Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
Teaching practicum effectiveness is determined by several factors: adherence to the norms and standards that govern acceptable school-based-student teacher practicum assessment and student teacher assignment to teaching schools, as prescribed under the teaching school-university partnership practicum model. At the heart of the teaching experience are two relationships: one between mentor teachers and student teachers and the other between teacher educators and student teachers in assessment of their practices. Assessment plays a multifaceted role in supporting the process of learning, in judging student achievement in relation to course requirements, and in maintaining standards of the profession. As enacted in the teacher program, assessment assists teacher educators in the formative and summative evaluation of student teachers when assigned for the practicum in teaching schools. A qualitative research phenomenological case study design, targeting 10 student teachers who completed their teaching school-based practicum after a four-year BEd foundation phase program, was adopted to explore student teacher experiences of school-based assessment. To substantiate the findings, qualitative data were collected through biographical forms, semi-structured interviews, teaching practicum portfolios, and the Teaching Practicum Manual for Sessions 1 and 2 as implemented by a selected university offering an initial teacher education (ITE) program with practicum mentorship. Content and thematic analyses were used to identify themes, with a series of common themes identified based on empirical, theoretical, and policy findings, to determine the impact of the existing practicum approach, a practicum assessment model, on student teacher levels of readiness to teach. Not all student teachers received the expected assessment experience. Several student teachers felt that the way the formative and summative evaluation processes were conducted and the feedback from the teacher educators based on only two visits were insufficient for fair performance evaluation over the 8–12 weeks of school practicum, although they regarded evaluator visits as helpful for reflection, grading, nurturing and a fair critique of their performance. Student teachers indicated to have gained considerable knowledge to improve lesson delivery and classroom management.
Keywords
- student teachers
- practicum experiences
- school-based mentors
- assessment
- teacher educators
1. Introduction
Teaching practicum occupies a key position in the teacher education program, serving as the culminating experience in teacher preparation; it offers beginning teachers the opportunity to practice in a real setting and be socialized into the teaching profession.
Overall, practicum experiences of student teachers are determined by multiple integrated and interrelated factors, including the nature of the school environment for the practicum, the duration of the practicum exercise, the effectiveness of the teacher educator who evaluates the student teachers, the expertise of the school-based mentors, and the nature and consistency of the feedback received from both school-based mentors and teacher educators [1]. A recent study by Mokoena [2] revealed that student teachers face challenges pertaining to on-time placement in schools, placement in approved schools to undertake teaching practice [3], and supervision and mentoring during the practicum. Some schools, for example, while willing to accommodate student teachers, may struggle with poor management, non-existent timetables, insufficient staff, and inadequate mentoring, all of which can be detrimental during practicum and leave students feeling demotivated and disillusioned.
According to Yaylı [4], practicum experiences in teaching schools help in translating theoretical aspects of the program into practical, doable actions, which are valuable to student teachers as they reflect on the support, guidance, and assessment provided by the schools and higher learning institutions. Allen [5] contends that the practicum period must be enhanced by the involvement of stakeholders who are well capacitated and distinctly aware of their roles and responsibilities. Those in the program must be acquainted with the coordination of the teaching schools’ and higher education institutions’ practicum-work relationship.
Student teaching experiences are regarded as the most influential component of a teacher education program [6, 7, 8], shaping student teacher development from novice teachers to competent teachers. At the heart of the teaching experience is the relationship between mentor teachers and student teachers [9], a relationship that leads to the transformation of the teachers involved [10]. The overall success of the professional practice unit—the entire practicum—depends heavily on a positive relationship between these two parties [11].
Assessment, another core element of the practicum, is utilized to determine the progress of the student teacher, the need for support and guidance, and the readiness to enter the teaching profession upon graduation. According to Joughin [12], assessment plays a multifaceted role in supporting the process of learning, judging student achievement in relation to course requirements, and maintaining the standards of the profession. As enacted in the teacher program, assessment assists teacher educators and school-based mentors in formative and summative evaluation of the student teachers when assigned for the practicum in teaching schools [13].
This research study has been designed to explore student teacher experiences of the teaching practicum based on their perceptions of assessment of their performance during this practicum. These experiences, as determined in this study, will contribute to the roles and responsibilities of school-based mentors and teacher educators in shaping relevant skills and knowledge desired for a qualified educator to ensure that these roles and responsibilities are carried out efficiently and effectively based on the procedures and guidelines of ITE programs.
This chapter explores student teacher experiences of the teaching practicum in an ITE program, posing the following question:
2. Review of the teaching practicum
2.1 Concept of practicum
A practicum, if well implemented and executed, provides practice for university students to become successful teachers [14]. Teacher educators and school-based mentors are extremely important sources of practical experience for student teachers because they work as supervisors, assessors, mentors, observers, model teachers, and supporters to develop student teachers [14].
2.2 Impact of practicum experiences
Practicum experiences are necessary for the development of a student teacher’s professional knowledge [15] and beneficial in transitioning the student teacher from theoretical knowledge to practical classroom experiences [16]. The expectation is that student teachers acquire the knowledge to become qualified educators through mastery of content knowledge [17]. According to Ramsden [18], practical experience imparts soft skills such as problem solving, professional work relationships, and professional values and attitudes, which are vital components of an ITE program to prepare student teachers for the realities of student teaching.
2.3 Challenges impeding student teacher development
During teaching practicum experiences, student teachers encounter several challenges. For instance, studies by Sarıçoban [19] discovered that most of these problems occur because there is a gap between the academic institution and the current real teaching situation.
According to Manzar-Abbas and Lu [20], the analysis of practicum experiences of Chinese University students found that notable impediments to student teacher development included complaints from the students describing practicum as done in a very short time, with inappropriate time to transfer student teachers to the field and involving the use of outdated methods to conduct practicum training. Other impediments identified during field training relate to academic supervision, cooperative schooling, and cooperative school students [21].
Challenges inherent to the student teaching process and associated with the student teacher’s professional growth include acquiring and applying effective feedback from cooperative teachers during post-lesson conferences [22]. A related problem in teaching practicum, identified by Wang and Odell [23], is psychological and emotional pressures that can affect student teacher performance during teaching.
2.4 Policies and procedures guiding practicum in the south African context
ITE programs, designed to equip prospective teachers with the professional knowledge and skills for effective teaching in schools [24], intend to transform student teachers into capable and competent teachers [25]. Higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Africa implement ITE programs based on policy guidance, that is, the Higher Education Act [26], the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF), the Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications [27], and the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), and highlight the significance of school-based practicum learning with the assumption that student teachers will be thoroughly supervised.
School-based teaching practicums are compulsory for all university-registered students in an ITE program. Teacher educators and school-based mentors entrusted with supervisory roles are required to assess student teachers on lesson plan preparation, research skills, classroom management, time management, relations with fellow staff members, school management, and education project innovation [28].
2.5 Theoretical frameworks
The study adopted the 8P’s model in assessing student teacher readiness to teaching.
The 8P model of teacher practice, developed by Shulman [17], underscores the importance of performance-based assessment (PBA), which measures a student’s ability to apply the skills and knowledge learned from the previously studied theory. Shulman’s work suggests that to improve classroom teaching, the teaching profession needs a continuously evolving and growing knowledge base. Teacher education programs that uphold this view focus on how teachers organize aspects of subject matter to adapt and represent it for instruction. The teaching practicum model of assessment comprises eight stages, which have been categorized into three phases, namely peer assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment. However, not all these stages are currently implemented by the HEI under study. For instance, principals and students are not given an opportunity to assess the student teachers except for school-based mentors and teacher educators from the HEIs [29].
The 8P model of teacher practice provides the stages that student teachers are obliged to pass through for their teaching practicum in schools, as well as the stages that teacher educators and school-based mentors use for supporting and guiding student teachers and assessing these student teachers throughout the teaching practicum period. The model clarifies the roles of teacher educators who are assessors and school-based mentors who are assessors, guiders, supporters, and resources providers. It further shows how the triad is integral to the entire process, rendering the process relevant and reliable for studying student teacher experiences as it intertwines the cumulative stages to define their experiences of practicum.
2.6 Teaching practicum assessment practices
During practicum, student teachers are assessed on their current knowledge, skills, and practices by the school-based mentors and teacher educators, offering an opportunity for growth in their journey to enter the profession [30]. According to Tillema et al. [13], school-based mentors and teacher educators have dual roles in formative and summative assessments: school-based mentoring serves formative assessment, while summative assessment remains with the HEI teacher educators who join the triad toward the end of the practicum for the final evaluation of the student teacher performance [12].
The intention of teacher education providers is that the practicum be implemented through a partnership model whereby student teacher attachment to a school is supported by school-based mentors who are licensed for that role and teacher educators who are charged with role assessment as documented in the program policy [24].
The practicum component of an ITE program is commonly identified in the literature as “the factor that has the strongest impact on teaching” [31, 32, 33] and is viewed by most student teachers as a positive experience [34, 35, 36]. However, in South Africa, current assessment of student teachers is frequently ineffective in supporting student teachers to transition into professional teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively practice as teachers. The weakness of the system is that despite school-based mentorship serving as the most powerful source of influence on student teachers undergoing pre-service training, there exists a tendency for the mentor’s assessment role to overshadow the other roles of support, advice, and instruction, and in so doing, “impede[s] the development of the student teacher’s learning, the very objective of the assessment” [37]. Other notable issues relate to the mentors who support student teachers in schools—too often they are underqualified and lack subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge to assist student teachers in developing desired competencies because these mentors are not phase specialists [37] despite the stated requirements of the school-based practicum.
The South African Education Policy, delineating key competencies for teacher education qualifications [38], requires that proper supervision and suitable school placement be guaranteed [39] and specifies the minimum and maximum time to be devoted to practice teaching, including learning in and from practice. Not all students are supervised (assessed) by teacher educators at HEIs because time constraints and finances are a reality; consequently, at times, school-based mentors assume the roles of both mentor and assessor.
With reference to Burn and Council on Higher Education [39, 40] reviews have led to questions on the overall quality of most existing ITE programs, as it was found that: (i) too many teacher education programs do not meet minimum standards in the areas of program design, coordination, and work-based learning; (ii) the quality of program staff is weak with respect to staff development, research output, and orientation; and (iii) many students lack sufficient opportunities to engage in practical learning, a problem exacerbated by weak university-school relationships, poor communication, and inadequate supervision and mentorship arrangements.
Shortcomings in subject knowledge, poor relationships with mentors, and an inability or disinclination to cope with imposing discipline, preparing lessons, or managing time [37] are some of the hindrances to successfully conducting school-based mentorship and assessment during the teaching practicum in South Africa.
3. Methodology
The study followed a qualitative research approach [41] to understand fourth-year student teachers’ experiences of the teaching practicum in a BEd foundation phase program.
It is important that the design selected suits the nature of the research being conducted and outlines how the research is carried out from the beginning to the end [42]. According to DeFranzo [43], qualitative research accesses experiences and concepts to be studied and can be developed and refined as the research is conducted, rendering it a semi-structured process and procedure. This approach was deemed suitable for studying student teacher experiences of the practicum as it is flexible and honors an inductive style, focusing on individual meaning and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation.
Creswell [44] explains that a phenomenological study describes the meaning of the lived experiences of several individuals regarding a concept or the phenomenon. The concept of practicum in a teaching program has highlighted student teacher experiences, which was the concept to be studied. In the human sphere, phenomenology normally translates to gathering “deep” information and perceptions through inductive qualitative research methods such as interviews and observations, representing information and perceptions from the perspective of the research participants [45]. Observation and interviews are the key data collection methods for a phenomenological study [46].
The sample for this study was purposively selected from fourth-year BEd foundation-phase student teachers, comprising 10 female student teachers who completed their teaching practicum and school-based mentorship and assessment procedures.
Considering the depth to which the researcher wanted to explore the phenomenon under study, both non-probability purposive sampling and probability random sampling were deployed. The choice of a non-probability sample means the study targeted a deliberate unit reflecting the outcome of the activities within the new ITE curriculum program, while a probability sample was used because of its higher level of reliability of research findings and increased accuracy of sampling error estimation.
3.1 Choice of participants
The study purposively selected student teachers who completed their teaching practicum, specializing in the BEd foundation phase program, and who were in their final year of study (Year 4) at the time of this study. The researcher endeavored to gain an in-depth understanding of the student teachers’ fresh experiences of the program through information-rich samples [47].
The research population targeted in this study was homogenous: all female student teachers within the BEd foundation phase program who have completed and passed their practicum. While the targeted population comprised nearly 100 student teachers, the researcher intended to interview only 10 student teachers.
The institution selected for the study is diverse, enrolling students of various social classes, racial compositions, and home locations. The institution has adequately trained and qualified staff and administrators with world-class resources and infrastructure and a variety of staff and students: Black, White, Asian, and colored from high, middle, and low economic classes. Hence, the sample of participants varied in age, race, socio-economic class, and schools where they conducted their practicum.
The study employed semi-structured in-depth interviews to obtain data, with participants encouraged to reflect on their experiences of assessment, support, and guidance during the practicum, sharing strengths, areas of development, outcomes of summative assessment, and details of their qualifications for passing [47].
The study used content and thematic analyses for the data collected from the semi-structured in-depth interviews with the student teachers. Content analysis explores lived experiences [48]. In this study, the data collected were transcribed, and patterns of teacher experiences and mentor and teacher educator assessment were analyzed.
Ethical consideration is vital for both quantitative and qualitative studies [49]. The researcher sought ethical approval from a selected university offering an ITE BEd program to collect data from student teachers. With regard to participants, anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the study; information collected was kept private.
4. Findings and discussion
This section discusses the findings of the study with reference to the research question.
4.1 Student teacher experiences of the teacher educator assessment of their competencies during the teaching practicum
The student teachers had varying perceptions of the teacher educator assessment of their competencies during the teaching practicum. Generally, the 10 student teachers in this study regarded evaluator visits as helpful for reflection, grading, nurturing, and a fair critique of their performance. Zeichner and Liston [50] accentuate the importance of student teacher reflection in the practicum component and other field-based activities of ITE programs. Supervisors expect certain competencies from student teachers in terms of the practicum when they visit for assessment [51], evaluating the student teachers’ performance in practical teaching situations and monitoring their performance progress with feedback to the HEI and to the student teachers themselves.
4.1.1 Nature of school-based assessment of competencies by teacher educators
Student Teacher 8 indicated this about her assessment:
Student Teacher 3 added,
According to these two student teachers, assessment procedures went well with their teacher educators—assessment was fair, and feedback was given for areas requiring improvement.
However, Student Teacher 9 indicated that the number of assessor visits was not adequate for a fair arrival at a final grade.
4.1.2 School-based practicum assessment: Mode
Most student teachers were assessed at intervals as stipulated in ref. [28], although some mentors also valued the school-based mentorship evaluation as formative assessment and applied this rating regularly. The student teachers were assessed on the expected norms and standards as stipulated in the manual, although not all educators conformed to standards, with some not abiding to the 48–hour rule notification and some observing student teacher lessons at incorrect times, affecting student teacher application of practice skills in the classroom. This was noted in the Student Teacher 1 interview:
Student Teacher 10 added,
Another student teacher said,
During the lesson observation, the supervisor provided constructive comments about various aspects of the lesson. The CPUT Manual for Teaching Practicum contains a well-established assessment and scoring aggregate intended as a tool to guide lesson observation. However, analysis of the three lessons reveals an absence of evaluation forms and assessment rubrics, as none mentioned these tools.
4.1.3 School-based practicum assessment: Cultivated competencies
The areas most assessed by teacher educators during the practicum in the teaching schools were as follows: lesson plan preparation, time management, classroom management, dress code, and research on lesson topics. Numerous scholars have emphasized the role of assessment in determining a student teacher’s readiness to teach and the achievement of expected graduate standards. It is anticipated that practicum assessment will comprise elements of supportive guidance for the student teachers, with evaluation of the achievement of the expected competencies [52].
According to Student Teacher 9,
Further, Student Teacher 3 indicated,
Coll et al. [53] explain that assessors should focus on areas of technical competencies rather than higher level teaching skills. Student teachers mentioned research on the topic, instructional strategies, organization and planning, classroom management, caring and inclusiveness, and communication and interpersonal skills as the areas most assessed by teacher educators during practicums.
4.1.4 School-based practicum assessment: Student teacher: Teacher educator relationship
Practicum supervisor impact is classified into professional, personal, and procedural parameters. Different scholars have defined assessment in different ways [12, 24], for example, refer to assessment as a procedure of judgment about student teacher work through analysis of what they are capable of in the assessed domain: hence, what they know, value, or are capable of doing. The 10 student teachers in this study described the relationship with their school-based mentors as professional, assessing, mentoring, affirming, and providing feedback to facilitate their professional growth—people who, according to Student Teacher 6,
In addition, Student Teacher 1 commented,
As professionalism constitutes the backbone of the teaching process, teacher educators must avoid bias when affirming student teacher practice. It is expected, as suggested by student teachers, that judgment about student teachers is conducted positively, through analysis of what they are capable of in the assessed domain and thus what they know and value and can do.
4.1.5 School-based practicum assessment: Nature of support
Student teachers listed several areas of focus in their practicum lesson performance as assessed by teacher educators, mentioning planning, research, and practice skills as the most developed during assessment. The collected practicum biographical data revealed the most developed competencies to be time management, classroom management, research on content areas, and learner involvement. Construction of portfolios has recently gained attention as a tool to promote reflection among student teachers [54]. During other in-class and outside-the-classroom activities, student teachers construct an educational portfolio [55] containing lesson plans, weekly summaries of lessons taught, class timetables, class learner lists, school policies, information on lesson content, and finally, CAPS documentation.
Student Teacher 3 spoke of her competencies:
Student Teacher 6 expressed her improvements:
The assessors maintained a broad holistic focus on developing qualified teachers. They focused their plans on CAPS, appropriate teaching and learning methodologies, teaching and learning resources, capabilities in discharging duties based on school policies, abilities to develop education portfolios, and abilities to reflect on classroom practices.
4.1.6 School-based practicum assessment: Opportunities and challenges of assessment
When asked of opportunities gained from the practicum assessment, student teachers mentioned knowledge for improving lesson delivery and classroom management. They saw the evaluation visits as opportunities to converse with teacher educators on substantial issues pertaining to practice improvements.
Student Teacher 3 said,
Student Teacher 9 added,
It is evident that teacher-educator assessment of student teachers is vital for their growth as capable, qualified educators. According to Atputhasamy [56], sharing practical experiences of expert teachers who observe student teacher lessons, receiving feedback, and practicing various teaching strategies at school are the most important factors in student teacher professional growth.
Student teachers mentioned several challenges affecting their performance: inadequate evaluation visits and lesson observations, poor timing of teacher educator evaluations, inconsistency of evaluations, and lack of uniformity in the assessment processes. A study conducted by Haigh and Ell [30] condones transparency in relation to the purpose and practice of practicum assessment, taking into consideration the problematic nature of a practicum and unfairness for student teachers. For example, evaluators had problems meeting the rules and regulations for assessing student teacher classes, which affected the classroom management of the student teachers.
Student Teacher 1 commented,
In support, Student Teacher 2 said,
If the assessment aspect of the program is problematic, the outcome of the assessment is likely not a true reflection of student teacher performance. According to the student teachers, both school-based mentor and teacher educator formative assessments were crippled by a physical absence of classroom observations and a lack of mentor specialization, while the summative assessment was conducted inappropriately (not all teacher educators followed the recommended assessment procedures or used the correct assessment instrument), or the number of visits were inadequate to determine the actual performance of the student teachers [57, 58, 59], attribute assessment problems to bias, unreliability, and inconsistency, emphasizing that HEIs and teaching schools need to resolve these problems if the integrity of the assessment system and awarded qualification is to be protected and for the “public to have confidence in teacher educators as the gatekeepers to an initial teaching position” [59].
4.1.7 School-based practicum assessment: Its value
Student teachers used assessment to question evaluators on conflicting realities between theoretical training at HEIs and practical knowledge in teaching schools and to reflect on knowledge and skills gained from first to final year practicum experiences. Clarke and Collins [60] contend that assessment is a core component of school-based practicum for determining student teacher progress of readiness to qualify as competent teachers.
Student Teacher 7 said,
Student Teacher 9 added,
Student teachers enter the teacher education program with re-established beliefs about teaching and learning derived from their own educational experiences [61]. Part of the role of teacher education and practicum is to encourage a transformation in which existing beliefs are challenged against theory and practice [62].
4.2 Discussion of school-based assessment experiences
Findings reveal variations in student teacher reflections on their experiences of the teaching practicum because of a teacher educator’s assessment of their practice in the classroom. Even in the case of schools associated with universities to strengthen the teaching practice component of teacher education programs as stipulated in ref. [63], not all student teachers receive the expected school-based assessment experience. The expectation is for collaborative efforts in modeling, observing, guiding, discussing, and reflecting with expertise to be drawn from both the university and the school [33, 64, 65, 66]. However, this was not the case with all assigned schools, as mismatches were evident in the expectations of the role of the teaching schools and the role of the universities. For instance, there was a particular case where one student teacher had the same person acting as both mentor and assessor, which, according to ref. [28], is not recommended. The role of summative assessment is assigned to teacher educators at HEIs who conduct the assessment and grading after an interval of mentorship sessions with student teachers and observations of lesson presentations in the classroom.
Darling-Hammond and Snyder [67] confirm that authentic assessment is enacted by multiple sources and involves more than one measure to assess student teachers with the intent of encouraging a broader acquisition of skills and competencies. Multiple data sources used to reach assessment decisions may include documentation of student teacher practices of achievements over time and in various situations. Contrary to this, in respect of the study findings, several student teachers felt that the way the formative and summative evaluation processes were conducted and the feedback received from the teacher educators based on only two visits were insufficient for a fair performance evaluation over the 8–12 weeks’ time span of the school practicum.
Despite acknowledgment of the student teacher practicum as integral to assessment [30], several concerns have been raised about its validity and reliability: procedure seems to have been taken for granted in practice with little regard for formal observation processes.
Unlike the evaluation of school-based mentors who had no score aggregate on the performance of the student teacher, the assigned teacher educators from the university awarded the final marks of the Session 1 assessment. The grade was determined from the teacher educator’s evaluation of the school-based mentor’s sheet and their own evaluation of the student teacher’s assessment. The expectation was that each teacher educator’s assessment would be guided by the evaluation forms and assessment rubrics as per the recommended procedures of the school-university partnership. However, student teachers noted the absence of such documents, bringing into question the uniformity of assessment and the reliability and validity of their final grade.
Teacher educators’ frequency of assessing a student teacher’s readiness to teaching is determined by several factors, as stipulated by the HEI, namely: their position (whether appointed as external moderator or not) and the purpose of the assessment. Student teachers’ responses on their practicum assessment frequency were determined by what they perceived as assessment and who they perceived as an assessor. At times, for example, student teachers would refer to the tutor teacher as the teacher educator, whilst others referred to the school-based mentor, a clear indication of displacement of assessment roles in certain schools. An analysis of student teacher responses found numerous false assumptions that student teachers are capable of automatically and smoothly transitioning from theoretical to practical teaching in the classroom as not all mentors availed themselves fully to uphold the expected standards of quality for delivering competent teachers.
5. Conclusion
As a qualitative study, the research concentrated on one HEI offering a teaching practicum for combining theory and practice in each of the program’s 4 years. Based on the findings, the current teaching practicum model as implemented by the selected HEI faces challenges in meeting the expected school-based support, guidance, and advisory role as well as in yielding quality assessment results and, more importantly, in producing the expected quality of competent teachers.
This chapter highlighted how an HEI is implementing the teaching practicum component of its ITE program, noting the opportunities as well as the challenges. In so doing, it adds to the limited research on the implementation of the teaching practicum component in ITE programs in South Africa and globally.
Acknowledgments
I hereby acknowledge and express my gratitude to the Centre for International Teacher Education (CITE), Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), and the National Research Foundation (NRF) for the support that made this research possible. However, the chapter does not represent the views of CITE, the NRF, or any of their partners.
Thanks/dedication
I dedicate this research work to all higher education institutions which are providers of initial teacher education programmes, entrusted with the responsibility of professional growth and development of future specialist foundation phase teachers.
I dedicate this to my mother, Mrs. Ellen Namvuwa Malikebu, father Brigadier General Victor Phillip Malikebu (Rtd) and my brothers Benedicto (Thamsanqa), Charles (Mthokozitsi) and Francis (Mduduzi) for their moral support and undying love.
Declaration
I hereby declare that the text of this Chapter entitled Student Teacher Experiences of the Teaching Practicum in an Initial Teacher Education Program in the Western Cape is my own work and has not been presented for any other award at the Centre for International Teacher Education, Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
References
- 1.
Al-Mekhlafi AA. Student teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of practicum and practicum supervisors. Ajman University Network of Science and Technology Journal. 2010; 15 (2):7-28 - 2.
Mokoena S. Student teachers’ experiences of teaching practice at open and distance learning institution in South Africa. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE). 2017; 18 (2):10 - 3.
Du Plessis E. Mentorship challenges in the teaching practice of distance learning students. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning. 2013; 8 :29-43 - 4.
Yaylı D. Mentor support to pre-service teachers on theory-practice gap in practicum: An online practice. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty. 2018; 20 (3):590-601 - 5.
Allen JM. Stakeholders’ perspectives of the nature and role of assessment during practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2011; 27 :742-750 - 6.
Richardson-Koehler V. Barriers to the effective supervision of student teaching: A field study. Journal of Teacher Education. 1988; 39 (2):28-34 - 7.
Tang SYF. Challenge and support: The dynamics of student teachers’ professional learning in the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2003; 19 (5):483-498 - 8.
Glenn WJ. Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effective cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly. 2006; 33 (1):85-95 - 9.
Caruso JJ. Cooperating teacher and student teacher phases of development. Young children. 2000; 55 (1):75-81 - 10.
Johnson KA. Every experience is a moving force: Identity and growth through mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2003; 19 (8):787-800 - 11.
Graves S. Mentoring pre-service teachers: A case study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2010; 35 (4):14-20 - 12.
Joughin G. Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education: A critical review. In: Joughin G, editor. Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. pp. 13-28 - 13.
Tillema HH, Smith K, Leshem S. Dual roles – Conflicting purposes: A comparative study of perceptions on assessment in mentoring relations during practicum. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2011; 34 (2):139-159 - 14.
Masadeh TSY. Opportunities and barriers of practicum from the perspectives of English language student teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5 (6):1059-1071. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050620 - 15.
Yan C, He C. Transforming the existing model of teaching practicum: A study of Chinese EFL student teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2010; 36 (1):57-73 - 16.
Smith K, Lev-Ari L. The place of practicum in pre-service teacher education – The voice of the students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2005; 33 (3):289-302 - 17.
Shulman L. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 1987; 57 (1):1-22 - 18.
Ramsden P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge; 1992. p. 290 - 19.
Sarıçoban A. Problems encountered by student teachers during their practicum studies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010; 2 (2):707-711 - 20.
Manzar-Abbas S, Lu L. Keeping the practicum of Chinese preservice teacher education in world’s perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2013; 3 (4):172-186 - 21.
Shaheen MA. Problems of field application for practicum training at Al-quds open university from students perspectives. Al-Quds Open University Journal. 2010; 2010 :4 - 22.
Bertone S, Chalies S, Clarke A, Meard J. The dynamics of interaction during post-lesson conferences and the development of professional activity: Study of a pre-service physical education teacher and her co-operating teacher. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2006; 34 (2):245-264 - 23.
Wang J, Odell SJ. Mentored learning to teach according to standards - based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research. 2002; 72 (3):481-546 - 24.
Aspden KM. Illuminating the Assessment of Practicum in New Zealand Early Childhood Initial Teacher Education. New Zealand: Massey University; 2014. Available from: http://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/6473 - 25.
Kane R. Initial Teacher Education Policy and Practice. Wellington: Ministry of Education and New Zealand Teachers Council; 2005 - 26.
Department of Education. The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa. More teachers; Better teachers. Pretoria: Department of Education; 2006 - 27.
Department of Higher Education and Training. Revised Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications. Government Gazette, 596(38487), 19 February 2015. Pretoria: Government Printers; 2015 - 28.
Bachelor of Education Foundation Phase Programme Teaching Practicum Manual for Sessions 1 and 2. Cape Town, Western Cape: Cape Peninsula University of Technology; 2019 - 29.
Elayyan SR. 8P's model: A theoretical framework to assess the pre-service teachers. Asian Academic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2017; 4 (4):34-45 - 30.
Haigh M, Ell F. Consensus and dissensus in mentor teachers' judgments of readiness to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2014; 40 :10-21 - 31.
Rots I, Aelterman A, Vlerick P, Vermeulen K. Teacher education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2007; 23 :543-556 - 32.
Roness D. Still motivated? The motivation for teaching during the second year in the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2011; 27 :628-638 - 33.
Feiman-Nemser S. Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education. 2001; 52 (1):17-30 - 34.
Akyeampong K, Pryor J, Westbrook J, Lussier K. Teacher Preparation and CPD in Africa: Learning to Teach Early Reading and Mathematics. Centre for International Education: University of Sussex; 2011 - 35.
Arends F, Phurutse M. Beginner Teachers in South Africa: School Readiness, Knowledge and Skills. Cape Town: HSRC Press; 2009 - 36.
Sinclair C. Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2008; 36 (2):79-104 - 37.
Ashby P, Hobson A, Tracey L, Malderez A, Tomlinson P, Roper T, et al. Beginner Teachers’ Experiences of Initial Teacher Preparation, Induction and Early professional development: A Review of Literature. Research Report no. DCSF-RW076. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2008 - 38.
Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa (DHET). National Qualifications Framework. Act 67 of 2008. Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications. Government Gazette. Vol. 553. Pretoria: Government Printers; 2011 - 39.
Burn K. Professional knowledge and identity in a contested discipline: Challenges for student teachers and teacher educators. Oxford Review of Education. 2007; 33 (4):445-467 - 40.
Council on Higher Education. Report on the National Review of Academic and Professional Programs in Education. Higher Education Monitor No. 11. CHE; 2010 - 41.
Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. UK: CPI Group; 2014 - 42.
Ntshaba LP. A Study of Technology Education Instructional Practices in Grade Nine Classrooms: A Case Study of Three Senior Secondary Schools in the King William’s Town District. Alice: Eastern Cape, South Africa Fort Hare University; 2012 - 43.
DeFranzo SE. What’s the Difference between Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Snap Surveys Blog. 2020. Available from: https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research [Accessed: December 7, 2021] - 44.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage. 1998 - 45.
Lester S. An Introduction to Phenomenological Research. Stan Lester Developments: Taunton UK; 2013. Available from: http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf [Accessed: November 16, 2019] - 46.
Aspers P. Empirical Phenomenology: An Approach for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Paper presented at the Methodology Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science; 2005. p. 2004 - 47.
Boyce C, Neale P. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder International Tools Series, Monitoring and Evaluation-2; 2006. pp. 1-12. Available from: http://www.pathfind.org/site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf?docID=6301 - 48.
Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. 10th ed. Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thomson; 2003 - 49.
Bryman A. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008 - 50.
Zeichner KM, Liston D. Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1985; 1 (2):155-174. DOI: 10.1016/0742-051X(85)90013-7 - 51.
Zanting A, Verloop N, Vermunt JD. Student teachers’ beliefs about mentoring and learning to teach during teaching practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001; 71 (1):57-80 - 52.
Aspden KM. The complexity of practicum assessment in teacher education: An examination of four New Zealand case studies. Australian Journal for Teacher Education. 2017; 42 (12):128-143 - 53.
Coll RK, Taylor N, Grainger S. Assessment of work-based learning: Some lessons from the teaching profession. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education. 2002; 3 (2):5-12 - 54.
Borko H, Mayfield V. The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1995; 11 :501-518 - 55.
Thomas M. CTM Portfolio guideline. Karachi: NDIE; 2007 - 56.
Atputhasamy L. Cooperating teachers as school-based teacher educators: Student teachers' expectations. Australian. Journal of Teacher Education. 2005; 30 (2):Article 1. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2005v30n2.1 - 57.
Haigh M. Coherence and congruence of perceived roles within practicum partnerships – A case study. In: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association of Research in Education; 6-9 December 2001. Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Association for Research in Education; 2002 - 58.
Ortlipp M. Assessment of the early childhood practicum: What can we learn from tertiary supervisors’ silences? Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 2003; 28 (4):29-33 - 59.
Hawe E. Assessment in a pre-service teacher education programme: The rhetoric and the practice of standards-based assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2002; 30 :93-106 - 60.
Clarke A, Collins S. Complexity theory and the supervision of student teachers on practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2007; 23 (2):160-172 - 61.
Pajares F. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 1992; 62 :307-332 - 62.
Goodfellow J, Sumsion J. Transformative pathways: Field-based teacher educators’ perceptions. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy. 2000; 6 (3):245-257 - 63.
Department of Basic and Higher Education and Training. Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (2011-2015). Pretoria: Government Printers; 2011 - 64.
Timperley H. Teacher Professional Learning and Development. Education Practices Series 18. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education; 2008. Available from: https://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/document/teacher-professional-learning-and-development-educational-practices-18 [Accessed: June 6, 2020] - 65.
Smith R. The future of teacher education: Principles and prospects. Asia-Pacific Journal of teacher Education. 2000; 28 (1):7-28 - 66.
Tom AR. Redesigning Teacher Education. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1997 - 67.
Darling-Hammond L, Snyder J. Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2000; 16 (5-6):523-545