using Pearson

Chi-Square Tests has shown the areas of these perceived differences, as illustrated in Table

12. The majority of the participants seem to perceive USs as being more effective in various

areas such as feedback clarity and usefulness (P=.001), in advance check of STs' lesson plan

(P=.00), problem-solving (P=.008), and the number of evaluation visits (P=.04). These

differences need not be taken for granted but they ought to be read and interpreted with

caution since they might not reflect actual differences. These findings are in contrast with

research findings revealed by studies such as Anderson (2007), Hickson et al. (2006), Talvitie

et al. (2000), Wilson (2006), and Hamman et al. (2009) in which the researchers have stressed

the CTs' vital role in the professional development of STs. Moreover, Anderson (2007) has

confirmed that STs have found their interactions with CTs more fruitful than with USs and

some other researchers such as Guillaume and Rudney (1993) and Talvitie et al. (2000) have

revealed that CTs seem to invest more time with STs than USs. Such discrepancy among

research findings can be explained from various angles. First, they could be partially due to

the fact that most CTs might not be fully aware of their exact role and responsibilities during


24

practicum or they perceive their role as peripheral especially since they do not have a strong

voice in the STs' final pass/fail evaluation grade. This might have an impact on the way STs

perceive and receive CTs' role compared to USs' role. Second, probably the host school

environment and practicum policies might justify such contradictory research findings. In

some environments, for instance, STs reside in host schools and completely cut off from their

colleges for the whole period of training except some occasional visits done by university

supervisors, as highlighted by Anderson (2007). In some other environments such as the one

of the current study, STs have the advantage to contact the university supervisors almost daily

either at the host school or at college. In addition, the role of USs appears to be greater than

that of the CTs. They are assigned a high percentage in the final evaluation of STs (70%) as

specified in the practicum manual. Moreover, they administer almost all STs' academic and

non-academic activities during practicum including their interactions with CTs.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings of the current study are relevant to practicum, practicum supervision, and teacher

education programs. Taking into consideration the limitations of the study, teacher educators

need to reconsider the role of CTs. CTs need to be fully involved in the practicum process and

take a greater role in the final evaluation of STs (Willson, 2006). More cooperation,

collaboration, and communication amongst USs and CTs are essential to increase the level of

feedback consistency and ensure the absence of non-contradictory feedback. Further research

activities on the various practicum factors and further exploration of the unheard voices (i.e.,

student teachers) would shed more light on the effectiveness of practicum. In addition,

effective and proper communication channels need to be established and maintained between

all practicum participants taking into account the full involvement of CTs in the supervision

and evaluation process. Another factor worthy to consider is the duration period of practicum.

It might be more effective and fruitful if the period is broken into two or three main stages

each done at a separate period of time. Further research activities using large and diverse

sample including STs of various majors, USs, CTs, and school and practicum administrators

employing various research methodologies such structured and unstructured interviews, open

and closed-ended questionnaires, observations, and document analysis are essential to

uncover the intricacies and elements of practicum and the impact of all of this on the

professional and personal development of prospective teachers. Similarly, it is worth to


25

investigate and compare the effectiveness of university supervisors and cooperating teachers

and investigate the underlying reasons behind any differences if found to shed more light on

practicum.

8 CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of practicum and practicum

supervisors on the practicum experiences of STs. The findings of the current study have

shown that the majority of the participants agreed that most of the practicum factors seem to

be effective. However, certain research evidence has shown the need to revise certain

practicum elements such as the duration period of practicum and the involvement of

cooperating teachers to guarantee their full participation and effectiveness in practicum.

Further research activities of a wide scope employing various research methods are essential,

especially in the Arab region, to create a comprehensive picture and global understanding of

practicum.

REFERENCES

Adey, K. L. and Speedy, G. (1993). End-on innovation: A school based approach to secondary teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher education, 18 (2), 34-39 Allan, Y. and Jan M. (1996). University practicum supervisors: Marching to a different drummer? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24 (2), 197-213 Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers' power in student teaching. Education, 28 (2), p307-323 Andrew, L. (2007). A new university supervisor: Their experiences and enrichment. Essays in Education Vol. 22, Fall 2007, 12-27 Baniabdelrahman, A. A. (2004). Roles of cooperating teachers and practicum supervisors and their effect on EFL student-teachers’ teaching skills. Asian EFL Journal, 6 (3). http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_aab.php Beck, C. and Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in preservice education: Clarifying and enhancing their role, Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224. Beck, C., and Kosnik, C. (2002). Components of a good practicum: Student teacher perceptions. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 81-100. Bourke, J. M. (2001). The role of the TP TESL supervisor. Journal of Education for Teaching, (27)1, 63-74.

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_aab.php


26

Caires, S. and Almeida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The student teachers' perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22 (4), 515-528 Cameron, B., and Wilson, S. (1993). The practicum: student teacher perception of teacher supervision styles. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 21(2), 155-167. Castillo, J. B. (1971). The role expectations of cooperating teachers as viewed by student teachers, college supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 1374. Copas, E.M. (1984). Critical requirements for cooperating teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 49-54. Darden, G., Scot, K., Darden, A., and Westfall, S. (2001). The student-teaching experience. Journal of Psychological Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72 (4), 50-53 Dobbins, R. (1996). The practicum: A learning journey. Waikato Journal of Education, 2, 59-71. Edwards, M. (1987). Tertiary supervisors-disruptive or productive? Journal of Teaching Practice, 7, 51-60. Edwards, A., and Protheroe, L. (2003). Learning to see in the classrooms: what are student teachers learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? British Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 227-241. Enz, B. J., Freeman, D. J., and Wallin, M. B. (1996). Roles and responsibilities of the student teacher supervisor: Matches and mismatches in perception. In D.J. Mclntyre and D.M. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow's teachers: The field experience (Teacher Education Yearbook IV, pp. 131-150). California: Corwin Press. Gaffery, C. and Porter, R. (1990). Seminars for cooperating teachers: Are they effective? Journal of Teaching Practice, 10(2), 29-30. Ganser, T. (1996). The cooperating teacher role. The Teacher Educator, 31(4), 283-291. Ganser, T. (2002). How teachers compare the roles for cooperating teacher and mentor. The Educational Forum, 66(4), 380-386. Grimmett, P. P., and Ratzlaff, H. C. (1986). Expectations for the cooperating teacher role. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 41-50. Guillaume, A. M. and Rudney, G. L. (1993). Student teachers’ growth toward independence: An analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65-80. Guyton, E., and McIntyre, D. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W.R.. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.


27

Haigh, M., and Ward, G. (2004). Problematising practicum relationships: Questioning the ‘taken for granted’. Australian Journal of Education, 48 (2), 134-148. Haigh, M., Pinder, H. and McDonald, L. (2006). Practicum’s contribution to students’ learning to teach. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006 Hamman, D., Fives, H. and Olivarez, A. (2006). Efficacy and Pedagogical Interaction in Cooperating and Student Teacher Dyads. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. April 2006 Hamman, D. and Romano, J. E. (2009). The desired cooperator: Preservice preferences and role confusion during the teaching practicum. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 11(4). Available: za Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325-335. Hawkey, K. (1998). Consultative supervision and mentor development: An initial exploration and case study. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4 (2), 331-348. Hickson, C., Fishburne, G. J., Berg, S. and Saby, C. (2006). Preservice and practicum experiences: Are they complementary? Source www.aare.edu.au/05pap/hic05149.pdf Kettle , B. and Sellars, N. (1996). The development of student teachers’ practical theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 1- 24. Koskela, R., and Ganser, T. (1998). The cooperating teacher role and career development. Education, 119 (1), 106-125. Levin, B. B., and Rock, T. C. (2003). The effects of collaborative action research on pre-service and experienced teacher partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 135-149. McCullick, A. B. (2001). Practitioners' perspectives on values, knowledge, and skills needed by PETE participants. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21(1), 35-56. Ovens, A. (2003). Learning to teach through the practicum: A situated learning perspective. In B. Ross & L Burrows (Eds.). It takes two feet: Teaching physical education and health in Aotearoa New Zealand, (pp. 76-89). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Sandholtz, J. H., and Shannon, H. D. (2000). Professional development school trade-offs in teacher preparation and renewal. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(1), 7-27. Smith, K., and Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre-service teacher education: the voice of the students. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289-302

http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/hic05149.pdf


28

Smith, R. and Ardle, G. (1994). The impersonation wisdom. In D. Mclntyre, H. Hagger, and M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based teacher education (pp. 103-116). London: Kogan Page. Talvitie, U., Peltokallio, L. and Mannisto, P. (2000). Student teachers’ views about their relationships with university supervisors, cooperating teachers and peer student teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44 (1), 79-88 Wallace, M.J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wilson, E. K. (2006). The impact of an alternative model of student teacher supervision: Views of the participants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22: 22–31 Woods, A.M. and Weasmer, J. (2003). Great expectation for student teachers: Explicit and implied. Education 123(4) 681-688 Yost, D., Sentner, S., and Forlenza- Bailey, A. (2000).An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 5 (1), 39-48 Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(2), 105-131 Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring 59-64

Student Teachers' Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Practicum and Practicum Supervisors

Documents

Transcript of Student Teachers' Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Practicum and Practicum Supervisors