ERIC EJ839896: Perceptions of Supervision Practices by Agricultural Education Student Teachers

2008·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICES BY AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
STUDENT TEACHERS

Moreetsi Thobega, Lecturer
Botswana College of Agriculture
Greg Miller, Professor
Iowa State University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe student teachers’ perceptions and preferences of the
type of supervision they experienced while interacting with their university supervisors and
cooperating teachers. Results revealed that student teachers perceived both their cooperating
teachers and university supervisors to engage in contextual and clinical supervision practices.
Cooperating teachers were perceived to use the nondirective style of developmental supervision,
whereas most university supervisors were perceived to use the collaborative style. Most student
teachers felt that supervision practices from all supervision models were important, with
contextual and clinical supervision being most important. Of the developmental supervision
styles, most student teachers preferred the collaborative supervision style. Future studies should
examine how supervisor beliefs, supervisory situations, and student teachers’ personal and
professional characteristics influence the supervisors’ supervisory behaviors.

Introduction supervisors and the student teachers. The
transactions vary according to the
Supervision of student teachers during different supervisor/supervisee expectations,
student teaching is a very important exercise relationships, and anticipated outcomes for
in teacher training and development. It may each model (Stoller, 1996).
be the only form of individualized In clinical supervision, a supervisor asks
instruction that student teachers experience questions before and after a supervisory
during their training (Henry & Beasley, interaction that encourage reflection and
1982). To student teacher supervisors, it self-analysis by the student teacher (Cook,
offers an opportunity to engage in one-on- 1996). In contextual supervision, the
one instruction, which is a highly regarded supervisor takes into account the
teaching technique (Henry & Beasley). supervisee’s readiness for a particular
Supervision is thus beneficial to both the teaching task by adjusting their supervisory
student teachers and their supervisors. approach to the supervisee’s developmental
Studies on supervision revealed that level at that task (Ralph, 1998).
supervisors can model their supervision Differentiated supervision is student teacher
around a variety of supervision approaches driven. The supervisor acts as a mentor, and
(Justen, McJunkin, & Strickland, 1999). they focus their efforts where they are
Different supervision models include needed most (Glatthorn, 1997). In
clinical supervision (Goldhammer, 1969), conceptual supervision, the supervisor
contextual supervision (Ralph, 1998), considers occupational factors that may
differentiated supervision (Glatthorn, 1997), affect how a student teacher does his or her
conceptual supervision (Beach & Reinhartz, job as they advise him or her on how to
1989), and developmental supervision teach (Beach & Reinhartz, 1989).
(Glickman, 1990). The supervision models Developmental supervision makes use of
are blueprints of the dynamics of the different supervision styles that vary in the
supervisory transactions between the amount of supervisory decision making
Journal of Agricultural Education 65 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
power accorded the student teacher Studies show that cooperating teachers’
(Glickman, 1990). In one extreme, all the approaches to supervision resembled the
decision making power is given to the developmental model of supervision
supervisor; the directive control supervision (Boudreau, 1999). Justen et al. (1999) and
style characterizes this extreme. In the other Thobega and Miller (2007) found that
extreme, the decision making power is given cooperating teachers preferred nondirective
to the student teacher; the nondirective over collaborative, directive-informational,
supervision style characterizes this extreme. and directive styles of developmental
Other styles of developmental supervision supervision. Cooperating teachers also
are collaborative and directive informational engaged in supervisory tasks that are
supervision; in both the styles, the characteristic of contextual, clinical, and
supervisory decision making power is conceptual supervision (Thobega & Miller,
shared between the supervisor and the 2007). Like cooperating teachers, university
student teacher (Glickman). Through their supervisors tend to believe in nondirective
supervisory options for instructional leaders supervision (Justen et al.). Regarding the use
(SOIL) model, Fritz and Miller (2003a) of structure in supervision, Fritz and Miller
demonstrated that supervision models can be (2003b) reported that university supervisors
placed on a continuum according to the in agricultural education most frequently
amount of structure used in each model. The used structured approaches when carrying
continuum runs from highly structured to out student teacher supervision. The
relatively unstructured models. Depending structured approaches were characteristic of
on the approach to supervision, a clinical and conceptual supervision
supervisors’ behavior can be placed approaches (Fritz & Miller, 2003b).
anywhere in that continuum of structure Cooperating teachers’ and university
(Justen et al., 1999). supervisors’ values, perceptions, and
University supervisors and cooperating practices related to student teaching are
teachers differ not in their conception of important to student teacher supervision.
what student teacher supervision should However, all studies about supervisors’
entail (Justen et al., 1999) but in their supervisory approaches were informed by
professional roles. Cooperating teachers are self-reports from the supervisors themselves.
usually high school teachers; university Prior to this study, no information was found
supervisors are typically university on the perceptions of student teachers
professors. Cooperating teachers spend the towards supervision practices they
entire student teaching period with the experienced from both their cooperating
student teacher, but university supervisors teachers and university supervisors. There
see the student teacher only during student was also no information about student
teacher visits (Wilson & Saleh, 2000). Given teachers’ preferences of supervision
their differences in professional roles, practices they experience.
cooperating teachers and university
supervisors have different concerns; Purpose and Objectives
therefore, it is plausible to expect them to
approach student teaching supervision The purpose of this study was to
differently. Cooperating teachers are describe student teachers’ perceptions of the
concerned with relationships; they regard type of supervision they experienced while
the cooperating teacher-student teacher interacting with their university supervisors
relationships and school-community and cooperating teachers. The study also
relationships as important elements of determined the student teachers’ preferences
student teaching (Carr, Reeves, Meditz, & for specific supervision practices. Specific
Wyatt, 1999; Edwards & Briers, 2001). questions were:
University supervisors, on the other hand,
are concerned with academic aspects of 1. What are student teachers’
student teaching including how well perceptions of supervision practices
classroom teaching ties to theory (Borne & they experienced from their
Moss, 1990; Horton & Harvey, 1979). cooperating teachers?
Journal of Agricultural Education 66 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
2. What are student teachers’ their cooperating teachers and university
perceptions of supervision practices supervisors. The participants were also
they experienced from their asked to indicate the style that they preferred
university supervisors? their supervisors to use. Section III
3. Which supervision practices were contained demographic questions.
important to student teachers? A panel of three experts reviewed the
questionnaire for validity. The panel
Methods and Procedures included two experts in the field of student
teacher supervision and a graduate student.
The population for this descriptive One expert was an assistant professor of
survey study consisted of Agricultural Agricultural Education at the University of
Education student teachers from four Tennessee who has conducted extensive
universities: Texas A&M University, research in the field of student teacher
Oklahoma State University, Iowa State supervision. Items in Section I of the
University, and the University of Wisconsin questionnaire were rephrased from the
– River Falls. The accessible population was expert’s questionnaire designed for
agricultural education student teachers in the university supervisors. The other expert was
four universities that student taught during a clinician in the Department of Educational
the spring 2006 semester. A questionnaire Leadership and Policy Studies at Iowa State
was used to collect data. The questionnaire University. The two experts were asked to
had three sections. Items in sections I and II assess whether the items were suitable for
were developed by rephrasing items from student teachers who had just completed
questionnaires which were developed for student teaching and have experienced
university supervisors (Fritz & Miller, supervision. The experts were also asked to
2003b) and cooperating teachers (Thobega assess whether content and underlying
& Miller, 2007), respectively. Section I constructs for each item corresponded to the
contained a list of supervision practices. All supervisory behavior being measured. The
items were in a nominal dichotomous scale third reviewer had just completed student
with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ response categories, teaching in the previous semester and,
indicating to whether their university therefore, was similar in most respects to the
supervisors and/or their cooperating teachers target population of the study. This reviewer
engaged in such a supervisory practice and was asked to assess whether items in
whether they felt that the practice was Sections I and II were comprehensible and
important to them as student teachers. Out of written in a style suitable for student
the 22 supervisory practices listed, 5 were teachers who had completed student
associated with clinical supervision, 6 with teaching. The panel judged the questionnaire
conceptual supervision, 5 with contextual to be content and construct valid. The
supervision, and 6 with differentiated questionnaire was also judged to be suitable
supervision practices. for the target population. The panel’s
Section II was adopted and rephrased suggestions were incorporated into the
from Thobega and Miller (2003). It questionnaire.
presented four descriptions of A test-retest reliability procedure was
developmental supervision styles that conducted to establish reliabilities for
supervisors might engage in when different parts of the questionnaire.
supervising student teachers. Student Participants in the test-retest procedure were
teachers were asked to select from the four elementary education student teachers at
options coded A, B, C, and D. The options Iowa State University. The questionnaire
were clusters of descriptions that was administered to six volunteers during
corresponded with collaborative, their mid-semester student teaching seminar.
nondirective, directive informational, and The questionnaire was sent to the volunteers
directive control supervision. The after 10 days for the retest. Table 1 shows
participants were asked to select the test-retest reliability coefficients for the
description that best represented the different scales of the questionnaire.
developmental supervision style used by Average reliability coefficients for the
Journal of Agricultural Education 67 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
subscales of clinical, conceptual, contextual, participants had to choose from a list of
and differentiated supervision were within four detailed descriptions, and it is
the acceptable range of .70 and above possible that consistent responses may
(McMillan & Schumacher, 1997). have been too demanding. Caution
Developmental supervision had a low should be exercised in interpreting
reliability of .50 for all of its subscales. The the results of this aspect of the
items were framed in such a way that study.

Table 1
Reliability Coefficients for Different Scales of the Questionnaire
Cooperating University
Supervision approach Teacher Supervisor Importance
Clinical .97 .93 .90
Conceptual .83 .78 .89
Contextual .93 .60 .87
Differentiated .86 .83 .78
Developmental .50 .50 .50

Student teaching coordinators in the four participants were from Texas A&M
participating universities were contacted by University, 17 were from Oklahoma State
e-mail and requested to administer the University, 13 were from Iowa State
survey questionnaire during their respective University, and 6 were from the University
student teaching seminars. The of Wisconsin –River Falls. There were a
questionnaires were sent to student teaching total of 39 females. The participants ranged
seminar coordinators during the first week in age from 21 to 41 years (M = 23; SD =
of May 2006. Thirty-seven questionnaires 2.8). The length of student teaching ranged
were sent to Texas A & M University, 17 from 8 to 19 weeks (M = 12; SD = 2.1). The
questionnaires to Oklahoma State student teachers experienced an average of
University, 6 questionnaires to the 10 classroom observations by their
University of Wisconsin – River Falls, and cooperating teachers (SD = 9.0). The total
13 questionnaires to Iowa State University. number of formal classroom observations
The number of questionnaires sent to each conducted by cooperating teachers ranged
university corresponded to the number of from 0 to 45. The student teachers
eligible participants at that university. All experienced an average of 3.8 formal
student teachers responded. Only one classroom observations from their university
questionnaire was not useable. The total supervisors (SD = 2.6). The total number of
number of participants was 73, with 72 observations by university supervisors
useable responses resulting in a response ranged from 1 to 15.
rate of 99%. Nonresponse error was not
considered a threat to the validity of this Research Question 1: What are student
study. However, findings of the study only teachers’ perceptions of supervision
apply to students of the four universities that practices they experienced from their
participated. cooperating teachers?
Table 2 shows percentages of student
Results teachers who experienced each of the listed
Seventy-two student teachers supervision practices. Most cooperating
participated in the study. Thirty-six of the teachers were perceived to engage in
Journal of Agricultural Education 68 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
contextual supervision and clinical and contextual supervision practices. Three
supervision practices. Between 61.1% and clinical supervision practices, “meeting with
97.2% of the student teachers perceived the student teacher to discuss the lesson
their cooperating teachers to practice the observed (post-observation conference),”
five contextual supervision behaviors that “taking notes during observation,” and
were listed. The results also show that 50% “sharing the teaching analysis with the
or more of the student teachers perceived student teacher,” had percentages greater
their cooperating teachers to engage in four than 90%. However, like cooperating
of the five clinical supervision practices. teachers, less than half (43.1%) the
One clinical supervision practice, “holding university supervisors were perceived to
pre-observation conference,” was hold pre-observation conferences. More than
experienced by less than 50% of the student 50% (61.1% to 90.3%) of the student
teachers (Table 2). Most of the conceptual teachers perceived their supervisors to
and differentiated supervision practices were engage in all five contextual supervision
experienced by less than half of the student practices. Most conceptual and
teachers. differentiated supervision practices were
There were five, five, six, and six experienced by less than half the student
supervision practices listed for clinical, teachers. However, “having student teachers
contextual, conceptual and differentiated evaluate themselves by video tape,
supervision approaches, respectively. Table journaling, inventories, or portfolio,” a
3 shows the percentage of supervision differentiated supervision practice, was
practices for each supervision approach that experienced by 81% of the student teachers
student teachers experienced from their (Table 2). Table 3 shows that the student
cooperating teachers and university teachers perceived their university
supervisors. The percentages represent the supervisors to practice 76.7% (SD = .23) of
proportion of supervision practices for each the clinical supervision behaviors, 74.0%
supervision approach that student teachers (SD = .26) of the contextual supervision
reportedly experienced. The table also behaviors, 52.8% (SD = .26) of the
shows the percentage of the supervision differentiated supervision behaviors, and
practices that student teachers deemed 47.9% (SD = .30) of the conceptual
important. The cooperating teachers were supervision behaviors.
perceived to engage in 77.2% (SD = .23) of
the contextual supervision practices; 64.7% Research Question 3: Which supervision
(SD = .32) of the clinical supervision practices were important to
practices; 44.0% (SD = .31) of the student teachers?
conceptual supervision practices, and 42.8% More than 50% of the student teachers
(SD = .32) of the differentiated supervision felt that each of the listed supervision
practices. practices was important to them (Table 2).
Further, student teachers felt that 92.8% (SD
Research Question 2: What are student = .13) of the contextual supervision
teachers’ perceptions of supervision practices, 85.0%, (SD = .21) of the clinical
practices they experienced from their supervision practices, 70.6% (SD = .27) of
university supervisors? the conceptual supervision practices, and
Table 2 shows that most university 68.8% (SD = .27) of the differentiated
supervisors engaged in clinical supervision supervision were important (Table 3).

Journal of Agricultural Education 69 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
Table 2
Percentage of Student Teachers Who Experienced Each Supervision Practice and Who Indicated
Each Practice was Important (N = 72)
Experienced with
Supervisory Behaviors CT US Importance
Clinical Supervision Practices
Conducted a meeting with you to discuss the lesson before 48.6 43.1 63.9
observing you teach.
Met with you to discuss the lesson they observed. 76.4 91.7 94.4
Took notes while they observed you teaching. 94.4 95.8 91.7
Shared with you their analysis of your teaching 84.5a 93.0a 98.6a
Asked you to respond to their critique of the lesson. 50.0 59.7 76.4
Conceptual supervision practices
Established benchmarks to be achieved by specific dates that were 8.9 51.4 63.9
based on your needs.
Asked you about your teaching experience prior to student teaching. 51.4 48.6 61.1
Asked you whether you felt your workload was high. 25.0 31.9 65.3
Asked you how you felt about classroom environment. 62.5 73.6 93.1
Discussed your knowledge of the subject matter before you began 58.3 41.7 84.7
teaching.
Asked you about your relationship with other teachers in the school. 27.8 40.3 55.6
Contextual supervision practices
Asked you whether you felt confident about your teaching. 61.1 75.0 88.9
Asked whether you felt comfortable with teaching the subject 63.9 61.1 91.7
matter.
Gave you less direction as you became confident in teaching. 87.5 70.0b 90.3
Allowed you to make your own instructional decisions as you 97.2 90.3 100.0
gained teaching experience.
Encouraged you to go on when you felt overwhelmed. 76.4 73.6 93.1
Differentiated supervision practices
Asked you to choose how you wanted him/her to supervise you. 32.4a 28.2a 60.6a
Held conferences with you to monitor your progress towards 56.9 73.6 88.7
achieving your goals.
Had other teachers supervise you during student teaching. 45.8 37.5 68.1
Had you visit other classrooms in the school. 47.2 56.9 65.3
Had you provide feedback to other teachers about their teaching. 27.8 40.3 51.4
Had you evaluate your teaching either by video tape, journaling, 45.8 80.6 79.2
inventories, or portfolio.
Note. CT = cooperating teacher; US = university supervisor; Importance = whether the supervision practice was
important to the student teacher.
an = 71 bn = 70.

Journal of Agricultural Education 70 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
Table 3
Percentage of Supervision Practices for Each Supervision Approach That Were Experienced and
Deemed Important by the Student Teachers (N = 72)
Experienced with
Cooperating Teacher University Supervisor Importance
Type of supervision M SD M SD M SD
Clinical 64.7 .32 76.7 .23 85.0 .21
Contextual 77.2 .23 74.0 .26 92.8 .13
Conceptual 44.0 .31 47.9 .30 70.6 .27
Differentiated 42.8 .32 52.8 .26 68.8 .27

A separate scale was used to measure experienced by less than half (1 of 4) of the
student teachers’ perceptions and student teachers who preferred it. To
preferences of developmental supervision confirm the association between student
styles. Table 4 shows the number of teachers’ preferred and perceived styles of
cooperating teachers who used each of the developmental supervision, Cramer’s V was
developmental supervision style as computed. The analysis revealed a
perceived by student teachers. Most (39.4%) significant positive correlation between
cooperating teachers used nondirective cooperating teachers’ developmental
supervision, 29.6% used collaborative supervision style and student teachers’
supervision, and 25.4% used directive preferences (Cramer’s V = .46, p < .001)
informational supervision. Only 5.6% of (Table 4).
cooperating teachers used directive Table 5 shows the percentages of
supervision. Table 4 also shows the university supervisors who used each of the
percentages of student teachers who developmental supervision styles. The most
preferred each of the developmental popular style for university supervisors
supervision styles. Collaborative supervision was collaborative supervision (37.1%)
was the most preferred (42.3%) style of followed by nondirective supervision
supervision by student teachers. Directive (31.4%) and directive informational
informational was the second preferred style supervision (28.6%). The least used style
(29.6%) followed by nondirective was directive supervision (2.9%). Table 5
supervision with (22.5%). The least further shows that 11 of 16, 19 of 29, and 14
preferred style was directive supervision of 21 student teachers preferred and
(5.6%). Also, more than half the student experienced nondirective, collaborative, and
teachers who preferred nondirective, directive informational supervision,
collaborative, and directive informational respectively. Four student teachers preferred
styles of supervision actually experienced directive supervision but none experienced
the same styles from their cooperating it. Cramer’s V analysis revealed a
teachers. Table 4 shows that 12 of 16, 18 of significant positive correlation between
30, and 13 of 21 student teachers preferred university supervisors’ developmental
and experienced nondirective, collaborative, supervision style and student teachers’
and directive informational supervision, preferences (Cramer’s V = .45, p < .001)
respectively. Directive supervision was (Table 5).

Journal of Agricultural Education 71 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
Table 4
Cross-tabulation of Cooperating Teachers’ Developmental Supervision Approach and the
Approach Preferred by Student Teachers
Student Teacher Preferences
Nondirective Collaborative Directive Inf. Directive Total
CT Approach f % f % f % f % f %
Nondirective 12 16.9 9 12.7 6 8.5 1 1.4 28 39.4
Collaborative 2 2.8 18 25.4 1 1.4 0 0.0 21 29.6
Directive Inf. 1 1.4 2 2.8 13 18.3 2 2.8 18 25.4
Directive 1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 4 5.6
Total 16 22.5 30 42.3 21 29.6 4 5.6 71 100
Note. CT = cooperating teacher; Directive Inf. = Directive informational supervision.
Cramer’s V = .46, p < .001.

Table 5
Cross-tabulation of University Supervisors’ Developmental Supervision Approach and the
Approach Preferred by Student Teachers
Student Teacher Preferences
Nondirective Collaborative Directive Inf. Directive Total
US Approach f % f % f % f % f %
Nondirective 11 15.7 6 8.6 2 2.9 3 4.3 22 31.4
Collaborative 1 1.4 19 27.1 5 7.1 1 1.4 26 37.1
Directive Inf. 3 4.3 3 4.3 14 20.0 0 0.0 20 28.6
Directive 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.9
Total 16 22.9 29 41.4 21 30.0 4 5.7 70 100
Note. Totals for student teacher preferences are slightly different from those in Table 4 because
of a missing value in one of the university supervisors’ measures. US = University supervisor;
Directive Inf. = Directive informational supervision
Cramer’s V = .45, p < .001.

Journal of Agricultural Education 72 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
Conclusions/Implications/ 1979; Wilson & Saleh, 2000). Because of
Recommendations their concerns, university supervisors may
tend to assess the student teachers instead of
Student teachers involved in this study supervising, supporting, and guiding them in
perceived their cooperating teachers to their teaching (Wilson & Saleh). As a result,
engage in contextual supervision practices university supervisors might resort to
more than clinical supervision practices. In employing structure (Fritz & Miller, 2003b)
contrast, university supervisors were in their supervision, hence their tendency to
perceived to engage in clinical supervision follow the rather definite structure of clinical
more than contextual supervision. Ralph supervision. Also, the fact that university
(1994) stated that a supervisor who uses supervisors are limited by time when they
contextual supervision considers unique visit student teachers (Wilson & Saleh)
contextual variables that affect each might motivate them to use the structured,
supervisee. Some of the variables are time efficient clinical supervision
curricular/school policies and practices, procedures. The time limitation might also
personal relationships, or characteristics of explain why most university supervisors
the supervisee including confidence and skipped the pre-observation conference.
competence. In a related study, Edwards and However, a more comprehensive inquiry is
Briers (2001) confirmed that Agricultural needed to investigate why supervisors tend
Education cooperating teachers were not to hold pre-observation conference when
concerned not only with their relationship supervising student teachers. Could there be
with student teachers but also with the other supervisory practices that they engage
relationships between their agriculture in instead of pre-observation conferences?
programs, the school, and the community. Regarding developmental supervision,
Consideration of such contextual factors by student teachers involved in this study
cooperating teachers might explain why perceived most of their cooperating teachers
cooperating teachers in this study were to use nondirective style of supervision.
perceived to use contextual supervision Very few student teachers perceived their
more than other types of supervision. supervisors to use directive supervision.
Clinical supervision represents a Most university supervisors were perceived
supervision protocol characterized by three to use collaborative supervision. Like
basic phases: planning for the forthcoming cooperating teachers, very few university
lesson (pre-observation conference), supervisors were perceived to use directive
classroom observation of student teacher by supervision. The findings about cooperating
a supervisor, and a reflective, analytic post- teachers were consistent with Justen et al.’s
observation conference (Cook, 1996). It is (1999) and Thobega and Miller’s (2007)
an accepted supervision standard (Glickman, previous findings.
1990), and it is not surprising that most From student teachers’ perspective,
supervisors use it. In the current study, supervisors were either willing to give the
student teachers perceived both cooperating student teachers the sole decision making
teachers and university supervisors to power in supervision or share the
engage in clinical supervision practices. responsibility of planning the supervision
Student teachers perceived that their with the student teacher. This could mean
university supervisors used clinical that supervisors were less evaluative (Knoll,
supervision practices more than their 1987) and more developmental. The student
cooperating teachers. teachers’ perceptions also indicated that
Unlike cooperating teachers who are supervisors were turning to supervision
concerned with relationships, university methods that foster student teachers’
supervisors are more concerned with motivation, inspiration, trust and help the
connections between the pedagogical student teachers improve their teaching
knowledge taught in college classes and how performance (Boudreau, 1999; Pfeiffer &
student teachers practically apply this Dunlap, 1982).
knowledge in the classroom (Borne & Moss, Results of this study showed that student
1990; Carr et al. 1999; Horton & Harvey, teachers perceived their supervisors to use
Journal of Agricultural Education 73 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008
Thobega & Miller Perceptions of Supervision…
clinical and contextual supervision practices preferred directive supervision. Student
more than conceptual and differentiated teachers’ developmental supervision
supervision practices. However, preferences were consistent with the
considerable numbers of supervisors were supervision styles they perceived from their
still perceived to engage in conceptual and supervisors. This is evidenced by the
differentiated supervision practices. moderate positive associations between
Supervisors were also perceived to use supervisors’ perceived supervision styles
mainly nondirective, collaborative, and and student teacher preferences. Regarding
directive-informational styles of developmental supervision, supervisors’
developmental supervision, but a few used practices and student teachers’ preferences
the directive style. Researchers concluded were related, implying that student teachers
that supervisors could have been using are likely to be satisfied with the
combinations of supervisory approaches and developmental supervision they received
styles when supervising student teachers. from their supervisors. Student teacher
There is no one recommended approach to supervisors are urged to analyze their
supervision; however, as Justen et al. (1999) supervisory situations to develop a
concluded, supervisory behaviors from one combination of approaches optimum for
model may tend to dominate. The question student teachers professional growth and
that remains is, what factors influence development. Situational analysis should be
supervisors to engage in particular made an integral part of training for
supervision practices? Could it be supervisors.
supervisors’ supervisory beliefs as Justen et
al. (1999) suggested? Could it be the References
supervisory situation as proponents of
contextual supervision suggested? Or, could Beach, D. M., & Reinhartz, J. (1989).
it be the student teacher’s personal or Supervision: Focus on instruction. New
professional characteristics? How much York: Harper & Row.
does each of these factors influence the
ultimate supervisory behaviors of a Borne, C., & Moss, J. W. (1990).
supervisor? Further research is Satisfaction with agricultural education
recommended to investigate these student teaching. Journal of Agricultural
questions. Education, 31(2), 29-34.
Student teachers involved in this study
deemed each of the supervision practices Boudreau, P. (1999). The supervision of
important to their development as teachers. a student teacher as defined by cooperating
Consistent with their perceptions about teachers. Canadian Journal of Education,
cooperating teachers and university 24(4), 454-459.
supervisors’ practices, the most important
supervision practices were clinical and Carr, M. K., Reeves, M., Meditz, N., &
contextual supervision practices. Structured Wyatt, F. R. (1999). A cohort model for
procedures of clinical supervision were supervision of preservice teacher developed
important to most student teachers. Even so, by mentor teachers. Teaching and Change,
student teachers still like to be allowed to 6(3), 314-328.
make their own teaching decisions—a
practice provided for by contextual Cook, G. E. (1996). Using clinical
supervision. Of the four developmental supervision to promote inquiry. Journal of
supervision styles, the student teachers Staff Development, 17(4), 46-50.
preferred the collaborative style most.
Directive informational and nondirective Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (2001).
styles were also preferred by a considerable Cooperating teacher’s perceptions of
number of student teachers indicating that important elements of the student teaching
the student teachers actually want to share experience: A focus group approach with
the supervisory decision making with their quantitative follow-up. Journal of
supervisors. Very few student teachers Agricultural Education, 42(3), 30-41.
Journal of Agricultural Education 74 Volume 49, Number 3, 2008