Student teachers’ perceptions of motivation, independence, and supervision preferences: An exploratory study
Keywords:mixed methods, internship, support, supervision, university supervisor
The student teaching experience is one of the most impactful capstone experiences for the preparation of preservice teachers. The supervisor, either a cooperating teacher or university supervisor, plays a critically important role in the student teaching experience. The purpose of this study was to explore preservice teachers' perceived motivation and independence throughout their student teaching experience. It is recommended that early in the student teaching experience, a directive supervision style should be utilized. Then, as motivation starts to decline in the middle of the student teaching experience, the focus of supervision should shift to providing moral support and encouraging commitment to the profession of teaching. Recommendations for future research include replication of this study with future cohorts of student teachers across multiple institutions so data trends can be analyzed longitudinally. Additionally, it is recommended that future iterations of this study should administer a post-then version of the quantitative plotting instrument to control response shift bias.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2009). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage.
Clark, S., Byrnes, D., & Sudweeks, R. (2015). A comparative examination of student teacher and intern perceptions of teaching ability at the preservice and inservice stages. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2),170–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114561659
Coleman, B. M., Ferand, N. K., Bunch, J. C., & Israel, G. D. (2021). Examining preservice teachers' performance during a 14-week student teaching experience: A longitudinal study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3). https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03258
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Glickman, C. (1990). Supervision of Instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1995). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Harlin, J. F., Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (2002). A comparison of student teachers’ perceptions of important elements of the student teaching experience before and after an 11-week field experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(3), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03072
Henry, M. A. (1995). Supervising student teachers: A new paradigm In G.A. Slick (Ed.), Making the difference for teachers: The field experience in actual practice. Corwin Press.
Henry, M. A., & Weber, A. (2010). Supervising student teachers: The professional way (7th ed.). Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Kasperbauer, H. J., & Roberts, T. G. (2007). Changes in student teacher perceptions of the student teacher-cooperating teacher relationship throughout the student teaching semester. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01031
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Miller, G., & Wilson, E. B. (2010). Designing field-based and experiential education for preservice teachers in agriculture. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchell, & A. L. Ball (Eds.), Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 131–141). The Ohio State University.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Roberts, T. G. (2006). Developing a model of cooperating teacher effectiveness. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001
Snead, L. O., & Freiberd, H. (2019). Rethinking student teacher feedback: Using self-assessment resource with student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 155–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117734535
Sorensen, T. J., Lawver, R. G., Hopkins, N., Jensen, B., Dutton, C., & Warnick, B. K., (2018). Preservice agriculture teachers’ development during the early phase of student teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04105
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
Wilkens, C., Ashton, J., Maurer, D. M., & Smith, S. (2015). Some of this is not your fault: Imperfect placements, student teachers, and university supervisors. Schools: Studies in Education, 12(2), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1086/683222
Young, R., & Edwards, M. (2006). A comparison of student teachers' perceptions of important elements of the student teaching experience before and after a 12-week field experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03045
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Natalie Ferand, Bradley Coleman, J. C. Bunch
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.