Listening to the Most Important Person in Teacher Education Reform: The Teacher Candidate

• In Event: Reforming Teacher Preparation and Accreditation: The Importance of Research-Based Evaluation of Teacher Education

Abstract

Purpose:
• To emphasize what can be learned from listening to teacher candidates.

Theoretical Framework
In an effort to identify reforms that produce well-started beginning teachers (see Cibulka, 2009; National Committee on Accountability in Higher Education, 2005; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; United States Department of Education, 2006), colleges of education are exploring and adopting various new approaches. Programs may infuse more and earlier field experiences; enhance instruction in new curricular designs; or implement rigorous, large-scale accountability assessments within internship experiences. They may then quantitatively measure the impact of such reforms.
What has been missing from recent conversations on ways to enhance teacher education, however, are the voices of those individuals most affected by these efforts: the teacher candidates themselves. By ignoring teacher candidates’ perceptions of their experiences, not only do teacher educators overlook a rich resource for understanding the impact of their reform efforts, they essentially silence the voices of those they have taught.
In providing teacher candidates regular opportunities (both before and after graduation) to explain and elaborate on their teacher education experiences, colleges of education create richer, more nuanced constellations of data, thereby enhancing opportunities to understand “what works” in teacher education reform.
Methods & Data Sources
This study was situated within the college of education of a large, regional university. Teacher candidates finishing the final semester of their education programs in May 2013 were asked to complete an anonymous exit survey containing both Likert-scale and open-ended questions, on various aspects of their programs. Teacher candidates’ responses to specific survey questions related to their perceptions of their interactions with their clinical teachers and university supervisors were analysed. Two-hundred eighy-seven candidates participated in the survey; all responded to the Likert-scale questions, 132 provided responses to open-ended questions regarding their university supervisors (46% of the 287), and 127 provided open-ended questions regarding their clinical teachers (44.2% of the 287 responders).
Results
Likert-scale data and open-ended responses illuminated candidates’ overall satisfaction with their relationships with their clinical teachers and university supervisors. Qualitative data from the open-ended responses also identified candidates’ common perceptions (both positive and negative) of clinical teachers and university supervisors across programs. For example, 17.3% of responding candidates specifically cited a positive/supportive relationship with their clinical teacher in their responses. Discrete negative categories included “the clinical teacher was condescending to me in front of the class” (23.1%). The complete range of positive and negative themes associated with multiple program reforms will be presented.
Significance
Teacher candidates’ anonymous survey responses informed various aspects of programs and unit level reforms. In analyzing teacher candidates’ perceptions of their experiences, programs recognized similarities across content areas, which encouraged cross-program discussions; individuals responsible for training new clinical teachers and university supervisors considered what information needed to be emphasized within training sessions; and discussions evolved regarding the need for on-going clinical teacher/university supervisor training.

Authors

• Sharilyn Steadman, East Carolina University

• Diana B. Lys, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill