Redesigning Secondary Teacher Education (1996)

Clinical experiences prior to student teaching have been regarded as a valuable part of the teacher preparation program (Walter, 1989). These experiences are quite diverse in their length, ranging from 100 to 160 hours (Ishler and Kay, 1981), as well as in their effectiveness. (Applegate and Lasley, 1982). A national study by Ferris, Heninger, and Bischoff (1991) identified types and quantity of early clinical experiences of elementary education majors. The researchers gathered data from 174 directors of clinical experiences for elementary education in public universities and colleges. Results of the questionnaire indicated that the first clinical experience typically occurred during the sophomore year and consisted of slightly more than an average of 13 hours of observation and activity for approximately seven weeks. The second experience usually took place during the junior year, lasting slightly more than 15 hours over an 8 1/2 week period. Approximately two thirds of the responding institutions offered a third clinical experience prior to student teaching of more than twenty-five hours in an increased time frame of just under ten weeks (Ferris, Heninger, & Bischoff, 1991). Disparity between programs At Northwest Missouri State University, elementary education majors are engaged in 72 hours of observation and participation during their freshman and sophomore years. As juniors and first semester seniors, those preparing to be elementary teachers gain an additional 110 hours of actual teaching experience. Depending on their second major, these students benefit from an additional 30 hours of observation and participation on the average, as well as an average of 121 more hours of actual teaching experience. The typical elementary education major will have accumulated approximately 102 hours of observation and participation and an average of 221 hours of teaching experiences prior to their student teaching. This is not the case, however, in the secondary teacher education program. A huge disparity exists between the two programs. Up until 1993, preparation of secondary educators was disjointed and inconsistent on our campus. Pre-student teaching clinical experiences consisted primarily of observation with little participation in most cases. These few came in the form of a course offered through the College of Education which could be taken at any time prior to student teaching. Methods of teaching content courses were located in the several departments across campus. Interaction among specialty area faculty was virtually nonexistent. Communication between faculty in the College of Education and faculty in the content areas was haphazard at best. Decisive action was crucial Spurred by student feedback received at the end of student teaching and upcoming site visits by state and national accrediting agencies, corrective action was deemed a necessity to recertification of our programs. The first step was to gain the cooperation of specialty area faculty across campus. Contact with the respective department chairpersons was initiated by the dean of the College of Education. Looming on the horizon was the thought that without a collaborative effort, losing our status as an accredited institution was indeed a strong possibility. There was little concern over the elementary education program, since it had been considered exemplary in past reports. The focus centered on the preparation of secondary teacher educators and its many shortfalls. Faculty committee formed The Secondary Education Coordination Committee (SECC), a task force consisting of all secondary content methods faculty and key members of the College of Education, was formed. A panel of practicing teachers and administrators in the area was invited to address the SECC and department chairpersons. The purpose was to provide an evaluation, by citing strengths and needed improvements, of our teacher preparation program. …