ebook img

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

2008·0.13 MB·English
by  ERIC
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

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

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

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.