'l 'l‘f' U .4 (I I . :1 II...- ‘ U ‘1."4'? :16. gum-aw“ . Eu: I... fp’efu 53.42.". .. , :f. ,. =60! .‘ . “I... a .! l f . N. z . ¢ v i. l <1. 7%,: .731 :1! A31"! 31!. 5.. . I n. Ill . 2.1.x... £0”. Ildfi .11.).ng 2...... I. azagfigs . .Jotrblib , .oiw‘xn‘; . 1)); .. F1... 3w: 4%: R. .4137 any” - 1 . .11.!1r.fl «I. f . {v.11 v ‘3 - flirt... . 14.11:? ((1:34; . , KI- .Istfifil A.” c, 4 “301.6. (1}. inasmuch, 2% n . 1 f. I . 2. . I); 5!: $1.55.; Errrnusd.) I . IJVAAH!“(IcIIl .33."! I! (IS 3.34 ".gsnvef‘ ‘. ~Il\ ’ {LWeH 1%. s i [10‘]... :1 .v 1 . .J .4 . ‘ .. ‘lcglfr .51: 51!: r I,‘ ~ I. z. . 34!“): n. ‘l' i?""‘“ 31...?“ Ilihfithufsn . tiff 5.... 13.92.. , C . “£14... 2‘ .1 . . , , .. ‘ . . .flprrnktxi . cl. ‘ .. . _ n .4 . ‘2. . ‘ 11.x: .- V . ‘ . ‘ . . .fis. .4. . . nir‘i‘- a ‘4‘ £1: a. 1......) {\<« ‘t, IIIjIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII 2 7! o 4/2 00759 7275 _ Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY IN MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA, AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHERS presented by SaTeh Khaled Dairi has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Teacher Education 6%: {Z $A/c’mf Major professor Date ApriI 18, 1990 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 __.__...___— . _,__ _ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES rdum on or baton ddo duo. DATE DUE ~ DATE DUE DATE DUE II | | MSU to An Afflrmdlvo AdlentEquol Opportunity Institution mans-9.1 A STUDY OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT UMM AL-OURA UNIVERSITY IN MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA, AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHERS By Saleh Khaled Dairi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1990 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY IN MAKKAH, SAUDI ARABIA, AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHERS By Saleh Khaled Dairi This study was conducted to investigate the perceptions of male student teachers regarding the effectiveness of the student teaching program in which they had participated second term (spring term) l989. A questionnaire was distributed to all 258 student teachers; 214 usable questionnaires were returned. Statistical methods used in analyzing the data included frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviations, Pearson correlation, stepwise regression, MANOVA, ANOVA, and the Tukey post-hoe procedure. The major findings were as follows. Very few early field experiences were provided before student teaching, according to the perceptions of the student teachers. The student teaching objective attained least often in practice was applying theory to practice. Student teaching provided a good opportunity for novices to improve their teaching skills. College supervisors did not provide adequate assistance in some areas of concern to respondents. The work of supervising teachers negatively influenced student teachers’ Saleh Khaled Dairi satisfaction. Student teachers requested an increase in classroom visits by college supervisors. The evaluation of student teachers seemingly' was not performed on a cooperative basis by college supervisors and classroom teachers; nevertheless, it positively influenced student teachers’ satisfaction. Three-fourths of the respondents indicated their satisfaction with the program; the remainder were dissatisfied. Teaching level was related to student teachers’ perceptions; respondents who taught at the elementary level differed significantly from those who taught at the secondary level on the following aspects: experiences before student teaching, supervision by college supervisor, and evaluation during student teaching. They differed from those who taught at the intermediate level concerning supervision by cooperating teacher. Answers to the qualitative items indicated that student teachers desired more classroom visits and more constructive criticism and feedback about both positive and negative aspects of their teaching. The major problems faced in the settings were the paucity of audio-visual materials and lack of respect from supervising teachers. Increased early field experiences and not taking classes during student teaching were the recommendations student teachers most frequently made for improving the program. Copyright by SALEH KHALED DAIRI l990 This work is dedicated to my beloved and respected parents, Khaled, my father, and Amna, my mother; my respected sister, Khadijah; and my brothers, Sami, Ghazi, Faisal, and Mustafa, who waited patiently for me to complete my studies and return home. This work is also dedicated to my wife, Naffisa, and our children, Khaled, Mohammad, and Ghida. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks and praise to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, for His help and guidance, which we seek in our daily lives, who provided me with the strength and perseverance to complete this work. The peace and blessing of Allah be upon His prophet and messenger, Mohammad, who lighted the way for mankind. I would like to express deep thanks and sincere appreciation to Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, my advisor and chairperson, for his support and generous help. Grateful appreciation and sincere thanks are also extended to the other members of my doctoral committee, Drs. Richard Gardner, James Snoddy, and Kenneth Neff, for their willingness to serve on my guidance committee and for their valuable suggestions and comments. Special thanks and gratitude are expressed to Dr. Neff for serving on the committee. Also, special appreciation to Dr. Robert Craig, who passed away before the completion of this work. His help and feedback during the preliminary stages will not be forgotten. Appreciation is due to all the student teachers who participated in this study and personnel in the Office of Student Teaching in the College of Education who helped me during data collection. I am also thankful to Drs. Abdullah Al-Jarbo and Abdullah Al-Abadi for their support, encouragement, and friendship. vi I would like to express my thanks to Sue Cooley for editing and word-processing the manuscript of this dissertation and for her cooperation. I also want to thank Joshua Bagaka for his assistance with the data analysis. My thanks is extended to the Saudi government, represented in Umm Al-Qura University, for providing me with a scholarship to study abroad. Very special thanks and gratitude to my parents for nurturing, educating, and supporting me throughout my life. They have made many sacrifices for the happiness of their children. Words cannot express the thankfulness that is their due. I am also thankful to my sister, my brothers, my nephew Rohad, and my niece Rana for the support, encouragement, and love they expressed each time I talked to them on the telephone. Finally, I am deeply indebted to my wife, Naffisa, for her sacrifices, support, prayers, encouragement, and patience. I am also grateful to my lovely sons, Khaled and Mohammad, and my beautiful daughter, Ghida. Their cheerful smiles alleviated many difficulties and frustration during my doctoral studies. May Allah reward them. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............. Introduction ................... The Problem .................... Need for the Study ................ Purpose of the Study ............... Research Questions ................ Underlying Assumptions .............. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study . . Umm Al-Qura University .............. Definition of Terms ................ .—J REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Overview ..................... History of Student Teaching ............ Early Field Experiences .............. Importance and Objectives of Student Teaching . . . Teaching Skills Gained Through Student Teaching . . Supervision of Student Teachers .......... The College Supervisor ............. The Supervising/Cooperating Teacher ....... Evaluation of Student Teaching .......... Summary ...................... The Population .................. Instrumentation .................. Design and Development of the Instrument Validity .................... Reliability ................... Translation of the Instrument . ......... Data Collection .................. Data-Analysis Procedures ............. Summary ...................... viii dommummna—a 12 IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA .............. 76 Introduction ................... 76 Characteristics of the Respondents ........ 77 Analysis of Data Regarding the Research Questions . 83 Research Question 1 ............... 83 Research Question 2 ............... 96 Research Question 3 ............... 100 Research Question 4 ............... 104 Summary ...................... 107 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 108 Summary ...................... 108 Purpose of the Study .............. 108 The Study Population .............. 108 Methodology ................... 108 Characteristics of Respondents ......... 109 Major Findings ................. 110 Conclusions .................... 120 Recommendations .................. 123 Recommendations for Practice .......... 123 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 125 Reflections .................... 125 APPENDICES A. ARABIC AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . 128 B. CORRESPONDENCE ................... 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 148 ix 4.10 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Student Teachers by Teaching Field . . Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for Each Part of the Questionnaire ........... Distribution of Respondents by Age Group ....... Distribution of Respondents by Age Group and Teaching Level ................... Distribution of Respondents by Grade-Point Average and Teaching Level ................. Distribution of Respondents by Teaching Level and Teaching Field ................... Distribution of Respondents by Age Group and Teaching Field ................... Highest Educational Level Attained by Respondents’ Parents ...................... Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of Their Experiences Before Practice Teaching, in Rank Order .............. Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of Seven Objectives of Student Teaching, in Rank Order .............. Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of Improvement in Nine Areas of Teaching Skills, in Rank Order ........... Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of Assistance Provided by College Supervisors in Seven Areas of Supervision, in Rank Order ................... Page 68 72 78 79 80 BI 82 83 84 86 88 90 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of of Assistance Provided by Supervising Teachers in Four Areas of Super- vision, in Rank Order .............. Number of Classroom Observations College Supervisors Should Make ................... Means and Standard Deviations for Respondents’ Perceptions of Aspects of Evaluating Student Teachers, in Rank Order ............. Respondents’ Satisfaction With the Student Teaching Program ................. Matrix of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Predictor and Outcome Variables .................... Regression Analysis Results for the Prediction of Student Teachers’ Level of Satisfaction by Six Aspects of the Student Teaching Program ..... MANOVA Results for the Effect of Demographic Variables on Six Aspects of the Student Teaching Program ................. Univariate Analysis of Variance Results for the Effect of Teaching Level on Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Six Aspects of Student Teaching . . xi Page 92 93 94 95 97 101 103 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY n r i n The quality of education available to youngsters depends to a great extent on the nature of thoser who enter the college of education and prepare to teach in the public schools (Kong, 1978). Teacher preparation programs comprise different components; student teaching is considered the most important and critical one in the process of preparing prospective teachers (Conant, 1964). According ix) Beyer (1984), "The student teaching experience has become an almost universally accepted part of programs in teacher education" (p. 36). Practical experiences have a significant effect in shaping the future 'teacher (Stratemeyer' & Lindsey, 1958). In this regard, Palonsky and Jacobson (1988) stated: Student teaching is the most powerful experience in the preservice preparation of teachers. During student teaching, students learn not only how to teach but they redefine their professional knowledge about curriculum, students, and the nature of the job. (p. 3) Student teaching has been widely accepted among educators as an important part of prospective teachers’ preparation. Meade (1963) discussed three parts of teacher preparation, the third of which is the crucial one: The ‘third and critical area in the education of teachers, . . has to do with the clinical preparation of the teacher. Whether we call it practice teaching, student teaching or the internship is not important; what is important is that there be this part to any teacher preparation program. Assuming that students are given competent instruction and opportunities to learn in each of these three areas, we can expect to turn out teachers capable of performing their task well. (p. 26) As Freeland (1979) stated, "Student teaching provides opportunities for students to synthesize and to apply theoretical learnings which have been gathered from previous courses in a practical, planned, classroom setting" (p. 11). Spanjer (1972) highlighted the importance of student teaching: . . Student teaching stations provide a learning experience in which the student teacher can develop his own teaching style in a supportive atmosphere accepting of mistakes without threat of failure, gain feedback on his teaching behaviors, and progress toward becoming a self-analytical and self-directed teacher. (p. 2) The importance of student teaching was further emphasized by some undergraduates who reported that their education courses failed to prepare them adequately for a teaching setting and that they did not learn about teaching until their practice teaching (Palonsky & Jacobson, 1988). Theoretical courses in the preservice phase are intended to provide prospective teachers with basic knowledge about teaching, which they will use in their practice teaching phase. Student teaching usually comes after students have finished almost all of their course work and are close to graduation. The purpose of student teaching is to allow prospective teachers to face the real classroom situation. In the classroom, the student teacher faces actual problems, has opportunities for personal growth, and experiences the reality of multiple tasks (Devor, 1964). As noted earlier, student teaching is typically the most powerful component in the professional program. It is vital because it entails guided experiences in which a student teacher is involved in the actual practice of ‘teaching and learning in the school setting. Educators widely acknowledge that this part of the teacher preparation program is critical because the future success or failure of the neophyte in his/her teaching career depends largely on this experience. Courses in the professional teaching program are taught on a theoretical basis; during student teaching, this knowledge base is used in developing practical teaching competency. Student teaching is designed to provide prospective teachers with a better understanding of the teaching-learning processes and what is needed for a successful professional career. Because of its experiential nature, student teaching provides the neophyte with chances to work under the guidance of an experienced teacher, to get to know children and how they think, and to discover the responsibilities of teachers (Feiman-Nemser & Buchman, 1987). Different variables influence the success of the field experience. Among these are the amount of time spent in early field experiences, the experience supervising teachers have in working with prospective teachers, the expectations prospective teachers have for their field experiences, their attitudes toward the teaching profession, trainees’ interpersonal skills, the kind of responsibility given during practice, student teachers’ self- concept, and the frequency of supervisor feedback (Applegate, 1985). Even though educators agree on the importance of student teaching, many teacher-preparation institutions fail to evaluate the adequacy of their programs as student teachers perceive them (Hanes, Laman, 8: Englebright, 1984). One good way to evaluate the usefulness of a student teaching program is to gather post- experience feedback from student teachers. They are in a position to judge the effectiveness of the program in preparing them for real-life teaching situations. The Problem The student teaching program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, has not been systematically evaluated on the basis of post-experience feedback from student teachers. Thus, this researcher attempted to examine the effectiveness of the student teaching program in the College of Education, according to the perceptions of student teachers who had recently completed their practical training. Need for the Study Any program has its strengths and weaknesses, but not all programs have built-in procedures for evaluation and improvement. The student teaching program, being an important component of teacher preparation, requires continuous evaluation for improvement, as do other professional programs, such as those in business, law, and medicine. The recently restructured teacher preparation program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University requires 26 semester hours for the professional portion of the program. These credits represent 20% of the total requirements for graduation. Of the 26 credit hours, 22 are devoted to course work, and 4 credits, representing 15% of the professional program, are given for fieldwork, which comprises some experiences before student teaching. Modifications in the professional program were made five years ago. Six credit hours were taken from the professional program and added to course work in the teaching field (specialized area). These modifications have been controversial. Therefore, this study is needed to determine the effectiveness of the student teaching portion of the professional program and the importance of this period for the success of potential teachers. Even though only 3% of the total credits required for graduation are given for student teaching, the period has numerous implications for prospective teachers, as well as for their future pupils. To this researcher’s knowledge, no systematic evaluation has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the teacher training program in the College of Education or its effect during teaching since the university changed the credit requirements. Preparing prospective teachers to handle their jobs properly and adequately is a genuine concern of teacher educators in the Gulf States in general, and in Saudi Arabia in particular. The Higher Education Council of Arab Gulf States, at its meeting in the United Arab Emirates, endorsed the suggestion of the Arabian Educational Office of Gulf States to study the current situation of student teaching and means for further developing student teaching at universities in the Gulf States (Asherg Al-Awest, 1988). In addressing that need, the present study will add a link in the chain of efforts by the Higher Education Council of Arab Gulf States to improve teacher preparation programs in the region. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the present student teaching program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, as perceived by student teachers who had completed the program. The following aspects of the student teaching program were evaluated: (a) experiences prior to student teaching, (b) objectives of student teaching, (c) teaching skills, (d) supervision, and (e) the evaluation process. The researcher hopes the findings of the study will help improve student teaching programs in Saudi Arabia in general and the program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in particular. Reseereh Questjens The study was undertaken to explore the following research questions: 1. How effective are selected aspects of the student teaching program, as perceived by student teachers? 2. What aspects of the student teaching program have a substantial influence on the satisfaction of student teachers? 3. Does the perceived effectiveness of the aspects of the student teaching program included in the study vary according to certain demographic characteristics of the student teachers? 4. What recommendations. do student teachers have regarding improvement of the student teaching program? Underlying Assgmptiens In conducting this study, the researcher assumed that: l. The student teachers were willing to indicate their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of ‘the student teaching program. 2. The student teachers were interested in providing truthful responses based on the experiences they had had during the field- work. 3. The student teachers were able to recommend improvements in the program, either in terms of changes to the program or whether to include it in the future. These recommendations will help teacher educators in the College of Education designate factors that promote personal and professional growth in preservice teachers. 4. The results of this study will provide useful information for developing the student teaching program. 5. Student teaching is an important part of the teacher- preparation curriculum. i io u l. The study was delimited to all male student teachers in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University who enrolled in the student teaching program for second term 1989. ‘The study’ was further delimited to five aspects of student teaching: experiences prior to student teaching, objectives of student teaching, teaching skills, supervision, and evaluation of student teaching. 2. The findings of this study are based (”1 perceptual data. Such data are usually fluid in nature and therefore might present problems in measurement. 3. The results depend on the respondents’ interpretation of the survey items and their sincerity in responding to these items. The results of this study should not be generalized to student teaching programs in other colleges of education in Saudi Arabia or to ‘the student ‘teachers who complete those programs unless the characteristics of those student teachers and programs are similar to the ones included in this study. Umm Al-Qure Univergity Umm Al-Qura University is one of seven universities throughout Saudi Arabia. It is located in Makkah, the holy city of Islam. In 1980, a royal decree was issued, which established Umm Al-Qura University (Jan, 1983). This new university draws together eight colleges and two institutes. Whereas Umm Al—Qura became a state university in 1981, one of its eight colleges was the first to be established in the country, dating back to 1949. That college, the College of Islamic Law, has been providing the country with judges and school teachers since then. Thus, Umm Al-Qura is the newest of Saudi Arabia’s seven universities, but it has the two oldest colleges in the kingdom (the College of Islamic Law and the College of Education) (Magsood, 1986). The College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University was established in 1952 under the name College of Teachers and contributed to providing the country with intermediate and secondary school teachers. A decade later, in 1962, it became the College of Education under the supervision of the Ministry of Education (Al- Wuzeinany, 1987). Supervision of the Colleges of Education and Islamic Law was handed over to King Abdulaziz University, with which they were affiliated from 1971 to 1981. The college again became part of Umm Al-Qura University in 1981. The College of Education includes four departments for graduate study: Curriculum and Teaching Methods, Educational Administration, Educational Psychology, and Islamic and Comparative Education. The two undergraduate departments in the college are Fine Arts Education and Physical Education. There is also a center for training school principals. The' college serves all students enrolled in other colleges within the university who want to become school teachers, by providing 26 credit hours in the professional program. Student teaching is part of that program. 10 in' io rm The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. College supervisor. A faculty member of a teacher education institution who teaches methods courses and who assumes the responsibility for supervising a number of student teachers as they engage in practical teaching. Cooperating teacher. A regular classroom teacher in a public school who is working with a student teacher. Eerly field experiences. A11 experiences that are offered to students in the professional program to acquaint them with the nature of the teaching profession and to prepare them for student teaching. These experiences take various forms, such as classroom observation and microteaching. Stpgept__teeeheg. A student of teacher education who is assigned to a particular school to teach under the direction of both a teacher at the school and his college supervisor. Studept teaehing. The opportunity given to a student teacher to practice his future career in the classroom for 16 consecutive weeks (a complete semester). u n h' r r . A component of the teacher- preparation program. The student teaching program at the College of Education in Makkah consists of two parts: student teaching program I and student ‘teaching program II. In the former, prospective teachers are exposed to different methods and techniques of 11 teaching, whereas in the latter program they are given the responsibility to teach in actual classrooms at various schools. leeehing field. A student teacher’s major undergraduate field of study. Ieeching level. The grade level a student teacher is assigned to teach, e.g., elementary (grades 1-6), intermediate (grades 7-9), or secondary (grades 10-12). Overview This dissertation is arranged into five chapters. Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, a statement of the problem and need for ‘the study, the purpose of the study and research questions, assumptions underlying the research, limitations and delimitations, and definitions of key terms. A review of literature related to the investigation is presented in Chapter II. Topics discussed are the history of student teaching, early field experiences, objectives of student teaching, teaching skills, supervision, and evaluation of student teaching. The methodology and procedures used in the study, including the research instrument and the data-collection and data-analysis procedures, are explained in Chapter III. Findings of the data analyses are reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of the major findings, conclusions based on those findings, recommendations for further research, and the writer’s reflections on the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a frame of reference about the subject being studied and to use this frame of reference in constructing the research questions and methods for data collection. The focus of the research was participants’ perceptions of their student teaching program. The chapter is divided into six sections: (a) history of student teaching, (b) early field experiences, (c) objectives of student teaching, (d) teaching skills gained during student teaching, (e) supervision, and (f) evaluation. Histor f ud nt a in The importance of field experience was recognized as early as the Middle Ages. At that time, student teaching was established in Europe as a result of formalized instruction, and it followed the apprenticeship pattern of learning by doing. Student teaching also has a well-defined history in the United States (Hersh, Hull, & Leighton, 1982). The first institutional programs designed to train men for specific occupations followed the basic premise that learning results from observation and imitation; this apprenticeship was the 12 13 foundation for modern training programs (Partridge, 1964). Johnson (1968) stated, Apprenticeship grew out of the concept that one learns by observation and imitation. Later, when special training for teachers came into being, students obtained practical teaching experience by giving demonstration lessons to their classmates. (p- 9) The first normal school for training teachers was established in 1685 in Rheims, France, by Jean Baptiste de la Salle, who is considered the father of student teaching (Johnson, 1968). According to Schuetz (cited in Johnson, 1968), It was reserved for St. John Baptiste de la Salle to bring to a successful issue what the others could not accomplish. By his genius and cooperation with Providence he inaugurated the reform which was to revolutionize modern popular education, not only in France but throughout the world. (pp. 11-12) The idea of the normal school received wide acceptance in Europe. Johnson (1967) indicated that "following the establishment of de la Salle’s normal school the idea quickly spread throughout Europe" (p. 2). "The first state-supported teacher training school on record was the Gymnasial Seminary, established at Berlin in 1788" (Johnson, 1968, p. 17). The operation of this school consisted of . visitation and observation of the regular school work, . assisting in the classwork of the regular teachers, . . . oversight and care of indifferent or backward pupils, and . . . actual teaching according to instructions under the supervision of the director and the three other teachers of the Gymnasium selected for this purpose. (Luckey, 1903, pp. 37-38) Concerning the development of teacher education in the United States and the first private normal school, Williams (1942) explained the progression of teacher training: l4 . These attempts [to train teachers], sporadic and temporary as they were, did not have a lasting influence upon the development of teacher preparation. It was in New England, then the seat of culture and reform, that a continuously sustained impression grew that opportunity for student teaching must be supplied as an imperative condition underlying effective teacher preparation. Some years before the first state normal school was established, there was much sentiment in favor of teacher education. (p. 2) Throughout the nineteenth century, normal schools were established in the United States. The first private normal school was opened in Concord, Vermont, in 1823. 'The first state normal school was opened in July 1839 in Lexington, Massachusetts, followed by a second in September of that year in Barre, Massachusetts (Johnson, 1968). The idea spread quickly, first in the East and then in the Midwest (Adler, 1984). Before that time, teaching had not been considered a "full-time or long-term occupation; rather it was something to do before entering another profession or while not involved in another occupation. Teachers learned their skills on the job" (Adler, 1984, pp. 2-3). With population growth and the enrollment of more children in school, the demand for teachers increased. This growing demand led to an expansion in the number of schools, as well as to an increase in the number of normal schools for preparing teachers. The normal schools became state teachers’ colleges. Wesley (1957) described this transition: During the first half of the twentieth century most state normal schools became state teachers’ colleges. . . . The transition meant much more than mere change in name; for most normal schools had been two- and three-year institutions devoted to training elementary teachers, whereas the adoption of the new name was usually associated with expansion to four- year degree-granting status with programs for training secondary as well as elementary teachers. (pp. 88-89) 15 By 1930, most states were requiring supervised student teaching as part of the teacher education program, in addition to study of the subject matter and pedagogy of the subject to be taught. A standard certificate was issued upon completion of four years of college preparation (Mead, 1957). The changes in teacher-preparation institutions had resulted from progression in thinking about the ways in which prospective teachers should be trained to meet societal demands. Rucker (1953) studied the trends in student teaching from 1930 and 1952 and summarized his findings as follows: 1. There is a trend away from conventional course organization in student teaching. This trend is taking two directions: (a) toward a full-time practicum or (b) toward a professional core or integrated block near the end of the college experience. 2. There is a trend toward (a) student teaching as a full-time experience; (b) the use of more laboratory experiences in teacher education; (c) more off-campus experiences in student teaching, including community experiences in the locale where the teaching is performed; (d) increasing the time allotment given to student teaching and to the other laboratory activities of teacher education; (e) increasing the amount of academic credit awarded for student teaching; (f) the use of laboratory activities, including student teaching, as the reference point of the whole curriculum in teacher education; and (9) student teaching on more grade levels. (p. 263) As teacher training progressed from the Middle Ages, it took on varied styles and goals. For a person to become a teacher in the Middle Ages, he needed to serve an apprenticeship with a master teacher for as long as seven years (Johnson, 1967). Teacher training subsequently developed to provide better practice for trainees so that they could respond to society’s needs. As the 16 training progressed, the terms used to describe that training also changed. Today, the most commonly used term for the training experience is "student teaching.” Bennie (1967) explained the reason for using the term ”student teaching": Today, student teaching is regarded as another step in a logical sequence of professional courses. The change in course title from practice teaching to student teaching indicates a changed philosophy. The student teacher is considered to be engaged in a learning situation . . . a student of teaching. No longer does he "practice" what he has been taught, but he is encouraged to experiment, to probe, to inquire, and to learn for himself how the theory previously studied applies to real pupils in actual classrooms. (p. 2) Student teaching entails taking full responsibility for a classroom under the supervision of field-based personnel and the college supervisor. For the student teaching period to pass smoothly, the prospective teacher should start the experience with confidence and a perspective on the responsibilities involved. In fact, many writers have advocated early field experiences to prepare students for student teaching (Adler, 1984; Elliot & Mays, 1979; Thompson, 1982; Tittle, 1974). arl Fi i n s A recent trend in teacher education is toward including field experiences in the teacher-preparation program. "A recent description of the. most innovative trends in teacher education lists the following practices: (1) field-centered instruction, (2) early field experiences, (3) micro—teaching, and (4) clinical or practicum experiences" (Krustchinsky & Moore, 1981, p. 120). 17 Field experience comprises two parts. The first part is early field experience, which presumably gives the prospective teacher an idea of the school and the teaching profession. It assists the neophyte to socialize himself into the existing setting. Such an experience assists in developing an understanding of different aspects of the teaching profession, as well as what one can offer and expect as a reward. The second part of field experience is student teaching, in which the prospective teacher spends time in a classroom, assuming the entire responsibility, from planning a lesson to evaluating the outcomes. One aspect of the student teaching experience is supervision, which is usually done by the college supervisor and the cooperating teacher whose class is being taken over by the student teacher. Evaluation is the last aspect of student teaching and supposedly is done throughout the experience to reflect the student teacher’s growth during the practice period. Early field experiences serve several functions. Among these functions is identification of examples and concepts studied in professional courses, which can help integrate what the student teacher has studied in theory with the actual classroom situation. Future teachers perform the duties of teacher, from planning and writing objectives, to handling discipline problems, to conferring with parents. They can differentiate between studying different teaching models and participating in actual teaching activities, starting with tutoring and progressing to teaching the entire class (Houston & Newman, 1982). 18 Clinical experiences include both early field experiences and student teaching. Smith, Collier, McGeoch, and Olsen (1970) stated that "all direct and simulated activities in both laboratory and practicum phases of a modern program of teacher education are in this view clinical experience” (p. 1). Student teachers who participate in laboratory experiences gain first-hand knowledge about working with children, youths, and adults in school; their experiences vary from visiting and observing the site to taking complete responsibility for a class (Stratemeyer & Lindsey, 1958). Early field experiences are considered part of the curriculum in teacher-preparation programs. Such experiences take different forms and include varied activities to prepare prospective teachers for the next level (student teaching), which is usually the final stage in the teacher-preparation program. Early field experiences usually take place in school settings before student teaching (Applegate, 1986). Exposure to these experiences helps individuals gain an idea about teaching, as well as helping them discover their suitability for pursuing teaching as a profession (Ryan, 1982). Dueck, Atmann, Haslett, and Latimer (1984) explored the rationale for having exploratory field experiences. They concurred with Ryan that "there is agreement on providing information to students so they can determine their suitability for the teaching profession and assess their desire to enter it" (p. 34). Hazard, Chandler, and Stiles (1967) also emphasized the importance of classroom l9 experiences: "Learning to teach requires active participation in real classrooms under the guidance of real teachers" (p. 271). Thompson (1982) found that gains in self-understanding were a major outcome of early field experience. She concluded that "perhaps early field experience provides a vehicle for the development. of‘ self-knowledge and self-confidence" (p. 27). In addition to learning about themselves, students in Thompson’s research reported that the field experiences gave them opportunities to understand pupils and the teaching process, as well as to develop skills in working with field-based personnel. Applegate (1986) speculated about the importance of field expe- riences: "Perhaps one thing field experiences do . . . is help students examine self-confidence, realistically assess the teacher’s role and review teaching as a career choice" (p. 28). Zeichner (1980) also suggested that sequential progress in professional experience may help candidates screen the nature of the profession and consequently decide whether to remain in or leave teaching. Early field experiences give potential teachers opportunities to interact with pupils, orient or direct them to school settings, help them make intelligent decisions concerning their future career, and enable them to assess what they can offer education and what rewards they might expect (Dueck et a1., 1984). Elliot and Mays (1979) explained the importance of early field experiences as follows: Without early field experiences, preservice teachers may believe themselves to be making good progress toward their goal of becoming good teachers because of a good grade point average 20 in their professional courses when, in fact, they are not at 311 able to translate their theory into effective practice. (p. Those designing teacher education programs should take into account the necessity of helping students make the transition between taking courses at the university and assuming complete responsibility for a classroom--that is, the transition from theory to practice. These programs should help preservice teachers bridge the gap between wanting to teach and being able to teach, or learning about teaching and practicing teaching (Conant, 1964; Dueck et al., 1984). Although there are many types of early field experiences, certain activities are more widely used than others. Classroom observation is taking the lead over other activities and is the most common practical experience in preparing student teachers to take classroom responsibility. Working in community agencies and seeing films or videotapes on teaching methods are also often used. Microteaching and simulation are the practical experiences least often used in teacher preparation (Tittle, 1974). Adler (1984) pointed out that: The concept of early experience for pre-service teachers holds a good deal of common-sense appeal. If one is to learn about schools, about teaching and learning, then one ought to have opportunity to observe in real classrooms and to apply theoretical knowledge in real situations. (p. 1) Marso and Reed (1971) reported that student teachers at Bowling Green State University' with early field experiences were rated higher by their cooperating teachers and supervisors than those student teachers without such experiences. Swann (1975) found that 21 student teachers who had early experiences were more self-confident, assured, and competent than their counterparts without early experi- ences. Gantt and Davey (1973) also reported that prospective teachers with early field experiences expressed feelings of increased confidence during student teaching. Exposing prospective teachers to early and frequent classroom experience has been found to have an important influence in preparing these potential teachers to enter the profession. The early experience helps those who decide to pursue teaching as a career by improving their attitudes toward pupils and field personnel. Early experiences also help prospective teachers realize the benefit and meaning of their methods courses (Pazzini, 1975). The five main types of experiences preceding student teaching are observation, participation, tutoring, small-group instruction, and large-group instruction of short duration (Ryan, 1982). Each of these types of experiences has a specific focus and emphasis. The most important and critical aspect of these experiences is to integrate field work and campus course work (Ryan, 1982). The focuses of the five pre-student-teaching experiences that are part of most teacher education programs are as follows: 1. Observation. This activity is focused on seeing the classroom events and the interaction between pupils and teachers, and trying to make a connection with what has been learned in the course work. 22 2. Participation. Prospective teachers function as aides in the classroom, sensing the social system and school structure. 3. Tutoring. Preservice student teachers work with one or two learners under the guidance of the classroom teacher or the subject- matter specialist (e.g., reading teacher). 4. Small-group instruction and short-duration large-group instruction. The preservice teacher takes the entire responsibility for the class: planning and designing the activity, choosing mate- rials, and evaluating the outcome. This type of pre-student- teaching is associated with methods courses. The above-mentioned experiences proceed in a sequence that is designed to prepare preservice students to understand the teaching profession and to make the transition from preservice student to classroom teacher smoother and more interesting (Ryan, 1982). The observation aspect of pre-student-teaching experience has more purposes than simply preparing preservice students to become acquainted with the classroom setting and to take responsibility for the classroom. Stratemeyer and Lindsey (1958) indicated that the purposes of observation are . . (l) to deepen the meaning of ideas, (2) to become oriented to the teaching situation, (3) to discover further needs, (4) to develop ability to evaluate teaching- learning situations, and (5) to arouse and strengthen positive attitudes toward teaching. (p. 347) Turney et a1. (1982) stated that, during classroom observations, student teachers . are required to develop notes, ideas and arguments on issues ranging from variations in pupil learning behaviour to the teacher’s communication modes, forms of pupil/teacher 23 interaction and the influence» of' class—setting (open plan, supportive equipment, classroom fittings). (pp. 130-31) Through observation, student teachers come to notice interactions in the classroom and the educational movement of the school as a whole. Student teachers become more familiar with children’s lives and work in the schools. During this period, prospective teachers often take partial responsibility for teaching and other school activities and help children with problems (Dewey, 1904). The observation period should involve prospective teachers in understanding the teaching profession and school life, making them aware of the responsibilities involved in teaching and working with children, broadening their horizons, understanding the teaching and learning process, applying theory to practice, and increasing self- confidence (Copeland, 1982). Microteaching is a practice situation designed to familiarize future teachers with teaching; in most cases, learners are peers. Allen and Cooper (1970) described microteaching as . . a teaching situation which is scaled down in terms of time and numbers of students--usually a 4 to 20 minute lesson involving 3 to 10 students. By scaling down the lesson, some of the complexities of the teaching act are reduced, allowing the teacher to focus on selected aspects of teaching. Frequently, a microteaching episode includes teaching a lesson and receiving feedback on the teacher’s effectiveness. The feedback may come from videotape or audiotape recordings, supervisors, pupils, colleagues, and/or from the teacher’s self-perceptions. (p. l) Hatfield (1987) mentioned two major' purposes for including microteaching -n1 teacher preparation: "(a) to provide an experiential instructional strategy for developing teaching skills 24 and (b) to provide teaching experience in which direct feedback can be given of a teacher’s performance" (p. 2). The beneficial effect of' microteaching and the consequent feedback was apparent when Stanton (1978) compared two groups of student teachers. Those who taught small groups of secondary pupils, were videotaped, and reviewed the videotape and discussed it with their supervisors and peers showed increased self-confidence as compared with the control group, who did not have the microteaching experience. Simulation is a campus-based technique that provides future teachers with early field experiences. Simulation activities create a situation similar to the real world of teaching and let prospective teachers interact with the simulated situation and decide on the most constructive response (Houston & Newman, 1982). Kong (1978) wrote, "Simulation techniques can be used to provide the educator a means of enriching and supplementing some aspects of laboratory experience" (p. 43). Early field experiences encompass opportunities for direct experiences with children through actual involvement 'hi the classroom setting. Numerous educators have considered student teaching the most valuable experience in the teacher-preparation program. Likewise, many student teachers and teachers believe student teaching is the most valuable and beneficial part of teachers’ preparation. To make the course content more relevant and meaningful, teacher education programs should include both early field experiences and practicum.' As Wagoner (1965) noted, "It is as 25 irrational to rely on the student teaching period to give education students the true picture as it would be to postpone a medical student’s first encounter with surgery until he interns" (p. 68). m rtan a i tud hin Student teaching has been recognized as the most important part of ‘the teacher education program, even among the opponents of teacher education. Conant (1963), a critic of professional education, stated: Interestingly enough, amid all the conflict over teacher education, I have found only two points on which all are agreed. First, before being entrusted with complete control of a public school classroom, a teacher should have had opportunities under close guidance and supervision actually to teach—-whether such opportunities are labeled "practice teaching," "student teaching," "apprenticeship," "internship," or something else. (pp. 59-60) Regarding laboratory experiences, Stratemeyer and Lindsey (1958) wrote that "unless a student has such a chance, he probably leaves his college preparation for teaching without ever knowing what it is like to be responsible for a group of pupils for all their activities over a period of time" (p. 50). Similarly, Applegate (1986) commented that: Field experiences are widely accepted as a principal means for learning to teach. Both practicing teachers and students in preparation programs believe that experiencing a classroom a pupils first-hand is necessary and may be sufficient for teacher education. . . . Students point to these experiences as the life blood of their program. (p. 21) According to Edmonds (1985), the advantages prospective teachers gain from student teaching include ”maturity of outlook, exercise of responsibility, increased self-confidence, and skills in 26 human relationships. The relevance of academic studies is thereby enhanced and reinforced" (p. 100). The sudden transition of first-year teachers from college to schools without adequate experiences. in ‘working with school-age children and in relating course content to the actual setting or the real world of children can lead to unsuccessful learning experiences for the children and frustration for the novice teacher. Bennie (1967) distinguished between practice teaching and student teaching. In the latter, the prospective teacher is engaged in a learning situation--a student of teaching. The student teacher is encouraged to learn how to "synthesize the theory he has studied with the experience of teaching into a more complete understanding of teaching and learning" (p. 2). Conant (1964) asserted that: The "payoff" in any teacher education program is in the classrooms of local school districts. Here will lie the ultimate test. of' the program, and here, too, must occur a significant element of the program itself: the clinical experience. (p. 11) Student teaching is a period of learning, during which the individual develops a clear perception of his/her future career. According to Bennie (1967), during student teaching: (1) The student teacher should become familiar with the total role of the teacher in and out of the classroom; (2) the student teacher should learn how to select, organize, and present classroom work in a variety of ways; (3) the student teacher should learn how to collect, interpret, and use data in the evaluation of pupil and group growth; (4) the student teacher should develop self-confidence to the point where he can do a creditable job of teaching. (p. 15) 27 Among the objectives of student teaching are exploring teaching methods and styles, making a connection between theory learned in the college classroom and practice in the school setting, becoming familiar with teaching responsibilities, and acquiring the skills and values to function properly in the school setting (Beyer, 1984). Student teaching allows preservice teachers to interact with children and to learn from different situations they encounter. Not everything taught in university classes is applicable to real life. Thus, student teachers need to learn from the actual setting. As Feiman-Nemser and Buchman (1987) stated, "prospective teachers are in a position to start learning from teaching, under guidance, and to see that some of the knowledge they need is ’local.’ It can only be derived from interaction with particular students over time" (p. 256). Student teaching provides opportunities for prospective teachers to work in representative school situations that include children with different abilities and from different strata, as well as available materials and equipment (Stratemeyer & Lindsey, 1958). Student teaching constitutes the pivotal point in preparing future teachers; professional courses as well as those in specialized areas are used in actual practice. The knowledge attained during the preparation will be purified and developed during this period; the execution and penetration of this knowledge are supervised to determine how well the candidate is able to use theoretical knowledge in actual practice (Cpllege pf Egueation Djreetory, 1985). 28 The full-time standard student teaching program in the College of Education at Michigan State University is based on the premise that future teachers can better develop the appropriate knowledge, understandings, skills, attitudes, and behaviors when their experience takes place in the school and classroom settings. Prospective teachers are expected to learn, develop, and demonstrate the following skills: working cooperatively with adults and pupils, establishing objectives and writing plans based on an organized curriculum, developing goals and objectives for lessons/units, executing the planned curriculum with pupils of different abilities, managing a classroom, assessing student progress, demonstrating command of subject knowledge and teaching materials, demonstrating personal and professional qualities, and fulfilling multiple teaching and nonclassroom roles in a responsible and positive manner (Michigan State University, 1986). Field experiences in the academic learning program in the College of Education at Mihcigan State University are intended to allow prospective teachers to interact with mentor teachers and to enhance their formal study at the university. Mentor teachers help the prospective teachers learn from both courses taken at the college and practice in the classroom. The field experience gives teacher candidates an opportunity to put into practice what they have learned in their course work--to apply theoretical knowledge in the practical situation (Adler, 1984). The ultimate goal of teacher preparation is achieved during student teaching when prospective teachers are exposed to actual 29 school situations 'h1 which the issues and principles they have learned during their college study become meaningful through application in the real life of the classroom (Cornelio, 1981). Stratemeyer and Lindsey (1958) suggested that student teaching encompasses the following objectives for preserivce teachers: To gain understanding and competence in guiding a group of learners in all of their activities; to get the feeling of being a teacher; to feel the rewards and satisfactions which come from continuous growth of learners over a period of time; to build a concept of the complete job of the teacher, with understanding of the range of activities and roles which a teacher plays; to develop a philosophy, including guiding principles, through testing ideas in practice, analyzing consequences, and modifying or strengthening theoretical concepts; to discover needs, through experience in a range of responsibilities; to plan activities to meet those needs; and to acquire a satisfying and intimate relationship to the profession through participation in its organization and activities. (pp. 50-51) Tittle (1974) asked four groups of respondents to rate the importance of eight student teaching objectives, as well as the degree to ‘which these objectives had been achieved. ‘The most important objective for students and their cooperating teachers was developing self-confidence. The most important one for supervisors and administrators was application of theory. Student teachers ranked student teaching objectives from most to least important as follows: developing self-confidence, experimentation, self- evaluation of effectiveness, learning school routines, professional identification, and application of theory. In terms of achievement, the two objectives rated highest by the whole sample were learning school routines and developing self- confidence. For student teachers, the objectives that were 30 completely achieved were learning school routines, developing self- confidence, self-evaluation of effectiveness, understanding minority groups, professional identification, and integration of previous experiences. The objectives most often achieved during the student teaching program were experimentation and application of theory. From participants’ responses to open-ended questions, Tittle (1974) categorized the student teaching objectives the student teachers, cooperating teachers, and administrators most frequently dealt with as follows (in order of frequency): acquiring individual teaching styles and techniques, actual classroom experience, understanding individual children, personal and professional development, learning the duties of a teacher, discipline, knowing how to manage a classroom, developing professional rapport with school personnel, developing student-teacher rapport, and self- evaluation. In reviewing the relevant literature, Gallemore (1979) found 350 objectives of student teaching, which she grouped into three major categories: (a) instruction, (b) class management, and (c) personal and professional growth. The instruction category included the following objectives: planning lessons, being able to communicate orally and in writing, applying theory to practice, adapting instruction to meet individual needs, demonstrating competence in the specialized area, being resourceful and creative, and using appropriate techniques to evaluate pupils’ progress. In the class management category were the following specific objectives: handling effectively the daily classroom routine, 31 dealing effectively with pupils’ discipline problems, creating a good learning environment, and responding to unpredictable events occurring in the classroom in a wise and sensitive manner. The personal and professional growth category included these objectives: self-evaluation, self-direction, professional growth, self- confidence, interpersonal relations, and enjoyable personality. Gallemore asked student teachers, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors to complete a data-collection instrument near the end of the student teaching experience. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the three major categories of student teaching objectives (instruction, class management, and personal and professional growth) and the degree to which those objectives had been achieved during the practice period. The three groups agreed that instructional objectives were most important, followed by class management and personal and professional growth objectives, in that order. However, in terms of achievement, the groups perceived that objectives in the instruction category were least completely achieved, followed by those in the class management category; personal growth objectives were rated as being the most completely achieved. In a study at Cyril Potter College of Education in Guyana, Alleyne (1987) surveyed student teachers after they had completed their student teaching. With regard to student teaching objectives, the findings revealed that, in terms of extent of practice, applying theory to practice ranked first, followed by developing self- confidence and developing the professional outlook of a successful 32 teacher, which received the same mean ratings. The objective perceived least during their student teaching was participating in a variety of school and extracurricular activities. Applying theory to practice, developing self-confidence, and developing a professional outlook were perceived as the most important objectives of student teaching. Participating in a variety of school and extracurricular activities was seen as the least important objective. Kong (1978) studied perceptions of the student teaching experience among student teachers from the Faculty of Education at the University of Malaya. Concerning the importance of student teaching objectives, the researcher reported that the practicum period should provide student teachers with practical experience in schools, which will reveal some of the discipline problems that arise in classrooms and enable them to develop techniques of control. Also, the experience should give student teachers an opportunity to develop an appropriate relationship with school-age children. Applying theory to practical situations ranked seventh in importance, and providing student teachers a chance to develop their powers of organization was rated least important. T ' ' T r Teaching is a complex process that requires many activities, efforts, and talents. Those who choose to enter the profession need to demonstrate the necessary ability to become a teacher. The student teaching program enables a candidate to become familiar with 33 the duties of a teacher and to develop the skills necessary to handle classroom responsibilities. Not all prospective teachers develop the same abilities at the same rate during practice teaching; some progress. more rapidly than others. Because the university and school are diverse settings, neither one can substitute for the other in preparing prospective teachers. There is an indispensable relationship between them; each setting supplements the other. Feiman-Nemser and Buchman (1986) warned against three pitfalls in preparing prospective teachers: familiarity, the two worlds, and cross purposes. Familiarity should not lead prospective teachers to confuse what is with what can or should be; classes are different and pupils are, too. To avoid the two-worlds pitfall, it should be realized that both theory and practice make unique contributions in learning to teach. Teacher educators should help future teachers understand and make connections between the two worlds. To overcome the pitfall of cross-purposes, student teachers should avoid imitating the classroom teacher and work toward achieving a close fit between the purposes of classroom life and learning to teach. Olson (1974) distinguished between knowledge and skills. Skills are tied to types of activities, whereas knowledge is not. ”While quite different forms of experience can generate the same knowledge, every different form of experience generates or calls upon quite different mental skills" (Olson, 1974, pp. 12-13). Three modes of experiences--direct contingent, modeling and observation, 34 and symbolically coded-~each develOp different skills: discovery skills, observational skills, and linguistic skills. Student teachers come to school with years of observations and other experience but lack the direct contingent experience of teaching. The student teaching period gives them an opportunity to develop teaching or discovery skills. In the university setting, the skills most practiced, except in microteaching, are often linguistic ones--those associated with symbolically coded experience. Russell (1979) noted, Practice teaching has such rich meaning for student teachers because it is the only setting in which it is possible to develop the skill of monitoring one’s own performance while teaching. . . . The skills developed in courses tend not to be specific to and essential for the performance of teaching duties. (p. 11) To prepare effective future teachers, the preservice education curriculum should be designed to provide the requisite skills. As Stallings (1987) asserted, "Old and well-worn curriculums must be examined in light of the knowledge and skills teachers need to provide effective instruction in schools today" (p. 59). He recommended several competencies that should be taught in the university setting during professional preparation. ‘These include lesson planning, classroom management, instructional strategies, and evaluation. Making a connection between campus-based courses and field-based experience is an important aspect of the supervisor’s responsibilities during student teaching. Beyer (1984) stated that, during this block of time, student teachers should "become familiar 35 with demands of teaching, and acquire the necessary skills and values needed to function adequately in that setting" (p. 36). Sullivan (1978) found that student teachers who were trained in performance-based teacher-preparation programs seemed to have a slight advantage over their counterparts who were trained in traditional programs (in terms of demonstrating teaching competencies). Future teachers participating in the real life of schools have the opportunity to interact with school personnel, teachers, children, and professors. By practicing teaching, their mastery of instruction can be enriched by using ideas and methods offered during the preparation (Krustchinsky & Moore, 1981). The fieldwork aspects of the teacher-preparation curriculum appear to influence most strongly the student teachers’ knowledge of their pupils’ understanding of the subject matter. In Grossman and Richert’s (1988) study, student teachers indicated that they learned from the fieldwork to plan and execute lessons, to grade papers, and to deal with certain classroom situations. The researchers stated: From the field experiences student teachers say they learned not only the survival skills for classroom life, encompassed in general pedagogical knowledge, but also knowledge about students’ understanding and misunderstanding of their subject matter. (p. 56) From their field experiences, student teachers felt that they learned practical survival skills, which they believed to be invaluable to their professional preparation. (p. 58) Edmonds (1985) surveyed students at eight universities across Canada regarding their opinions of the student teaching experience. Student teachers indicated they were well prepared but wished they had had more time in planning lessons with their cooperating 36 teachers and had received more help with questioning techniques. A large majority of the students had had experience before student teaching, and they valued that experience. However, they expressed a need for more work in classroom management and classroom evaluation. Morrow and Lane (1983) surveyed more than 300 student teachers, college supervisors, and supervising teachers in ten instructional areas to determine the difficulties they perceived in these areas. Student teachers were asked to rate the level of difficulty that they had confronted during their student teaching; college supervisors and supervising teachers were also asked to rate these problems, as pertaining to the students under their supervision. The three groups agreed on the top two and bottom three areas of difficulty. The two areas in which student teachers encountered the most difficulty were "discipline in the classroom" and "motivation, getting students interested." The ‘three instructional areas in which student teachers had the least difficulty were “knowledge of subject matter to be taught," ”selecting appropriate subject matter," and "interaction, communication with students." Purcell and Seiferth (1981) conducted a survey involving 153 student teachers. Participants were asked to rate the difficulties they had experienced during their practicum, and the adequacy of the preparation they had received fer handling such problems. Results indicated that student teachers had experienced difficulties in student discipline. They also perceived a lack of preparation for 37 adjusting to work activities and relationships and coping with problems related to resources and materials. Alleyne (1987) asked student teachers who had completed their practicum teaching to rate 15 teaching skills with regard to the extent of their preparation before and during student teaching. Student teachers thought they had been well prepared even before practice 'teaching. However, they ‘thought their preparation was deficient in the following four areas: working individually with pupils, counseling pupils, preventing discipline problems from occurring, and handling discipline problems. Student teachers indicated that they improved in the 15 teaching skills during student teaching, but the four areas mentioned earlier’ did not receive as high ratings as the other skills. In general, student teachers perceived they were better prepared after student teaching than before the experience. Joyce, Yarger, Howey, Harbeck, and Kluwin (1977) conducted a national survey of the preservice preparation of teachers, which included 240 institutes for teacher preparation. Upon completing student teaching, a majority of prospective teachers in the sample said they felt competent in classroom management, in teaching their area of specialty, and in relationships with school personnel. They felt least competent in diagnosing students’ learning problems. Dastoli, Kovacevich, Robinson, Adams, and Knott (1987) asked student teachers and recent graduates to rate 30 teacher competencies in terms of perceived importance and their own adequacy in the 30 competencies. Results revealed that student 38 teachers perceived the competencies to be more important than did recent graduates. The majority of both groups perceived themselves as competent on most of the 30 competencies. Student teachers’ lowest self-competency ratings were in the following areas: "knowledge of specialists, procedures and referral sources for exceptional students; skills for working with parents; understanding of standardized test data on cumulative records; and knowledge of school law as it affects the teacher" (p. 6). In a study conducted by Pigge (1978), practicing teachers reported that the work place had provided them with many of their teaching competencies, whereas in teacher education institutions emphasis was given to competencies less needed in the work place. Pigge concluded, In order to offer preservice teachers realistic and optimal experiences for developing their needed "on-the-job" competencies, a greater proportion of the training programs of most institutions will need to take advantage of a wide range of field-based sites. (p. 76) Kalaian and Freeman (1987) surveyed 89 teacher candidates enrolled in the standard teacher education program at Michigan State University, before and after their student teaching experience. Candidates were asked to rate the level of confidence they had in their ability to perform each of 15 teaching skills. Results of the study revealed that candidates made significant gains in self- confidence in all 15 teaching skills included in the study between entry and exit surveys. 39 In a study at the University of Iowa, Freeland (1979) asked students who had completed the student teaching experience to indicate their concerns about teaching. The causes of greatest concern for these prospective teachers were motivating disinterested pupils, handling disciplinary problems, and evaluating pupil progress. The areas of least concern were understanding and using courses of study and curriculum guides, relating to parents, and making effective use of community resources. Freeze, Olive, and Gray (1988) used the .Assessment of Performance in Teaching (APT) "to determine whether student teachers could apply fundamental teaching skills in the classroom when called upon" (p. 9). The researchers found that all 194 student teachers who completed student teaching at Clemson University during academic year 1986-87 had strengths in instruction, planning, and management competencies. Two areas that needed improvement were communication skills, especially written communication, and an attitude conducive to learning. Freeze et al. concluded that There was general agreement among observers that student teachers provided for active involvement of students, monitored and gave feedback to students and gave students an opportunity to apply knowledge stated in the objectives. (p. 9) e i ' S d h r An important aspect of the student teaching program is supervision, either by a college supervisor or the cooperating teacher in school. Through their experience and knowledge, both can have a strong influence on the growth of the novice teacher (Zahorik, 1988). "Supervision is a process of guiding, helping, 4O diagnosing, prescribing, evaluating and recycling" (Morris, 1980, p. 148). Although various people in the field, such as principals and pupils, become involved in the student teaching experience, the personnel most directly involved with supervision are the college supervisor and the cooperating teacher whose classroom is taken over by the student teacher. The student teacher and these two individuals form the triad concerned with achieving the objectives of the student teaching program ‘that will lead to the student teacher’s professional development. Th C l e e Su ervisor The college supervisor usually has more than one function during the student teaching period. Morris (1980) distinguished between supervising and visiting student teachers: Supervision of student teachers means that the university supervisor becomes an active participant in the teaching- learning process. He possesses in-depth knowledge and experience in teaching, human growth and development, and learning theory. . . . He possesses and uses a wide variety of supervisory skills. He applies these skills in cooperation with the supervising teacher to assist the student teacher in developing his teaching skills to the greatest possible extent. (p. 148) On the other hand, Morris said that visiting the student teacher involves social and not supervisory skills. This approach depends primarily on providing general information relating to program requirements, personal needs of the student teacher, empathy, and moralizing about teaching. It does not involve systematic application of knowledge and skills to the solution of classroom instructional problems. (pp. 148-49) 41 The supervisor is responsible for shaping expectations of field-based personnel and the student teacher about the supervision. These consumers (field personnel and student teacher) can identify whether the tone set by the supervisor is supervision or visitation. The consumers’ work depends on the direction the supervisor establishes and how much he/she takes their views into consideration (Morris, 1980). Student teachers prefer feedback, including negative comments with specific suggestions for improvement; they appreciate positive comments about the things they have done well. They want immediate feedback with regard to specific classes and events, rather than general comments; they prefer remarks demonstrating both their strengths and their weaknesses, so as to improve their performance (Russell, 1979). Supervision is designed to facilitate learning for the student of teaching. The interactive supervisory process has six stages: pre-observation, observation, analysis of observation, the post- observation conference, training, and evaluation. In relating to the student teacher during the practicum experience, the supervisor has six functions linked to these stages of the supervisory process. The supervisor acts as manager, counselor, instructor, observer-analyst, provider of feedback, and evaluator (Turney et al., 1982). A major function of the supervisor is to make the prospective teacher reflective, thoughtful, and alert; then the novice can act on his/her own (Dewey, 1904). 42 The quality of supervision being provided for the prospective teacher is critical in preparing the individual. Increasing the duration of student teaching will not substitute for the importance of supervision by both university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Cronin (1983) emphasized the importance of supervision: ”Increasing the quality of time ’in training’ will never substitute for the quality and appropriateness of supervision by both university personnel and experienced teachers in an effective school" (p. 190). Alleyne (1987) surveyed student teachers about the supervision that was provided during their student teaching. The two statements ranked highest in terms of the extent to which they were carried out were: "The college supervisor permitted me freedom and latitude in the development of teaching style and strategy" and "The college supervisor advised me in the preparation of resource units used during practical teaching.” The areas that needed improvement were: "The college supervisor was available if a problem arose," "The college supervisor permitted me freedom and latitude in the choice of teaching content," and "The college supervisor provided specific feedback on my performance" (pp. 108-109). Koehler (1984) examined the work of nine supervisors from teacher 'training institutions. She found that the supervisors’ functions included facilitating the student teacher’s growth, supporting the student teacher, serving as a liaison between the university and the field, settling problems between school personnel and trainees, providing student teachers with expectations, 43 observing student teachers, giving feedback and providing clinical advice, conducting seminars, orienting student teachers to school, and performing other functions. Koehler found also that supervisors evaluated student teachers on the basis of growth and motivation, even though this philosophy was incongruent with the rating forms, which spelled out the evaluation in terms of skills that student teachers should attain and demonstrate. Koehler discovered that those who had been teachers and became supervisors supervised the student teachers better than college supervisors who had been either faculty members or graduate students. The functions of supervisors ir1 Solliday’s (1983) study included observing and evaluating student teachers, moderating seminars, teaching methods courses, and serving as a liaison between the university and school in Coordinating student teacher placements. Zimpher, de V055, and Nott (1980) found that the university supervisor’s work included setting goals and expectations for the student teaching experience and evaluation, facilitating communication among participants, intercepting problems with the principal when participants needed an ”interlocuter’s assistance," encouraging student teachers’ self-analysis and improvement, acting as the personal confidant of the cooperating teacher and the student teacher, and making critical contributions to the student teacher’s progress. Zimpher et a1. concluded: 44 [University supervisors] must survive in many worlds and be many things to many different persons. . . . The role of the university supervisor can not be limited to observation; rather, the role constitutes the totality of the supervisor’s presence in the student teaching experience. (p. 14) In Frenzel’s (1977) study, respondents (student teachers, supervising teachers, and principals) indicated that the following aspects of university supervisors were essential to student teaching: Their regular visits and conferences influence what happens in the student teacher’s classroom, and their ability to provide a key link in the instructional relationship between course work and field experiences insures a good-quality program. Howey, Yarger, and Joyce (1978) found that, on average, college supervisors had six to seven observation and conference sessions during the student teachers’ formal student teaching periods. Spivey (1974) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of two different approaches to supervising student teaching: subject-area specialist versus. generalist. The results were as follows: Supervisors following the generalist approach provided significantly more supervision for preservice teachers during the student teaching experience than did those following the subject- area-specialist approach. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the degree of supervision that was given in helping student teachers in the subject content area during the professional practicum, although college coordinators using the generalist approach provided student teachers more help in meeting their needs than did subject-area specialists. Finally, no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of 45 changes in attitudes toward teacher-pupil relations from entry to exit surveys. Capeland and Atkinson (1978) found that student teachers favored a directive over a nondirective supervisory approach. Copeland (1980) reported that teachers in training preferred the directive supervisory approach over the nondirective approach. He inferred that "teachers in training feel they lack the experience needed to resolve their teaching problems under nondirective supervision" (p. 40). In another study, Copeland (1982) found that, with time, student teachers’ preference for supervisory approach changed from directive to nondirective. He stated: . Individual preferences for supervisory behavior are determined, at least in part, by the level of experience and confidence felt by supervisees. Further, these preferences appear to change as the individual gains experience, knowledge of classrooms, and confidence in himself/herself as a teacher. (9. 36) Glassberg and Sprinthall (1980) conducted research on the effects of a supervisory seminar designed to promote student teachers’ cognitive development through role taking by analyzing their own teaching and that of their peers. Subjects taking the seminar made greater gains in both ego development and ethical development than did those in a control group receiving conventional supervision. In conclusion, the researchers stated that "the findings clearly support the contention that a developmentally based supervision seminar for student teachers has a positive psychologi- cal impact" (p. 37). 46 Morris (1974) studied two groups of student teachers, one supervised by a university supervisor and the other by a c00perating teacher. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of their classroom performance. However, the group supervised by a college supervisor perceived themselves as performing better than did those supervised by a cooperating teacher, with regard to student teacher communication and methods. In addition, no significant difference was found between the two groups in their adjustment to the setting, but the group supervised by college personnel had better rapport with their supervising teachers than did the other group. Zeichner and Tabachnik (1982) studied nine university supervisors’ beliefs about three distinctive supervisory roles: (a) technical supervision, which emphasized techniques of teaching in the classroom situation; (b) personal growth supervision, which focused on helping student teachers develop on their own; and (c) critical supervision, which focused on school structure and how the student teacher could become a change agent in the school. For each role, the researchers attempted to determine whether the supervisors discerned the teaching and learning involved as being limited to the classroom or involving the larger social context. The kinds of goals a supervisor has will generate the supervisory style he/she uses with the neophyte. Zahorik (1988) reported ("1 three supervisory approaches (behavior prescription, idea interpretation, and personal support), each of which had 47 different goals and styles. Supervisors who emphasized the behavioristic approach wanted their student teachers to demonstrate teaching skills and to maintain order in the classroom. They were craft oriented and focused on the present more than on the future. The primary goal of supervisors who focused on idea interpretation was to broaden student teachers’ horizons, enabling them to look beyond the immediate scene. The third supervisory approach emphasized personal ability in dealing with problems and facilitating student teachers’ decision making. The last two approaches had a dual time focus: the present as students of teaching and the future when students became teachers in their own classrooms. With regard to place focus, supervisors in all three categories emphasized the classroom as opposed to the community or school. Supervisors using the various approaches were similar in numbers of observations, length of visit, use of lesson plans, note taking, and prescheduling observations. They made an average of six 38-minute observations, although students who were not progressing as well as others were observed more often. Some supervisors observed on an unscheduled basis, especially close to the end of the student teaching experience. All supervisors required lesson plans and used them for observation purposes. May and Zimpher (1986) pointed out three theoretical practices that supervisors employ during student teaching. These are positivistic, phenomenological, and critical. In the first, the supervisor and student teacher work toward a specific end, one that is usually based on empirical research findings; the supervisor’s 48 satisfaction is important. The second practice is considered a humanistic concern. May and Zimpher (1987) stated, The supervisor is concerned with how preservice teachers make sense of their field experiences-~what they value, what they feel, what they describe, what it means to be a preservice teacher. Values and attitudes pervading the classroom setting, the hidden curriculum, and the interpersonal relationships involved in teaching and learning-~both at the university and field site--are of interest. The preservice teacher and supervisor work toward understanding the qualities of life in classrooms to develop their own teaching or supervisory styles, toward self-actualized behavior, and toward becoming increasingly aware and appreciative of individual student differences and needs. (p. 90). With the critical perspective, the supervisory approach is directive and critical of the status quo. "Supervision from a critical theorist perspective can be» directive and prescriptive because of the degree to which value-laden goals drive reflection, informed practice, and equity" (p. 95). The college supervisor or cooperating teacher is considered the instructor of the student teacher. In this regard, Zimpher and Howey (1987) proposed four supervisory' practices related to the competence domain: technical, clinical, personal, and cwitical. The focus in the first is on mastery of knowledge and teaching skills. In the second approach, the emphasis is on problem identification in modeling teaching behavior and generating resolution. The third approach focuses on cognitive development as well as teacher-survival concerns. The fourth approach focuses on awareness and raising student teachers’ consciousness about school practice. 49 Cohn (1981) reported that the purpose of the university supervisor’s visit is ”to monitor and assess the progress of the novice’s performance; to identify any specific areas of difficulty and to offer assistance; [and] to keep in touch with cooperating teachers and principal (primarily a public relations function)" (p. 26). Cohn thought that instructors of methods courses are appropriate choices as supervisors during the student teaching period because they can assist novices in understanding the connection between course-based and field-based knowledge. In that regard, "they can see when students don’t have an Operational grasp of some of their course concepts and strategies and can immediately reteach in the field" (p. 29). Alvermann (1981) found that student teachers viewed the college supervisor’s role as supplementary to that of the supervising teacher. Nevertheless, student teachers believed that the university supervisor was effective when he/she visited the student teacher frequently (at least weekly) to alleviate any dissonance that may have resulted from a disparity between campus-based knowledge and field-based practice. In this case, "the students demonstrated a greater willingness to accept the university supervisor as an evaluator and a resource person" (p. 25). Also, when the cooperating had had no experience in working with student teachers, the university supervisor provided answers to the student teachers’ concerns. Alvermann concluded that "both university and classroom teachers can make a contribution in the important area of integrating preparation and practice” (p. 25). 50 Regarding the importance of supervision given to the student teacher, Morris (1980) stated, Many agree that the most critical determinant of the quality of the student teaching experience is day-to-day supportive supervision necessary to move the student from a position of uncertainty and awkwardness to the desired skilled, confident professional teacher. (p. 367) In the supervisory conference, the university supervisor must be sensitive to student teachers’ needs and alter the structure of the conference accordingly. The university supervisor should also consider the student teacher’s cognitive development during discourse (Zimpher, 1987). Not all educators hold a positive view of the importance of the college supervisor’s role. Andrews (1976) asserted that college supervisors provide meager help and assistance during student teaching, and therefore this aspect of the student teaching experience should be eliminated. Bowman (1978) noted that there is evidence that the college supervisor exerts minimal influence on the performance of students of teaching. Many teacher education institutions use a combination of subject-area specialists and generalists to supervise student teachers. In his study, Bowman found that supervisors made an average of five 90-minute visits during the course of student teaching. He stated, "Too many student teachers affirm that supervisory activity from the parent institution is infrequent and inadequate" (p. 64). 51 In a later publication, Bowman (1979) claimed that supervision of student teachers by university personnel during their finishing process is needless and has no meaningful effect on prospective teachers’ development. Therefore, according to Bowman, "the most sensible plan would be to stop supervising” (p. 30). Bowman advocated giving the responsibility for supervising prospective teachers to cooperating teachers and having faculty members perform another role. He stated, ”Such faculty members could also serve as resource consultants, bringing new and developing techniques for dealing with current problems, and, at the same time, gaining valuable insights into the real world of school" (p. 29). h S rv ’n o r n Te The cooperating teacher can do much to influence the success of the prospective teacher. If the cooperating teacher likes to assist the novice during the student teaching period, he/she can be a powerful vehicle in drawing out the best in the prospective teacher. Teacher education institutions need to assign their student teachers to a good cooperating or supervising teacher who can instill in them a desire to pursue the teaching profession, thereby enabling them to have a positive influence on pupils and schools. Cornelio (1981) said that the supervising teacher, ”like a parent, seeks gradually to make himself unnecessary. He tries to bring his student teacher to a stage where the student teacher can manage his own class" (p. 20). 52 Oestreich (1974) stressed the same point: One might suppose that the classroom teacher has a well- developed plan for the gradual induction of the student teacher into increasingly complex teaching responsibilities. But one can rarely find planned and systematic procedures for this induction. Only rarely can he find evidence that the supervising teacher shifts responsibility with the student gggsher’s growing ability to make instructional decisions. (p. Karmos and Jacko (1977) reported that student teachers perceived their cooperating teachers as the most significant influence during their practicum period. The influence "was perceived to be more in personal support and role development than in skill development" (p. 54). Copeland (1978) also indicated that the c00perating teacher has a prominent influence on the success of the student teaching experience. This influence will affect, either positively or negatively, the student’s satisfaction with the practicum experience (Applegate, 1987). The amount of time given to student teachers by their cooperating teachers in school settings plays an important role in thee experiences future teachers have and in shaping those experiences. The cooperating teacher influences the student teacher through the amount of time he/she spends with the novice outside and inside the classroom. The student teacher spends about 300 hours with the cooperating teacher, as compared to 12 hours with the campus supervisor (Watts, 1987). Cooperating teachers need to provide as much help as they can for future teachers and not view them as aides who stay in the school a couple of months. In Watts’s (1987) study, 53 Cooperating teachers apparently perceived student teachers as aides who could lighten their duties. They did not consider them to be professional trainees to whom they had the responsibility of providing an appropriate practicum to develop pedagogical knowledge, skills, and attitudes. (p. 155) The effect of cooperating teachers remains with their student teachers, who often follow the same path as their teacher mentors. They' will tend to operate on the values and to hold the attitudes they perceive as they observe, participate, and take responsibility in classrooms as student teachers today. So, in a very real sense, a cooperating teacher holds more of the future of the world in his hands than any single classroom teacher holds, for each day he works with college students he is making a vital contribution to their future teaching, which will in turn greatly influence the lives of hundreds of children and youth. (Stratemeyer & Lindsey, 1958, p. 4) Because supervising teachers have a great influence on the future of student teachers and of the youths they will be teaching, "only the best available teachers should be used in student teaching programs" (Price, 1967, p. 261). In many student teaching programs, the selection of cooperating teachers has not been given the importance it deserves. The criteria most often used in selecting cooperating teachers include participating voluntarily, being recommended by the school principal, and being in the profession for a certain number of years (Brodbelt, 1980). According to Hersh et a1. (1982), selection of the supervising teacher should draw upon his/her competence in teaching, his/her expertise in the subject matter, and his/her willingness to take the prospective teacher. In most cases, experience in supervision is also preferred. 54 The selection of good cooperating teachers is crucial because of ‘the far-reaching goals and effects of the student teaching experience. Oestreich (1974) stated: The student teaching experience is 'largely' based upon what might be called the ”professional osmosis phenomenon." Somehow, if the student teacher is exposed to what purports to be effective teaching, the osmosis process automatically will enable him to absorb from the supervising teacher an approach or style that is effective. At the same time, it is assumed that the process automatically ‘filters. out any approach or style that is not effective. Thus the student teacher will be left with only the best practice as he eventually strikes out on his own. (p. 335) Bergman (1980) recommended that student teachers be Inatched with cooperating teachers and university supervisors according to their "individual personal and professional characteristics. Such an approach might reduce tension within the triad and enhance the learning environment for the optimal growth of each prospective student teacher" (p. 195). Cooperating teachers can offer novices much help in applying theory to practice. They are able to help students see how theories and research studied at the university can be useful in everyday classroom situations. Mentor teachers also help students learn about those aspects of teaching that are better understood from classroom experience than from formal study. (Michigan State University, n.d.) Karmos and Jacko (1977) also believed that a major role of cooperating teachers is to provide help and support for prospective teachers in relating theory to practice. They wrote, "Instructors who are aware of the developmental stages associated with teaching roles could help students anticipate some of the actualities of the transition from theory to practice" (p. 54). 55 Brodbelt (1980) indicated the importance of the supervising teacher in promoting growth in future teachers: ”If we wish future teachers to be imaginative, venturesome, and creative in teaching, we must ensure that their student teaching experiences be with a model or models who promote that example" (p. 88). Student teachers become like their cooperating teachers in some verbal behaviors and become less like them in others (Matthews, 1966). In Spruce’s (1979) study, student teachers demonstrated less favorable attitudes toward teaching after the completion of their teaching practicum. The amicability of the relationship between cooperating teacher and student teacher did not influence the novice’s attitudes toward children, regardless of how much they thought alike. Feiman-Nemser and Buchman (1987) stated, ”Cooperating teachers set the affective and intellectual tone and also shape what student teachers learn by the way they conceive and carry out their role as teacher' educators" (p. 256). Many teacher educators believe the cooperating teacher has the most influential role in preparing prospective teachers. This contention was supported by Seperson and Joyce (1973), who indicated that the effect of the cooperating teacher' was noticed at the beginning of student teaching rather than at the end as a cumulative influence. The authors found . substantial evidence that the teaching behavior of the student teachers had moved from no association or negative ones with the behavior of the cooperating teacher prior to student teaching to being significantly related to a number of 56 important dimensions early in student teaching, a relationship which was maintained throughout student teaching. (p. 150) The role of cooperating teacher is very important to the student teacher, who looks to him/her as a model with experience in the teaching profession. Two important aspects of the cooperating teacher’s role are “the behaviors that cooperating teachers exhibit or model, and the process and content of feedback provided to the student teacher” (Koehler, 1986, p. 9). Although the cooperating teacher has more influence on the student’s occupational socialization than does the college supervisor, denying the role of the college supervisor in student teaching is untenable. Each one has an influential role, but the magnitude of each varies, depending largely on the opportunities the cooperating teacher has during the practice term (Corbett, 1980). Copeland (1979) discovered that student teachers were influenced in using teaching skills during student teaching by the cooperating teacher and the classroom ecosystem. The ecosystem is not shaped by the cooperating teacher, but by other intervening factors such as pupils’ aptitude and previous experiences, physical components of the classroom, and other resource agents, such as subject-area specialists. Teacher educators should turn their attention to the effect the student teaching setting has on their novice teachers. The realities of classrooms where student teachers are sent for the practicum experience should be congruent with the objectives of teacher training institutions. 57 In reviewing the literature, Cohn (1981) found two different opinions concerning supervision and to whom supervisory responsibility should be given. Many educators believe that preservice teacher supervision is more properly a responsibility of the supervising teacher than of the university supervisor. Others suggest that a major function of the university supervisor is to train supervising teachers to develop skills for supervising their novices. In the College of Education at Michigan State University, the importance of joint supervision is being taken into consideration. Student teaching is supervised jointly by the mentor teacher and an academic learning observer. The academic learning observer has a subject matter background in the same area as the student’s major and is often the same person who taught the methods class. (Michigan State University, n.d.) It is sometimes claimed that the knowledge base that the student teacher acquires in college during preservice is obliterated in the school context. Koehler (1986) indicated that such a situation can be avoided through collaboration between the preservice institution and cooperating teachers. "Transfer of skills and knowledge from the college experience to practice teaching is possible if the cooperating teacher is aware of the target skills learned in preservice and/or naturally employs them in his/her classroom" (p. 9). The university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and student teacher have reciprocal influences on one another during the student teaching experience. The claim that the cooperating teacher has a unidirectional effect on the student teacher should not be taken for 58 granted because such an effect is inconsistent with human nature. There is only one way something like this could take place, and that would be through the way prospective teachers are taught during their studies in the professional program (Griffin, 1982; Heywood, 1984; Zeichner, 1980). The cooperating teacher usually is considered a socializing agent with regard to the student teacher’s attitudes and values. However, the student teacher is not a naive learner; a reciprocal relationship has been found to exist between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher. Changes in cooperating teachers’ instructional behaviors and beliefs about teaching and student teaching have been found to occur as a result of working with student teachers (Nerenz, 1979). Not all writers have agreed that student teachers model their supervising teachers’ attitudes and behavior. Boschee, Prescott, and Hein (1978) discovered that "the educational philosophy of a cooperating teacher does not significantly influence the educational philosophy of the student teacher assigned to him/her for 12 weeks of clinical experience in the elementary or secondary school classroom" (p. 61). Even though the structure of the student teacher’s belief system might not be modified during student teaching, changes in orientation often occur. Hay and Rees (1977) stated, Secondary school teachers became substantially more bureaucratic in orientation as a result of student teaching. . The school bureaucracy quickly begins to impress upon 59 student teachers the value of conformity, impersonality, tradition, subordination, and bureaucratic loyalty. (p. 25) In studying critical incidents in supervision during student teaching, Boldt and Housego (1986) found three categories of supervision incidents: (a) ”Personal adjustment problems": The supervisor approach was largely ideological, whereas “a more facilitative approach might have been expected" (p. 218); (b) "Presentation problems": Concerns about teaching and supervisory approach were ideological, and "craft-rules” were provided for dealing with incidents’ and (c) "Housekeeping procedures and conduct rules": The supervisory approach relied completely on craft-rules. The authors concluded that "there is little evidence in what the student teachers report of supervision reaction, that supervisors use research-based knowledge of teaching to engage student teachers in discussion of alternative problem-solving strategies" (p. 220). In Bennie’s (1964) study, beginning teachers said that campus supervisors had provided them with slightly more help than cooperating teachers. The first-year teachers were asked to rate the amount of help received in 13 areas in which supervisory assistance had been provided. Most help provided by campus supervisors and cooperating teachers was in "evaluating my own teaching, making daily lesson plan, determining the objectives of lessons, and selecting teaching procedures." The least help was in "determining pupil grades and selecting content to be taught." In a study conducted at Cyril Potter College, students indicated that: 60 . . they had too few conferences with their cooperating teachers and that they received inadequate feedback from those teachers. Further, the student teachers felt that they did not receive enough suggestions for improving their teaching from cooperating teachers. (Alleyne, 1987, p. 148) In terms of extent of practice, the lowest means were in response to the cooperating teachers’ assisting students in planning for teaching, holding conferences with students, providing feedback, offering suggestions for consideration in teaching, providing suggestions for improvement of the student’s teaching, and modeling competent teaching. Bowers and Scofield (1967) conducted a study in which student teachers rated both college supervisors and supervising teachers with respect to the amount of help received during their practice. The responses were solicited after the completion of student teaching. With respect to the amount of help received, supervising teachers offered the most help in suggestions for improvement, daily classroom planning, and suggestions for motivating students. They gave the least help in constructing achievement tests. College supervisors offered assistance in suggestions for improvement, suggestions for motivating students, and daily classroom planning. College supervisors gave the least help in obtaining information about individual students. WM Evaluation is an important aspect of the student teaching experience, helping student teachers grow in the teaching profession by indicating their strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation of 61 student teachers during practice helps them improve and become more effective teachers. Evaluation should be consistent with the stated objectives for student teacher development. The evaluation of the student teaching experience involves more than a measurement and a letter grade given upon completion of the practicum. Boykin (1960) described what the evaluation should entail: Evaluation should reflect the implementation of basic principles, rather than merely the appraisal of specific techniques or the measurement of teacher competencies. The evaluation of student teaching involves the consideration of certain problems of relationships, acceptance of basic values, interpretations and understandings of behavior, formulation of judgments, and appraisal of knowledge, skills, attitudes and appreciation not always taken into account in the processes of arriving at a student’s grade or mark in a regular college course. (p. 8) He also described the framework in which the evaluation should be conducted: The nature of the competencies to be developed, the dual role of student teacher, and the scope of the duties and responsibilities which the student teacher is expected to perform require that careful consideration be given to the value framework within which judgments are made concerning the student teacher, and the choices of procedures, instruments, and means employed to appraise the realization of goals to be achieved. (p. 8) Evaluation is a fundamental aspect of student teaching in particular and of the teacher education program in general. In both cases it contributes to the professional development of future teachers. The purpose of evaluation is to make inclusive checks as to whether or not the planned procedures for learning experiences actually are yielding the desired outcomes. Evaluation is a powerful process in helping to determine how the student teaching 62 experience is being carried out. As a result, such an evaluation is useful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the profes- sional program. Michales, Kinney, and Bush (1950) enumerated the outcomes of an effective evaluation process: Evaluation of student teaching is the continuous process of appraising growth of students in teaching competence as they guide the learning of children under professional supervision. Increasing growth and self- direction for the student teacher, implications for improvement of the teacher education program, and clues to more effective guidance of student teachers are major outcomes of effective evaluation. (p. 5) The main objective of evaluation is to bring prospective teachers’ teaching skills and personality into congruence with the effective teacher behaviors detailed in the literature and endorsed by teacher educators. Bennie (1967) indicated that evaluation is comparative and centered on self-evaluation. Evaluation in this sense does not mean an imposed grade; rather, it is a cooperative effort. to bring about desired changes in the student teacher’s behaviors. Bennie stated, "One cannot overcome his shortcomings unless he first recognizes that they exist” (p. 89). Stratemeyer and Lindsey (1958) suggested that the basic principles of evaluation are (a) to promote growth, (b) to consider agreed-upon values and goals, (c) to ensure continuous progress, (d) to use both qualitative and quantitative indications, (e) to be a cooperative process including the student teacher, and (f) to take into account the ability of the learner and the requirements of the situation. 63 According to Bennie (1972), the basic principles of evaluation are as follows: 1. Evaluation is comprehensive, including actual classroom activities and other peripheral factors that constitute the whole teaching role. 2. Evaluation is continuous; "skill in teaching is a gradual growth which the student teacher experiences. His growth is positive and more rapid if he is given evaluative help along the way, enabling him to build on past success and to eliminate or correct weaknesses" (p. 104). 3. Evaluation is specific; generalized suggestions or comments are not of benefit to student teachers who want to learn how to teach and perceive that their teaching endeavors can be improved. Constructive suggestions should be provided, pinpointing both positive and negative aspects of the student’s teaching. 4. Evaluation is individualized; each student teacher is different from his counterparts, and situations are different, as well. "One must base his evaluative approach on the particular student teacher concerned and must refrain from categorizing all student teachers into the same mold or from comparing student teachers with one another” (p. 106). Fant, Hill, Lee, and Landes (1985) found that 85%. of the teacher training institutions in their study evaluated their student teachers on clarity (clear and straightforward presentation of teaching material), task behavior, use of feedback, task-oriented climate, warm and supportive environment, flexibility and 64 adaptability as a teacher, enthusiasm, and high expectations concerning pupils’ abilities. The researchers concluded that evaluation of student teachers needs to be done frequently and on a regular basis, established on behavioral terms, and based on symbolic indicators that affect the pupils’ learning. Student teachers should be informed about the characteristics of effective teachers and expect to be evaluated on those qualities. Kong (1978) found that the evaluation aspects receiving the highest percentage of responses in terms of practice were (a) evaluation of student teacher was done by supervisor to a great extent and (b) evaluation of teaching competence was based on growth in the student teacher’s ability to use sound educational principles. Evaluation of the student teacher based on his/her growth and potential was practiced to some extent, whereas respondents perceived it to be very important. The aspects rated lowest in terms of practice were (a) evaluation was done by field personnel (supervising teacher and school principal) and (b) reporting the evaluation to the student teacher in anecdotal records. In Alleyne’s (1987) study, the evaluation facets that received the highest ratings in terms of extent of practice were (a) evaluation motivated student teacher to improve his/her performance and (b) evaluation helped the trainee to be aware of his/her strengths and weaknesses. The aspects of evaluation rated lowest with regard to extent of practice were (a) school principal had 65 input in evaluation of student teacher, (b) the cooperating teacher and college supervisor jointly evaluated the trainee, and (c) final evaluation showed evidence of the student teacher’s growth. Student teachers rated the following aspects of evaluation as most important: (a) evaluation motivated me to improve my performance and (b) evaluation helped me to be cognizant of my shortcomings and strengths. The least important facet of evaluation was the role the school principal played in evaluating the student teacher. Edmonds (1985) reported that most evaluation of student teachers in his investigation was done by supervising teachers and college supervisors; self-evaluation was minimal. Prospective teachers said the college supervisor should have less responsibility in the evaluation of student teachers; supervising teachers should be the major evaluators. The three most important criteria for evaluation, as perceived by future teachers, were (a) "relationship with pupils," (b) ”ability to arouse and sustain interest," and (c) ”energy and enthusiasm." In a national survey, Yarger, Howey, and Joyce (1977) found that student teachers perceived that (a) their evaluation was cooperatively done by the supervising teacher and the college supervisor, (b) the evaluation was based on the student’s ability to show teaching skills, (c) the principal was not an important figure in the evaluation process, and (d) self-evaluation was important to some degree. The evaluation of student teachers is intended to facilitate the growth of students of teaching who are learning how to be 66 effective instructors. College personnel and field personnel need to work cooperatively in eliminating any hurdles preventing student teachers from realizing the most benefit from this career opportunity in the teaching profession. 51mm: This chapter was designed to cover various aspects of the student teaching program and hence to serve as a frame of reference for the instruments used in this study. The first part of the chapter covered the history of student teaching and how it has progressed from apprenticeship to laboratory experiences. The second part dealt with early field experiences and their effect on the next stage, when the neophyte becomes a student of teaching. The third part of the chapter was concerned with the objectives of student teaching and their implications. Teaching skills gained during student teaching were the focus of the fourth part. In the fifth section, the writer examined literature on supervision by college supervisors and supervising teachers, the criteria for selecting supervisors, and their influences on the student teacher. Finally, evaluation during student teaching and its effect on the novice teacher’s growth and development were discussed. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES This study was undertaken (a) to determine the perceptions of student teachers in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, regarding the effectiveness of their* student 'teaching experiences. and (b) to solicit the participants’ recommendations for improving the student teaching program. The procedures and methods that were followed in conducting the study and in collecting and analyzing the data are described in this chapter. Included are a discussion of the target population; construction of the survey instrument; validity, reliability, and translation of the instrument; the data-collection process; and data-analysis procedures employed in the study. The Eppuletipp The target population for this study comprised. the 258 male student teachers who participated in the student teaching program in the College of Education during second semester (spring semester) 1989. They had just completed their student teaching at various public schools under the supervision of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education. They had taught at the elementary, intermediate, or secondary level for a complete 16-week 67' 68 semester. The teaching fields of these student teachers are shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.l.--Distribution of student teachers by teaching field. Teaching Field Number of Teachers Religion 37 History 35 Arabic 33 Geography 31 Islamic civilization 25 Physical education 25 Fine arts education 20 English 17 Sciences Biology 15 Chemistry 10 Physics 5 Mathematics 5 Total 258 Source: Student Teaching Office, College of Education, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, 1989. W The survey approach was used to gather the necessary data for the study. Researchers use the survey technique not only to determine relationships among sociological variables, but also to discover what people think and do (Kerlinger, 1986). The instrument used to collect data for this study was a structured questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale; in addition, four unstructured (open-ended) questions were included. 69 The use of a structured questionnaire in survey research offers certain advantages. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1979), The written questionnaire is typically efficient and practical, and allows for the use of a large sample. Further advantages of this technique are that standard instructions are given to all subjects and the personal appearance, mood (H' conduct of the investigator will not color the results. (pp. 174-75) Moreover, Henerson, Morris, and FitzGibbon (1978) described the advantages of questionnaires and attitude rating scales as follows: They permit anonymity. They permit a person a considerable amount of time to think about his answers before responding. They can be given to many people simultaneously. They provide greater uniformity across measurement situations than do interviews. In general, the data they provide can be more easily analyzed and interpreted than the data received from oral responses. They can be mailed as well as administered directly to a group of people. (pp. 29-30) Design and Development pf the Instrpment Because no standardized instrument was available that could be used to accomplish the goals of this study, the investigator developed a questionnaire specifically for this research. He reviewed the literature related to student teaching and decided which aspects of the student teaching program should be included in the instrument. Some of the structured items regarding student teachers’ perceptions of these aspects of student teaching were adapted from questionnaires developed for other research studies (Alleyne, 1987; Kong, 1978; Tittle, 1974; Turney et al., 1982). Other items were developed by the researcher. The six parts of the questionnaire dealt, respectively, with experiences prior to student teaching (early field experience), 70 student teaching objectives, teaching skills, supervision, evaluation of student teaching, and personal information. The four open-ended questions concerned supervision, problems student teachers faced, suggestions for improvement, and positive aspects of the student teaching program. In Item 38, respondents indicated their satisfaction with the student teaching program on a scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 9 (very satisfied). The personal information consisted of respondents’ age, grade point average (GPA), teaching field, teaching level, and parents’ education. These items were used as the independent variables. The researcher presented the questionnaire to the chairman of his guidance committee, who made helpful suggestions for improvement. The questionnaire was also submitted to the members of the doctoral committee, who provided useful comments. In addition, four faculty members in the College of Education at Michigan State University examined the questionnaire and made helpful suggestions. The writer used all of these comments and suggestions in preparing the final version of the instrument. (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.) 13.111111 Because some questionnaire items were adapted from previous studies and others were developed for this research, validity was an important consideration. Content validity refers to the extent to which knowledgeable people agree that the survey items measure what they are supposed to measure. As Moser and Kalton (1972) stated, 71 "The assessment. of' content validity is essentially' a. matter of judgement; the judgment may be made by the surveyor or, better, by a team of judges engaged for the purpose" (p. 356). Ary et a1. (1979) defined content validity as “the extent to which the instrument represents the content of interest” (p. 197). Regarding the importance of content validity, they stated, "Content validation is essentially and of necessity based on judgement and such judgement must be made separately for each situation” (p. 198). As mentioned earlier, the researcher’s committee chairman and members, a research consultant, and other faculty involved in student teaching program evaluation in the College of Education at Michigan State University reviewed preliminary versions of the instrument. Based on their comments and suggestions, the researcher revised the questionnaire thoroughly to enhance its clarity and accuracy in measuring what it was designed to measure. Reliability Reliability refers to obtaining the same results from repeated administrations of an instrument to the same respondents under similar conditions. Ary et a1. (1979) defined reliability of a measuring instrument as "the degree of consistency with which it measures whatever it is measuring” (p. 206). Kerlinger (1986) stated, "Reliability is the accuracy or precision of a measuring instrument" (p. 405). Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the reliability of each part of the instrument constructed for this study. Results are 72 shown in Table 3.2. Cronbach’s alpha for the entire questionnaire was 0.87, which indicates that the instrument had an acceptable level of reliability. Table 3.2.--Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for each part of the questionnaire. Reliability Scale Items Coefficient Experience Prior to Student Teaching 1- 4 0.54 Student Teaching Objectives 5-11 0.78 Teaching Skills 12-20 0.72 Supervision by College Supervisor 21-27 0.84 Supervision by Cooperating Teacher 28-31 0.80 Evaluation During Student Teaching 34-37 0.71 Overall reliability 0.87 Tr 1 io f strume The researcher translated the questionnaire from English into Arabic, which is the native language of the study participants. Two graduate students at Michigan State University who specialized in the Arabic language discussed with the researcher the translation of each item by comparing the English and Arabic versions. The necessary changes were made. The questionnaire was then given to eight Arab graduate students at Michigan State University who had gone through student teaching programs at varying times and locations since graduating from different colleges of education in Saudi Arabia and another 73 Arab country. These students returned the questionnaires, on which they made suggestions and comments. Some modifications were made in the survey as a result of this feedback. The final revised Arabic version of the questionnaire was given to one professor in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura and one at the Arabic Language Institute in Makkah for a final review. Both individuals indicated that there was no ambiguity or confusion and that the questionnaire items were clear. For the purpose of documentation and verification, an instructor of Arabic Language at Michigan State University reviewed both the Arabic and English versions of the instrument. His letters attesting to the accuracy of the translations are contained in Appendix B. QéL§_£Qll§£LiQD The researcher’s guidance committee approved the research proposal in June 1989. The researcher next submitted the proposal along with the questionnaire to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) to obtain permission to conduct the study. That approval was granted (see Appendix B). The researcher traveled to Saudi Arabia to collect the data. Upon arriving in Saudi Arabia, the writer presented a copy of the proposal and the questionnaire to officials at Umm Al-Qura University and asked for their permission to conduct the study and their: help in ‘facilitating the project. Before discussing the researcher’s request, the officials asked for an abstract of the 74 proposed study, and it was submitted to them. They subsequently granted permission to conduct the research. An arrangement was made between officials in the student teach- ing office and the researcher to distribute the questionnaire to student teachers. Respondents received the questionnaire from the Office of Student Teaching at the College of Education. In the cover letter to the survey, the researcher assured participants that their anonymity would be protected and that their responses would remain confidential. He stressed the importance of their participa- tion (see Appendix A). Participants were asked to return their completed questionnaires to the Office of Student Teaching or to place them on a table in the corridor outside the office. They were asked not to write their names on the instrument. The researcher and the Office of Student Teaching distributed 258 copies of the questionnaire. Two hundred thirty questionnaires were returned, of which 214 were usable. This represented 83% of the total number of instruments distributed. MW Data from the returned questionnaires were coded onto data sheets and given to personnel in the Computer Center at Michigan State University to enter into the university’s IBM mainframe computer. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X). The .05 alpha level was used as the criterion for statistical significance. 75 Frequencies and percentages were used to describe the characteristics of the population. Means, standard deviations, and rank orders were used to report the participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of various aspects of the student teaching program. Stepwise regression analysis was used to answer Research Question 2, with level of satisfaction as the outcome variable and selected aspects of student teaching as the predictor variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in student teachers’ perceptions of selected aspects of the student teaching program, based ("1 the demographic variables. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine what factors accounted for significant differences on the MANOVA. The Tukey post-hoc test was employed to determine where significant differences existed in perceptions of student teachers when the ANOVA showed a significant result for any aspect of student teaching. Responses to the open- ended questions were classified and reported in terms of frequencies and percentages. umm r The research methodology used in conducting the study was discussed in this chapter. Included were a description of the population, as well as the development, validity, reliability, and translation of the survey instrument. Data-collection and data- analysis procedures were also explained. Results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Wen In this chapter, the results of the data analyses are presented. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the student teaching program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, as perceived by fourth-year student teachers who had completed their practice teaching spring term (or second term) 1989. Practice teaching was done under the supervision of the Curriculum and Instruction Department, with the cooperation of other departments in the College of Education (e.g., the Department of Administration, the Department of Fine Arts, and the Department of Physical Education). In this chapter, the findings are presented in the form of descriptive statistics (e.g., percentages, frequency distributions, means, and rank order), as well as results of regression, correlation, univariate, and multivariate analyses of variance. Data used in the analyses were obtained from responses of 214 student teachers to a questionnaire distributed personally or through the College’s Office of Student Teaching to the target 76 77 population. The 214 questionnaires used in the data analysis represented 83% of the total number of questionnaires distributed. The survey instrument employed in this study pertained to several aspects of the student teaching experience (e.g., experiences before student teaching, objectives of student teaching, teaching skills, supervision, and evaluation). Personal information about the respondents was also elicited. (See Appendix A for a copy of the instrument.) This chapter is divided into two major sections. Personal characteristics of the respondents are presented in the first section. These» characteristics included respondents’ age, grade point average, teaching field, teaching level, and parents’ level of education. In the second section, results of the data analyses conducted to answer the research questions posed in this study are presented. Characteristics of the Respondents The 214 student teachers who participated in the study differed in terms of age, grade-point average, teaching field, teaching level, and parents’ educational level. These characteristics were used as the independent variables; the dependent variable was respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of selected aspects of the student teaching program. The 214 respondents fell into three age categories, as shown in Table 4.1. The majority (174 or 81.3%) were between 21 and 25 years 78 old; 39 (18.2%) were between the ages of 26 and 30, and l (.5%) was under 21 years of age. Table 4.1.--Distributions of respondents by age group. Age Group Number Percent Under 21 years 1 .5 21-25 years 174 81.3 26-30 years 39 18.2 Total 214 100.0 The distribution of respondents by age group and teaching level is shown in Table 4.2. As seen in the table, most of the respondents were between 21 and 25 years old and had done their student teaching at the intermediate school level. Of’ the 34 (15.9%) elementary school teachers, 26 were between 21 and 25 years old and 8 were between 26 and 30 years of age. Of the 147 (68.7%) intermediate school teachers, 120 were between 21 and 25 years of age, 26 were between 26 and 30 years old, and l was under 21 years old. There were 33 (15.4%) secondary school teachers, of whom 28 were between 21 and 25 years old and 5 were between 26 and 30 years old. 79 Table 4.2.--Distribution of respondents by age group and teaching level. Teaching Level Total Age Group Elementary Intermediate Secondary -———————— % N % N % N % Under 20 years -- -- 1 100.0 -- -- l .5 21-25 years 26 14.9 120 69.0 28 16.1 174 81.3 26-30 years 8 20.5 26 66.7 5 12.8 39 18.5 Total 34 15.9 147 68.7 33 15.4 214 100.0 The distribution of respondents by' grade-point average and teaching level (elementary, intermediate, or secondary) is shown in Table 4.3. Almost three-fourths of the student teachers (152 or 71%) were "C" students, 44 (20.6%) were "8" students, 15 (7.0%) were "D" students, and only 3 (1.4%) were "A" students. The three respondents (1.4%) who were "A" students all had done their student teaching at the intermediate level. Of the 34 respondents who had taught elementary school, six (17.6%) had a grade-point average of "B" or better, compared to 31 (21%) of the intermediate school student teachers and 10 (30.3%) of the secondary school student teachers. 80 Table 4.3.--Distribution of respondents by grade-point average and teaching level. Grade-Point Average Total A B C D N % N % N % N % N % Elementary - -- 6 17.6 26 76.5 2 5.9 34 15.9 Intermediate 3 2.0 28 19.0 105 71.5 11 7.5 147 68.7 Secondary - -- 10 30.3 21 63.6 2 6.1 33 15.4 Total 3 1.4 44 20.6 152 71.0 15 7.0 214 100.0 Respondents were asked to indicate their teaching field during the student teaching experience. The fields included Arabic, English, fine arts, education, geography, history, mathematics, physical education, religion, science, and other (civilization). Among the highest represented fields were history (35 or 16.4%), religion (31 or 14.5%), geography (30 or 14%), Arabic (27 or 12.6%), and science (26 or 12.1%). The fewest (5 or 2.3%) had taught mathematics during the practicum experience. Table 4.4 shows the distribution of respondents by teaching level and teaching field. As shown in the table, the teaching fields of Arabic, English, mathematics, religion, and science were not represented at the elementary school level, whereas fine arts education was not represented at the secondary level. Of the 147 respondents who did their student teaching at the intermediate level, 30 (20.4%) taught religion, 24 (16.3%) history, 22 (15%) geography, and 22 (15%) Arabic. 0f the 33 respondents who did their student teaching at the 81 secondary level, 10 (30.4%) taught science, 6 (18.2%) history, and 5 (15.2%) Arabic. Unlike those who student taught at the intermediate and secondary school levels, most of the 34 elementary school student teachers taught physical education (20 or 58.8%). The remaining 14 (41.2%) taught history, fine arts education, geography, or Islamic civilization. Table 4.4.--Distribution of respondents by teaching level and teaching field. Teaching Level Total Teaching Elementary Intermediate Secondary Field -—————————— -————————. N % N % N % N % Arabic - -- 22 15.0 5 15.2 27 12.6 English - -- 11 7.5 2 6 0 13 6.1 Fine arts ed. 4 11.8 5 3.4 - -- 9 4.2 Geography 4 11.8 22 15.0 4 12.0 30 14.0 History 5 14.7 24 16.3 6 18.2 35 16.4 Mathematics - -- 2 1.4 3 9.1 5 2.3 Physical ed. 20 58.8 1 .7 1 3.0 22 10.3 Religion - -- 30 20.4 1 3.0 31 14.5 Science - -- 16 10.9 10 30.4 26 12.1 Othera 1 2.9 14 9.5 1 3.0 16 7.5 Total 34 15.9 147 68.7 33 15.4 214 100.0 a"Other" indicates those whose teaching field was Islamic civi- lization. The distribution of respondents by age group and teaching field is shown in Table 4.5. As shown in the table, the majority of respondents (175 or 81.8%) were under 26 years old; 39 (18.2%) were 82 between 26 and 30 years old. Of the 175 student teachers who were under 26 ,years of age, 30 (17.2%) taught history, 27 (15.4%) religion, 25 (14.3%) geography, 23 (13.1%) Arabic, and 20 (11.4%) science. Table 4.5.--Distribution of respondents by age group and teaching field. Age Group (in Years) Total Teaching Under 26 26-30 ————————— Field —— —— N % N % N % Arabic 23 13.1 4 10.3 27 12.6 English 9 5.1 4 10.3 13 6.1 Fine arts ed. 5 2.9 4 10.3 9 4.2 Geography 25 14.3 5 12.8 30 14.0 History 30 17.2 5 12.8 35 16.4 Mathematics 5 2.9 - -- 5 2.3 Physical ed. 15 8.6 7 17.9 22 10.3 Religion 27 15.4 4 10 3 31 14.5 Science 20 11.4 6 15 3 26 12.1 Other 16 9.1 - -- 16 7.5 Total 175 81.8 39 18.2 214 100.0 Respondents were also asked to indicate the highest educational level attained by their parents (see Table 4.6). The mode for parents’ educational level was no formal education, followed by elementary school education. Of the 214 study participants, 128 (59.8%) had parents with no formal education, 42 (19.6%) elementary education, 25 (11.6%) either intermediate or secondary education, 14 (6.5%) college, and 5 (2.3%) other types of education. 83 Table 4.6.--Highest educational level attained by respondents’ parents. Educational Level Number Percent No formal education 128 59.8 Elementary school 42 19.6 Intermediate school 14 6.5 Secondary school 11 5.1 College 14 6.5 Other 5 2.3 Total 214 100.0 An 1 f t ' s i n In this section, the findings related to the four research questions are presented. Each question is restated, followed by the findings pertaining to that question. Research Question 1 What is the nature of student teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of selected aspects of the student teaching program? r b d nt hi . Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they engaged in four specific experiences as a part of the teacher-preparation program before practice teaching, using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (none/very few) to 5 (great many). For analysis purposes, 0-2 times was given a value of 1, 3-4 times was given a value of 2, 5-6 times was given a value of 3, 7-9 times was given a value of 4, and 10 or more times was given a value of 5. Using these values, means 84 and standard deviations were computed for each of the four experiences. The means, standard deviations, and ranks for each of the experiences in the teacher-preparation program before student teaching are presented in Table 4.7. Table 4.7.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of their experiences before practice teaching, in rank order. Item Experience Mean S.D. Rank 1 Observing a classroom teacher 2.35 0.98 1 4 Experiences in public schools 1.99 0.96 2 3 Participating in microteaching 1.65 0.76 3 2 Seeing films or video tapes on teaching methods 1.25 0.56 4 Note: The mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1.00-1.49 - None/very few 1.50-2.49 - Few 2.50-3.49 - Moderate 3.50-4.49 - Many 4.50-5.00 - Great many As shown in Table 4.7, the mean ratings for student teachers’ involvement in selected experiences before starting their practice teaching in public schools ranged from 1 .25 to 2.35. According to the interpretation of means stated earlier, Seeing films or video tapes on teaching methods (mean - 1.25) was rated the least frequently experienced of the four experiences, in the category 85 "very few." The other experiences, Observing a classroom teacher (mean - 2.35), Experiences in public schools (mean - 1.99), and Participating in microteaching (mean - 1.65) were rated in the category "few." WW. Respondents were asked to rate on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 - none/very little, 2 - little, 3 .. moderate, 4 -- large, 5 - very large) the extent to which the student teaching experience had provided an opportunity to realize certain student teaching objectives. Using respondents’ ratings, means and standard deviations were computed for each of the seven student teaching objectives. The mean, standard deviation, and rank for each of the seven objectives of practice teaching, as perceived by the respondents, are shown in Table 4.8. The mean ratings for the seven objectives of the student teaching experience ranged from a low of 3.67 to a high of 4.29, indicating that the respondents perceived they had realized all seven objectives of the student teaching program to a large extent. The most often achieved student teaching objective was Enhance self-confidence (mean - 4.29), followed by Develop a clear perception about the teaching profession (mean - 4.28), Become familiar with the responsibilities of a school teacher (mean -= 4.09), Model appropriate behaviors when working with school-age children (mean - 4.04), Evaluate your own effectiveness as a teacher (mean - 3.90), Relate my previous experience to practice teaching (mean - 3.80), and Apply theory in practical situations (mean = 3.67). Based on the interpretation of mean ratings shown above, 86 student teaching was perceived to be providing opportunities to realize the seven student teaching objectives to a large extent. Table 4.8.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of seven objectives of student teaching, in rank order. Item Objective Mean S.D. Rank 6 Enhance self-confidence 4.29 0.88 l 7 Develop clear perception about the teaching profession 4.28 0.82 2 9 Become familiar with the respon- sibilities of a school teacher 4.09 0.92 3 11 Model appropriate behaviors when working with school-age 4.04 0.94 4 children 8 Evaluate your own effectiveness as a teacher 3.90 1.00 5 10 Relate my previous experience to practice teaching 3.80 1.02 6 5 Apply theory in practical situations 3.67 1.03 7 Note: The mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1. 00-1. 49 - None/very little 1. 50-2. 49 - Little 2. 50-3. 49 . Moderate 3. 50-4. 49 - Large 4. 50- 5. 00 - Very large Ieeening_skills. In this part of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the extent of improvement in their teaching skills after student teaching compared with before the experience. Nine 87 specific areas of teaching skills were listed on the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of improvement in each of the nine skills, using the following five-point Likert- type scale: 1 - well below expectations, 2 - less than expected, 3 - about as expected, 4 - more than expected, 5 - well beyond expectations. Using respondents ratings, a mean and standard deviation were computed for each of the nine areas of teaching skills. The results for each of the nine areas of teaching skills are shown in Table 4.9. Maintaining order in the classroom and assisting students with self-discipline was ranked highest with a mean of 4.03, indicating that respondents thought they had improved more than expected in this area as a result of student teaching. Maximizing students’ understanding of the subject matter (mean - 3.84) was rated second, also at the more-than-expected level. Means for the other seven areas of teaching skills, listed in rank order, were as follows: Using a variety of teaching methods (mean - 3.46), Working with students with different levels of ability (mean = 3.41), Assessing students’ academic progress (mean - 3.39), Modifying instruction in accord with students’ responses (mean - 3.28), Enhancing students’ self-concept (mean - 3.24), planning stimulating lessons (mean = 3.23), and Using audio-visual materials and equipment (mean = 3.12). 88 Table 4.9.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of improvement in nine areas of teaching skills, in rank order. Item Teaching Skill Mean S.D. Rank 20 Maintaining order in the class- room and assisting students with 4.03 0.89 l self-discipline 15 Maximizing students’ understand- ing of the subject matter 3.84 0.87 2 18 Using a variety of teaching methods 3.46 0.97 3 13 Working with students with dif- ferent levels of ability 3.41 0.88 4 16 Assessing students’ academic progress 3.39 0.87 5 l7 Modifying instruction in accord with students’ responses 3.28 0.89 6 l9 Enhancing students’ self-concept 3.24 0.99 7 12 Planning stimulating lessons 3.23 0.73 8 14 Using audio-visual materials and equipment 3.12 1.22 9 Note: The mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1.00-1.49 - Well below expectations l.50-2.49 . Less than expected 2.50-3.49 - About as expected 3.50-4.49 - More than expected 4.50-5.00 - Well beyond expectations Overall, the means ranged from a low of 3.12 to a high of 4.03, indicating a generally high level of improvement in teaching skills, as perceived by student teachers. Thus, considering the means as indicators of the extent of improvement in specific areas of 89 teaching skills as a result of student teaching, respondents’ improvement in seven skills was about as expected; it was more than expected in two skill areas. These ratings suggest that the student teachers surveyed perceived that they had made improvement during the teaching experience. v’ r t n ' . This section of the questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first dealt with the supervision carried out by college supervisors, and the second contained statements pertaining to supervision of the student teachers by cooperating teachers. Supervision by college supervisor. The first part of the section on supervision during student teaching contained seven statements related to the supervision provided by college supervisors during practice teaching. Respondents rated each of the statements in terms of how frequently college supervisors provided assistance in that area, using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 . never, 2 - rarely, 3 - sometimes, 4 . often, 5 = always). Using respondents’ ratings, means and standard deviations were computed for the seven areas. The mean ratings for the assistance provided in the seven selected areas, as perceived by student teachers, are shown in Table 4.10. The mean ratings for frequency of assistance ranged from a high of 3.53 (often) to a low of 2.81 (sometimes). Based on the mean ratings, it can be seen that college supervisors sometimes or often provided assistance to student teachers in all of the 90 Table 4.10.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of assistance provided by college supervisors in seven areas of supervision, in rank order. Item Supervisory Area Mean S.D. Rank 21 Advice about the development of lesson plans 3.53 27 Providing positive feedback about aspects of teaching 3.38 he liked 23 Giving specific suggestions about assessing strengths and 3.25 shortcomings in teaching 25 Suggestions based on college supervisor’s experience as a 3.17 teacher 22 Identifying and discussing the problems experienced as ~ 3.12 a teacher 24 Constructive criticism regard- ing your methods of teaching 3.01 26 Suggestions based on educa- tional research findings 2.81 Note: Mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1.00-1.49 - Never 1.50-2.49 - Rarely 2.50-3.49 - Sometimes 3.50-4.49 - Often 4.50-5.00 - Always supervision areas. On average, college supervisors often provided assistance in the area of Advice about the development of lesson plans (mean - 3.53). Respondents perceived that supervisors sometimes provided assistance in the following areas, listed in rank 91 order: Providing positive feedback about aspects of teaching he liked (mean - 3.38), Giving specific suggestions about assessing strengths and shortcomings in teaching (mean - 3.25), Suggestions based on college supervisor’s experience as a teacher (mean - 3.17), Identifying and discussing the problems experienced as a teacher ( mean - 3.12), Constructive criticism regarding your methods of teaching (mean - 3.01), and Suggestions based on educational research findings (mean - 2.81). Supervision by cooperating teachers. This section contained four items concerning the areas in which cooperating teachers are most likely to provide assistance to their student teachers. Respondents rated the frequency with which cooperating teachers provided assistance for them during the practicum experience, using the same scale they used to rate the college supervisors’ assistance (1 - never to 5 - always). Using respondents’ ratings, means and standard deviations were computed for each of the four areas representing cooperating teachers’ supervisory assistance (see Table 4.11). The mean ratings for the four supervisory areas ranged from a low of 2.69 to a high of 3.29, both at the "sometimes" level of frequency. Using the interpretation of mean ratings given above, it can be seen that the respondents perceived that their supervising teachers sometimes provided assistance to them in the four selected areas. Mean ratings in these areas, listed in rank order, were as follows: Advice about the development of lesson plans (mean = 3.29), Providing positive feedback about aspects of teaching (mean = 92 3.18), Opportunity to discuss problems experienced as a teacher (mean - 2.94), and Constructive criticism regarding methods of teaching (mean - 2.69). Table 4.11.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of assistance provided by supervising teachers in four areas of supervision, in rank order. Item Supervisory Area Mean S.D. Rank 28 Advice about the development of lesson plans 3.29 1.16 l 31 Providing positive feedback about aspects of teaching 3.18 1.12 2 29 Opportunity to discuss problems experienced as a teacher 2.94 1.16 3 30 Constructive criticism regard- ing methods of teaching 2.69 1.17 4 Note: Mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1.00-1.49 = Never 1.50-2.49 Rarely Sometimes Often Always «h 40 III P ef rr 1 r om v i n. Respondents were asked to indicate 'their' preference for the number of 'times college supervisors should make classroom observations (see Table 4.12). Of the 214 student teachers who responded to the survey, 77 (36%) preferred a weekly classroom observation, 82 (38.3%) bi-weekly, 46 (21.5%) monthly, and 9 (4.2%)iindicated "other." Some of the 93 ”other" preferences were twice a week or as the supervisor sensed the student teacher’s need. Table 4.12.--Number of classroom observations college supervisors should make. Preferred Number of Observations Number Percent Weekly 77 36.0 Bi-weekly 82 38.3 Monthly 46 21.5 Other 9 4.2 Total 214 100.0 valuati n urin t dent c n . Four items concerning the process of evaluation during practice teaching were included on the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each statement. concerning the» evaluation process had been carried on during their student teaching. They responded using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 - no extent, 2 - small extent, 3 = some extent, 4 a large extent, 5 = very large extent). Using respondents’ ratings, means and standard deviations were computed for these items. A high mean near 5.00 indicated that the phase of evaluation was carried on to a very large extent, whereas a low mean near 1.00 indicated that the phase was not carried on at all. The mean ratings, standard deviations, and rank orders for the four phases of evaluating student teachers are shown in Table 4.13. Ratings for the four items ranged from a low of 3.02 (some extent) to a high of 3.64 (large extent). 94 Table 4.13.--Means and standard deviations for respondents’ percep- tions of aspects of evaluating student teachers, in rank order. Item Aspect of Evaluation Mean S.D. Rank 36 Frequent observations by the college supervisor to make valid 3.64 evaluation 37 Final evaluation based on evi- dence of actual growth as a 3.60 teacher 34 Objectives of evaluation defined in terms of expected behavior 3.09 35 Cooperation between college supervisor and supervising teacher in evaluating student 3.02 teacher 1.18 1.03 0.94 1.23 Note: Mean ratings were interpreted as follows: 1.00-1.49 - No extent l.50-2.49 = Small extent 2.50-3.49 = Some extent 3.50-4.49 = Large extent 4.50-5.00 = Very large extent According to the interpretation of mean ratings given above, of the four aspects of evaluating student teachers, two were carried out to a large extent and the other two to some extent. The evaluation aspects that were carried out to some extent were Objectives of evaluation defined in terms of expected behavior (mean - 3.09) and Cooperation between college supervisor and supervising teacher in evaluating student teacher (mean - 3.02). The aspects that respondents perceived to be carried out to a large extent were 95 Frequent observations by the college supervisor to make valid evaluation (mean - 3.64) and Final evaluation based on evidence of actual growth as a teacher (mean - 3.60). Setisfeetipp_u11n_1he_prpgrem. Question 38 concerned student teachers’ satisfaction with the whole program. Participants were asked to respond on a scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 9 (very satisfied). For analysis purposes, scale responses were combined as follows: 1-2 - Very dissatisfied 3-5 . Dissatisfied 6-7 - Satisfied 8- - Very satisfied Respondents’ satisfaction with the student teaching program is shown in Table 4.14. Of the 214 participants, 5 (2.3%) were very dissatisfied with the student teaching program, 48 (22.4%) were dissatisfied, 84 (39.4%) were satisfied, and 77 (36%) were very satisfied. Table 4.14.--Respondents’ satisfaction with the student teaching program. Level of Satisfaction Number Percent Very dissatisfied 5 2.3 Dissatisfied 48 22.4 Satisfied 84 39.3 Very satisfied 77 36.0 Total 214 100.0 96 13W What aspects of the student teaching program have a significant influence on the satisfaction level of student teachers? On a continuum scale ranging from 1 to 9, respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the student teaching program. A high rating near 9.00 on this scale indicated that the student teacher was highly satisfied, whereas a low rating near 1.00 indicated that the student teacher was highly dissatisfied. Using respondents’ level of satisfaction as the response variable, student teachers’ perceptions of six aspects of the student teaching program were considered as predictor variables. The six aspects were: Experiences before student teaching Student teaching objectives Teaching skills Supervision by college supervisor Supervision by supervising teacher Evaluation during student teaching mm-AWN-J o o o o o 0 Preliminary investigation using the Pearson product-moment correlation procedure indicated respondents’ perceptions of all the student teaching aspects; the highest correlation coefficient was .552. (The matrix of Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cients is shown in 'Table 4.15“) With the presence of linear relationships or near linear relationships among regressors, multi- collinearity is often a concern (Seber, 1977). Thus, before intro- ducing all the aspects of the student teaching program into the regression model, the extent of the problem of multicollinearity was considered. As Lewis-Beck (1980) observed, multicollinearity is often a problem when at least one of the correlation coefficients is 97 Table 4.15.--Matrix of Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cients between the predictor and outcome variables. QUES38 PARTl PART2 PART3 PART4 PART4T PARTS QUES38 .1810 .1657 .1537 .1369 .0153 .4176 ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) p-.008 p-.015 p-.025 p-.045 p-.824 p-.000 PARTl .1807 .2171 .1692 .1735 .2850 ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) p-.008 p-.001 p-.013 p-.011 p-.000 PARTZ .3813 .1226 .1424 .1880 ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) p-.000 p-.073 p-.037 p-.006 PARTB .2348 .1753 .2699 ( 214) ( 214) ( 214) p-.001 p-.010 p-.000 PART4 .5520 .4440 ( 214) ( 214) p-.000 p=.000 PART4T .3865 ' ( 214) p-.000 PARTS Note: PARTl - Experiences before student teaching. PARTZ - Objectives of student teaching. PART3 - Teaching skills. PART4 - Supervision by college supervisor. PART4T - Supervision by cooperating teacher. PART 5 . Evaluation of student teaching. 98 greater than or equal to .80. For this study, as shown in the cor- relation matrix, the highest correlation coefficient (.55) was observed between the aspects of supervision by the college super- visor and supervision by the supervising teacher. All other corre- lation coefficients were lower than .552. Based (n1 Lewis-Beck’s criterion, all six aspects of student teaching could be introduced into the regression equation (see also Rukspallmung, 1980). Stepwise ‘regression analysis. was used, with levels of satisfaction as the dependent variable and the six aspects of the student teaching program as regressors. The standardized regression coefficients, the observed statistics, and their corresponding observed significance level for each of the six aspects of the student teaching program are shown in Table 4.16. At step one of the stepwise regression process, the aspect of Evaluation during student teaching was entered into the regression model. The observed multiple correlation coefficient was .418, with 17.4% of the variation in student teachers’ satisfaction level being explained or accounted for by this aspect alone when other variables were held constant. The standardized regression coefficient of .484 indicated that a one-unit increase in respondents’ perception of Evaluation during student teaching had a corresponding increase of .484 units in the students’ satisfaction level. 99 Table 4.16.--Regression analysis results for the prediction of student teachers’ level of satisfaction by six aspects of the student teaching program. Regression Aspect of Student Teaching Coefficient T-Statistic p-Value (Beta) Experience before student teaching .080 1.238 .2171 Student teaching objectives .103 1.651 .1003 Teaching skills .058 0.899 .3699 Supervision by college supervisor .027 0.343 .7322 Supervision by supervising teacher -.172 -2.570 .0108* Evaluation during student teaching .484 7.240 .0000* *Significant at the .05 level. At step two, the aspect of Supervision by the supervising teacher' was entered into the regression model, resulting in an increase of the multiple correlation coefficient to .447, with about 20% of the variation in the student teachers’ satisfaction level being accounted for by the two regressors combined. However, the negative standardized regression coefficient of -.l72 for the aspect of Supervision by the supervising teacher indicated that a one-unit increase in respondents’ perception of this aspect corresponded to a .172 reduction in their level of satisfaction. At the end of step two, no additional predictors were entered into the regression 100 model. The two aspects, Evaluation during student teaching and Supervision by the supervising teacher, were the only regressors that significantly contributed to the student teachers’ level of satisfaction. The other four aspects of the student teaching program did not appear to contribute significantly to the satisfac- tion level of the respondents. W 00 the aspects of the student teaching program included in the study vary with certain demographic characteristics? The five demographic variables (age, grade-point average, teaching field, teaching level, and parents’ educational level) and the six aspects of the student teaching program (experience before student teaching, objectives of student teaching, teaching skills, supervision by college supervisor, supervision by cooperating teacher, and evaluation during student teaching) were considered in addressing Research Question 3. Using the demographic variables as factors and the aspects of the student teaching program as response variables, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in student teachers’ perceptions of the six aspects of the student teaching program, based on the demographic variables. The .05 alpha level was the criterion for determining statistical significance. MANOVA was judged to be appropriate in addressing this research question in order to control for Type I error while simultaneously testing the equality of means. 101 The MANOVA results for the effect of the demographic variables on the six aspects of the student teaching program included in the study are shown in Table 4.17. Statistically significant differ- ences were found among student teachers at different teaching levels on the six aspects of student teaching. No statistically signifi- cant difference was observed with regard to the other four demographic variables. Table 4.17.--MANOVA results for the effect of demographic variables on six aspects of the student teaching program. Demographic Variable Pillais Hotelling Wilks Roys F-Value p-Value Age .0242 .0248 .9759 .0242 0.8539 .530 Grade-point average .0119 .0120 .9881 .0119 0.4152 .868 Teaching field .2940 .3274 .7335 .1514 1.3530a .057 Teaching b level .1081 .1144 .8948 .0609 1.9719 .025* Parents’ educational .0041 .0042 .9959 .0041 0.1432 .990 level *Significant at the .05 level. aApproximate F based on Hotelling. bApproximate F based on Pillais. Univariate analysis of variance was used to determine the specific aspects of the student teaching program on which 102 participants’ perceptions varied according to teaching level. The univariate F-statistics and their corresponding observed significance levels for the six aspects of the student teaching program are shown in Table 4.18. Statistically significant differences were found among respondents at different teaching levels on the following aspects of the student teaching program: Experience before student teaching (F - 3.239, p < .05), Supervision by college supervisor (F - 3.479, p < .05), Supervision by cooperating teacher (F . 4.336, p < .05), and Evaluation during student teaching (F - 3.388, p < .05). Further analysis based on the Tukey post-hoc test revealed that elementary school student teachers had significantly higher mean ratings than secondary school student teachers on the following aspects of the student teaching program: Experience before student teaching, Supervision by college supervisor, and Evaluation during student teaching. No statistically significant difference was found between intermediate school student teachers and either elementary or secondary school student teachers on these three aspects of the student teaching program. However, with regard to Supervision by cooperating teacher, the Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the mean perception of elementary school student teachers was significantly higher than that of intermediate school student teachers. No statistically significant difference was found between secondary school student teachers and either elementary or intermediate school student teachers on this particular aspect of the student teaching program. 103 Table 4.18.--Univariate analysis of variance results for the effect of teaching level on student teachers’ perceptions of six aspects of student teaching. Observed Aspect of Teaching Mean S.D. F- Signif. Student Teaching Level Statistic Level Experience Elementary 2.015a 0.744 before student Intermediate 1.791 0.470 3 239 041* teaching Secondary 1.705a 0.547 ° ' Total 1.813 0.539 Student teaching Elementary 4.076 0.640 objectives Intermediate 3.978 0.649 Secondary 4.117 0.518 0°849 0'429 Total 4.015 0.629 Teaching skills Elementary 3.510 0.572 Intermediate 3.443 0.522 Secondary 3.404 0.478 0'360 0'698 Total 3.448 0.522 Supervision by Elementary 3.471a 1.048 college super- Intermediate 3.175 0.796 3 479 033* visor Secondary 2.952a 0.553 ° ' Total 3.188 0.820 Supervision by Elementary 3.449a 0.898 cooperating Intermediate 2.932a 0.938 4 335 014. teacher Secondary 3.046 0.876 ' ° Total 3.032 0.937 Evaluation Elementary 3.552a 0.776 during student Intermediate 3.359 0.801 3 488 0032* teaching Secondary 3.046a 0.804 ' Total 3.350 0.807 *Significant at the .05 level. aGroups that were significantly different by Tukey’s test. 104 W901 What recommendations do student teachers have regarding improvement of the student teaching program? The survey instrument contained four open-ended questions. These items concerned (a) student teachers’ expectations from the college supervisor with which he did not follow through, (b) problems they encountered during student teaching, (c) suggestions for program improvement, and (d) positive aspects of the student teaching program. Responses to these questions are given in this section. The figures in parentheses indicate the number of respondents who gave a certain response. Participants were asked what expectations they had had of the college supervisor with which he did not carry through. Responses of those who chose to answer this question are as follows: To guide me and advise me in teaching methods. (31 or 14.5%) To guide me properly, indicating the positive aspects of my teaching as well as the negative ones; to provide constructive criticism. (28 or 13%) To visit me at the school weekly. (25 or 11.7%) To acquaint me with the latest educational research findings. (10 or 4.67%) To give me feedback after observing me in the classroom (8 or 3.73%) To help me solve and overcome problems that I faced during the practicum period. (7 or 3.27%) To evaluate me on a regular basis and direct me in setting goals and objectives, and in preparing tests. (7 or 3.27%) To look at my lesson plan book and advise me about any weaknesses. (6 or 2.8%) ' 105 To meet with me weekly to discuss teaching methods and to hear about the obstacles that I encountered at school. (5 or 2.33%) To be cooperative and supportive and to guide me. (5 or 2.33%) To introduce me to school personnel at the beginning of the practicum period. (4 or 1.86%) Respondents were asked to indicate two problems that they had encountered during student teaching. Responses were as follows: There were not enough audio-visual materials and equipment in the schools. (45 or 21%) Some school teachers were not cooperative and did not respect the student teacher. (23 or 10.7%) There were too many pupils (up to 50) in the classroom. (23 or 10.7%) Taking classes at the university and student teaching in the public schools at the same time. (20 or 9.3%) Pupils were careless about the subject matter and the student teacher. (18 or 8.41%) Pupils’ ability level was weak, especially in Arabic and English. (14 or 6.5%) Facing the classroom for the first time. (6 or 2.8%) Ability to maintain order in the classroom, especially when pupils knew that I was a student teacher. (5 or 2.3%) Being assigned to teach subjects outside my expertise or specialty area. (4 or 1.86%) Observing and practice teaching in the same school. (4 or 1.86%) Student teachers were asked to give suggestions as to how the problem could be improved. Those who shared their opinions responded as follows: More early field experiences should be offered before student teaching. (48 or 22.4%) 106 Practice teaching should be limited to three or four days per week. (15 or 7%) The student teacher should not take classes at the university while he is doing his student teaching. (13 or 6.07%) The classroom observation should be in a different school from the one in which the student teacher did his practice teaching. (9 or 4.2%) School principals need to be more aware of the student teacher’s role. (9 or 4.2%) The student teaching office should hold a meeting with all student teachers once a month to discuss the current situation and problems that trainees are confronting. (9 or 4.2%) College supervisors need to increase their school as well as classroom visits. (8 or 3.73%) The college supervisor should have experience in the student teacher’s teaching field so that he can offer better assistance in that regard. (8 or 3.73%) The college supervisor and the cooperating teacher should hold a weekly conference with the student teacher at the school where the practice teaching is taking place. (6 or 2.8%) Cooperating teachers should provide more assistance and demonstrate desirable behaviors with regard to the teaching profession. (4 or 1.86%) Student teachers should have the same authority over the classroom as the regular teacher has. (2 or .93%) Finally, student teachers were asked to indicate two positive aspects of the student teaching program that they had gone through for 16 weeks. They expressed the following opinions: The program constituted a comprehensive idea about the teaching profession. (54 or 25.23%) It enhanced my self-concept. (31 or 14.5%) I practiced and became familiar with strategic situations in the teaching profession. (31 or 14.4%) I learned how to deal with pupils. (20 or 9.3%) 107 I learned the responsibilities of a classroom teacher. (18 or 8.41%) I came to understand my teaching abilities. (16 or 7.47%) I learned to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical setting. (16 or 7.47%) The college supervisor’ cooperated in solving problems that student teachers faced during the practice period. (9 or 4.2%) School principals and teachers offered cooperation and assist- ance during the student teaching experience. (8 or 3.73%) I acquired some administrative experience. (6 or 2.8%) The program provided direct involvement with those who have teaching experience. (6 or 2.8%) I learned how to write a lesson plan and how to set up examination questions. (2 or .93%) ummar This chapter contained two major sections. Personal characteristics of’ the respondents were presented in the first section. These» characteristics included respondents’ age, grade point average, teaching field, teaching level, and parents’ level of education. In the second section, results of the data analyses conducted to answer the research questions were presented. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions based on the research findings, and recommendations for practice and for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0mm W The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the present student teaching program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, as perceived by student teachers who had recently completed the program. The following aspects of the student teaching program were evaluated: (a) experiences prior to student teaching, (b) objectives of student teaching, (c) teaching skills, (d) supervision, and (e) the evaluation process. The Stggy Eppgletipp The target population comprised the male student teachers enrolled in student teaching second semester 1989 in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University. Two hundred fourteen usable questionnaires were returned, representing 83% of the total population. 1191119091991 A written questionnaire was developed to accomplish the goals of the research; some items were adapted from instruments 108 109 constructed by other researchers. The instrument included 41 structured items pertaining to the five aspects of student teaching that were explored in this study, as well as questions seeking demographic information. The survey also contained unstructured items and a scale on which respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the student teaching program. Simple descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages, and rank orders, were used in analyzing the data for Research Question 1. Stepwise regression was used to determine which aspects of the student teaching program influenced student teachers’ satisfaction with the experience (Research Question 2). Research Question 3 concerned which of the demographic variables had an effect on each aspect of the student teaching program. Multivariate analyses of variance, as well as univariate and Tukey post-hoc tests, were employed to discover which demographic characteristics influenced respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of various aspects of the student teaching program (Research Question 3). Responses to the four unstructured items were used in answering Research Question 4. Ch ra t ri i s d The majority of the 214 participants (81.3%) were between 21 and 25 years of age. Most of them (68.7%) taught at the intermediate level, whereas almost equal percentages (15.4% and 15.9%) taught at the secondary and elementary levels, respectively. Most of the student teachers (71%) had a "C" average; only 1.4% were 110 "A" students, and there were more ”8" than "D" students. The teaching field of the largest percentage of respondents (16.4%) was history, followed closely by those in religion (14.5%). Student teachers majoring in Arabic, English, religion, science, and mathematics did not teach at the elementary level, whereas those majoring in fine arts education taught only at the elementary and intermediate levels. Parents of the majority of student teachers (59.8%) had had no formal education. Only 6.5% of these future teachers had parents with a college degree. Ma'or Fin in s The major findings related to the four research questions are summarized in this section. Each question is restated, followed by a discussion of the findings for that question. Beseepcn Question 1: How effective are selected aspects of the student teaching program, as perceived by student teachers? The first aspect considered was experiences prior to student teaching. "Observing a classroom teacher" had the highest mean of all the experiences listed, indicating that this experience should receive the most attention from those in charge of the professional program. This finding corroborates the results of previous studies conducted in the United States and other countries (King, 1978; Tittle, 1974). "Participating in experiences in public schools" and ”participating in microteaching" ranked below the midpoint of the scale, indicating that less attention had been given to these experiences. "Seeing films or videotapes on teaching methods" 111 received a low mean, close to the end of the scale, signifying that no practice had taken place in this kind of experience. Based on the literature review and the findings from this research, the conclusion is that experiences before student teaching have not been given the attention they deserve in preparing future teachers. The findings revealed that there is a great need to increase the early field experiences before student teaching in terms of magnitude and perspective. These experiences provide future teachers with first-hand involvement, assisting them in more than one dimension. They allow preservice teachers to discover the reality of teaching and thereby to form a real commitment to the profession. Teacher educators in the College of Education need to add these experiences to the curriculum of the professional program. The second aspect examined was student teaching objectives. Respondents indicated the extent to which their student teaching program had provided them with the opportunity to attain each of seven objectives listed in the questionnaire. "Enhance self- confidence," ”develop clear perception about teaching profession," "become familiar with the responsibilities of a school teacher," and "model appropriate behaviors when working with school-age children" received means of 4.00 and above, whereas "evaluate your own effectiveness as a teacher,” ”relate previous experiences to practice teaching,” and "apply theory to practical situation" received lower ratings. The objective respondents had had the least opportunity to attain was ”applying theory to practical situations." Perhaps this is a result of respondents’ lack of experiences before 112 student teaching and the limited involvement of the college supervisor and the supervising teacher, who can help students make the connection between theory and practice-~what works in reality and what does not work. Overall, the seven student teaching objectives were being met to a large extent, according to the mean ratings. This result is in agreement with Tittle’s (1974) and Gullimore’s (1979) findings. Alleyne (1974) had basically the same results, although the aspects were ranked differently in terms of achievement. The third aspect examined in Research Question 1 was teaching skills. The effect of student teaching on the improvement of nine teaching skills was the primary focus. Respondents perceived that more-than-expected improvement had occurred in ”maintaining order in the classroom and assisting students with self-discipline" and "maximizing students’ understanding of the subject matter." In three teaching skills, student teachers thought inadequate improvement had resulted from 'the '1aboratory' experience. These skills were ”enhancing students’ self-concept," "planning stimulating lessons," and "using audio-visual materials and equipment." Institutions of pedagogy should train preservice students practically as well as theoretically in different teaching skills. More attention should be given to the areas of deficiency noted in this study and to those in which potential teachers need improvement. 113 The» most interesting finding was with regard to students’ perceived improvement in maintaining order in the classroom. According to much of the literature, classroom management is the problem most frequently faced by student teachers (Alleyne, 1987; Edmonds, 1985; Freeland, 1979; Morrow 5 Lane, 1983; Purcell 8 Seiforth, 1981), contrary to what student teachers reported in this study. The contradictory findings from this study might be due to one of two things: (a) the Saudi school system does not tolerate insubordination, or (b) student teachers’ expectations of approaching classroom management were low, and when they started student teaching they found they were able to manage the classrooms effectively. The fourth aspect of the student teaching program that was examined in this study was supervision--that is, supervision by the college supervisor and supervision by the cooperating teacher. Respondents rated the frequency of seven types of assistance provided by the college supervisor during student teaching. Student teachers perceived that their college supervisors often provided assistance in ”the development of lesson plans." The other six types of assistance were provided "sometimes." The two areas with the lowest means were "constructive criticism regarding your methods of teaching" and "suggestions based ("1 educational research findings.” This result indicates a need to recheck the college supervisor’s role in helping student teachers develop professionally. 114 When student teachers were asked to indicate their preference for the number of times the college supervisor should observe them, the majority of respondents (74.3%) said either weekly or bi-weekly. This indication of the necessity of the college supervisor’s presence during the fieldwork period might be attributed to the lack of support given by supervising teachers. More research is warranted to discover the effort and cooperation that supervising teachers are contributing to their student teachers. The absence of college supervisors from the setting increases the importance of supervising teachers in providing daily support for prospective teachers. Like the cooperating teacher, the college supervisor is a key figure in developing competent future teachers. The literature reviewed for this study emphasized the importance of conferences and feedback during student teaching, as well as increased visitations (Alvermann, 1981; Bowman, 1978; Frenzel, 1977; Howey et al., 1978; Koehler, 1984; Russell, 1979; Turney et al., 1982). The second type of supervision was that done by the cooperating teacher. Respondents were questioned about the degree of assistance they had received from their cooperating teachers in four areas intended to provide novice teachers with strategies for approaching the» classroom situation. Student teachers perceived that they received the most assistance in ”the development of lesson plans," whereas the least attention was given to "constructive criticism regarding methods of teaching.” Even though, based on aggregate means, the four areas were rated "sometimes” in terms of assistance being offered, some apparently were recognized more than others. 115 When the cooperating teacher remains unobtrusive in the supervisory process, it places roadblocks in the student teacher’s progress. Prospective teachers want to receive feedback from those who understand the teaching process and have field experience. Student teachers usually look to the advice of those they trust; therefore, there is a great need for mutual trust between the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. An important factor in the selection of a cooperating teacher should be his/her willingness to perform supervisory functions with student teachers. The findings revealed that the cooperating teachers’ involvement in the supervisory process was quite limited. Therefore, the College of Education should have an unambiguous expectation of the role of cooperating teachers during student teaching, and that role expectation should be clearly specified and conveyed to the cooperating teachers. The criteria for choosing cooperating teachers should include different facets of experiences in the teaching profession. The fifth aspect. of ‘the student teaching experience to be considered was evaluation of student teaching. Four items concerning the process of evaluation during student teaching were included in the survey. Based on the gross mean, student teachers considered the following two procedures to have been carried out to a great extent: "frequent observations by the college supervisor to make valid evaluation” and "final evaluation based (n1 evidence of actual growth as a teacher.” The two evaluation procedures that had 116 been achieved to some extent were "objectives of evaluation defined in terms of expected behavior" and "college supervisor and cooperating teacher cooperated in evaluating my teaching.” The involvement of the supervising teacher in each evaluation procedure was not observed, nor was it consistent with the importance of this individual in the prospective teacher’s future. The supervising teacher should be included in each aspect of student teaching. The college supervisor’s duties--among them teaching courses at the university, participating on boards and commissions, and engaging in public service--encompass more than supervising student teachers. In addition, the college supervisor must drive from one school to another, meet with the principal, and moderate conferences with student teachers. Thus, the involvement of the cooperating teacher is of utmost importance. The involvement of cooperating teachers in student teacher evaluation should be clearly defined, so that the process is not left to the teachers’ intuition. A clear frame of reference, consistent with the program objectives, is required. Contradictions and misunderstandings result when there is no cooperation between university and field personnel. The goals and intentions of the college of education should be articulated to all those involved in the evaluation of student teachers and in the entire student teaching process. Aflso, the results of this study suggested that more collaboration between college supervisors and cooperating teachers is desirable. 117 Concerning their satisfaction with the student teaching program, three-fourths of the respondents indicated they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied.” In contrast, one-fourth of the respondents expressed that they were "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied." Overall, respondents had mixed feelings about the program, although the majority were satisfied with it. This means that more effort should be devoted to improving the student teaching program in the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University. Research Question 2: What aspects of the student teaching program have a substantial influence on the satisfaction of student teachers? Stepwise regression analysis was used to analyze the data for this question. The five aspects of the student teaching program (supervision was divided into two parts--supervision by college supervisor and supervision by cooperating teacher) were used as predictor variables, and level of satisfaction was the outcome variable. The results revealed that the evaluation aspect of student teaching explained 17.4% of the variance in student teachers’ satisfaction. A one-unit increase in student teachers’ perception of evaluation had a corresponding increase of one-half unit in respondents’ satisfaction. Supervision by supervising teacher, along with the evaluation aspect, explained about 20% of the variance in student teachers’ perceptions. Nevertheless, this aspect showed a negative standardized regression coefficient, signifying that a one-unit increase or change in student teachers’ perceptions of supervision 118 by the supervising teacher corresponded to a .172 reduction in their level of satisfaction. Even though .172 seems like a small amount, it still represents two different directions; when one increased, the other decreased. More effort is needed before drawing any conclusions from these findings. The correlation between Part 4 and Part 4T was modest, which makes it difficult to determine the relative influence of the predictor variables on the outcome variable. The higher the correlation between the dependent variable and the independent variables, the better the prediction; nonetheless, the lower the correlation among the independent or predictor variables, the better the explained result, and no redundancy can occur. Both evaluation of student teaching and supervision by supervising teacher contributed significantly to student teachers’ satisfaction, but the former contributed positively whereas the latter' contributed negatively. Again, the work of cooperating teachers needs more attention so that the experiences of supervising teachers can contribute to the welfare and development of future teachers. Applegate (1987) referred to the fact that supervising teachers can have either a positive or negative influence on student teachers’ satisfaction with the practicum experience. W: Does the perceived effectiveness of the aspects of the student teaching program included in the study vary according to certain demographic characteristics of the student teachers? Statistically significant differences were found among student teachers at different teaching levels with regard to their 119 perceptions of the effectiveness of the aspects of student teaching. No statistically significant difference was observed with regard to the other four demographic variables. The results of the univariate analysis showed that teaching level had a statistically significant relationship to experiences before student teaching, supervision by college supervisor, supervision by cooperating teacher, and evaluation during student teaching. Further analysis revealed that student teachers who had taught at the elementary level perceived that their experience before student teaching, supervision by college supervisor, and evaluation during student teaching were significantly more effective than did those who had taught at the secondary level. Also, student teachers who had been assigned to the elementary level perceived that their supervision by the cooperating teacher was significantly more effective than did those teaching at the intermediate level. Reseerch Question 4: What recommendations do student teachers have regarding improvement of the student teaching program? Student teachers were asked to respond to four unstructured items on the survey. They expressed the following concerns related to the college supervisor: The college supervisor had not given them enough advice on teaching methods, he should share with them both positive and negative aspects of their performance and offer constructive criticism, and he should visit the student teacher weekly in the school and provide feedback after the classroom observation. 120 The problems that respondents encountered most often during student teaching were the dearth of audio-visual materials and equipment, school teachers’ misconceptions about the role of the student teacher, the number of students in the classroom, taking classes on campus in addition to student teaching, and pupils who were disinterested in the subject matter as well as in dealing with the student teacher. Respondents gave the following suggestions for improving the student teaching program: reducing the student teaching to three days per week, eliminating college class requirements during the student teaching period, having student teaching officials hold meetings with student teachers at least monthly to listen to and discuss their concerns, and having a supervisor with background in the same teaching field as the student teacher. They said that more involvement from the supervising teacher is necessary and that early field experiences are needed. The positive aspects of the respondents’ student teaching program were that it provided a comprehensive idea about the teaching profession and enhanced their self-concept. In addition, they gained a better understanding of pupil characteristics, their teaching ability was enhanced, and they used theoretical knowledge in practical situations. on si Based on the study findings, the following conclusions were drawn: 121 1. Student teachers unanimously declared that their experiences before student teaching had not been sufficient. Little experience had been offered in observing classroom teachers. The other three types of experiences were perceived as being offered very infrequently. Prospective teachers expressed the need for more first-hand experiences. 2. The objectives of student teaching were largely met, but the one needing more work is the connection between theory and practice, which ranked in last place. 3. The effect of student teaching on the perceived improvement of teaching skills was apparent; nevertheless, some areas, such as using audio-visual materials and equipment, responding to pupils’ needs, and planning lessons, need further attention. 4. Student teachers perceived that they had received inadequate supervision by their college supervisors in all areas except "development of lesson plans." Respondents expressed displeasure with the supervision they had received in the following areas: "classroom visitation," "providing constructive criticism," and "reviewing lesson plan book." 5. Cooperating teachers seemingly did not deal properly with the problems student teachers faced; the respondents’ negative perceptions in this regard affected their satisfaction with the student teaching program. 6. Student teachers expressed their desire for increased classroom visitations by the college supervisor--to at least weekly or bi-weekly visits. 122 7. Evaluation of student teaching was the only aspect that was significantly related to participants’ satisfaction with the student teaching program. 8. Collaborative efforts between the college supervisor and the cooperating teacher in evaluating student teachers still need to be developed. 9. Generally speaking, participants expressed more satisfac- tion than dissatisfaction with the student teaching program. 10. Teaching level appeared to influence some aspects of student teaching, as perceived by the student teachers. Specifically, those who had taught at the elementary level perceived they had received significantly more of those aspects than did respondents who had taught at either the intermediate or secondary level. 11. Student teachers did not believe they received enough support, assistance, and guidance from either the college supervisor or the supervising teacher. Their expectations, especially from the college supervisor, were not fulfilled in terms of providing advice on teaching methods, providing constructive criticism, introducing them to school personnel, and holding conferences with the student teacher and providing feedback. 12. Unavailability of audio-visual materials in schools, lack of cooperation and respect from school teachers, taking classes at the university during student teaching, and the number of students in the classroom seemed to be bothersome areas for prospective teachers. 123 89.991111909311905 mm nd i n ac i In light of the study findings, the following recommendations are presented. 1. To make the connection between theory and practice, preservice teachers should be provided with early field experiences. 2. The quality of education that is being provided to school children depends largely on those who are responsible for teaching them. Therefore, a better screening procedure f0r those entering the teaching profession is very important. 3. The role of the college supervisor in the supervisory process is diminished as more student teachers are assigned to him/her. Therefore, the number of student teachers assigned to a college supervisor should be limited, so that he/she can work effectively with them. 4. The objectives of the student teaching program should be communicated to all individuals involved in the program, including student teachers and cooperating teachers. 5. The college supervisor and supervising teacher should help the student teacher understand ideas presented in the methods courses that might be impractical, and they should provide continuous feedback during practice regarding procedures that work and those that do not work in the real-life situation. 6. The College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University should provide cooperating teachers with inservice training focused on 124 supervisory* skills. so 'that these teachers are well prepared to supervise student teachers. 7. Those who are in charge of supervising student teachers need to recognize the cognitive ability of the student teachers during the supervisory period, in order to develop student teachers’ cognitive ability from lower stages to higher ones. 8. The college supervisor should have background in the student teacher’s teaching field, so as to give the novice the help and support necessary to improve his/her teaching. 9. The objectives of the student teaching program need to be clearly articulated and agreed on by college and field personnel. Otherwise, field personnel assume that what they do is right, and consequently the field experiences have the potential to reshape preservice teachers. Because cooperating teachers can easily influence their student teachers, occupational socialization is likely to occur. 10. Student teachers who are experiencing difficulties should be visited more frequently by their college supervisors during the student teaching period. 11. The experiences before student teaching and the student teaching itself should be conducted in two different settings or schools. 12. The neophyte should be allowed to observe at more than one teaching level and in different settings, but he/she should be assigned to one teaching level for the duration of the student teaching experience. 125 Wan Further research on student teaching is needed so that optimal growth for future teachers can be realized. As a result of this study, the investigator suggests the following areas for further research: 1. This research should be replicated with female student teachers to determine their perceptions regarding aspects of the student teaching program. 2. Further research should be undertaken using different methods, such as interview or observation, to determine the effectiveness of certain aspects of student teaching. 3. A study should be carried out to identify the influence cooperating teachers have on student teachers during the practicum period. 4. Further research should be conducted using other student teaching aspects besides the ones included in this study. 5. Additional research should be undertaken to determine the effect of the transition period of student teaching on self-type and task-type concerns of student teachers. 6. Longitudinal research should be carried out to determine whether preservice student teachers’ curricula prepare them idealis- tically or realistically. M31191]; The transition period of student teaching was established to acquaint potential teachers with the reality of the teaching 126 profession. The training of student teachers should be organized and agreed upon by both campus and field personnel. Supervising teachers’ qualifications for working with student teachers are critical; not every teacher is capable of being a supervisor. The welfare of the student teacher must be considered when assigning him/her to a supervising teacher. The practice teacher will be influenced in some way and to some degree by the supervising teacher, even though the degree of influence will vary from one individual to another. The last phase of preservice teacher preparation before the novice can enter his/her own classroom as a full-fledged teacher is crucial. Both the college supervisor and the supervising teacher can participate to a great extent in developing future teachers. Giving the student teacher the opportunity to try his/her wings while providing supervised classroom experience is the primary purpose of student teaching. Teacher educators and school personnel should share the responsibility for the welfare of the prospective teacher and of his/her future pupils. The supervising teacher should help student teachers blend theoretical knowledge with the practical situation. The last phase of teacher preparation is important for school children of the future, the beginning teacher, and the teaching profession. The essentials should not be left to the desires and whims of individual supervising teachers. 127 It is very important for college supervisors, supervising teachers, and school principals to deal with student teachers as adult learners. The cognitive developmental levels of student teachers should be considered, in order to promote their growth during the practicum period. Even though the student teachers in this study indicated their satisfaction with the student teaching program and its effectiveness, teacher educators should aim toward improvement and attempt to alleviate the deficiencies that are present, specifically in the role of supervising teachers. Mutual support is necessary for successful teacher training. The role and function of the supervising teacher is crucial in the development of future teachers. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ARABIC AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 128 ”AJIWJIQUIH Mlgfildlbsyf filfiijlmjjéfirwl a w“ 15 , .e‘ylat_1.a.___u,30“zh,t._eel dial—.abuww13wwoljbbgl tC.._.-s.JL_a WIQLAHQIHQHJH3 Ha...“ WHIQ—‘KJWIHHIHLHHDIJ: “1H3 ADLAQY§F|HHHLLJ55 Lab—Unl—Ulg gl____q.)1.1_m QF—hJIJ—n’ld—AIQ—ilH—A’ o-JPAIUM'NIWIH HglcheblgpolwprJlLJi—JSHHJ .Euual a... wens, €3.13 #711, 2...... HEP—4J3“, P—‘éJL—I‘H 01—4 4.9.—IQ MLALWGHHJISIHYIHLHH HAD-9 Q—H'D‘LJ MMHILJLMLAWWILUrchaLJ-r” I: 4:330__.ey__...~__.$.313.__~114__1 '4.___§:1 4__.7_)__n,J—.$J_,Ul .uuFIF—ch—AQJ J_._a.5 54.__n~330.__a_)—..2619__Ag)__muud}_u3 4.1./1.0.:ruJ151te.J_e.61j_e~alul_.walll._tol__sq_U_.Jl pgfl—DHJHCJLJIUUMijHYIDQbr—Lauwg ,wwegbsxuwlufuimmfimw ‘}__.c¢___n:3.1__.113 OHHIPLAYIQHHJI .auljme...CLeags,._.s&._,sgl..eL.3¢,_.ot__fi;yi sttpfijhjoamljefivlfilfi QAUJI 129 -— .__.. _—, .wigglemnjgzhw olJeillgiisthuuybfiiJLpdeblZalJlsglfiilwa. 32449-1“ .91 .99. 953-393" ale-1H en... 0- I19. them... « Lew?! : 2.151....” {49.23 .25 L-i- 11:3 9.9.” [1. (r331) (\.V);,. (10);, (LYN, 14.4.1531 SJI I!” cal,- .51,- al,. al.,. (25......)9. “10);: Omi LilJ-L‘ 1:...ALJ.-\ ,3. 3. 1-1.3.11 .333 . L3.31.18 . van—.IJJJJ' U'L‘ me gJLLB! 1.3.3. 2.1.3.: 31 119.11 ”1.3-x 'HJ-L'J'Jrl-O-‘(HH-i) J35 C» 0L6“ 93*: ¢-‘ H.143” .3JL‘AHJJSQIJaJ wfl-‘lL: 9'42“; g‘ c—SJL—i‘ - i #93 and" hie—- g3“ tile“: 31-15.» -{u~J-’-“ 91.1.13 u'l" 2.33.11! 1 130 $313]! {3.1: :3_...l_u..l| 1.3.4.);1Jl JIM? 34' 2mm a» (yin-'3 my .6 fm mu we! :35! d1»: 2» .‘J.__.1..JI'L:_....3:JI.L3:1L,:YIunYIL-,. JS 51.3.53 4987 ZJLAQJ. I ‘ ‘ .L...‘ #3 Jed-31 _ . _ ”II: ”S *” ,1: :‘ita‘llwfllgxgughdlgrdl H'JJL.‘ L331... CH‘UJL‘ J-H-LJ - ° . HI ..,.._L.J" gum 3.33.3-‘k LP' 3.1.1.1.;335533333-v -u-:J-‘-3J' .uflJJ—ASVJ'JJJ 1.31.31: 33.11-9133... 2.33...-3 33....“ } “d._.L..JI #33... 1....3- \. .VLdItIIJJl.{Z+L.-JITL+_.J;JI4=J BMWL.“ dJLuJL'aJ!-\\ . LHJAJ-l Lug-Ii: 131 21113113511 My! calm Wig“ L...L.:33L,.JS¢L.134.131.,L.13:..1¢1LAJ3. 4...... ”Lg-ml... L329: z__._..__.34:.JI ¢I3L._u 3. JS .m dimlifl é ' .wlgguymbn. 2.33m '4'.._..Lqu‘<'__...._,:.JI¢LSIJ‘J s-AML» $51 e—n «Zr-J31 199.131 SJLLLS.“ 93-." 93:.“ 93:4: 9311193313. . ywlwfi UnJJJJ'u!-\Y .3134: (333 93.1. c. J...Jl - \r -.l-. WI 3:ng Jug-Hg - \: lei-391.: nun H3 ”.3 gum up... - \o .tsuz.34u..st,3=._.4ul ‘1...th (mm 5.1.. 1.3).... .. \‘\ .-..L,t.:.....y 6.53.35.114- \v ..,.1qu .mgfi3u‘33hdmfigJA wwwgmnnmms (sum: “.3 MI 1.... - x. UL. gall-J! 2.4... ”J! 15qu . Ml .LLeu'ugl 132 3.3131139.“ @1933:ng dirt“?! dJ «.JL. “EL, 33L...Jst.i ;.;.I3 24.1331 31...; 5,. a". (W) (‘-°) L':.L...1 (LY) 1'31: ( "-‘ ) 33L...“ :wlfibwrfizyrs JI“!W?W1J%#I-V\ -u~JJ-” ‘- g...“ .JSL...“ ' 4.2.-Lu 2.3.1:-“ .Lanu LHJLIAJLI-L‘LJQ-LHQ'J 33.: U1. dkLuJ: .3533. - w .MJJJEMJG.¢B-Y£ CH why-L1“ 714-“ b‘ €959- 1° 1 0“)“ 0'» CJ'J ~u-1'J434'JLe-‘g-3 z-HLe-e?‘ .uuw a» eta-Lu - L_..LL\ L.JL'; (Lo) up! (LT) (m) '- ' '+.' can“ 43.3.1: “Hr-1' wJJ-“cJJ r13 iyrs- “.21: 1.3.19 :U591;,.J.Sr’<..l..J_ l .33...” . 9..“ JSLLLI LAJLJ 1...).UI- H .LJJLHJJLH‘l—IQ—Lfial‘, o.‘.L-..:J.L3 JEGLfifoL'u 1.1.3.3-". 9912' yum a» web: - n 133 Wigguml4izg.miwlq3.hb.g3sscgslab-“ .{tu.:...1| 3454...:Jld3l.}._,g,,13 grid-1.29.3 W'Jrhul‘gJJJJ'b‘GI-e 5J5 J-i‘l‘uJ-‘zw {-5-1'1' :z..l3z..t.g 3.1.1 .. s wuggn.mi¢..m [:1 twifiiyJ E: 33.3.4433--. E: «jo-‘JS‘H-c [:3 {Mfr-44.3}L5A1-..) 134 04.413154! :‘4__..L._a.J_ l"4L......H_,.3J|;L.33‘I¢g9.uJ"I c»- J5 51+?! ‘54-‘- c-éa-‘l 34L.“ d5 rm 343': Eel?! 321:1! .4134. 0" 1"... 9| b-FS '44. M13 C'. C L»: L. @1513 , 33L...” 2.33:.” ._._.JU.J ”31-.“ .ilu'l - r: 2....13 -95.... 9:- m.» lets-H LIL: ML, “SIJJ! fi—JLL-H C,“ 9A., . L...L...’u 43.2.1: 3.3.113 1.3131: .333..-” . UMJJ-AS VSIJiHfiJngHUJLl-J L336 -13. @313 1:431:43..-n .33.: ram ”1.35.113. 4.13.: .LL‘J ”5m ”5w! r__.3.i:..ll - rv e.g.,: dang}: .gfswlggl .{ULuJImel 135 manning! {z\- TA };,_.u:._.m w33 E_..L;3_...H g3. .uL.._, 1.3.: 3. 3...;11 UJL'JI 3.1.3:“ {-..-Hg '3‘? 03'.) J ' '1? 03'.) 3+3 OH MEI-$3 L53“ CJ'S'“ g" duh: 1%.:4 ‘24-‘51: 1’... 02.13 lit-:- ”.13 H3 L l l l l l l l l a A v 1 o z r x \ :7.__a.LuJ| 13.);1J .4514] oL‘fii dug?” M91§51-T\ -\ 136 .eJJ—Iu heaé‘W'Qfl'efiungOF-alfilétfl-BH‘ 4:51-“ -\ -Y amufil :LaL: QLaJJa.‘ {Hi-J; huggulwg pulggglgg 41.353. g.IL..1I.;1_-._....I (.31.. 3...Jl-u { } LL...\'\;3..J31-\ { } 1;...YOUJ1Y\,_°,..-V { } -L-..r.ngx13.-r { } 1;...r.;3..3:.si-t :rsnpldmuv {4}‘—{ -=.~ }‘—{ ~.—'}'—[ 1} 137 H.943“ JL—tH- it lwizgmw 11:54.».an .{ ‘ 11—+u-J'1-5-U' 1 meat—2AM 1 e—eJL-w «I 1' Len-a." I rJhJW 11....“ {uh-“'1 1 ww'i-sfl' { )Mgfianugifly :L_J...Jl1..:,:dl.tfiiuejw34:c.isg:dlil.3ll-to I )LéI-ce‘z' { }U-—-.¢~U { 11...:wa :4...ng WIUPJI-“ -u-J'41leJ‘-°—'*J¥'L~N=-Y&+~er1{ 1 ways-1 H-‘urelfi-u { } gel-Lidd { ) Imp-V { } gusts-Y 138 Dear Student Teacher, I am working on the last phase of my Ph.D. dissertation at Michigan State University, U.S.A. I need your help and cooperation in col- lecting data for my research, entitled "A Study of the Student Teaching Program at the College of Education, Umm AJ-Qura Univer- sity, Saudi Arabia, as Perceived by Student Teachers." One good way to evaluate the student teaching aspect of the teacher preparation program is to ask those who have undergone the training for their perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. There- fore, your response is of great value for my study as well as for the improvement of the teacher-preparation program in general and student teaching in particular. Enclosed is a questionnaire. Please feel free to respond to the items on the questionnaire, which will not take more than 20 minutes. To maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of your response, no identification mark or name has been used on the ques— tionnaire or any accompanying papers. Also, you are urged not to write your name on the questionnaire. In addition, the findings of the study will be reported in aggregate form, which will allow confidentiality of individual identity and response. I shall appreciate it if you will return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. You may, without any penalty, decide not to participate at all or not to answer certain questions. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning the survey. Once again I thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, Saleh Khaled Dairi Ph.D. Candidate Michigan State University Enclosures 139 PART I: EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO STUDENT TEACHING Dirggtjggg: Please mark the square that reflects the extent to which you engaged in each of the fol- lowing experiences in your teacher-preparation progrua m student teaching. (0-2) (3-4) (5-6) (7-9) (lO+) Mone/ Moderate Very Few Few Number Many Great Many l. Observing a classroom teacher as part of my preparation for prac- tical teaching. 2. Seeing films or videotapes related to teaching methods. 3. Participating in simulated teach- ing activity (microteaching). 4. Participating in experiences in public schools that were related to my teaching field. PART 11: STUDENT TEACHING OBJECTIVES Directions: Please check the box that indicates the extent to which your student teaching experience provided an opportunity for you to realize each of the following outcomes. To what extent did student teaching Mone/ provide you with an opportunity to: Very Little Little Moderate Large Very Large 5. Apply theory in practical situa- tions. 6. Enhance self-confidence. 7. Develop a clear perception about the teaching profession. 8. Evaluate your own effectiveness as a teacher. 140 To that extent did student teaching Mone/ provide you with an opportmity to: Very Little Little Moderate Large Very Large 9. Baseline familiar with the respon- sibilities of a school teacher. l0. Relate my previous experience to practical teaching. ll. Model appropriate behaviors when workim with school-age children. PART III: TEACHING SKILLS Directions: Please rate the extent of inprovement in your teaching ability after student teaching as conpared with before, in the following areas: well Below Less Than About as More Than well Beyond Expectation Expected Expected Expected Expectation l2. Flaming stimulating lessons. 13. working with students with different levels of ability. l4. Using audiovisual materials and equipment. lS. Maximizing student mderstanding of the slbject letter. l6. Assessing students' academic progress. l7. Modifying instruction in accord with student responses. 18. Using a variety of teaching methods. l9. Erhancim students' self- concept. 20. Maintainirg order in the class- room and assisting students in the development of self-discipline. PART IV: Directjfi: How often did your college super- visor chring student teaching provide: Zl. Advice donut the developnent of lesson plans. 22. Opportunities for you to name and discuss the problems you experi- enced as a teacher. 23. Specific suggestions about ways you could assess your strengths and shortcomirgs as a teacher. Constructive criticism regarding your methods of teaching. 24 . Suggestions that were based on his experience as a teacher. Suggestions that were based on educational research findings. 27. Positive feediack about the aspects of your teaching he liked. I41 well Below Expectation Less Than Expected About as Expected More Than Expected well Beyond Expectation SUPERVISIOI DLRING STlDENT TEACHING Please mark the square that indicates how often your college supervisor and the cooperat- ing teacher provided each of the following: Never Rarely Sometimes Often A lways How often did the cooperating teacher provide: 28. 30. 3l. 32. 33. Directions: Advice about the development of lesson plans. Opportunity for you to identify and discuss the problems you experienced as a teacher. Constructive criticism regarding your methods of teaching. Positive feedback about aspects of your teaching he liked. I42 Rarely Sometimes Often Always what did you expect from your student teaching college supervisor during the practice teaching period that he did not fulfill or carry out? b. How often do you feel the college supervisor should make a class observation? At least a. once a week b. every other week c. once a month d. other PART V: statements was carried out. 34. 35. The objectives of my evaluation as a student teacher were defined in terms of the kind of behavior 1 was expected to realize. The college supervisor and super- vising teacher cooperated with one another in evaluating my work as a teacher. EVALUATION DURING STUDENT TEACHING Please check the square that best describes the extent to which each of the following NO Extent Small Extent Extent Large Extent Very Large Extent 37. 39. 40. bl. I43 Small Some Large Very Large Mo Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent The college supervisor observed my teaching frequently enough to validly judge my performance as a teacher. The final evaluation of my student teaching performance was based on evidence of my growth as a student teacher. PART VI How satisfied are you with the student teaching program in which you participate? Please locate yourself on the following scale. Very dissatisfied Very satisfied I I I l s 9 Please identify two problems you have faced while you were in student teaching. Please be specific and consistent. I. 2. if you were asked to make one or two suggestions regarding the ways in which your student teaching program might be improved, what would you say? i. 2. Please identify two positive aspects of the student teaching program that you have gone through, fromuyour viewpoint. l. 2. 144 PART VII: IACKGROJID INFQNATIOI Direction: Please check the answer that describes your present status. 42. Age (to the closest year): uhder Zl 2l -25 26-30 Over 30 43. Your grade point average: 4.0 (A) 3.0 (B) 2.0 (C) 1.0 (D) 44. Your teaching field during student teaching: __ Arabic _ English _ Fine arts education _ Geography _ History _ Mathematics _ Physical education _ Religion _ Science Other (please specify) 45. Teaching level during student teaching: Elanentary intermediate _ Secondary 46. Level of education of your parents: Mo forml schooling Formal schooling: THANK Yw Fm Yul! CWERATIGH APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE 145 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY comatosmucxnou-ooammosmsnucanou WWGOIWAN°WGIPM To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the dissertation proposal of Saleh Khaled Dairi has been approved by his guidance comittee and its implementation will require travel to Saudi Arabia in order to collect his data. I hereby request that you provide 111'. Dairi all of the support to which he is entitled as scholar sponsored by your mission in order that he will be able to accomplish his educational and training objectives at Michigan State University. He plans to complete his program in December 1989. Sincerely yours , flnflfl/s/mf‘ Ban A. Bohnhorst Academic Advisor MSU is an A/[s'ruutt've Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘mll I46 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmmmmm IASTLANSINGOIIO'IIGANOWIHI WWW aflmm (””353-9730 June 6, 1989 ' IRB# 89-286 Saleh K. Dain' 4821 Duverna #332 Iansing, MI 8910 Dear Mr. Dairi: Re: "A STUDY OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM AT THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UMM AL-QURA UNIVERSITY, SAUDI ARABIA AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHERS IRB# 89-286“ The above project is exem t from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research rotocol and fin that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protecte . You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar ear. Ifyou plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for o taining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month pnor to une 6, 1990. Any changes in procedures involvin human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the chan e. U RIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems unexpected side e ects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of e work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. Ifwe can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. SincErely, .I K. Hudzik, Ph.D. air, UCRIHS JKH/sar cc: B. Bohnhorst MS U is an Affimtitv Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 147 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COILEGIOIAI'ISANDm lASTLANSING'NIOIIGANOMIM DEPARTMENT OI LINGUISTICS AND GENANIC. “VIC. ASIAN AND AIIICAN LANGUAGES A-‘lS VII-LS HAIL 2 November 1989 1:0 wao 11' m CONCERN: This is certify that the Arabic version of the questionnare entitled "A study of the Student-Teaching program at the College of Education, Umm Al-Qura University, Sandie Arabia as perceived by Student-Teachers" is a true and accurate translaiton of the original document written in the English langauge by Saleh Khaled Dairi, Ph.D -Candidate at Michigan State University. Nalik Balls Instr. Arabic _ . Department 0! Lingmstics and Germain. Slavic. Asian and Airican Languages ‘Aiqhigan State University Neils Hall East Lansing. Mi 48824-1027 Telephone: ”71353-0740 Telex: 650-277-3HB MCI Cable: msunvmto use MSL' u an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institutinn BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, S. A. (1984, April). i E1a1d_£xpar1aaga§. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Allen, D. N., & Cooper, J. M. (l970). h R -l7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED O4l l90) > Alleyne. C. J. (1987). MW -. te oll-o‘ of ._ 1 n - .1. . i-r 3 .. , o-nt LEQQDQLS- Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Al-Nuzeinany, M. M. (1987). Ina gargaptjgna pf Saudi mala faculty mambara at galleges of education in Saudi Arabian univarajties toward publjg gernga agtjyitjaa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. ,JAlvermann, D. E. (l98l). The possible values of dissonance in student teaching experiences. Jgurnal_gj;1aa§har_£dagatiag, 33(3), 24-25. Andrews, L. A. (l976, January). The college supervisor’s role: Changing or disappearing. Iaaghar_£dugation in Pragtiga (College of Education, Ohio State University), 1, l-Z. Applegate, J. H. (l985). Early field experiences: Recurring dilemmas. Jgurnal 9f laaghar Edggatjgn, §§(2), 60-64. Applegate, J. H. (l986). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of field experiences: Toward a framework for study. In J. D. Raths & L. G. Katz (Eds.), Adyangaa jn taaghar adugatjgn (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Applegate, J. H. (1987). Early field experiences: Three view- points. In M. Haberman & J. M. Backus (Eds.), Adyanaa§_ia taaahan_adggatiga (Vol. 3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (l979). Intradggtiga ta raaaargh_jn_gdg§atian. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Ninston. l- r. (l988, December 5). (In Arabic) 148 149 Bennie, H. A. (l964). Campus supervision of student teaching--A closer look. Isachers.£ollege_loutnal. 36(3). 131-133. Bennie. V. A. (1967). Coo2erat1on_ior_better_student_teaching. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess. . Bennie, H. A. (1972). Su2erx1s1n9_sl1nicel_exnetiences_in_the gla§§rggm. New York: Harper & Row. , Beyer, L. E. (1984). Field experience, ideology, and the develop- ment of critical reflectivity. QggLna1_gf_1aaahar_£dgaatiaa, a§(3), 36-41. Boldt, V. B., & Housego, B. (l986, September). Critical incidents in the supervision of student teaching: A cluster analysis of the perceptions of graduate transfer students. l r ournal af Edugational Basaarah, 32, 212-222. Boschee, F, Prescott, D. R, & Hein, D. D. (1978). Do cooperating ’ teachers influence the educational philosophy of student teach- ers? Journal 9f laaghar Edugatjgn, 22(2), 57- 61. Bowers, N. D. & Scofield, A. C. (1967). Evaluating the supervision of student teachers. In J. Johnson & F. Perry (Eds.), Baadings jg atugant taaghing. Dubuque, IA: Hm. C. Brown. Bowman, N. (l978). Student teacher supervision, practices and policies. Agtjgn jg laacha: Edugat jag, 1(1), 62- 65. ,~Bowman, N. (1979). College supervision of student teaching: A time to reconsider. Journal at laaghar Edugatjgn, 19(3), 29- 30. V3/ Boykin, L. (1960). Principles of evaluating in student teaching. In ._ 1T1'0' ’ ; 0‘ ._ o to ._ 1 tr ‘ and gragtigag. Thirty- -Ninth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Dubuque, IA. Hm. C. Brown. Brodbelt, S. (1980). Selecting the supervising teacher. antampg; rarx.§ducat_on. 51(2). 86-88. Cohn, M. (l981). A new supervision model for linking theory to practice. J9urnal_o£_leacher_£ducation. 32(3). 26-30. Colle9e_9£_£ducat19n_girectorx- (l985-86). Makkah: Umm Al-Qura University. (In Arabic) Conant, J. B. (l963). d ' n he . New York: McGraw-Hill. 150 Conant, J. B. (1964). [aaghar garljfjgatjgn; [ha ra§trigtag agate approvad pragram apprgagh (Bulletin No. 22). Cedar Falls, IA: Association for Student Teaching. Copeland, H. D. (l978). Process mediating the relationship between cooperating teacher behavior and student teacher classroom performance. MW. 19(1). 95-100. -Copeland, H. D. (1979). Student teacher and cooperating teacher: An ecological relationship. Ihagry_131g_£raagiga, 15(3), l94- 99. Copeland, H. D. (l980). Affective dispositions of teachers in training toward examples of supervisory behavior. Jaggaa1_aj Educational Research, 11(1), 37-42. Copeland, H. D. (l982a). Laboratory experiencesf in teacher educa- tion. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed. ), Engyglgpadja af adugagi Wan rasaargh (5th ed. ). New York: Free Press. Copeland, H. D. (l982b). Student teachers’ preference for super- visory approach. WWW. 13(2). 32-36. Copeland, H., & Atkinson, D. (1978). Student teachers’ perceptions of directive and non-directive supervisory behavior. flagraa1 9f Educational Researgh, 11(3), l23-l27. Corbett, H. D. 111. (l980). Using occupational socialization research to explain patterns of influence during student teaching. Journal at laagha: Edggaijgn, 31(6), ll-13. ~Cornelio, J. S. (1981). [ha jmpac; at atudaag Laaghjng prggrams upon tha gagparating aghools jn Regign 111, Central Vigayag, hilibpines. and a comparison af tha [aaponses with Lhe findings af Mjghigan and Indiana jmpa;1 atgdjas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, l98l. Cronin, J. M. (l983). State regulation of teacher preparation. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbggk gf Laaghing and paligy. New York: Longman. Dastoli, S., Kovacevich, D. A., Robinson, J. H., Adams, 8. K., & Kott, G. F. (1987). Ragga; graduata5’ and atudant taachar5’ ' (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 285 33l) Devor. J. H. (1964). Wetlan- New York: Macmillan. 151 Dewey, J. (1965). The relation of theory to practice in education. In M. L. Borrowman (Ed.), Iaagha: adggatjga in Amarjca: A gaagman1a31_higagny. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. (Original work published 1904) Dueck, K., Altmann, H., Haslett, K. Latimer, J. (1984). Early exploratory field experiences in teacher preparation programs. Education_£anada 24(1). 34-38. ///Edmonds, E. L. (1985, January-March). Can universities teach student teachers how to teach? fl1ghar;£du§a11gn_in_£urapa, 19(1), 94-100. Elliott. P.. & Mays. R. (1979). Earlx_f1eld_exner1ences_in_1eacher adugagion. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foun- dation. /,Fant, H., Hill, C., Lee, A., & Landes, R. (1985). Evaluating ' student teachers: The national scene. 1aaghag_£figgaliaa, £12) 1 2'80 Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1986). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. In J. D. Raths & L. G. Katz (Eds.), Advangaa in taaghar adggaLjog (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. //Feiman-Nemser, S., a Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? laaghing 3 laagha: Edugatjgn. 3(4), 255- 273. Freeland, K. (l979). Assessing student teaching. Taacher Edaca- Lip—n: ]_5(2)1 11'16- , Freeze, C., Olive, E., & Gray, G. f n in Assessment_of_2er_otma_ce__. Leaching of atudent Laaghara. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 289 839) Frenzel, N. (1977). Perceptions of university supervisors. leacher_£ducator. 12(4). 14-17. /-Gallemore, S. L. (1979). n b v ' ir Stude_t_teachin9_o_1ecti_es.__lhe__ lmpgrtance aag aghjevamagg. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 218 265) Gantt, H. N., & Davey, B. (1973, December). Pre-student teachers react to field-supplemented methods courses. Edaga11aaa1 Leadership. 31. 259-262. Glassberg, 5., & Sprinthall, N. A. (1980). Student teaching: A developmental approach. Qggrnal 9f Taagha: Edggation, 31(2), 3 ~38. 152 ,- Griffin. 6. (1982). W gnaaaiaaa. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Grossman, P. L., a Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. WW. 1(1). 53-62. Hanes, E. C., Laman, A. E., & Englebright, C. L. (1984). 31g3an; -. -r . ti .- --. ainc h-i .1 ' .- teach- A ve . Paper presented at the fall conference of the Kentucky Association of Teacher Educators, Lexington, KY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250 286) Hatfield, R. (n.d.). m' r in r te . Unpublished manuscript. Hazard, H., Chandler, B. J., & Stiles, Lindley, J. (1967, Fall). The tutorial and clinical program for teacher education. Wm. 1.8. 269-276. Henerson, M., Morris, L., & Fitz-Gibbon, G. (1978). Hg; 19 measure a i e . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hersh, R. H., Hull, R., & Leighton, M. S. (1982). Student teach- ing- In H. E- Mitzel (Ed.). W :esaarch (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Heywood, J. (1984). ansjdering the curriculgm guring atudent teach—q in . New York: Nichols. Houston, H. R., & Newman, K. K. (1982). Teacher education pro- grams. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), d a ' nal [esaarch (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Howey, K., Yarger, 5., & Joyce, B. (1978). Reflections on pre- service preparation: Impression from the national survey (Part III). Qggr nal Qf Iga gha: Edggatjgn, 22(1), 38- 40. Hoy, H. K., & Rees, R. (l977L The bureaucratic socialization of student teachers. MW“). 23- 25 Jan, N. A. (l983). Be e1w ae a 1§l amjg ad ye §1ara edugation: A caaa d Ar bia. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Johnson, J. (1967). The history of student teaching. In J. Johnson & F. Perry (Eds.), a in . Dubuque, IA: Hm. C. Brown.“ 153 ., Johnson. J. A. (1968)- A_ht1ef_h1stor1_e£_student_teachin9- ” DeKalb, IL: Creative Educational Materials. Joyce, 8., Yarger, 5., K. Howey K., Harbeck, K., & Kluwin, T. (1977). Ereseruise.teacher_education. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 146 120) ,/'Kalaian, S., & Freeman D. (1987). Ba1a11pn§_pa1!aap_1aapnap gandidagaa’ aalf-gppfjdapga and ppjanaatjppa 1p teaphipg (Program Evaluation Series No. 16). East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, Office of Program Evaluation. Karmos, A., 3 Jacko, C. (1977). The role of significant others during the student teaching experience. qupnal pf Iaaphar Edupatjop, 23(5), 51-55. Kerlinger. F. N. (1986). Eoundat1ons_o£_bebazioral_research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. ,/ Koehler. V. (1984. April). Unixers1tx_sunerxision_o£_student Leaghipg Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270 439) / Koehler. V. (1986. April). Ihe_1nstructional_suoetxision_o£ aLgQap1_1aagnap§. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 430) {/Kong, A. C. (1978). §tudap§ Laaphara’ pargaptjpn§ pf Lhajp §tudent ' taachipg with recommangagjppa fa: jmprpvamap; pf prpgram in the faculty of Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. Krustchinsky, R., 3 Moore, B. (1981). Early field experiences: A vital part in the training of elementary teachers. Kappa Delta W: 11(4): 119'1200 Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1986). ' n° ‘n ' n. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. rLuckey, G. H. (1903). [ha prpfassjpnal trajpjpg pf §acondary Leaghap§ jg ID: Unitad $1a1a5. New York: Macmillan. ,/ Magsood. S. S. (1986). A_studx_oI_the_undetgraduate_acadenic adyigipg prpgram at Umm Al-Qura Upivarajty, Saudi Arabia, as peppajvad py atudap1§ and faculpy advisapa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. .1— 154 / Marso. R.. & Reed. R (1971) Qbserxab1e_chanses_in_student -.h- s 1.1 0 1,10 . ‘ '.' o ‘ ‘e_-"11‘._ 's- .- tjpn prpgram. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 395) Matthews, C. C. (1966). The classroom verbal behavior of selected secondary school science student teachers and their cooperating classroom teachers. Qjaaattattpp_Ap§tra§t§, 23(1), 144- A. May, H. T., & Zimpher, N. L. (1986, Hinter). An examination of three theoretical perspectives on supervision: Perceptions of preservice field supervision. qurnal pf tuppjgulum and Sunetxision. 1. 83-99. Mead, A. R. (1957, December). Legal status of laboratory schools and teacher education laboratory practices. n l T her Edugatjpn, 3, 356-364. Meade, E. J. Jr. (1963). Student teaching: Many a slip between the thcup and the lip. In BQSE ear rap and pppfa§§jppal agperiancea jp taaph at adupatjpn (Bulletin No. 20). Cedar Falls, IA: Association for Student Teaching. Michaelis, J. U. Kinney, L. & Bush, R. (1950). The evaluation of student teaching. In [ha ayaluati 1gp pf stud apt taaghjng. 1949 yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, State Teachers College, Lock Haven, PA. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers. Michigan State University, College of Education. (1986). Au oxerxieu_o£_student_teashing_in_the_standard_ntostan. Unpub- lished handout to student teachers. / (;9\ Michigan State University, College of Education. (n.d.). Ere- Lgs guently agked questions about tha apauamig laatpiug prpgram for e1e_entarx_and_sesondarx_teacher_sertiiication Unpublished m handout to student teachers. .,Morris, J. R. (1974). The effect of the university supervisor on the performance and adjustment of student teachers. r of Educational_fiesearch. 61(8). 358-362. ,/ Morris, J. E. (1980a, April). A strategy for the development of supervising teachers. Elaatipg_flpu§a, 33, 367-370. Morris, J. E. (l980b). Evaluating the effectiveness of the university supervisor of student teachers: Role of coordinator of field experiences. Eeabodx_Journal_e£_£ducation. 51(2). l48-lSl. 155 / Morrow, J. E., & Lane, J. M. (1983). Instructional problems of student teachers: Perceptions of student teachers, supervising teachers and college supervisors. Aptjpp_1n_1eeenez_£ppeetjpp, 5(1-2), 7l-78. Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (l972). Spryey_methpp§_jp_§pejel jayeetjgetjpn. New York: Basic Books. ’Nerenz, A. G. (1979). The influence of student teachers on their cooperating teachers’ teaching strategies and beliefs about teaching and student teaching in foreign language classrooms. Dissertatipn_Abstracts. 19(8). 4541-A. Oestreich, A. H. (1974, January). The professional growth of the student teacher. £p1_ne1te_geppen, 335-337. Olson, D. R. (1974). Mass media versus schoolmen: The role of the means of instruction in the attainment of educational goals. Ipterehange, 5(2), ll-l7. Palonsky, S. B., & Jacobson, M. G. (l988, April 5-9). Student teapher perceptions pf elementery eehppl epejel etgpjeeg (he sppial cpnetructjpp pf purrieplpm. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa— tion, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 787) Partridge, A. R. (1964). The attack on teacher education in historical perspective. Jou1nal_o£_Researcb_§erxices. 3(2). 3- 3. Pazzini, E. (1975). The effects of an exploratory teaching experi- ence of selected educational concepts. Sejepee_£ppeetjpp, §_(2), 207- 2l0. Pigge, F. L. (1978). Teacher competencies: Need, proficiency, and where proficiency was developed. rn T r Education 22(4). 70-75 ’Price, R. D. (1967). The influence of supervising teachers. In J Johnson & F Perry (Eds ) Be1dings_in_stude11_1eashing Dubuque, IA: Hm. C. Brown. 1/Purcell, T. D., & Seiferth, B. B. (1981). Evaluation of student teaching experience. gpllege §t p dept Jpprnpl,1§(2), 137- l39. / Rucker, R. N. (l953, December). Trends in student teaching l932 to 1952. Journal_pf;leacber_£duca_1po. 1(4) 261- 253. \V/ 156 Rukspollmuang. C. (1980). A.studx_o£_111111de1_oiefaculty-of- eppcatjpp stgdents jn eeleptep || ' w h teeppipg_pppfeeeipp. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Russell, T. L. (1979, Spring). Hhat does practice teaching teach? Edu111191_&111d1. 12(1). 5-11. Ryan, T. F. (1982). Field experiences in teacher education. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.). Ensxcloped11_o£_educational_researcb (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Saber. G. A. (1977). L1near_regression_analxsis. New York: John .31.... Riley & Sons. Seperson, M. A., & Joyce, B. R. (1973). Teaching styles of student teachers as related to those of their cooperating teachers. Eppcational Leedership, 31(2), 146-151. Smith, E. B., Collier, R. E., McGeoch, D. M., & Olson, H. C. (1970). A_9uide_1o_nno£essional_excellense in clinical exocri- epee§_1p_teeeper_epppet1pp. Nashington, DC: Association for Student)Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 043 560 Solliday, M. (1983). The university supervisor: A double image. leache: Epupetpr, 13(3), 11-15. Spanjer, R. A. (1972). leeeher preppretjpn; §ppervi§ion end petfppmeppe (Bulletin No. 32). Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators. Spivey, G. D. (1974). The subject area specialist approach versus the generalist approach in the supervision of student teach- ing. Disse1111191_111111c11. 35(6). 3568-A. \* Spruce, S. E. (1979). A study of attitude changes of elementary education student teachers during the student teaching experi- ence. D111e111112n_Ab1111211. 19(8). 4542-A. Stallings, J. A. (1987). Implications from research on teaching for teacher preparation. In M. Haberman & J. M. Backus (Eds.), Ad11nces_1n_teacber_education (Vol. 3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stanton, H. E. (1978). Self-concept change through the microteach- jgg experience. Br111sb_J9urnal_o£_Ieacher_Edusation. 1(2). 9-123. Stratemeyer, F. B., & Lindsey, M. (1958). r 'n w‘ dent teeepepe. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. 157 p Sullivan, H. D. (1978). A study of the professional attitudes, self- concept, and teaching competencies of student teachers in performance- -based and traditional teacher training programs. Dissertation_Abst_acts.1913-4). 1632- A. Swann. M. H. (1975). An_eape11men1_1n.11eld;based_eleme11111 (Shepherdstown, NV: Shepherd College). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 120 189) _// Thompson. L. L. (1982). £11111111nd_s1udent_psrseptions_o£_eaxlx l . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Tittle. C. K. (1974). S1uden1_1each1ng1__Attitude_1nd_nesearch page; for ehppge in ephpp1_epp_ppiye:§1ty. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Turney, C., Cairns, L., Eltis, K., Hatton, N., Thew, D., Tow1er, J., & Wright. R. (1982). Ibe_p11c11cum.1n.1eashe1_educat1on1 Besearch1_211211Qe_11d_superxision. Sydney. Australia: Sydney University Press. Nagoner, J. L. (1965, November). Let’s teach what we practice. Egpeetjpppl Fprpm, 33(1), 67-69. Watts, D. (1987). Student teaching. In M. Haberman & J. M. Backus (Eds.), Advanees in teeepe: edpeetjpp (Vol. 3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. /,wesley, E. B. (1957). A° f nd e r th b il in pj1tpe_teepnipg_pppte§§1pn New York: Harper 8 Brothers. / Williams, E. I. F. (1942). 1 l1bora1o11_schools_and_teashers_colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Yarger, S. J., Howey, K., & Joyce, C. (1977). Reflections on preservice preparation: Impressions from the nationa1 survey. Jou11al_o£_leacber_£ducation. 28(6). 34-37. Zahorik, J. A. (1988, March-April). The observing-conferencing role of university supervisors. Jpprpe1_pf_1eeener_£pppet1pp, 33, 9-16. Zeichner. K. M. (1980). Eex_n1osesses.1n_tbe_1911111111111_o£ student teachers: Limjtetipns enp poneeppeppe; pf pvereppjpl- jzed eonpeptjppe pf teepher gopjelizetjpp. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 190 501) 158 Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1982). The belief system of university supervisors in an elementary student teaching program. MW. 8(1). 34-54. // Zimpher, N. L. (1987L Current trends in research on university supervision of student teaching. In M. Haberman & J. Backus (Eds..) WM (Vol. 3). Norwood. NJ: Ablex. Zimpher, N. L, de Voss, G. G. & Nott, D. L. (1980). A closer look at university iiudentlteacher supervision. Jppppel pf 131W. 4 s Zimpher, N. L., a Howey, K. R. (1987, Hinter). Adapting super- visory practices to different orientations of teaching compe- tence. ngrnel pf Cprrjpplpm enp 3ppervjejpn, 3, 101-127. “1111111111111111111