Cooperating Teachers’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Importance, Competence, and Programmatic Need: A Frontline Assessment of Agricultural Student Teachers

The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine, as witnessed by cooperating teachers, what learning gaps student teachers brought to the student teaching experience “Supervision of student teachers during student teaching is a very important exercise in teacher training” (Thobega & Miller, 2008, p. 65). Cooperating teachers spend 10 plus weeks observing student teachers of agricultural education in [state]. One may argue that the cooperating teacher is the best judge of success when looking at the student teacher. Cooperating teachers believed using computers and multimedia in classroom teaching was a strength student teachers possessed. The cooperating teachers felt that the major weaknesses included conducting parent-teacher conferences and adult programs. The findings of this study also indicate that the preservice teachers need additional preparation in developing teaching skills in managing student behavior problems, motivating students to learn, teaching students to think critically and creatively, and conducting parent-teacher conferences. Introduction Arguably, the most important component of a teacher education program in career, technical, and agricultural education (CTAE) is the student teaching experience. “Researchers have argued that the student teaching ‘experience’ plays a significant role in the formation of attitudes and perceptions of preservice teachers regarding their roles and responsibilities as future practitioners” (Harlin, Edwards, & Briers, 2002, p. 72). “Supervision of student teachers during student teaching is a very important exercise in teacher training” (Thobega & Miller, 2008, p. 65). Edwards and Briers (2001) asked the following question: “Is there a more important component of the preservice professional development of the aspiring agriculture teacher than the student teaching experience? ” (p. 30). A number of studies in recent years have focused on the student teaching experience from multiple perspectives; that of the student teacher, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor (Baker & Malle, 1995; Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Edwards & Briers, 2001; Fritz & Miller, 2003; Graham, 2006; Thobega & Miller, 2008; and Veal & Rikard, 1998). Results have concluded that the cooperating teacher plays a major role in the success of the student teaching experience. There has been a plethora of research and evaluation related to CTAE preparation programs at the university level and in-service needs of new and/or beginning teachers. Dobbins and Camp (2000) indicated a needed understanding in curriculum development, learning styles, technical areas, teaching methods, teaching techniques, and academic integration methods. Joerger’s (2002) categories of professional teaching competencies needed for success and survival were classroom management, leadership and SAE development, technical agriculture, and program design and maintenance. Furthermore, Joerger (2002) recommended that information regarding teacher needs be shared with teacher educators, state staff, and others involved in apprentice and in-service teacher training. Dormody and Torres (2002) reported that the competency needing the most inOnline Journal of Workforce Education and Development Volume IV, Issue 4 – Fall 2010 2 service preparation for both beginning and tenured teachers was using computer technology in the classroom. Edwards and Briers (1999) and Peiter, Terry, & Cartmell (2003) , who specifically studied newer teachers, also believed preparation was needed in computer-assisted instruction and implementing other new technologies. Edwards and Briers (2001) looked at the important elements of the student teaching experience through the eyes of the cooperating teacher. However, no research was found that has looked specifically at the needs of the CTAE student teacher from the perspective of the cooperating teacher. Identifying learning gaps of student teachers can provide information as to how CTAE curriculum should be re-evaluated. However, the body of knowledge thus far has relied upon self-reports of student teachers or “soon to be teachers. ” This study calls upon the experience and credibility of a group of professionals (cooperating teachers) who assist with teacher preparation by observing and instructing student teachers from the frontlines of pedagogical preparation. For better or worse, many states are modifying curriculum, including CTAE, to increase student learning, to help improve high school graduation test scores, and to keep up with the changes in CTAE technology. Elbert and Baggett (2003) felt that the “curriculum has evolved from being agricultural production-based to one that is more applied science and technology-centered” (p. 105). According to No Child Left Behind (2004), teachers must be highly qualified to teach in their area. Therefore, changes have continually been made to university offerings in order to prepare upcoming teachers and to determine areas in which in-service training will be needed for current teachers. CTAE teachers, especially new ones, face a variety of challenges. New teachers are responsible for classroom teaching duties, maintaining a laboratory, and supervising student occupational learning activities, among an array of other duties as assigned by their administrator(s). Many beginning and even some experienced teachers lack skills necessary to be successful in all of these areas. Halford (1998) summed it up best when he said, “Given comparisons to fields such as medicine and law, which recognize the needs of new professionals more fully, some observers have dubbed education as the profession that eats its young” (p. 34). “Indeed, the first three to five years of teaching are crucial in the development of competent and dedicated teachers. Many new teachers never recover from the initial experience of teaching. , consequently they leave the profession” (Peiter, et al., 2003, p. 180). Determining the areas in which student teachers need assistance should allow university personnel to prepare them for the student teaching process and the first years of teaching, thereby increasing the number of teachers that remain in the profession. Harlin, Edwards, and Briers (2002) explained that “the student teaching ‘experience’ plays a significant role in the formation of attitudes and perceptions of preservice teachers regarding their roles and responsibilities as future practitioners” (p. 72). Many teachers often experience frustrations while teaching; however, these concerns and frustrations may be more intense during student teaching and the first year (Fritz & Miller, 2003). “Some examples of teaching concerns are: being supervised by the cooperating teacher or university supervisor, discipline problems, subject matter knowledge, and the learning process of students. ” (Fritz & Miller, 2003, p. 49). Baker and Malle (1995) stated that “Cooperating teacher evaluations of students provide meaningful information that is helpful in holistically evaluating student teachers” Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development Volume IV, Issue 4 – Fall 2010 3 (p. 51-52). Cooperating teachers work with the student teachers on a daily basis, give them advice through formal and informal conferences, assist them in honing their pedagogical skills, and serve as a role model (Borko & Mayfield, 1995). According to Thobega & Miller, (2008), “Cooperating teachers values, perceptions, and practices related to student teaching are important to student teacher supervision” (p. 66). Therefore, this study sought to determine the perceptions of cooperating teachers about agricultural student teachers’ abilities. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on the theory espoused by Baker and Trussell (1981) as cited in Findlay (1992, p. 28) that the gap between theory and practice could be eliminated by reducing theory to what was needed to perfect the practice (teaching). The prospective teacher would then be trained (prepared) to reach competence in each of the tasks in order to cope with whatever situation may be encountered in the school. An effective means of bridging the gap between theory and practice in teacher education programs is identifying professional development needs of CTAE educators through the application of a descriptive survey. For the purpose of the study, the authors chose the Borich Needs Assessment Model (Garton & Chung, 1996; Joerger, 2002; Layfield & Dobbins, 2002; Ricketts, Duncan, & Peake, 2006). Borich (1980) described a training need as a “discrepancy between an educational goal and trainee performance” (p. 1), and proposed that through discrepancy analysis, educational programs could be evaluated and training needs prioritized from a list of valid program competencies. Implementation of the model requires subjects of the educational program to review and rate the compiled competency statements according to relevance/importance and level of attainment. Evaluation of the data collected involves “determining what should be and what is, i.e., between what the teacher should be able to do and what the teacher can do” (Borich, 1980, p. 4). An instrument based on the Borich model allows researchers to collect and analyze data representing teachers’ “perceived level of importance” and “perceived level of competence” of professional competencies that have been identified through research. The evaluation of this data can help to prioritize training needs of those completing the instrument and, in the case of collecting data from professionals in a given field, may serve to identify topics of most importance to that profession. Researchers (Garton & Chung, 1997; Edwards & Briers, 1999; Joerger, 2002; and Duncan et al., 2005) have used different approaches to analyze data collected from instruments based on the Borich Needs Assessment Model using mean weighted discrepancy score (MWDS) rankings, as well as quadrant analysis to evaluate t