Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

(7
Assessment on the Implementation of the Pre-service
Practicum Program in Teacher Education Colleges
(Dessie College of Teacher Education in Focus)

)adesse *elesse (+ecturer and P,- .andidate
Progra/ of )eac,er Education and .urriculu/ Studies% 0acult1 of Education 2 3e,a4ioral Sciences% 3a,ir -ar
5ni4ersit1% P.#.3o6 7(% 3a,ir -ar% Et,iopia
E/ail7 t/elesse38g/ail.co/

Abstract
),e /ain o9:ecti4e of t,is stud1 was to assess t,e o4erall effecti4eness of t,e i/ple/entation of t,e practicu/
progra/s% t,e support pro4ided and e4aluation tec,ni;ues used 91 tutors and /entors% its contri9utions and
c,allenges. ),e researc, t1pe e/plo1ed was descripti4e sur4e1 wit, /i6ed-design approac,. ),e stud1 site was
-essie .ollege of )eac,er Education wor<ing t,e practicu/ progra/ in colla9oration wit, -essie town woreda
pri/ar1 sc,ools. 12& student teac,ers% == place/ent teac,ers (/entors and 3=teac,er educators (tutors were
sa/ple populations of t,e stud1. Student teac,ers and teac,er educators were selected as a sa/ple using
s1ste/atic rando/ sa/pling and sc,ool teac,ers (/entors were selected using purposi4e sa/pling tec,ni;ue.
-ata was collected using ;uestionnaire% inter4iews% focused group discussion and docu/ent re4iews and
anal1>ed 9ot, ;uantitati4el1 (i.e. using percentages and ;ualitati4el1 (i.e. 91 t,e use of narrations and
descriptions. ),e results of t,e stud1 re4ealed t,at t,ere were understanding pro9le/s on t,e conceptuali>ation
of practicu/ and its /ain functions% t,e t,ree actors (student teac,ers% /entors and tutors were not clearl1
acco/plis,ing t,eir roles and responsi9ilities due to lac< of coordinated wor< of tutors and /entors and a9sence
of close follow up and support s1ste/. ),ere were 4arious ,a/pering factors affecting t,e practicu/ progra/.
Student teac,ers were not carefull1 scaffolded.
e!"ords# student teac,er? place/ent teac,er? practicu/? professional e6perience? teac,er educator?
teac,er education? tutor? /entor.

$%$ &ac'ground of the stud!
)eac,er education or de4elop/ent to @argrea4es and 0ullan (1((2 is a co/ple6% /ulti- faceted process /ade
up of initial teac,er training and in-ser4ice training. +oug,ran (2&&= suggests t,at t,ere is an Aenor/ous
arra1 of s<ills% <nowledge% co/petencies% conceptuali>ations and practicesB t,at reflect t,e co/ple6it1 and
/essiness of t,e t,eories and practice of teac,ing and learning. Sc,Cn (1(!3 refers to t,is as t,e Aindeter/inate
swa/p1 >oneB and +a9aree (2&&& also agrees t,at suc, researc, is co/ple6 and /ess1.
Dlt,oug, a lot ,as 9een written a9out teac,er education during t,e last decade% /uc, of it is 9ased on literature
re4iews% polic1 de4elop/ent% go4ern/ent in;uiries and understandings of t,ose responsi9le for t,e tertiar1
progra/s to prepare pre-ser4ice teac,ers. E,ile traditional ;uantitati4e /et,odolog1 and scientific principles
(Sc,Cn 1(!3% 1(!7 pro4ide /ore predicta9le% controlled% step-91-step solutions or answers to our researc, and
teac,ing ;uestions% it is t,e ;ualitati4e researc,ersF 9elief t,at t,eir /et,odolog1 is /ore li<el1 to generate
understanding in t,is co/ple6 and unpredicta9le world of classroo/s (-en>in and +incoln% 2&&&. Ds E<i>
(2&&= suggests% teac,ers (and student teac,ers ,a4e to deal wit, unpredicta9le courses of action w,ic,
generall1 e/erge fro/ t,e i//ediac1 of classroo/s. E,ile in a si/ilar 4ein +a9aree (2&&&% 231 suggests7
If teac,ing is indeed a practice as difficult as I portra1ed G t,en t,ere is no for/ of professional
practice t,at is /ore de/anding e6cept per,aps teac,er education. Ee as< teac,er education
progra/s to pro4ide ordinar1 college students wit, t,e i/pondera9le so t,at t,e1 can teac, t,e
irrepressi9le in a /anner t,at pleases t,e irreconcila9le% and all wit,out <nowing clearl1 eit,er
t,e purposes or t,e conse;uences of t,eir actions.
E4entuall1% t,e /ore e6perienced teac,er educators and researc,ers 9egan to te/per t,e solution st1le
discussions wit, t,eir /ore infor/ed ideas a9out teac,er education and introduced t,e t,eories t,at underpinned
t,eir understandings. ),e wor<s of Sc,Cn (1(!3% 1(!7 (practitioner researc,% He//is and *c)aggart (1((&
(action researc, and identit1 and agenc1 studies (+a9aree 2&&& were introduced. $iews around pedagogical
content <nowledge (S,ul/an 1(!7 and producti4e and generati4e learning (New/ann and Dssociates 1((=?
+ingard% @a1es% and *ills 2&&3 were discussed% and t,e focus returned to pre-ser4ice teac,er learning and t,e
sense of A9eco/ingB a teac,er (Hort,agen 2&&'.
),e practicu/ is a central co/ponent of teac,er education and ,as 9een t,e su9:ect of discussion a/ong
teac,er educators internationall1 for /ore t,an a centur1. *uc, of t,e de9ate ,as focused on t,e li/itations
of t,e e6perience and t,e need for i/pro4e/ent. Issues include t,e opti/u/ lengt, (.arpenter and
3lance% 2&&1? Hosni< and 3ec<% 2&&3? t,e ;ualit1 of t,e super4ision and assess/ent pro4ided 91 sc,ool-
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

(!
9ased super4ising teac,ers and college representati4es (Jo,n% 2&&1? +a9os<e1 and Iic,ert% 2&&2? t,e e6tent of
t,e lin<s 9etween t,e sc,ool and t,e college (+ong%1((7?*artine>% 1((! and an increasing focus on t,e teac,er
as reflecti4e practitioner rat,er t,an as co/petent tec,nician (.lar<e% 2&&=? .oola,an% 2&&3? .ras9orn et al.%
2&&!? Jeen and @arris% 2&&2.
)eac,er education progra/s in su9-Sa,aran Dfrican countries ,a4e 9een faced wit, /ore c,allenges as
e6pansi4e inter4entions dri4e t,e sector in response to 9ot, do/estic and international pressures and incenti4es.
In particular% t,e facilitation of sc,ool e6perience% w,ic, is often referred to as super4ision and t,e actual sc,ool
e6perience called Kpracticu/F ,as increasingl1 9eco/e difficult as t,e nu/9er of student teac,ers <eeps on
surging (.,i4ore% 1((2? +ugton 2&&&.
$%(% )tatement of the Problem
Et,iopia% one of t,e Su9-Sa,aran countries% ,as ,ugel1 e6panded acti4ities in teac,er education% so t,at /a:or
c,allenges ,a4e engulfed t,e sector. *oreo4er% 4arious institutions ,a4e introduced teac,er education progra/s
wit,out ,a4ing ade;uate preparedness and t,e <nowledge 9ase to i/ple/ent t,ose progra/s and ;ualit1
education is 9eco/ing a c,allenge (D/are% et al% 2&&=? Dnderson% 2&&2? +eu% 2&&5. In tr1ing to address t,e
serious pro9le/s present in t,e education s1ste/% t,e *inistr1 of Education initiated for a co/plete )eac,er
Education S1ste/ #4er,aul ()ES# and t,e t,ree co/ponents% t,e practicu/% t,e teac,ing /et,ods and
professional studies were prioriti>ed and gi4en sufficient ti/e (*oE% 2&&3.
D/ong t,ese co/ponents% practicu/ is a <e1 aspect and t,e ,eart of teac,er education progra/ (Henned1% 1((3?
*oE% 2&&3? Leic,ner% 1((=. It was designed to ensure t,at student teac,ers ,a4e as /uc, supported sc,ool
e6perience as possi9le 9efore t,e1 enter t,e classroo/ as a ;ualified teac,er (*oE% 2&&3 and it /a<es stronger
connections 9etween t,eor1 and practice wit, /ore e/p,asis on e6periences in t,e co//unit1 and sc,ool
settings ((3en-Peret>% 2&&&? +i4ingstone% 2&&1? Sc,on% 1(!3? 1(!7. ),e practice of practicu/ as a new
paradig/ s,ift was associated wit, t,e e/ergence of constructi4is/ p,ilosop,1 and owes /uc, to wor<s on t,e
Kreflecti4e practitionerF (Sc,on% 1(!3% 1(!7. It was designed wit, t,e assu/ption t,at learning ta<es place
w,en t,e learner ,as to /a<e sense of t,ings t,at confront t,e/-t,e idea t,at de4elop/ent co/es t,roug, t,e
indi4idualFs construction or in4ention of <nowledge (+i4ingstone% 2&&1. E4en t,oug, practicu/ was an
i/portant co/ponent of teac,er education progra/ (*oE% 2&&3% t,ere ,as 9een a great deal of c,allenges
colleges and uni4ersities faced during its i/ple/entation. +ac< of unifor/it1 of t,e course offering situation%
lac< of co,erence of courses% lac< of clarit1 of t,e acti4ities of t,e practicu/% lac< of clear assess/ent /et,ods%
costiness of t,e progra/ and lac< of full in4ol4e/ent of t,e /entors in t,e progra/ were t,e /ain c,allenges
(*oE% 2&&7.
Ds a result% rearrange/ents ,a4e 9een /ade at national le4el 91 t,e *inistr1 of Education in ter/s of t,e
duration of ti/e% assess/ent and t,e a/ount of credit ,ours allotted to t,e course for 9ot, t,e linear and cluster
progra/s. Jenerall1 t,e practicu/ counts a9out 11M of t,e training ti/e (*oE% 2&&7 and ,as a t,ree-part
structure7 preparation in t,e college% acti4it1 in sc,ool and reflection and anal1sis in t,e college (*oE%
2&&3 and pla1ed 91 a triad of pla1ers-teac,er educators (tutors% place/ent teac,ers (/entors and student
teac,ers (*oE% 2&&3? )adesse% 2&&=. -uring t,e place/ent progra/% student teac,ers 9eing supported 91
e6perienced teac,ers (/entors and teac,er educators (tutors need to ,a4e practical e6perience of t,e realities
of sc,ool life and t,e classroo/ (+i4ingstone% 2&&1.
In -essie .ollege of )eac,er Education too% t,e practicu/ under four p,ases (practicu/ I- sc,ool o9ser4ation?
practicu/ II- wor<ing under t,e /entor? practicu/ III- supporting t,e /entor and practicu/ I$-independent
teac,ing were i/ple/ented for t,e 1&N3 diplo/a linear and cluster progra/s. -uring t,e
i/ple/entation of t,e four p,ases of t,e progra/% different contro4ersial issues concerning its i/ple/entations
were raised and t,ese issues triggered t,e researc,er for furt,er in4estigation. ),erefore% t,e stud1 tried to
assess t,e o4erall effecti4eness of t,e i/ple/entation of t,e four practicu/ progra/s% t,e supporting
/ec,anis/s% assess/ent tec,ni;ues applied 91 teac,er educators (tutors and place/ent teac,ers (/entors and
its contri9utions and factors affecting t,e practicu/. *ore specificall1% t,is stud1 was intended to7
Dssess t,e practices of t,e student teac,ers and t,eir c,allenges in t,e four p,ases of t,e practicu/
progra/s.
Dnal1>e t,e support and assess/ent /ec,anis/s /ade 91 teac,er educators (tutors and sc,ool teac,ers
(/entors for t,e student teac,ers?
Pinpoint t,e /ain contri9utions and factors affecting t,e practicu/ progra/.

(% *ethodolog!
(%$% Population and )ite
0or t,is stud1 descripti4e sur4e1 researc, was e/plo1ed and t,e stud1 site was -essie .ollege of )eac,er
Education wor<ing t,e practicu/ in colla9oration wit, -essie town woreda si6 general pri/ar1 sc,ools (Etege
*enen% -awdo% )igilfrie% Io9it% *er,ati9e9 and Dddisfana. ),e student teac,ers% place/ent teac,ers
(/entors% teac,er educators (tutors% t,e 6-college practicu/ coordinators and pre-ser4ice )-S co-coordinators
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

((
were t,e target population for t,is stud1.
(%(% )tud! Design and )ampling
),e stud1 was descripti4e sur4e1 t1pe and t,e si6 pri/ar1 sc,ools t,at acco//odated large nu/9er of
student teac,ers were selected using purposi4e sa/pling. 0ro/ 35! assigned t,ird 1ear student teac,ers in
eac, sc,ool for practicu/% a9out 12& of t,e/ were selected as a sa/ple using s1ste/atic rando/ sa/pling. 3=
teac,er educators w,o ,a4e long e6periences in t,e college were c,osen fro/ eac, depart/ent using si/ple
rando/ sa/pling. == place/ent teac,ers t,at were assigned as /entors were selected as a data source
using si/ple rando/ sa/pling tec,ni;ue. ),e 6-college practicu/ coordinators and pre-ser4ice )eac,er%
-irectors and Super4isors ()-S coordinators were also selected as a sa/ple using snow9all sa/pling tec,ni;ue.
(%+% Data Collection and Anal!sis
),e /ain data gat,ering instru/ent for t,is researc, was t,e ;uestionnaire. D 5-li<ert scale ;uestions fro/ t,e
four p,ases of t,e practicu/ were prepared and distri9uted to place/ent teac,ers% student teac,ers% teac,er
educators and practicu/ coordinators. ),e ;uestions were adapted fro/ t,e *inistr1 of Education practicu/
guide and de4eloped into t,e conte6t of D/,ara Iegion )eac,er Education .olleges. 0inall1% pilot tests of t,e
;uestionnaire were /ade to test t,e relia9ilit1 and 4alidit1 of t,e ;uestionnaire. 3ased on t,e pilot stud1% so/e
ite/s were e6cluded and so/e added. Ddditionall1% t,e ite/s of t,e ;uestionnaire were c,ec<ed and rec,ec<ed
91 colleagues for t,eir face 4alidit1 and t,ose ite/s t,at see/ed 4ague for teac,ers were /odified and rep,rased.
),e relia9ilit1 coefficient of t,e su9scales of t,e i/pro4ed ;uestionnaire was co/puted using .,ron9ac, alp,a
as .!2.
3esides% for t,e purpose of triangulation se/i-structured inter4iews and focused group discussions wit, pre-
ser4ice )-S practicu/ coordinators% 6- practicu/ coordinators% sc,ool teac,ers% student teac,ers and teac,er
educators were /ade. -ocu/ent re4iews (t,e assess/ent results and assess/ent for/ats of /entors and tutors
and student teac,ersF portfolios ,ad also 9een used as an additional tool. ),e collected data was organi>ed%
anal1>ed and interpreted using 9ot, a ;uantitati4e and ;ualitati4e data anal1sis tec,ni;ues. ),e ;uantitati4e data
was anal1>ed using percentage and t,e inter4iew and focus group discussion data were anal1>ed ;ualitati4el1
using descriptions and narrations.

+% ,esults
),is part deals wit, t,e anal1sis of t,e data gat,ered t,roug, ;uestionnaire% inter4iews and focus group
discussion a9out t,e practices and c,allenges of t,e four p,ases of t,e practicu/ progra/ (practicu/-I7
o9ser4ing t,e sc,ool en4iron/ent% practicu/-II7 wor<ing under t,e /entor% practicu/-III7 assisting t,e /entor
and practicu/-I$7 independent teac,ing.
Table-$# ,esponses of student teachers and teacher educators on student teachers practice of practicum-I
(observing the school environment)

Student teachers responses (N=120) Teacher educators responses (N=36)
Items @ig, D4erage +ow @ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M N M N M N M
Dwareness a9out t,e
progra/
1! 15 37 3&.!3 =5 5'.1= 12 33.33 1= ''.'' ! 22.22
D9ilit1 of preparing
portfolio
23 1(.1= 2= 21.== 71 5(.1= 7 1(.'' 1& 27.77 1( 52.27
D9ilit1 of reflecting
portfolio
! =.== 2& 1=.== (2 7=.== 7 1(.'' ( 25 2& 55.55

In t,e ta9le-1 a9o4e% a9out practicu/-I% =5 (5'.1= student teac,ers rated t,at t,e1 ,a4e low awareness on t,e
practice of t,e first p,ase of practicu/. ),e responses of 9ot, teac,er educators and student teac,ers indicated
t,at student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of preparing t,e portfolio 91 o9ser4ing t,e sc,ool and classroo/ en4iron/ents and
reflecting t,at portfolio wit,out difficult1 was found to 9e low. E4en /ost of t,e prepared or copied practicu/
was t,e KfictiousF wor<s of so/e one.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&&
Table-(# )tudent teachers- and school teachers- responses on the practice of student teachers in
practicum-II (Working under the mentor)
Student teachers responses (N=120) Schoo teachers responses (N=66)
Items @ig, D4erage +ow @ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M N M N M N M
.o//enting
/entorFs plan
2! 23.33 =! 5=.== 2' 2& 1& 15.15 '& =&.=& 1= 2'.2'
Preparing lesson
plan
=! 5=.== 2! 23.33 2' 2& 7 1&.=& 37 5=.&= 22 33.33
Preparing 2 using
teac,ing aids
23 1(.1= 3& 25 =7 55.!3 11 1=.== 5 22.72 '& ==.=&
.o-curricular
acti4ities
!5 7&.!3 22 1!.33 13 1&.!3 35 53.&3 2( '3.(3 2 3.&3
)e6t9oo<
e4aluation
= 5.&& 1& !.33 1&' !=.== 13 1(.=( 1& 15.15 '3 =5.15

NB:-School teachers do not have a significant role in practicum-I, so their response is not included.
0ro/ ta9le-2% student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of co//enting t,e /entorFs annual plan was a4erage as =! (5=.== of t,e
student teac,ers and '&(=&.=& sc,ool teac,ers rated. Student teac,ersF responses regarding t,eir a9ilit1 of
preparing acti4it1 oriented lesson plan was ,ig, 9ut sc,ool teac,ers rated a4erage. 0or a9out =7 (55.!3 student
teac,ers and '& (==.=& sc,ool teac,ers% student teac,ersF s<ill of preparing teac,ing aids fro/ locall1 a4aila9le
/aterials and using in t,e class was low. Si/ilarl1% t,eir a9ilit1 of e4aluating te6t9oo<s as 1&' (!=.== of student
teac,ers and '3 (=5.15 sc,ool teac,ers replied was low. Ne4ert,eless% t,eir participation in co-curricular
acti4ities was ,ig,.
Table-+# ,esponses of teacher educators about the student teachers- abilit! in practicum-II
Iesponses of teac,er educators (No.O3=

Items

@ig, D4erage +ow

N M N M N M

),eir a9ilit1 of preparing portfolio ! 22.22 2& 55.5& ! 22.22
Ieflecting t,eir portfolio in Englis, properl1. 2 5.55 1& 27.77 2' ==.==
E4aluating te6t9oo<s per e4aluation criteria = 1=.== ! 22.22 22 =1.11

#ut of 3= teac,er educators% 2& (55.5& of t,e/ rated t,at student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of preparing a portfolio of
practicu/-II was a4erage 9ut reflecting it properl1 was found to 9e low. Si/ilarl1% student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of
e4aluating te6t9oo<s per t,e e4aluation criteria was low. ),e inter4iew result of 9ot, t,e student teac,ers and
teac,er educators also re4ealed t,at t,e1 do not ,a4e an1 concept regarding ,ow to e4aluate te6t9oo<s since
t,ere was no course t,at pro4ides t,e/ to do so.
Table-.# ,esponses of student teachers and school teachers about the abilit! of student teachers in
practicum III
Student teachers responses (N=120) Schoo teachers responses (N=66)
Items @ig, D4erage +ow @ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M N M N M N M
Identif1ing causes of
disrupti4e
9e,a4iors
'' 3=.5 =2 51.== 1' 11.== 1! 27.27 3( 5(.&( ( 13.=3
Pre4enti4ePcorrecti4e
/easures
2( 2'.1 72 =& 1( 15.!3 1& 15.15 1! 27.27 3! 57.57
Dssisting /entors 91
correcting acti4ities
112 (3.3 ! =.== - - '( 7'.2' ( 13.=3 ! 12.12
@elping /entors in
lesson deli4er1
1&5 !7.5 1& !.33 5 '.1= 52 7!.7! 1& 15.15 = (.&(

In ta9le-' a9o4e% t,e responses of =2 (51.== student teac,ers and 3( (5(.&( sc,ool teac,ers rated a4erage for
t,e a9ilit1 of t,e sc,ool teac,ers in identif1ing t,e causes of studentsF classroo/ disrupti4e 9e,a4iors. 3ut t,e1
lac< ta<ing correcti4e /easures for disrupti4e 9e,a4iors as t,e /a:orit1 of sc,ool teac,ers responses designates.
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&1
#n t,e ot,er ,and% 112 ((3.33 student teac,ers and '((7'.2' sc,ool teac,ers rated t,at t,eir support for
/entors in correcting class wor<s% ,o/e tas<s and tests was a ,ig,. #n t,e sa/e 4ein% t,eir support to t,eir
/entors 91 preparing lesson plans% teac,ing aids and controlling t,e studentsF 9e,a4ior was ,ig,.
Table-/# ,esponses of teacher educators on the practice of the student teachers in practicum- III
Ite/s Iesponses of )eac,er educators (No.O3=


@ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M
),eir a9ilit1 of identif1ing causes of disrupti4e
9e,a4iors
5 13.!! 21 5!.33 1& 27.77
5se curati4e 2 pre4enti4e /easures ' 11.11 ! 22.22 2' ==.==
),eir support to /entors in correcting tas<s and
preparing plans
2= 72.22 7 1(.'' 3 !.33
Ieflecting t,eir portfolio properl1 3 !.33 1& 27.77 23 =3.!!
In t,e a9o4e ta9le% as 21 (5!.33 teac,er educators rated t,at student teac,ers ,a4e a4erage understanding t,e
causes of studentsF disrupti4e 9e,a4iors. @owe4er% t,eir /ec,anis/s of ,andling suc, /is9e,a4iors were found
to 9e low. In practicu/-III too% t,eir a9ilit1 of reflecting t,e portfolio wit, confidence is not i/pro4ed so far and
re/ained low.
Table-0# )tudent teachers- and school teachers- responses up on the practices made in practicum I1
(independent teaching)
Student teachers responses (N=120) Schoo teachers responses (N=66)
Ite/s @ig, D4erage +ow @ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M N M N M N M
+esson plan
preparation
15 12.5& 2! 23.33 77 ='.1= 1& 15.15 1= 2'.2' '& =&.=&
5nderstanding t,eir
su9:ect /atter
2& 1=.== 71 5(.1= 2( 2'.1= 12 1!.1! 1= 2'.2' 3! 57.57
5se acti4e learning
/et,ods
35 2(.1= 75 =2.5& 1& !.33 37 5=.&= 21 31.!1 7 1&.=&
.lassroo/
/anage/ent
2( 2'.1= 7& 5!.33 21 17.5& 15 22.72 3= 5'.5' 15 22.72
5se 4arious assess/ent
tools
21 17.5& 73 =&.!3 2= 21.== ! 12.12 1! 27.27 '& =&.=&
.onduct case stud1 25 2&.!3 35 2(.1= =& 5& 1& 15.15 3= 5'.5' 2& 2&.3&

0ro/ ta9le-=% /ost student teac,ers 77 (='.1= and sc,ool teac,ers '& (=&.=& filled t,at t,e1 ,a4e low a9ilit1 of
preparing t,e lesson plan co/prising t,ree do/ains. ),e inter4iew results ,ig,l1 e6plicated t,at t,e cogniti4e
do/ain was t,e /ost widel1 applied one. *ost student teac,ers (5(.1=M filled t,at t,eir understanding of t,e
su9:ect /atter was a4erage 9ut t,e rating of /ost sc,ool teac,ers (57.57M indicated low. #n t,e ot,er ,and% 75
(=2.5& student teac,ers rated t,at t,eir use of different acti4e learning /et,ods was a4erage w,ereas% 37 (5=.&=
sc,ool teac,ers replied ,ig,. ),e focus group discussants (sc,ool teac,ers furt,er elucidated t,at t,oug, student
teac,ers lac< t,e su9:ect /atter <nowledge% t,e1 were good in appl1ing different acti4e learning /et,ods. 3ot,
t,e /a:orit1 of student teac,ers and sc,ool teac,ers e6pounded t,at t,e use of different classroo/ /anage/ent
tec,ni;ues 91 student teac,ers was a4erage% Ne4ert,eless% t,eir application of 4arious continuous assess/ent
tec,ni;ues (9ot, for/ati4e and su//ati4e and s<ill of conducting case stud1 up on t,e e6isting pro9le/s of
t,e students was low.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&2
Table -2# Teacher educators- responses about the performance of student teachers during practicum I1
!racticum I" (Independent teaching) )eac,er educators responses (No.O3=)
Questions High Average o!
N M N M N M

a# $esson pan%Qpreparing lesson plans ,a4ing S*DI)
o9:ecti4es
' 11.11 ! 22.22 2' ==.==
Integrating o9:ecti4es% acti4ities% /et,ods% /edia and
assess/ent tec,ni;ues in t,e dail1 lesson plan
' 11.11 1& 27.77 22 =1.11
b% Teaching-learning7 t,eir <nowledge of t,e su9:ects
t,e1 taug,t
7 1(.'' ! 22.22 21 5!.33
t,eir introduction% presentation% conclusion 2 e4aluation
s<ill clearl12 orderl1
! 22.22 1& 27.77 1! 5&
use of different acti4e learning /et,ods 1& 27.77 2& 55.55 = 1=.==
c# Instructiona media7 t,eir a9ilit1 to use appropriate
teac,ing aids for t,e lesson
2 5.55 1& 27.77 2' ==.==
),eir a9ilit1 to /a<e teac,ing aids fro/ locall1 a4aila9le
/aterials
= 1=.== 1& 27.77 2& 55.55
d# &ssessment techni'ues7 t,eir a9ilit1 of using different
assess/ent tec,ni;ues
2 5.55 1' 3!.!! 2& 55.55
e. (assroom management7 s<ill of arranging seats and
/anaging t,e class
3 !.33 2= 72.22 7 1(.''
-uring practicu/ I$% teac,er educators ,a4e /ade classroo/ o9ser4ations and assess/ents a9out t,e
independent teac,ing s<ills of t,e student teac,ers. ),us% 2' (==.== of t,e teac,er educators rated t,at
student teac,ers ,a4e low a9ilit1 of preparing S*DI) o9:ecti4es consisting of t,e t,ree do/ains. ),eir a9ilit1
of integrating o9:ecti4es% acti4ities% teac,ing /et,ods% appropriate instructional /edia and assess/ent tec,ni;ues
in t,eir dail1 lesson plan was also low as /ost respondents rated.
Si/ilar to t,e sc,ool teac,ersF responses% /ost teac,er educators (5!.33M also ga4e e1e-witnesses up on t,e
low su9:ect /atter /aster1 of t,e student teac,ers. @owe4er% 2& (55.55 teac,er educators assured t,at student
teac,ers ,a4e a4erage a9ilit1 of using acti4e learning /et,ods during t,eir e4aluation ti/e. ),eir classroo/
/anage/ent s<ills were also a4erage. Ne4ert,eless% t,eir application of t,e four didactic ele/ents (introduction%
presentation% su//ar1 and e4aluation in a /ore /es/eri>ing /anner and 9ot, t,e production and application
of appropriate teac,ing aids for t,e gi4en lesson was low. Dll t,e sa/e% to i/pro4e learning% t,e use of different
continuous assess/ent tec,ni;ues (class wor<% ,o/ewor<% ;ui>% and group wor< during and after t,e lesson was
low.
Table-3# )tudent teachers- responses about their mentors and tutors support in the four phases of
practicum
Ite/s Student teac,ers responses (NO12&
@ig, D4erage +ow
N M N M N M

Rour /entorF s interest and co//it/ent to support
1ou 2 s,are e6periences in practicu/
15 12.5 3& 25 75 =2.5&
Rour /entorFs a9ilit1 of supporting and
co//enting 1our practice properl1
5 '.1= 2& 1=.== (5 7(.1=
Rour /entorFs co//it/ent to gi4e proper
assess/ent and feed9ac<s continuousl1
1& !.33 13 1&.!3 (7 !&.!3
),e collegeFs 2tutorsF co//it/ent to support 1ou at
sc,ools and in t,e college
31 25.!3 27 22.5& =2 51.==
Rour instructorsF a9ilit1 of gi4ing appropriate
assess/ent (grades to 1our e4aluation at practicu/
le4els
1' 11.== 2' 2& !2 =!.33
In ta9le-! a9o4e% student teac,ers were as<ed a9out t,e support t,e1 gained fro/ sc,ool teac,ers (/entors and
teac,er educators (tutors. ),erefore% 75 (=2.5& of t,e student teac,ers rated t,at /entorFs interest and
co//it/ent to support student teac,ers and s,are t,eir e6perience to t,e/ in t,e 4arious stages of practicu/
was low. ),e reasons e6plained during t,e discussion ti/es wit, so/e student teac,ers were 9ecause so/e
/entors were careless% so/e were aut,oritati4e% and so/e lac< t,e <nowledge and s<ills of /entoring and ot,ers
lac< incenti4es for t,eir tas<s as /entors. Sc,ool teac,ersF (/entorFs a9ilit1 of supporting% co//enting and
following t,e practice of t,e student teac,ers regularl1 and properl1% as (5(7(.1= of t,e/ rated% was low. ),e
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&3
,ig,est nu/9er of student teac,ers (!&.!3M also filled t,at /entorFs co//it/ent to gi4e proper assess/ent and
constructi4e feed9ac<s continuousl1 for our i/pro4e/ent was low. D focus group discussion wit, sc,ool
teac,ers (/entors also indicated t,at /uc, attention was not gi4en to t,e proper assess/ent and follow up of
t,e student teac,ers. 0urt,er/ore% as it was also anal1>ed fro/ t,e grade reports of t,e student teac,ers t,roug,
docu/ent anal1sis in different depart/ents% nearl1 (7- (! M of t,e place/ent teac,ers (/entors ga4e full
/ar<s for t,eir assigned student teac,ers in t,e different stages of t,e practicu/ assess/ents.
Iegarding t,e supports /ade 91 t,e college% a9out =2 (51.== of t,e student teac,ers rated t,at t,e support t,e1
gained fro/ t,e college and t,eir instructors( tutors during t,e four practicu/ progra/s was low. D9out
!2 (=!.33 student teac,ers also rated t,at teac,er educators (tutors a9ilit1 of gi4ing appropriate assess/ent
(grades 91 using different e4aluation criteria of t,e practicu/ was low.

Contributions of Practicum
),e data gat,ered fro/ t,e student teac,ers% sc,ool teac,ers and teac,er educators t,roug, t,e open
ended ;uestions% inter4iews and focused group discussions clearl1 indicated t,at practicu/ ,as /an1
contri9utions for t,e triad of actors(student teac,ers% place/ent teac,ers and teac,er educators. Ds t,e data
i/plied% t,e practicu/ progra/ ,elped t,e student teac,ers to7 identif1 t,e wea< and strong sides of t,e/ in t,e
actual setting%? s,are 4arious e6periences fro/ place/ent teac,ers? relate t,e t,eor1 t,e1 learnt in t,e college
wit, practice in t,e actual setting? de4elop t,eir confidence in e6pressing t,eir ideas in front of t,e students%
place/ent teac,ers and teac,er educators. ),e practicu/ progra/ also ,elped t,e sc,ool teac,ers7 to get
support in t,e lesson deli4er1 in preparing lesson plans% correcting studentsF class wor<s and ,o/e wor<s%
preparing teac,ing aids% wor<ing in co-curricular acti4ities and controlling studentsF /is9e,a4iors. It also ,elped
t,e college instructors to see t,e real conte6t of t,e sc,ools and ena9led t,e/ ad:ust t,eir training in line wit, t,e
actual pla1 ground.

Factors Affecting the Practicum
Student teac,erFs e6perience of t,e practicu/ can 9e affected 91 a nu/9er of aspects of t,e sc,ool and college
en4iron/ents.
Table-4# ,esponses of teacher educators5 student teachers and school teachers on factors affecting the
implementation of practicum (67$.2)

0actors affecting t,e practicu/ progra/
E6tent of influencing factors or c,allenges
$er1
,ig,

@ig,

D4erage

+ow
$er1
low


Q +ac< of continuous follow up and support 91
/entors
=2 '& 25 2& -
Q +ac< of clear coordination of t,e sc,ool teac,ers
and teac,er educators during student teac,ers e4aluation

2&

51

31

3!

7

Q +ac< of su9:ect /atter <nowledge of t,e student
teac,ers
1& '! =5 3& 2
Q Student teac,ersF lac< of /et,odolog1 and
professional et,ics
1! 13 '& 5( 17
Q Engaging large nu/9er of student teac,ers in
one sc,ool
1' 33 '2 3& 2!
Q +ac< of continuous follow up and
support 91 teac,er educators
5( '3 3& 15 -
Q -uplications of so/e oneFs portfolio 91 t,e
student teac,ers
1' 53 5= 2' -
Q 0ear and an6iet1 on student teac,ers during t,eir
e4aluation
15 3= 72 21 3
Q +ac< of stationar1 /aterials in sc,ools 1& =' 31 22 1&
Q +ower respect and attitude for t,e student
teac,ers
75 37 12 1! 5
Q lac< of interest to s,are e6periences for t,e
student teac,ers
! 3( 5! 3& 7
Q +ac< of clear guideline 2 orientation a9out
practicu/
2& 51 '= 3& -
Ds ta9le-( a9o4e s,ows% lower respect and lower attitude for t,e student teac,ers 91 students% sc,ool teac,ers
and principals in t,e sc,ools (7=.1( M? lac< of continuous follow up and one ter/ assess/ent /ec,anis/ 91
teac,er educators (=(.3!M% lac< of continuous follow up and support of t,e /entors (=(.3!M% lac< of clear
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&'
coordination of t,e sc,ool teac,ers and teac,er educators during student teac,ers e4aluation ('!.2(M and
lac< of clear guideline and orientation a9out t,e four p,ases of practicu/ fro/ t,e college ('!.2(M are rated
as t,e ,ig,est factors t,at are affecting t,e i/ple/entation of t,e practicu/ progra/. ),e ot,er factors include7 7
lac< of up-to- dated guideline prepared at Iegional Education 3ureau (IE3 le4el t,at clearl1 s,ows t,e roles%
duties and accounta9ilities of different sta<e ,olders? lac< of clear <now-,ow and /utual understanding a9out
t,e /ain acti4ities to 9e done in t,e four practicu/ progra/s 91 student teac,ers% sc,ool teac,ers and teac,er
educators? duplications of t,e practicu/ portfolios 91 /an1 student teac,ers and course rearrange/ent
pro9le/s in t,e college% wea< college-sc,ool lin<s and no strong con4incing agree/ents reac,ed or signed
9etween t,e college and t,e sc,ool principals t,at /a<e sc,ool teac,ers (/entors /ore accounta9le and
responsi9le for t,e practicu/ progra/ and Englis, language pro9le/ for portfolio co/pilation and reflection
and actual teac,ing and lac< of su9:ect /atter <nowledge.

.% Discussions on results
Practicum 8I ()chool 9bservation)
Practicu/ is suggested as t,e /ost i/portant co/ponent of teac,er education progra/ (.arpenter and 3lance%
2&&1? Hosni< and 3ec<% 2&&3? +i4ingstone% 2&&1. It is t,e actual sc,ool e6perience /ade 91 t,e 9eginner
student teac,ers to de4elop t,eir actual practice of teac,ing (*oE% 2&&3. It is designed to ensure t,at student
teac,ers ,a4e as /uc, supported sc,ool e6perience as possi9le 9efore t,e1 enter t,e classroo/ as a ;ualified
teac,er (*oE% 2&&3.
In t,e D/,ara Iegion )eac,er Education .olleges too% practicu/ was i/ple/ented in four p,ases as7
practicu/ I- sc,ool o9ser4ation? practicu/ II- wor<ing under t,e /entor? practicu/ III- supporting t,e /entor
and practicu/ I$-independent teac,ing. ),us% in order to /a<e 9eginner student teac,ers /ade t,e/ prepared
and de4elop t,e actual practice of teac,ing t,e1 were first placed to t,e actual o9ser4ation of t,e sc,ool
en4iron/ent since it is an i/portant co/ponent of a professional preparation progra/ (Henned1% 1((3. Sc,ool
o9ser4ation ena9les 9eginner student teac,ers to anal1>e t,e conte6ts of t,e sc,oolsF settings. ),is actual
o9ser4ation ena9les t,e/ to reali>e t,e actual setting in t,e sc,ools as co/pared to t,e t,eories t,e1 gained in
t,e college. In line wit, t,is% 3en-Peret> (2&&&? +i4ingstone (2&&1? Sc,on (1(!3? 1(!7 argued t,at practicu/
/a<es stronger connections 9etween t,eor1 and practice wit, /ore e/p,asis on e6periences in t,e sc,ool
settings and co//unit1.
Dfter t,e student teac,ers o9ser4ed t,e1 are e6pected to prepare a portfolio regarding t,e e6periences t,e1
gained and t,e c,allenges faced and reflect in t,e college. @owe4er% during practicu/-I(actual sc,ool
o9ser4ation% t,e /a:orit1 of student teac,ers were una9le to co/pile t,eir portfolios independentl1 and /ost of
t,e prepared portfolios were copied fro/ t,e wor<s of ot,ers. E4en reflecting t,e portfolios prepared in Englis,
was again t,e /ain c,allenge of t,e student teac,ers. @owe4er% considera9le e/p,asis is placed on reflecti4e
practice one does not learn t,roug, e6perience% 9ut t,roug, reflection on e6perience and t,roug, interaction
wit, ot,ers (Hort,agen% +oug,ran and Iussell% 2&&=. #pportunities are created for t,e/ to 9egin to 9egin to
see t,ings differentl1 in sc,ools (Hort,agen% +oug,ran and Iussell% 2&&= and to criti;ue t,e teac,ing of t,eir
teac,er educators (3err1 and +oug,ran 2&&2.
)o i/pro4e t,is% student teac,ers need to 9e supported 9ot, in-sc,ool and out-of-sc,ool support 91 t,e colleges
and sc,ools (+i4ingstone% 2&&1? *oE% 2&&3. ),e central role of teac,er preparation progra/s is creating an
effecti4e teac,er wor<force 91 facilitating for teac,er candidates c,allenging and aut,entic learning e6periences
(Perr1 and Power% 2&&'.

Practicum-II (:or'ing under the *entor)
-uring practicu/-II student teac,ers are e6pected to perfor/ different tas<s in t,e sc,ool under t,e direct
guidance of t,e sc,ool teac,er- assigned /entor. ),us% t,eir a9ilit1 of co//enting t,eir /entorFs annual plan
and preparing a lesson plan was good. #ne of t,e 9est ;ualities of an ideal teac,er is guided 91 a plan.
Iesearc, into ;ualit1 teac,ing (Entwistle% 2&&&? S,u/an% 2&&2 in Ieece and Eal<er% 2&&3 illustrates t,at
;ualit1 teac,ing in4ol4es instructional planning and /anaging learning effecti4el1. #n t,e ot,er ,and% a9out =7
(55.!3 student teac,ers and =&.=&M sc,ool teac,ers also rated t,at t,eir s<ill of preparing teac,ing aids fro/
locall1 a4aila9le /aterials and using in t,e class was low. #n t,e sa/e 4ein% *u<alel (1((! stated t,at /ost
teac,ers s,rin< awa1 fro/ t,e use of instructional /edia c,iefl1 9ecause it ,as uni;ue pro9le/s- costl1% needs
s<ill and cu/9erso/e /aintenance.
),eir a9ilit1 or <nowledge of e4aluating te6t9oo<s per t,e e4aluation criteria for 1&' (!=.== student teac,ers%
'3 (=5.15 sc,ool teac,ers and 22 (=1.11 teac,er educators was rated low. 3efore assigning to e4aluate te6t
9oo<s student teac,ers s,ould 9e fa/iliar to t,is new issue. E,en t,e1 ,a4e good awareness a9out it t,e1
9eca/e ,ig,l1 /oti4ated to do it. #t,erwise% w,en t,e student teac,ers did not get good grades 9ased on t,eir
own efforts% t,e1 will 9e de/oti4ated to do /ore. Si/ilar to t,is% Janssens et al (2&&2 suggested t,at w,en
student teac,ers did not get good grades for t,eir portfolios less effort were /ade to construct it.
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&5
5nder practicu/-II% student teac,ers were assigned to practice t,e teac,ing- learning tas<s in t,e actual conte6t
under t,e direct guidance of t,e sc,ool teac,er or assigned /entor. Ne4ert,eless% t,e interest and co//it/ent
of t,e sc,ool teac,ers (/entors to support t,e student teac,ers in practicu/-II was low. In contrast to t,is% t,e
researc, result of Pollard et al.(2&&2 i/plied t,at 9eginner student teac,ers need to 9e /oti4ated% supported%
co//ented and assessed continuousl1. ),e sc,ool teac,ersF assess/ent and continuous follow up of for t,e
student teac,ers was also low. ),e researc, wor<s of 3owers et al.(1(!3 supported t,at teac,er preparation ,ad
not paid enoug, attention to t,e ps1c,ological KreadinessesF of t,e student teac,ers. *uc, place/ent in
sc,ools appeared ad ,oc t,an designed to ensuring a good practice (+ewin% 2&&'. ),us% t,e practices of t,e
student teac,ers are si/pl1 superficial and ,ea4il1 depend on duplication of efforts. Ds a result of duplication
of effort 91 cop1ing eac, ot,er% 9ot, teac,er educators and student teac,ers percei4ed t,at pro4iding grades for
practicu/-I and II was not considered as i/portant for t,e student teac,ers.

Practicum-III (Assisting the mentor)
5nder practicu/-III student teac,ers are e6pected to assist t,e sc,ool teac,ers- assigned /entor in t,e class
roo/ acti4ities and /onitoring studentsF 9e,a4ior. ),erefore% =2 (51.== student teac,ers% 3! (57.57 sc,ool
teac,ers and 17 ('7.22 teac,er educators rated a4erage on t,e a9ilit1 of t,e student teac,ers in identif1ing t,e
causes of studentsF classroo/ disrupti4e 9e,a4iors. ),eir a9ilit1 of ta<ing correcti4e /easures for disrupti4e
9e,a4iors% as 72 (=& of t,e respondents filled was also a4erage. @owe4er% /ost student teac,ers 7'.1= M rated
t,at participating all students in t,e learning process w,ile assisting t,e /entor was low. In t,is regard% so/e
student teac,ers% during inter4iews% reflected t,at studentsF lac< of interest for learning% distur9ing in t,e class%
lac< of 9ac< ground <nowledge for t,e su9:ect and lac< of future 4ision was t,e /ain causes for t,eir low
participation in t,e class.
Ds !7.5 M student teac,ers and 52 (7!.7! sc,ool teac,ers filled% t,eir support to t,eir /entors during assisting
t,e /entor in preparing lesson plans% teac,ing aids and controlling t,e studentsF 9e,a4ior was ,ig,. 3esides%
/ost ((3.33M student teac,ers and '( (7'.2' sc,ool teac,ers filled t,at t,eir support for /entors in correcting
class wor<s% ,o/e tas<s and tests during classroo/ tas<s was also ,ig,.
E,ereas t,e support t,e sc,ool teac,ers (/entors pro4iding for t,e student teac,ers in e4er1 aspect (following%
co//enting% pro4iding feed9ac<s% etc was found to 9e low. *entors were not pla1ed w,at is e6pected fro/
t,e/ in t,is regard. -ifferent sc,olars (I,odes et al.% 2&&'? Pollard et al.% 2&&2 ,a4e pro4ed t,at /entors
pro4ide 4ision as well as support% 4alidit1% a4ocations% e/pat,1 and c,allenge to facilitate growt, of student
teac,ers% Pollard et al. (2&&2 furt,er suggest t,at t,e role of t,e /entor is7 wor<ing as planner% organi>er%
negotiator and inductor? wor<ing wit, t,e student teac,er as ,ost% friend and counselor" and wor<ing wit, t,e
student as trainer% educator and assessor. *entors act as /oti4ating% raising awareness% pro4iding feed9ac< and
ad4ice and lin< t,e person 9etween t,e sc,ool and t,e college tutor (0letc,er% 2&&&.

Practicum-I1 (Independent Teaching)
In practicu/-I$% student teac,ers are e6pected to perfor/ independent teac,ing 91 appl1ing t,e necessar1
o9ligations (preparing a lesson plan% i/parting acti4e learning% utili>ing different instructional /edia and using
different continuous tec,ni;ues. Ne4ert,eless% /ost of t,e student teac,ers lac< t,e a9ilit1 of preparing S*DI)
o9:ecti4es co/prising t,e t,ree do/ains. ),eir su9:ect /atter <nowledge was also low. 3eginning teac,ers are
e6pected to 9ring to classroo/s a 9asic set of pedagogical <nowledge and s<ills. ),e1 will re;uire a good
<nowledge of t,eir teac,ing su9:ects% good planning% a confident grasp of a range of teac,ing /et,ods and
sufficient <nowledge of c,ild de4elop/ent and sc,ool for an effecti4e start to t,eir teac,ing careers (Her4in 2
)ur9ill% 2&&3.
In t,eir 9loc< teac,ing% /an1 student teac,ers tried to appl1 different acti4e learning /et,ods% and different
classroo/ seating arrange/ents 9ut t,eir application of different assess/ent tec,ni;ues (/ainl1 for/ati4e
continuous assess/ent during and after t,e lesson was low. 3esides% t,e1 lac< gi4ing pre4enti4e or curati4e
actions up on t,e /is9e,a4ed students in t,eir classes.
Student teac,ers were as<ed a9out t,e support t,e1 o9tained fro/ sc,ool teac,ers (/entors and teac,er
educators (tutors. ),erefore% 75 (=2.5& of t,e student teac,ers rated t,at /entorFs interest and co//it/ent to
s,are t,eir e6perience to t,e/ in t,e 4arious stages of practicu/ was low. ),e reasons e6plained during t,e
discussion ti/es wit, so/e student teac,ers were 9ecause so/e /entors were careless% so/e were aut,oritati4e%
and so/e lac< t,e <nowledge and s<ills of /entoring and ot,ers under/ine t,e/. Suc, acts of t,e sc,ool
teac,ers ,inder t,e student teac,ers not to gain good e6periences and /ade t,e/ frustrated.
Si/ilarl1% as Jeen and @arris (2&&2 reported in t,eir stud1% w,at pre-ser4ice teac,ers identified as difficult
were inter4entions w,ic, see/ed to 9e under/ining. Henned1 (1((3 also forwarded t,at so/e super4isors or
/entors /a1 9e aut,oritati4e% o4er- critical and personall1 :udg/ental% ne4er listening to t,e trainees% 9la/ing
t,e/% ignorant of t,e conte6t and as a result confusions will 9e /ade. It is i/perati4e t,at t,e staff in sc,ool
ta<es so/e part in super4ision% guiding and assessing t,e student teac,ers ()adesse% 2&&=. 3ut w,en t,is ,elp
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&=
ca/e in t,e for/ of e6cessi4e interruptions and inter:ections% it was seen as da/aging (3ec< and Hosni<% 2&&2.
),e ,ig,est nu/9er of student teac,ers (!&.!3M also filled t,at /entorFs co//it/ent to gi4e proper
assess/ent and constructi4e feed9ac<s continuousl1 for t,eir i/pro4e/ent was low. D focus group discussion
wit, sc,ool teac,ers (/entors indicate t,at /uc, attention was not gi4en to t,e proper assess/ent and follow
up of t,e student teac,ers. In relation to t,e finding% Pollard et al. (2&&2 e6plained c,allenges of /entoring as
lac< of /entoring s<ill% large nu/9er of /entees% wor< load and lac< of co//it/ents. +ac< of close partners,ip
and close colla9oration was also a pro9le/ (I,odes et al. (2&&'. Ds it was also anal1>ed fro/ t,e grade reports
of t,e student teac,ers t,roug, docu/ent anal1sis in different depart/ents% nearl1 (7- (! M of t,e place/ent
teac,ers (/entors ga4e full /ar<s for t,eir student teac,ers in t,e different stages of t,e practicu/
assess/ents.
Si/ilarl1% t,e collegeFs and teac,er educatorsF support and continuous follow up in t,e four practicu/ progra/s
was low. 3esides% teac,er educators (tutors were not conducting proper assess/ent per t,e e4aluation criteria
of t,e four p,ases of practicu/. ),e e4aluation results pro4ided 91 t,e/ were not in consultation wit, t,e
sc,ool teac,ers. 3ot, of t,e/ e4aluate t,e sa/e t,ing differentl1 and it was not consistent. #f course% t,e
e4aluation of teac,ing is ,ig,l1 pro9le/atic% wit, lac< of consensus 9etween e4aluators possi9l1
ste//ing fro/ differing ideas on w,at constitutes good teac,ing (Jleeson and *ood1 2&&7. *an1
researc,ers also found significant lac< of agree/ent (*ood1% Jear1 and Pidgeon% 2&&' and lac< of consistenc1
(@aig, and )uc<% 1((( 9etween e4aluations 91 super4ising teac,ers and 91 uni4ersit1Pcollege representati4es.
E,en t,is ,elp ca/e in t,e for/ of e6cessi4e interruptions and inter:ections% it was seen as da/aging (3ec< and
Hosni< 2&&2. *ost teac,er educators focused on final e4aluations t,an pro4iding continuous feed9ac<s. ),e
researc, finding of +ewin (2&&' also stated t,at sustained for/ati4e feed9ac< geared to t,e studentFs own
de4elop/ent does not generall1 occur and t,e focus is on final grading. ),is could ne4er en,ance student
teac,ersF learning.
In order to support t,e student teac,ers properl1% a/ple and fre;uent ti/e s,ould 9e gi4en for teac,er educators
in order to focus on i/pro4ing student teac,ersF learning t,an final grading. ),e assess/ent of t,e practicu/
e6perience s,ould 9e seen as an on-going de4elop/ental process w,ere student teac,ers recei4e feed9ac< on
t,eir strengt,s and t,e areas t,e1 need de4elop/ent (*oE% 2&&3. 3esides% to carr1 out t,e deli4er1 properl1%
t,e necessar1 facilities li<e transport access and resources s,ould 9e fulfilled. If t,ere was logistic pro9le/s and
s,ortage of ti/e for tutors to pro4ide practical support for large nu/9er of student teac,ers placed in different
sc,ools% tutorsF 4isits tended to 9e 9adl1 ti/ed% rus,ed% irregular% and /ostl1 oriented to final assess/ent
(+ewin% 2&&'.
Ds far as t,e contri9ution of practicu/ was concerned% practicu/ was pla1ed 91 a triad of actors-student
teac,ers% teac,er educators and place/ent teac,ers and ,as /an1 contri9utions for t,e/. 3ased on t,e findings%
t,e practicu/ progra/ ,elped t,e student teac,ers to7 understand t,e real sc,ool en4iron/ent% s,are
e6periences wit, place/ent teac,ers and teac,er educators? identif1 t,e wea< and strong sides of t,e/? relate
t,e t,eor1 t,e1 learnt in t,e college wit, practice in t,e actual setting? de4elop t,eir confidence in e6pressing
t,eir ideas in front of t,e students% place/ent teac,ers and teac,er educators.
),e practicu/ progra/ also ,elped t,e sc,ool teac,ers7 to get different support ser4ices (preparing lesson
plans% correcting studentsF class wor<s and ,o/e wor<s% wor<ing in co-curricular acti4ities and controlling
studentsF /is9e,a4iors fro/ student teac,ers. )eac,er educators also gained fro/ t,is progra/ in
understanding t,e conte6ts of t,e pri/ar1 sc,ools and ena9ling t,e/ to ad:ust t,eir teac,ing-learning process
91 percei4ing t,e pri/ar1 sc,ools conte6ts.
#n t,e ot,er spectru/% student teac,ers e6perienced a nu/9er of c,allenges during t,e i/ple/entation of t,e
four p,ase of t,e practicu/ progra/. D nu/9er of factors were affecting its i/ple/entation at different le4els.
+ow attitude for t,e student teac,ers was t,e first factor. E,en student teac,ers recei4ed low attitude fro/ t,e
sc,ool teac,ers and t,e students t,e1 will de4elop a negati4e attitude for t,e practicu/ progra/ in particular
and t,e teac,ing profession in general. D positi4e practicu/ is li<el1 to i/pact on t,eir self-confidence% t,eir
attitudes towards teac,ing and learning and t,eir willingness to enter t,e teac,ing profession (Janet *ood1%
2&&(.
+ac< of continuous follow up and support 91 tutors and /entors was anot,er factor. -uring t,eir place/ent in
sc,ools student teac,ers are e6pected to get close follow up and support fro/ t,eir /entors and tutors. +ac< of
clear coordination of t,e sc,ool teac,ers and teac,er educators during student teac,ers e4aluation and lac<
of clear guideline and orientation a9out t,e four p,ases of practicu/ fro/ t,e college are rated as t,e ,ig,est
factors t,at are affecting t,e i/ple/entation of t,e practicu/ progra/.

/% Conclusions and Implications
/%$ Conclusions
In Practicu/ I% o9ser4ing 9ot, t,e p,1sical en4iron/ent and classroo/ en4iron/ent and preparing t,e portfolio
was t,e first tas< of t,e student teac,ers. ),erefore% during t,e actual o9ser4ation% as t,e /a:orit1 student
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&7
teac,ers rated% t,e necessar1 awareness was not significantl1 carried out 91 t,e college regarding t,e classroo/
and sc,ool en4iron/ent o9ser4ation. Ds a result% preparing t,e portfolio independentl1 91 o9ser4ing 9ot, t,e
p,1sical en4iron/ent and classroo/ en4iron/ent was found to 9e low and duplicating oneFs own portfolio 91
t,e student teac,ers was a serious pro9le/ o9ser4ed. Ieflecting t,e portfolio 91 understanding t,e /ain ideas
per t,e stated criteria in Englis, was also found to 9e low.
.oncerning practicu/ II (Eor<ing under t,e *entor7 student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of co//enting t,e /entorFs
annual plan and preparing acti4it1 oriented lesson plan was found to encouraging. ),eir participation in different
co-curricular acti4ities was ,ig,. Ne4ert,eless% t,eir s<illPa9ilit1 of preparing teac,ing aids fro/ locall1 a4aila9le
/aterials and using it in t,e class and e4aluating te6t9oo<s using different e4aluation criteria was low. 3esides%
sc,ool teac,ersF interest and co//it/ent to support t,e student teac,ers and co//ent t,eir wea<nesses was low.
Si/ilar to Practicu/-I% student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of co/piling t,e portfolio and reflecting it properl1 was also low.
),erefore% t,e practical i/portance of t,e two practicu/ progra/s(practicu/-I and II for t,e student teac,ers
was not seen as 4er1 crucial since t,e1 were ,ea4il1 rel1ing on KfictiousF portfolio preparations.
Iegarding Practicu/ III (Dssisting t,e /entor7 t,e student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of identif1ing t,e causes of
studentsF disrupti4e classroo/ 9e,a4iors and ta<ing pre4enti4e or curati4e /easures was a4erage or
encouraging. ),eir a9ilit1 of assisting t,eir /entors 91 preparing lesson plans and teac,ing aids% controlling t,e
studentsF 9e,a4ior% correcting t,e students class wor<% ,o/e wor<% tests and e6a/s was ,ig,. Iegardless of
t,eir contri9utions to t,e sc,ools and sc,ool teac,ers% t,ere were low attitude and low respect for t,e student
teac,ers 91 /ost sc,ool teac,ers% sc,ool principals and students of t,e different pri/ar1 sc,ools.
.oncerning Practicu/ I$ (Independent teac,ing% student teac,ersF a9ilit1 of preparing t,e lesson plan
co/prising t,e t,ree do/ains wit, S*DI) o9:ecti4es and t,eir su9:ect /atter <nowledge was low. ),oug,
t,e1 were tr1ing to use different acti4e learning /et,ods% t,e discussion /et,od was t,e /ost widel1 applied
/et,od. -uring t,eir 9loc< teac,ing% utili>ation of instructional /edia for t,e appropriate lesson and utili>ation
of different continuous assess/ent /ec,anis/s was low. @owe4er% t,e1 were good at appl1ing different
classroo/ /anage/ent tec,ni;ues during lesson deli4er1.
),e practicu/ progra/ ,elped t,e student teac,ers in s,aring e6periences wit, sc,ool teac,ers% ,andling t,e
different 9e,a4iors of t,e students% anal1>ing t,e wea< and strong sides of t,e/sel4es% relating t,e t,eor1 t,e1
learnt in t,e college wit, practice in t,e actual setting. It also ,elped t,e sc,ool teac,ers to gain e6periences
a9out lesson plan preparation and acti4e learning /et,ods fro/ t,e student teac,ers and to 9e supported 91
t,e/ in preparing lesson plans% correcting studentsF acti4ities and controlling t,eir /is9e,a4iors. ),e progra/
furt,er ,elped teac,er educators to understand t,e student teac,ersF a9ilit1 in teac,ing /et,odolog1 and su9:ect
/atter /aster1 in t,e actual setting and reali>e t,e pri/ar1 sc,ool curriculu/.
),oug, t,e practicu/ progra/ ,as /an1 contri9utions to different actors% it ,as /an1 c,allenges. ),e <e1
factors affecting t,e i/ple/entation of t,e practicu/ progra/ were7 lac< of up-to- dated guideline prepared at
Iegional Education 3ureau (IE3 le4el t,at clearl1 s,ows t,e roles% duties and accounta9ilities of different
sta<e ,olders? t,e a9sence of continuous support% follow up and assess/ent 91 t,e college tutors and
sc,ool /entors? lac< of clear <now-,ow and /utual understanding a9out t,e /ain acti4ities to 9e done in t,e
four practicu/ progra/s 91 student teac,ers% sc,ool teac,ers and teac,er educators? attitudinal pro9le/s (i.e
considering t,e student teac,ers as teac,ers rat,er t,an trainees (91 sc,ool teac,ers and trainees rat,er t,an
teac,ers (91 t,e sc,ool students? duplications of t,e practicu/ portfolios 91 /an1 student teac,ers and
course rearrange/ent pro9le/s in t,e college. 0urt,er/ore wea< college-sc,ool lin<s and no strong con4incing
agree/ents reac,ed or signed 9etween t,e college and t,e sc,ool principals t,at /a<e sc,ool teac,ers (/entors
/ore accounta9le and responsi9le for t,e practicu/ progra/. #n t,e ot,er ,and% Englis, language pro9le/ for
portfolio co/pilation and reflection and actual teac,ing and lac< of su9:ect /atter <nowledge were also
o9tained as t,e ot,er factors affecting t,e effecti4eness of t,e practicu/ progra/.
/%$% Implications
3ased on t,e a9o4e conclusions t,e researc,er ,as reco//ended t,e following points for t,e concerned
institutions and personnel7
To ,egional Education &ureau (,E&)# Practicu/ is conducted 91 t,e positi4e will of t,e sc,ools. No clearl1
stated guide line t,at enforces sc,ools to wor< on t,e practicu/ progra/. ),erefore% t,e IE3 s,ould set clear
and up-to-date practicu/ guidelines t,at s,ow t,e accounta9ilities% duties and responsi9ilities of all sta<e
,olders in4ol4ed in t,e progra/ ()eac,er education colleges% woreda education offices% sc,ools and sc,ool
teac,ers.
In practicu/ I and II% /uc, of t,e student teac,ersF wor< was 9ased on portfolio preparation. *ost of t,e
portfolios were eit,er copied or t,eir fictious wor<s. ),e practical rele4ance of t,e two practicu/ p,ases for t,e
student teac,ers (,a4ing 7 credit ,ours was not seen as 4er1 crucial. ),erefore% t,e IE3 toget,er wit, )eac,er
Education .olleges s,ould eit,er reduce t,e credit ,ours gi4en for practicu/-I (' credit ,ours and practicu/-II
(3 credit ,ours or /uc, e/p,asis s,ould 9e gi4en for t,e practical applications /ainl1 for practicu/ -III
(assisting t,e /entor and practicu/ I$ (IndependentP 9loc< teac,ing.
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&!
To the Teacher Education Colleges# ),e colleges toget,er wit, IE3 s,ould prepare continuous awareness
creation progra/s to practicu/ coordinators% sc,ool principals and sc,ool teac,ers (/entors% teac,er educators
and student teac,ers a9out t,e i/ple/entation of t,e four practicu/ progra/s. -uring 9loc< teac,ing% t,e
necessar1 support and feed9ac<s for t,e student teac,ersF i/pro4e/ent s,ould 9e gi4en at least twice (esp.
for prac.III 2 I$ instead of gi4ing final grades 91 one period of 9loc< teac,ing o9ser4ation and one ter/
reflection. ),e practical application of 4arious acti4e learning /et,ods% t,e production and utili>ation of
instructional /edia and t,e preparation of S*DI) lesson plans co/prising t,ree do/ains was still a
c,allenge. ),us% t,e professional studies depart/ent and su9:ect /et,odolog1 pro4iders s,ould pa1 due
e/p,asis in t,is regard during t,eir training in t,e college. ),e college (t,e concerned depart/ents s,ould
de4ise additional /ec,anis/s to fill t,e student teac,ersF gap in te6t 9oo< e4aluation and su9:ect /aster1
pro9le/s. Strong efforts and continuous follow ups s,ould 9e /ade 91 practicu/ coordinators of t,e college to
/a<e teac,er educators (tutors and sc,ool teac,ers (/entors to wor< and discuss toget,er (s,are :ointl1 t,e
o4erall practice of t,e student teac,ers during t,eir support and e4aluation periods.
0or t,e 9etter/ent of t,e progra/% t,e college-sc,ool lin<s s,ould 9e strengt,ened colleges s,ould /ade
fre;uent super4isor1 acti4ities and t,e necessar1 supports to t,e sc,ools. 3esides% /oral or /aterial rewards
s,ould 9e pro4ided for sc,ool teac,ers w,o did 9etter in t,eir /entoring. 0urt,er/ore% strong con4incing
agree/ents s,ould 9e signed 9etween t,e college and sc,ools t,at /ade sc,ools /ore responsi9le and
accounta9le to t,e practicu/ progra/. D clear tutoring and /entoring guidelines s,ould 9e produced and
different cross- c,ec<ing /ec,anis/s s,ould 9e de4eloped to /ini/i>e t,e student teac,ersF duplication of t,e
portfolio.
To the pacement schoos% Place/ent teac,ers (/entors s,ould properl1 and continuousl1 support% follow and
assess t,e student teac,ers and pro4ide appropriate results 9ased on t,eir perfor/ance rat,er t,an gi4ing
unifor/ results to t,e student teac,ers. Sc,ool teac,ers and principals s,ould 9e open-/inded to s,are proper
e6periences of t,eir own and also to s,are fro/ t,e student teac,ers and college teac,ers.
To the student teachers# Student teac,ers s,ould a4oid cop1ing so/e onesF portfolio and writing KfictiousF
reports of t,e portfolio. ),e1 s,ould also i/pro4e t,eir su9:ect /atter and language pro9le/s t,roug, furt,er
and continuous readings% practices and e6perience s,aring wit, wor< colleagues. Student teac,ers s,ould respect
t,e professional code of et,ics (st1les of clot,ing% ,air co/9ing and ti/e /anage/ent during t,eir practice in
t,e different p,ases of t,e practicu/ progra/.

Ac'no"ledgments
*1 ,eartfelt t,an<s goes to t,ose all /1 researc, respondents of -essie town woreda pri/ar1 sc,ool teac,ers
(/entors% student teac,ers and teac,er educators (tutors and sc,ool principals for t,eir unreser4ed cooperation
and contri9utions in pro4iding 4alua9le infor/ation for t,e stud1. D special t,an< also goes to /1 colleagues
w,o pro4ided /e constructi4e co//ents and suggestions.

,EFFE,E6CE)
D/are Dsgedo/ et al.% (2&&= Et,iopia Pilot Stud1 of )eac,er Professional -e4elop/ent Sualit1 in Education%
)eac,ing% and +earning7 Perceptions and Practice. Institute of Educational Iesearc, % Dddis D9a9a
5ni4ersit17 Dddis D9a9a.
Dnderson% Step,en E. (ed.. (2&&2. Improving Schools through #eacher $evelopment: %ase Studies of the Aga
&han 'oundation (ro)ects in *ast Africa. +isse% ),e Net,erlands.
Drends% I.I (1((1. earning to #each (2nd ed. New Ror<7 *cJraw-@ill% Inc.
3ec<% ..%and .. Hosni<. (2&&2. Professors and t,e practicu/7 In4ol4e/ent of uni4ersit1 facult1 in pre-ser4ice
practicu/ super4ision. +ournal of #eacher *ducation ,-, p .-/0.
3ell% .. (2&&2). 1anage as 1entors. San 0rancisco% .D7 3errett- Hoe,ler.
3en-Peret>%*.(2&&&.E,en teac,ing c,anges% can teac,er education 9e far 9e,ind. (rospects% -2(2% 215-22'.
3est% J. and Ha,n% J. (1(((. 3esearch in *ducation (7t,ed.. New -el,i7 Prentice @all of %hallenges. San
0rancisco% .D7 Josse1-3ass.
.arpenter% +.% and 3. 3lance. (2&&1.)eac,ing Interns,ips and t,e +earning .o//unit1. In @and9oo< of
)eac,er Education% ed. ). )ownsend and I. 3ates% 3&1 1'. -ordrec,t% N+7 Springer.
.lar<e% D. (2&&=. ),e nature and su9stance of cooperating teac,er reflection. )eac,ing and )eac,er
Education 22% no. 77 (1& 21.
.oola,an% J. (2&&3. Dttracting% de4eloping and retaining effecti4e teac,ers7 .ountr1 9ac<ground report for
Ireland. -u9lin7 Stationer1 #ffice.
.ras9orn% 0.% P. @ennissen% 0. Hort,agen% and ). 3ergen. (2&&!.Pro/oting 4ersatilit1 in /entor teac,ersF use
of super4isor1 s<ills. #eaching 4#eacher *ducation 56, -: 600 ,/6.
.unna,% E.% P,illips% I. and Iic,ards% S. (1((7.KPartners,ips% Politics and Professional -e4elop/ent. British
+ournal of In-service *ducation) 23 (2 pp.1'5-1=1.
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

1&(
-en>in% N.% and R. +incoln% eds. (2&&&. Hand7oo8 of Qualitative 3esearch. 2nd ed. ),ousand #a<s% .D7 Sage.
-oreen Iorrison (2&1&7 Dssess/ent of t,e practicu/ in teac,er education7 ad4ocating for t,e student teac,er
and ;uestioning t,e gate<eepers% Educational Studies% 3=75% 5&5-51( accessed in
,ttp7PPd6.doi.orgP1&.1&!&P&3&55=(1&&372(&13
E<i>% -.(2&&=. I/pro4ing pri/ar1 teac,er education depart/ents t,roug, pre-ser4ice teac,ersF pedagogical
4oices. +ournal of #heor9 and (ractice in *ducation no. 27
0letc,er% S. (2&&&. 1entoring in Schools: A Hand7oo8 of :ood (ractice. +ondon7 Hogan page.
Jal9rait,% *.E. and .o,en% @.@.(Eds.(1((5.1entoring: Ne! Strategies and %hallenges. San 0rancisco% .D7
Josse1-3ass.
Jeen% D.% and .. @arris. 2&&2. Student perceptions of colla9orati4e teac,ing in initial teac,er education and
training. 5EI. Education Papers 1 (*a17 1 11.
Jirou6% @.D. 1((1. -e/ocrac1 and t,e discourse of cultural difference7 )owards a politics of 9order pedagog1.
British +ournal of Sociolog9 of *ducation 12% no. '7 5&1T1(.
Jo9le% N.* and Porter% J.0 (1(77). #he %hanging 3ole of the #eacher: International (erspectives. A Stud9
(repared for the International Bureau of *ducation. Paris7 N0EI .o. +td
@aig,% *.% and 3. )uc<.(1(((. Dssessing student teac,ersF perfor/ance in practicu/. Paper presented at t,e
Dustralian Dssociation for Iesearc, in Education% No4e/9er 2(% in *el9ourne% Dustralia.
@aig,% *.% and J. Eard.(2&&'. Pro9le/ati>ing practicu/ relations,ips7 Suestioning t,e ta<en for grantedF.
Dustralian Journal of Education '!% no. 27 13' '!.
@argrea4es% D. 2 0ullan% *. J.(Eds(1((2. ;nderstanding #eacher $evelopment. New India Pri4ate +td.
Janet *ood1 (2&&(7 He1 ele/ents in a positi4e practicu/7 insig,ts fro/ Dustralian post-pri/ar1 pre-ser4ice
teac,ers% Irish *ducational Studies, 5<:5, /,,-/=,.
Janssens% S.% 3oes% E.% and Eante% -. (2&&2. Portfolio7 an instru/ent for e4aluation and coac,ing. In -oc,1% +.
@e1len% and *osele1 (Eds. Dssess/ent in Education. 5trec,t% Net,erlands. +ournal of #eacher
*ducation. '3 (' pp. =(3-=('.
Jo,n% P. 2&&1. Einning and losing7 D case stud1 of uni4ersit1 tutor student teac,er interaction during a sc,ool-
9ased practicu/. *entoring 2 )utoring7 Partners,ip in +earning (% 27 153 =!.
He//is% S.%and I.*c)aggart.(1((&.#he Action 3esearch (lanner. Jeelong7 -ea<in 5ni4ersit1 Press.
Henned1% J. (1((3. *eeting t,e Needs of )eac,er )rainees on )eac,ing Practice. *# +ournal. $ol. '7 PP. 1-
577 #6ford 5ni4ersit1 press.
Her4in% +. H.% 2 )ur9ill% J. (2&&3. )eac,ing as a craft7 *a<ing lin<s 9etween pre-ser4ice training and
professional practice. *nglish #eaching: (ractice and %riti>ue, 5(3% 22-3'.
Hort,agen% 0. (2&&'. In searc, of t,e essence of t,e good teac,er7 )owards a /ore ,olistic approac, in teac,er
education. #eaching and #eacher *ducation 2&7 77T(7.
Hosni<% ..% and .. 3ec<. (2&&3. ),e interns,ip co/ponent of a teac,er education progra/7 #pportunities for
learning. #he #eacher *ducator -0,/ ,/<--6.
+a9aree% -.0. (2&&&. #n t,e nature of teac,ing and teac,er education. +ournal of #eacher *ducation 51% no. 37
22!T33
+a9os<e1% $.% and D. Iic,ert. (2&&2. Identif1ing good student ( teac,er place/ents. )eac,er Education
Suarterl1 2(% 2% 7-3'.
+eu% Eli>a9et,. (2&&5. #he 3ole of #eachers, Schools, and %ommunities in Qualit9 *ducation: A 3evie! of the
iterature% Eas,ington% -.7 DE-% Jlo9al Education .enter.
+ewin% H.* (2&&').#he (re-service #raining of #eachers-$oes it 1eet its ?7)ectives and Ho! can it 7e
improved U
+ingard%3.%-.@a1es% and *. *ills. (2&&3.)eac,ers and producti4e pedagogies7 .onte6tuali>ing%
conceptuali>ing% utili>ing. (edagog9, %ulture 4 Societ9 11% 37 3((T'2'.
+i4ingstone% J. @522/). #a8ing #eacher *ducation 'or!ard: #en Steps to!ards Qualit9 a 3eport. )E*S-7
*oE.
+ong% J. (1((7. *entoring for sc,ool-9ased teac,er education in Dustralia. *entoring 2 )utoring7
Partners,ip in +earning '% no. 37 11 !.
+oug,ran% J. (2&&=. $eveloping a (edagog9 of #eacher *ducation: ;nderstanding teaching and learning a7out
teaching. D9ingdon7 Ioutledge.
*ac-onald% ..(1((3..oping wit, Stress -uring t,e )eac,ing Practicu/7 ),e Student )eac,erFs Perspecti4e.
#he Al7erta +ournal of *ducational Iesearc,.$ol.3( PP. '&7-'1!.
*artine>% H.(1((!. Super4ision in pre-ser4ice )eac,er Education7 Spea<ing t,e 5nspo<en. International
+ournal of *ducational eadership, 1(3 pp. 27(-2(=.
*cP,erson% S. (2&&&. 'rom (racticum to (ractice: #!o Beginning #eachersA (erceptions of the Qualit9 of (re-
service preparation. #ntario7 SueenFs 5ni4ersit1.
*oE (2&&7 ),e New Practicu/ Juideline. Dddis D9a9a. *inistr1 of Education.
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline
$ol.5% No.2&% 2&1'

11&
*u<alel% J. (1((!. %reative Approaches to %lassroom #eaching. New -el,i7 -isco4er1.
New/ann% 0.*.% and Dssociates. 1((=. Authentic achievement: 3estructuring schools for intellectual >ualit9.
San 0rancisco% .D7 Josse1-3ass.
*oE (2&&3. #eacher *ducation S9stem ?verhaul. Dddis D9a9a7 *oE. #ffset Printing Press%
Pa:a<% E. (2&&1..linical Super4ision in a Standard 9ased En4iron/ent7 #pportunities and .,allenges7 +ournal
of #eacher *ducation. 53(3% pp.233-2'3.
Pollard% D. et al. (2&&2. 3eflective #eaching: *ffective and *vidence Informed (rofessional (ractice. +ondon
and New Ror<7 .ontinuu/% (rospects% -2(2% 215-22'% 3eport. )E*S-7 *oE.
Ieece% I. and Eal<er% S. (2&&3. #eaching, #raining and earning (5
t,
ed.. #6ford7 3usiness Education
Pu9lis,ers +td.
I,odes% Sto<es% *. and @a/pton% J.(2&&'. A (ractical :uide to 1entoring, %oaching and (eer Net-!or8ing:
#eacher (rofessional $evelopment in Schools and %olleges. +ondon and New Ror<7 Ioutledge
0al/er.
Sc,Cn% -. (1(!3. #he 3eflective (ractitioner: Ho! (rofessionals thin8 in action. New Ror<7 3asic 3oo<s.
Sc,Cn% -. (1(!7. *ducating the 3eflective (ractitioner. San 0rancisco% .D7 Josse1-3ass.
S,ar/a. I.D. (1((2. 'undamentals of *ducational 3esearch. *eerut7 New Dggrawal #ffset Printing Press.
S,ul/an% +.S. (1(!7. Hnowledge and teac,ing7 0oundations of t,e new refor/. Harvard *ducational 3evie!
57% no. 17 1T22.
)adesse *elesse (2&&=. Student teac,ersF% )eac,er educatorsF and Place/ent teac,ersF Perceptions on t,e
Iele4ance and Practice of Practicu/7 ),e case of -essie .ollege of )eac,er Education. Dddis D9a9a
5ni4ersit1. D *aster ),esis (5npu9lis,ed.
Leic,ner% H. (1((=. Iet,in<ing t,e Practicu/ in t,e Professional Sc,ool Partners,ip. +ournal of #eacher
*ducation. '3(' pp. =(3-=('.




The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event
management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:
http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS
There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting
platform.
Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the
following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available
online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers
other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version
of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES
Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar


Business, Economics, Finance and Management Journals PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
European Journal of Business and Management EJBM@iiste.org
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting RJFA@iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development JESD@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Journal of Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Chemistry Journals PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Journal of Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Journal of Mathematical Theory and Modeling MTM@iiste.org
Advances in Physics Theories and Applications APTA@iiste.org
Chemical and Process Engineering Research CPER@iiste.org
Engineering, Technology and Systems Journals PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems CEIS@iiste.org
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering ISDE@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Journal of Control Theory and Informatics CTI@iiste.org
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications JIEA@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Journal of Network and Complex Systems NCS@iiste.org
Environment, Civil, Materials Sciences Journals PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Environment and Earth Science JEES@iiste.org
Journal of Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Life Science, Food and Medical Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Advances in Life Science and Technology ALST@iiste.org
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare JBAH@iiste.org
Journal of Food Science and Quality Management FSQM@iiste.org
Journal of Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Education, and other Social Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Education and Practice JEP@iiste.org
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization JLPG@iiste.org
Journal of New Media and Mass Communication NMMC@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Historical Research Letter HRL@iiste.org
Public Policy and Administration Research PPAR@iiste.org
International Affairs and Global Strategy IAGS@iiste.org
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences RHSS@iiste.org
Journal of Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Journal of Arts and Design Studies ADS@iiste.org