FACILITATING PRACTICUM SUPERVISION: PARTICIPANTSÕ PERCEPTIONS Catherine Gaffey University of Western Sydney, Macarthur Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Western Australia, November 21-25, 1993. FACILITATING PRACTICUM SUPERVISION: PARTICIPANTSÕ PERCEPTIONS Catherine Gaffey Introduction The importance of the practicum and, in particular, of the supervision provided by classroom teachers with whom the student teacher is placed for the practicum is well discussed in the research literature (Edmonds, 1980; Korinek, 1989; Lortie, 1975; Love and Swain, 1980; MacLeod, 1989; Preston, 1986; Price, 1986; Price, 1987; Reed, 1993; Turney, Cairns, Eltis, Hatton, Thew, Towler and Wright 1982b; Turney, Eltis, Towler and Wright, 1985; Yarrow, 1992; Zeichner, 1986). However, much of the literature on practicum supervision focuses on the factors which facilitate effective, worthwhile and rewarding practicum experiences for student teachers. These factors include: 1. The retention of the tertiary supervisor as an important participant in the practicum (Andrews, 1990; Boydell, 1986; Christensen, 1988; Cope, 1971; Edwards, 1987; Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann, 1987; Gardiner, 1980; J. R. Morris, 1974; J. E. Morris 1980; Nabors and Richard, 1987; Tibble, 1971); 2. The selection of suitable tertiary supervisors (Morris, 1980) and supervising teachers (Christensen, 1988; Schuttenberg, 1983); 3. A deliberate matching of student teachers and supervising teachers (Yee, 1968); 4. Changing the traditional roles of supervising teachers and tertiary supervisors (Dobbins and Wasley, 1992; Emans, 1983; Howard, 1990; Morris, 1974; Tibble, 1971; Traill and Kemp, 1980); 5. Increasing school responsibility for preservice teacher education (J. R. Morris, 1974; Taggart, 1988; Tibble, 1971; Traill and Kemp, 1980); 6. Introducing student teachers to the debate between currently practising teachers and those engaged in research on teaching (Henry, Pateman and Tinning, 1986; McIntyre, 1980; Zeichner, 1989); 7. Encouraging student teachers to reflect upon their experiences to become reflective practitioners (Battersby and Ramsay, 1989; Dobbins and Wasley, 1992; Northfield, 1989); and, 8. The qualities and practices evidenced by effective supervising teachers with whom student teachers work (Cross, 1983; Danaher and Elliott, 1981; Fogarty and Yarrow, 1984; Price and Sellars, 1986; Yarrow and associates, 1984). Less research, however, centres on the factors which facilitate an effective, worthwhile and rewarding practicum from the classroom teacherÕs (also referred to in the literature as cooperating teachers, supervising teachers or school-based teacher educators) point of view. At a time when increasing responsibility (if not in some instances sole responsibility) is being placed in the hands of these supervising teachers (Field, 1993; Howard, 1990), it is worth considering what helps them as they go about the task of managing the practicum, supervising student teacher lesson preparation and teaching, developing student teacher professional competencies and evaluating their preparation, performance and development towards becoming an effective beginning teacher. One method being increasingly reported in the literature to assist supervising teachers in these tasks is the supervising teacher training program (Brown, 1986; Cairns, 1991; Christensen, 1988; Crebbin, 1993; Didham and Roush, 1990; Edmonds, 1980; Eltis and Cairns, 1982; Eltis and Turney, 1984; Fennessy, 1989; Field, 1993; Fullerton, 1993; Henry, 1981; Koerner, 1992; Lang, Cornish and Trew, 1980; Le Clercq, 1993; Meggitt, 1980; Morehead and Waters, 1987; Perrodin, 1961; Preston, 1986; Ratajczak and Hauser, 1990; Reed, 1993; Sebastian, Jacka and Chittams, 1983; Sellars, 1981; Simpson, Millwater and Yarrow, 1992; Werner and Butterworth, 1982; Wilson and Cameron, 1992). Training programs vary from single meetings to, more recently, semester-length university courses and have centred on communication of teacher education program and practicum content and requirements; discussion of practicum participant concerns, roles and responsibilities; development of interpersonal relationships, a shared purpose or partnership; discussion or development of student teacher assessment criteria; training in particular methods of supervision, most frequently clinical supervision; and occasionally, discussion of teaching and learning or new developments in the knowledge of and research in these areas (Brown, 1986; Cairns, 1991; Christensen, 1988; Crebbin, 1993; Didham and Roush, 1990; Edmonds, 1980; Eltis and Cairns, 1982; Eltis and Turney, 1984; Field, 1993; Fleet and Sumison, 1989; Fullerton, 1993; Henry, 1981; Koerner, 1992; Lang et al, 1980; Le Clercq, 1993; McIntyre and Killian, 1987; Morehead and Waters, 1987; Preston, 1986; Sebastian, Jacka and Chittams, 1983; Simpson et al, 1992; Werner and Butterworth, 1982; Wilson and Cameron, 1992). While much of the literature predominantly ÒdescribesÓ the training program and there may be some need for caution in extrapolation from many of the studies reviewed, particularly due to small sample sizes, reliance upon anecdotal sources of data and the study of supervising teachers who have Òself-selectedÓ to undertake such programs, the training programs reported in the literature suggest that: 1. Training programs were generally positively received by participants (Brown, 1986; Edmonds, 1980; Eltis and Turney, 1984; Henry, 1981; Preston, 1986; Reed, 1993; Simpson et al, 1992); 2. Training programs promoted communication and interaction among participants and with the teacher education institution (Christensen, 1988; Crebbin, 1993; Le Clercq, 1993; Preston, 1986; Sebastian et al, 1983); 3. Training programs promoted greater commitment by participants to student teachers undertaking the practicum or to the teacher education institution (Koerner, 1992; Sebastian et al, 1983); 4. Training programs acted as a stimulus for participantsÕ personal development (Sebastian et al, 1983; Werner and Butterworth, 1982); 5. Training programs resulted in increased supervising teacher morale (Koerner, 1992); 6. Training programs made a significant impact on the views, understandings and confidence of the participants in the supervision process (Brown, 1986; Christensen, 1988; Eltis and Turney, 1984; Preston, 1986; Reed, 1993; Sellars, 1981; Simpson et al, 1992), supervisor roles (Crebbin, 1993; Le Clercq, 1993; Werner and Butterworth, 1982) or techniques for evaluating student teachers (Preston, 1986); 7. Some improvement was achieved by participants in the use or implementation of the models or techniques espoused in the program (Crebbin, 1993; Edmonds, 1980; Eltis and Cairns, 1982; McIntyre and Killian, 1987; Le Clercq, 1993; Preston, 1986; Sellars, 1981; Simpson et al, 1992; Taggart, 1988); 8. A difference in supervisory practice was evident for student teachers supervised by trained supervising teachers (Le Clercq, 1993; Perrodin, 1961). For some studies reviewed, however, the effects of the training program in bringing about change in participants was less clear, varying from participant commitment to change in the desired direction (Edmonds, 1980) to little or no change evident in participants (Eltis and Turney, 1984; Le Clercq, 1993). Therefore, two questions need to be asked: Do training programs facilitate practicum supervision for supervising teachers? What other factors facilitate practicum supervision for the supervising teacher? The study To answer the above questions, and as part of a larger study, supervising teachers employed to supervise final year student teachers by two urban tertiary institutions in Sydney (referred to by the pseudonyms of Phillip and Fisher University) were asked by means of a questionnaire whether or not their supervision of the student teachers had been facilitated by a range of factors. Fifty-three of the fifty-four teachers (98.1%) employed by Phillip University responded to the questionnaire as did eighteen of the twenty-five (72.0%) supervising teachers employed by Fisher University. It should be noted that it was originally assumed that the number of supervising teachers employed by Fisher University would approximate the number employed by Phillip University (as it had in past years) but in the year of the study, enrolments in the final year at Fisher University were abnormally low due to high enrolments in another section of the teacher education course (Human Movement Education). Both groups of supervising teachers in the sample were supervising primary student teachers undertaking the final practicum of their four year concurrent preservice teacher education degree. Also, these supervising teachers were shown from another section of the questionnaire to be similar in most of the personal and professional characteristics measured (see Appendix 1). Supervising teachers from both groups were similar in gender (predominantly female), part-time teaching experience, promotion list held, years of employment at present school (mostly two to five years although more Fisher teachers were employed at their present school for less than a year and more Phillip teachers for greater than ten years), supervisor experience, most forms of professional development undertaken and motivation to supervise a student teacher (predominantly to share their own knowledge of teaching with the student teachers). Similarities in motivation to supervise a student teacher alleviated concern that the differing employment procedures of the two universities (Phillip by direct application from the supervising teacher and Fisher from the principal of the practicum school) might lead to the possibility of interaction effects of selection bias accounting for the differences between the two groups undertaking the supervision of student teachers. Slight differences were noted, however, in age (Fisher supervising teachers being younger than their Phillip counterparts), teaching experience (Fisher supervising teachers having less experience), teaching position (while most teachers were classroom teachers, more Fisher supervising teachers acted as executive teachers and more Phillip teachers acted as assistant or deputy principals), class level taught (evenly divided for Phillip teachers but more Fisher teachers were teaching Years Three to Six), highest qualification (Fisher supervising teachers more likely to hold a four year qualification), and inservice teacher professional development workshops attended (Fisher supervising teachers not as likely to have undertaken any such workshops). One major difference between the two groups was that the Phillip supervising teacher group, with their student teachers, attended a training program based upon selected principles of adult learning theory and effective inservice teacher professional development and which consisted of five, two to two-and-a half hour seminars conducted at two monthly intervals. This training program (called the Seminar Training Program or STP) aimed to assist supervising teachers in their role of supervisor, inform them as to the nature, purpose and requirements of the tertiary institutionÕs teacher education program and assist them in their own work in the teaching profession. Follow-up interviews were also conducted with a stratified random sample of 12 supervising teachers (eight Phillip and four Fisher teachers representing 15% and 16% of the sample population respectively) and their student teachers (i.e. eight Phillip student teachers and four Fisher student teachers). The sample was stratified on the basis of grade level taught (infants or primary), previous supervisor experience with the current tertiary institution (some or none) and, for the Phillip supervising teachers, regional group and the length of employment with the institution during the year of the study (1989) (one or both practicum periods). The final category was added for the Phillip supervising teachers as three of the five seminars were conducted in regional groups by different tertiary supervisors and those employed for one practicum period could attend a maximum of three seminars while those employed for both practicum periods could attend up to all five. Within each strata, teachers were drawn at random for interview. A diagrammatic representation of the interview participant design can be seen in Figure 1. In the interviews, teachers were asked what had assisted them in the supervision of student teachers. All supervising teachers and student teachers reported in this paper are referred to by pseudonym. Figure 2. Comparative Interview Participant Design. Note. (a) Denotes supervisor experience with current employer teacher education institution. (b) Number denotes number of practicum periods employed in 1989. Total 1: Refers to total number of supervising teachers interviewed from each institution. Total 2: Refers to total number of student teachers interviewed from each institution. Total 3: Refers to total number interviewed. Results Results obtained for supervising teacher response to the questionnaire are outlined in Table 1 and from the interviews in Table 2. Table 1 indicates that the most common factors facilitating supervision for Phillip supervising teachers were their own enthusiasm for supervising student teachers (92.5%), the use of a block practicum (86.8%), having only one student teacher at a time to supervise (86.8%) and tertiary institution guidelines about their expectations of the student teachers (84.9%). As one of the Phillip supervising teachers interviewed commented: I think the fact that I enjoy it so much . . . I just think that for me itÕs so stimulating and . . . that I have to do something interesting for me and thatÕs one of the reasons I do stick with Master Teaching . . . Really, with a young person . . . it keeps me on my toes. [And thatÕs] good for me. (ID 003) Like their Phillip colleagues, Fisher supervising teachers indicated that the most common factor facilitating supervision was, their own enthusiasm for supervising student teachers (83.3%), but unlike Phillip teachers, they equally commonly cited the particular student teacher involved as the greatest facilitator of supervision (83.3%). As one Fisher supervising teacher explained: Oh I think, what made it so easy, was that she was a good student and willing to learn and listen, but also the fact she knew the run of the school so she knew half the kids . . . [and] . . . so we didnÕt have to waste a lot of time familiarising with what was around and how things operated within the school. (ID 067) From the interviews (Table 2), the most frequently cited factors facilitating supervision for Phillip supervising teachers were, like the questionnaire, an understanding of the tertiary institutionÕs expectations (2) but also communication between the student teacher and the supervising teacher (2). The most frequently cited facilitator for Fisher supervising teachers was, like the questionnaire, the student teacher, in particular the student teacherÕs enthusiasm. Table 1 Factors Facilitating Supervising Teacher Supervision: A Comparison (Phillip n = 53; Fisher n = 18) Frequency Variable (Item a) Uni. SD/D Neutral A/SA No. % No. % No. % Personal (Supervising teacherÕs own enthusiasm Phillip 1 b 1.9 3 5.7 49 92.5# for supervising student teachers) Fisher 0 0.0 3 16.7 15 83.3 Organisation (Use of block practicum) Phillip 1 b 1.9 6 11.3 46 86.8 Fisher 0 0.0 5 27.8 13 72.2 Organisation (Having only one student teacher at a Phillip 2 3.8 5 9.4 46 86.8 time) Fisher 1 c 5.6 7 38.9 10 55.5 Organisation (Institution guidelines about their Phillip 1 b 1.9 7 13.2 45 84.9 expectations of the student teachers) Fisher 3 16.7 1 5.6 14 77.8# Personal (The particular student teacher Phillip 7 b 13.2 4 7.5 42 79.3 involved) Fisher 2 11.2 1 5.6 15 83.3# Experience (Prior experience in student teacher Phillip 4 7.6 7 13.2 42 79.2 supervision) Fisher d 1 c 5.9 3 17.6 13 76.4# Organisation (Institution guidelines about their Phillip 2 b 3.8 9 17.0 42 79.2 expectations of the supervising teacher) Fisher 3 16.7 5 27.8 10 55.5 Organisation (The practicum booklet/s) Phillip 3 b 5.7 9 17.0 41 77.3 Fisher 3 16.7 2 11.1 13 e 72.2 Organisation (Discussions with the tertiary Phillip n.a supervisor) Fisher d 1 b 5.9 3 17.6 13 76.4# Organisation (Attendance at the STP) Phillip 5 9.5 10 18.9 38 71.7# Fisher n.a Personnel (Rapport with the tertiary supervisor) Phillip 3 5.7 13 24.5 37 69.8 Fisher 1 c 5.6 6 33.3 11 61.1 School (Having sufficient time to talk with Phillip f 9 17.3 8 15.4 35 67.3 student teachers) Fisher 3 16.7 1 5.6 14 77.8# Knowledge (Own knowledge of the course the Phillip 7 b 13.2 11 20.8 35 66.0 student teacher was taking) Fisher 6 33.4 7 38.9 5 27.8# School (Support from own school) Phillip 10b 18.9 16 30.2 27 50.9 Fisher 2b 11.1 5 27.8 11 61.1 Organisation (Administration of the practicum by Phillip 7 13.2 26 49.1 20 37.7 the University) Fisher d 3 17.7 8 47.1 6 35.3# Organisation (Education in the supervision of Phillip 17 32.0 21 39.6 15 28.3# student teachers) Fisher d 11 64.7 6 35.3 0 0.0 Note. Uni. Tertiary teacher education institution. STP. Seminar Training Program. SD/D Strongly disagree/ disagree. A/ SA Agree/ strongly agree. a Items have been abbreviated. Full questions can be found in Appendix 2. b No strongly disagree. c No disagree. d Total number of Fisher supervising teachers = 17. e No strongly agree. f Total number of Phillip supervising teachers = 52. # Error due to rounding. Table 2 Factors Facilitating Supervision: The Interviews (Phillip n = 8 supervising teachers; Fisher n = 4 supervising teachers) ID/ Criteria Phillip Supervising Teachers Fisher Supervising Teachers 003 004 005 014 026 043 044 053 064 067 074 075 Understanding tertiary institutionÕs expectations Communication between student teacher & supervising teacher Feedback from the student teacher Training in supervision Support from practicum school Experience as a teacher Enjoyment of supervising a student teacher Direct observation of student teacher Past supervising teacher experience Relate to young adults Discussions with tertiary supervisor Discussions with colleagues Enthusiasm of student teacher Own practicum experiences Note. Shaded area indicates factor suggested by supervising teacher. The least commonly cited facilitators of supervision for Phillip and Fisher supervising teachers were training in the supervision of student teachers (28.3% Phillip supervising teachers, 0.0% Fisher supervising teachers) and administration of the practicum by the teacher education institution (37.7% Phillip supervising teachers, 35.3% Fisher supervising teachers). As 1989 saw the introduction of supervisor training in terms of the six roles of supervision (Turney et al, 1982b) for the first time with the primary supervising teachers even a percentage as low as 28.3%, which exceeds that of the Fisher supervising teacher group (0.0%), may be considered a start which could be built upon in future years. This finding also supports the inservice teacher professional development literature which noted that change is brought about slowly and that a number of years may be required to bring about change in theory and practice (Combs, 1988; Fullan, 1985; Ingvarson, 1987; Sadler, 1987; Thurber, 1978). As Combs (1988) noted, ÒPeople-oriented institutions change in the same way people change: slowly, step by step, as a result of evolving beliefs, feelings, attitudes, values, and goals of individual personsÓ (p. 40). Thurber (1978), too, adds: Quantum leaps in professional development are rare. In most instances, change is evolutionary and relatively slow. Some in- service objectives are reachable in comparatively short periods of time, but others can only be achieved through gradual change over substantial periods of time. Those involved in in-service activities sometimes need to be warned that expectations of instant success, and early evaluation, are irrational when long- term objectives are involved. (p. 264) The factors where there were the greatest differences between the responses of Phillip and Fisher supervising teachers were the supervising teachers own knowledge of the course the student teacher was undertaking (66.0% Phillip supervising teachers cited this as a facilitator compared with only 27.8% Fisher supervising teachers), and having only one student teacher at a time (86.8% Phillip supervising teachers to 55.5% Fisher supervising teachers). While the latter difference may be attributed to a past practice at Phillip University of placing students in pairs in practicum classrooms (Report of the Working Party established to Review the Teacher Education Program, 1978), the difference in the importance attributed to knowledge of the teacher education program may reflect attendance at the Seminar Training Program. The seminars provided a venue for discussion of the teacher education program and so perhaps enabled the Phillip supervising teachers to consider such knowledge as important, whereas for Fisher University, without seminars, the supervising teachers had no opportunity for such discussions and so were unaware of its potential to facilitate supervision. For Phillip supervising teachers, seven in ten rated attendance at the Seminar Training Program (STP) as facilitating supervision of the student teachers but this was rated less commonly than eight other factors, including the particular student teacher involved, prior experience in student teacher supervision, institution guidelines about its expectations of the supervising teacher and the practicum booklet. Supervising teachers saw the STP as preparing them for what was required during the practicum and allowing them to become familiar with the university course the student teachers were undertaking. As supervising teachers reported: I think the initial afternoon session over at the university, prepared, [or] so I think, pretty well knowing what the scheme [i.e. the teacher education program] required . . . Actually I found everything that happened at those meetings were [sic] a help, very useful, professionally, very interesting (ID 005). Well I guess theyÕre [i.e. Phillip University] fairly clear in the seminars as to what they [i.e. the tertiary supervisors] want from the Master Teacher. TheyÕre fairly clear there. (ID 003). [The seminars] . . . kept me in touch with what was happening within the lectures so that I knew the wavelength that you [i.e. Phillip University] were on, so that I could then carry that across to my teaching day. (ID 044). Supervising teachers, however, did not necessarily perceive the STP as relevant to their needs as teachers or increasing their own knowledge and skills about teaching. Also, five of the eight supervising teachers and five of the student teachers interviewed reported that the STP had little or no effect on the supervision of the student teacher. As supervising teachers commented: Responses on page 5 [about the seminars] may appear negative BUT I would assume that Master Teachers are professional teachers and involved in Staff Development within the school system. Therefore it can be very time wasting and irrelevant to spend hours on curriculum areas that we all spend hours on in either staff meetings, grade meetings or School Development Days. . . I have thoroughly enjoyed my enthusiastic, creative, intelligent, inquiring students. Perhaps we should hear more from them and what their needs and problems are instead of going over curriculum e.g. music, maths, developmental play in kindergarten!!! that we should be so familiar with (otherwise, why are we Master Teachers??) Please accept this as suggestion - not criticism. (ID 013: Response to the open-ended section of the questionnaire) I think they [i.e. the seminars] gave a fair bit of background support . . . but I donÕt think that dramatically affected the specifics in the school. (ID 005) It [i.e. the STP] didnÕt give me enough guidance for writing the reports. They [i.e. the tertiary supervisors] seemed to assume that everyone had done it before. (ID 014) Discussion and implications for future practice While the STP was considered by Phillip supervising teachers as facilitating their supervision of the student teacher, it was not as commonly cited as other factors, in particular a supervising teacherÕs own enthusiasm for the task. Further, supervision training was reported as facilitating practicum supervision by just over a quarter of the supervising teachers surveyed. What then are the implications for future practice, including the use of training programs? Each implication is outlined below. 1. Selecting supervising teachers As the most commonly reported factor facilitating supervision for both Phillip and Fisher supervising teachers was their own enthusiasm for supervising student teachers (equally most common with the particular student teacher involved for Fisher supervising teachers), supervising teacher enthusiasm then may be utilised in the process by which supervising teachers are selected or self-selected. Supervising teacher enthusiasm as a facilitator also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of payment direct to supervising teachers, or even to some professional development fund, so as to encourage the application of the most suitable supervising teachers. Enthusiasm not only for supervising a student teacher but also for teaching as a profession is also important in selection if, as was reported by one of the Phillip student teachers interviewed, it affected student teacher future career aspirations for his peers who told of indecision in taking up a teaching position after graduation as a result of their supervising teachersÕ negative attitudes towards teaching (Grant). Therefore, perhaps a preferred situation is the use of classroom teachers who are enthusiastic about supervising student teachers and see this as an important part of their professional role as qualified teachers rather than undertaking student teacher supervision just for the money, because of pressure from peers or the school principal, or because of their position as Advanced Skills Teachers. A willingness to attend a program of information and training such as the STP may also be sought. This would support YarrowÕs (1992) conclusion that barriers to the professional development of supervisors maybe a Òlack of motivation on the part of individual supervisors to fully utilise the training and support availableÓ (p. 130). As one Fisher supervising teacher wrote on her questionnaire, the idea that the teacher education institution requires supervising teachers to attend a series of seminars, meetings, throughout the year was, Òexcellent [and] should enable students to receive adequate supervisors, instead of those simply concerned with the $$ [i.e. money]. (ID 074) 2. Continuous versus block practicum The frequent reporting of the use of a block practicum as facilitating supervision by Phillip supervising teachers (second most commonly reported factor yet equal sixth for Fisher supervising teachers) may reflect the continuous nature of the final year practicum at Phillip University. Phillip student teachers attend their practicum schools one day per week over most of the thirteen week semester as well as block periods of five or ten days while Fisher student teachers undertake a block practicum of five weeks (split into two parts of three and two weeks). Such frequent reporting by Phillip supervising teachers of the use of a block practicum as facilitating supervising teacher supervision where continuous practicum had existed for some 20 years does, however, suggest the need for university- based teacher educators to consider how supervising teachers may be assisted as institutions move increasingly towards longer, continuous practicum (Woodward and Gaffey, 1992). 3. A forum for communication The frequent reporting of communication of the expectation of student teachers (both Phillip and Fisher supervising teachers) and of the supervising teachers (Phillip supervising teachers) as a factor facilitating supervision; and the use the practicum booklet (both groups), discussion with the tertiary supervisor (Fisher supervising teachers) and the Seminar Training Program (Phillip supervising teachers) also to facilitate supervising teacher supervision suggests that a method of ongoing communication such as the STP, be provided for supervising teachers to reinforce information contained in practicum documents. This practice will assist particularly supervising teachers who may not have the time nor inclination to read what often can appear quite lengthy documents and may misunderstand the content of such documents. It will also overcome concerns expressed in the literature about reliance upon written materials to disseminate information to supervising teachers (Battersby and Ramsay, 1988; Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1989). 4. Change takes time Each seminar dealt with three aspects: communication of the nature, purpose and requirements of the tertiary institutionÕs teacher education program, supervision training in terms of the supervisor roles expounded by Turney et al (1982b) and developments and effective practices in teaching. Commitment to all three aspects of the program resulted in, according to the three tertiary supervisors who led each seminar (reported in open-ended questionnaires completed following each seminar), the impossibility of addressing all of the supervisor roles (Turney et al, 1982b) or even those selected (Manager, Observer, Feedback and Evaluator) in sufficient depth in just five seminars. This supports a study by Eltis and Turney (1984) whose participants in three, two-hour workshops on the feedback role of supervision reported the workshops as having been helpful to them as supervisors yet felt they needed more time on this role. Also, the few supervising teachers reporting supervision training as a factor facilitating practicum supervision and the realisation that creating change in professional practice takes time (Combs, 1988; Fullan, 1985; Ingvarson, 1987; Sadler, 1987; Thurber, 1978), suggests that in-depth discussion of each role may necessitate the conduct of the STP over a number of successive practicum periods. Such training could occur with a particular group or nucleus of supervising teachers employed for successive practicum periods so that supervisor skills may be introduced over a number of years, implemented in the practicum situation, reflected upon, refined in light of that reflection and coached as necessary so that the skills and strategies become part of the normal supervision practice. These supervising teachers could be given preference in employment and continuing experience of the employer tertiary institutionÕs teacher education program and its practicum. They would be able to build onto knowledge, skills and attitudes gained through ongoing dialogue between the institution and the school, and the training program of successive practica. These supervising teachers may also be utilised to lead particular seminar activities for groups of inexperienced supervising teachers. This suggestion reflects supervisor training programs more recently reported in the literature which are conducted over longer time periods from a few days to fourteen weeks (Cairns, 1991; Crebbin, 1993; Didham and Roush, 1990; Field, 1993; Koerner, 1992; Reed, 1993; Simpson et al, 1992; Wilson and Cameron, 1992). 5. Increased time for supervision Time to undertake supervision was reported by Fisher supervising teachers who considered having sufficient time to talk with student teachers as facilitating their supervision. Phillip supervising teachers also indirectly considered time important in facilitating supervision in their support for having only one student teacher to supervise at a time. This result supports the literature. As Turney, Cairns, Eltis, Hatton, Thew, Towler and Wright, (1982a) comment: But even careful supervisor selection and training will be insufficient. Supervisors must have adequate time to devote to their work - to consult and plan together, to hold conferences with the student, to observe the studentÕs teaching, to become acquainted with the studentÕs strengths, weaknesses and concerns, and to collaborate with the student in mutually beneficial educational tasks. (p. 67) Thus, according to Turney et al (1982a), ÒWithout adequate time to undertake their work, supervisor training, no matter how effective, will have limited benefits for student teachers (pp. 196-197). Hatton and Owens (1984, p. 22), too, consider the creation of sufficient time as a key issue in practicum supervision. Further, as time is finite and the teaching day already full, priorities must be set amongst the supervising teacherÕs competing tasks and frequently supervising a student teacher may not be as high a priority as other teaching and administrative duties. This situation was revealed through interviews, particularly for those supervising teachers who occupied combined administrative and teaching positions, as well as supervising a final year student teacher. As one Phillip supervising teacher explained: . . . being Assistant Principal, itÕs very hard on the student too, because we get called out and interrupted so many times that itÕs not funny. . . I mean the girls [student teachers], they all seemed to cope with it, except that Becky couldnÕt run fast enough to keep up with me. I used to have to say, ÒRight, Becky, now IÕm leaving here and IÕm going to do this, and then this and then go on and do something else, so you can meet me in the staffroom, heyÓ . . . then another day I had six conversations, one continuing one with Becky, but six other conversations in between time, between staffroom and the room so you know it does make it hard. (ID 053) The availability of time for supervising, or perhaps more importantly ÒmakingÓ time available for the professional development of a student teacher, supports the use of teachers ÒenthusiasticÓ for the task of supervision who then may see this role as an important priority in their already busy days. These are the teachers who will be able to combine their roles of teachers of children and school-based teacher educators of student teachers. In addition, it might also be suggested that Òrelease timeÓ from classroom and administrative responsibilities be considered as an alternative or adjunct to payment as an incentive for supervising teachers to supervisie student teachers, and perhaps as a way to obtain supervising teachers who agree to undertake student teacher supervision for reasons other than the payment. It is also a consideration as more and more tertiary institutions move to implement extended practicum or internship models and are struggling to pay for the increased time spent in schools. Conclusion Participant perceptions as to what facilitates practicum supervision has reported a number of factors, most commonly their own enthusiasm for the task. They have also shown that a training program is seen to facilitate supervision for the majority of supervising teachers even if not the most commonly reported facilitator. While the study described in this paper is small (particularly for the Fisher group of supervising teachers and student teachers), uses naturally occurring groups of supervising teachers and their student teachers (rather than random assignment) and measures perceptions (rather than using direct observation), it has indicated factors which facilitate supervising teacher supervision and resulted in implications for future practice. Further study could be undertaken on a larger scale and where the importance attached to each supervision facilitator is measured (by ranking). The results of such a study could then be implemented in the selection of supervising teachers, tertiary institutionÕs teacher education practicum programs and supervisor training programs. Certainly food for thought! Bibliography Andrews, S. (1990, July). Teaching practice: A studentÕs perspective. Paper presented at the twentieth annual Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. Battersby, D., & Ramsay, P. D. K. (1988). A case study of in- school training at a New Zealand teachersÕ college. The Journal of Teaching Practice, 8 (1), 47-66. Battersby, D., & Ramsay, P. D. K. (1989). A study of in-school training in New Zealand: Outcomes and suggestions for reform. The Journal of Teaching Practice, 9 (1), 45-50. Boydell, D. (1986). Issues in teaching practice supervision research: A review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2 (2), 115-125. Brown, I. (1986). Supervision Development Workshops. Journal of Teaching Practice, 6 (2), 40-49. Cairns, L. (1991, July). Supervisor training by distance education. Paper presented at the twenty-first annual Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, Melbourne. Christensen, P. S. (1988). The nature of feedback student teachers receive in post-observation conferences with the university supervisor: A comparison with O'Neal's study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 (3), 275-286. Combs A. W. (1988). New assumptions for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 45 (5), 38-40. The Committee on the Teacher Education Program. (1978, October). Report of the working party established to review the teacher education program, Phillip University, Sydney. Cope, E. (1971). A study of a school-supervised practice. A report of work carried out in 1968-71 in the Research Unit of the School of Education, Bristol University. University of Bristol. Crebbin, W. (1993, February). In-service for primary supervising teachers- An evaluation. Paper presented at the fifth National Practicum Conference and first National Cross Disciplinary conference on Practical Experience in Professional Education, Macquarie University, Sydney. Cross, D. G. (1983). A comparison of views of the role of supervisor held by supervisors in different practicum placements. Australian Psychologist, 18 (3), 305-320. Danaher, P., & Elliott, D. (1981). Remediation and communication in supervision: The student teachersÕ perspective. In P. W. Marland (Ed.) Aspects of supervision in teaching practice (pp. 93-99). Townsville, Queensland: James Cook University of North Queensland. Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1989a ). Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science. Vol. 1. Report and recommendations. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Didham, C. K., & Roush, M. (1990, August). A team approach to preparing cooperating teachers. Paper presented at ATE Summer Workshop, Towson State University, Towson, Maryland. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 500) Dobbins, R., & Wasley, D. (1992, May). Teachers as teacher educators. The impact of nomenclature on roles and relationships in the practicum. Mimeographed paper. Unpublished manuscript.University of South Australia, Magill Campus, Adelaide, South Australia. Edmonds, J. M. (1980). Rationale, development and evaluation of a course to train school supervisors in supervision skills. In W. Newman and W. Arkins (Eds.), The role of school experience in teacher education. The collected papers of the second national conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education (pp. 220-226). Armidale College of Advanced Education, Armidale. Edwards, M. (1987). Tertiary supervisors - Disruptive or productive? The Journal of Teaching Practice, 7 (2), 51-60. Eltis, K., & Cairns, L. (1982). Perceived effectiveness of supervisors of the practicum. Australian Journal of Teaching Practice, 2 (2), 101-109. Eltis, K., & Turney, C. (1984). Supervisor development programmes: Field test one- The feedback role. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 12 (1), 19-30. Emans, R. (1983). Implementing the knowledge base: Redesigning the function of cooperating teachers and college supervisors. Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (3), 14-17. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 (4), 255-273. Fennessy, D. (1989, July). An organization of supervising teachers and its impact on the practicum at Phillip Institute of Technology. Paper presented at the nineteenth annual Australian Teacher Education Association conference, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville. Field, B. (1993, February). Partnerships in teacher education- School-based teacher education in the United Kingdom. Paper presented at the 5th National Practicum Conference and first National Cross Disciplinary conference on Practical Experience in Professional Education, Macquarie University, Sydney. Fleet, A., & Sumison, J. (1989). The life and times of a supervision training video package. In K. Appleton, D. Price & K. Zeichner (Eds.), The practicum in teacher education. Proceedings of the fourth national conference (pp 77 - 80). Rockhampton, Queensland: University College of Central Queensland. Fogarty, M., & Yarrow, A. (1984). The characteristics of supervising teachers involved in field studies. Journal of Teaching Practice, 5 (1), 27-42. Fullan, M. (1985). Integrating theory and practice. In D. Hopkins & K. Reid (Eds.), Rethinking teacher education (pp. 195-211). London: Croom Helm. Fullerton, T. (1993, February). Student teaching: Making theoretical and practical connections. Paper presented at the 5th National Practicum Conference and first National Cross Disciplinary conference on Practical Experience in Professional Education, Macquarie University, Sydney. Gardiner, H. L. (1980). Evaluation and assessment from afar: Supervision of student teachers in a large geographic region. In W. Newman and W. Arkins (Eds.), The role of school experience in teacher education. The collected papers of the second national conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education (pp. 230- 237). Armidale College of Advanced Education, Armidale. Hatton, N., & Owens, L. (1984). Teaching about teaching - The state of the art in Australia. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 12 (2), 12-25. Henry, J. (1981). Training for supervision: DeakinÕs Experience. In P. W. Marland (Ed.) Aspects of supervision in teaching practice (pp. 39-59). Townsville, Queensland: James Cook University of North Queensland. Henry, J., Pateman, N., & Tinning, R. (1986). A dilemma in teaching practice assessment: The lottery of competitive ratings. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 14 (2), 45-55. Howard, B. (1990, July). Practicum Consultants : A flow-on from Ludeke. Paper presented at the twentieth annual national Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. Ingvarson, L. (1987). Models of inservice education and their implications for professional development policy. Independent Education, 17 (2), 23-32. Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1), 46-56. Korinek, L. A. (1989). Teacher preferences for training and compensation for field supervision, Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (6), 46-51. Lang, H., Cornish W., & Trew L. (1980). Partners in training. How it works and why. Education Canada, 20 (3), 14-21. Le Clercq, D. (1993, February). Coaching early childhood student teachers, teachers and university staff: A practicum triad approach. Paper presented at the fifth National Practicum Conference and first National Cross Disciplinary conference on Lortie, D. C. (1975). School-teacher. A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Love, J., & Swain, M. (1980). Success in practicum programs: Student teacher perceptions. In W. Newman and W. Arkins (Eds.), The role of school experience in teacher education. The collected papers of the second national conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education (pp. 249-259). Armidale College of Advanced Education, Armidale. MacLeod, G. (1989). A study of graduating students from ten Diploma of Teaching programs in New South Wales. Unpublished manuscript. Lismore, NSW: Centre for Research on Teacher Education and Development, Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. McIntyre, D. I. (1980). The contribution of research to quality teacher education. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 8 (1/2), 4-19. McIntyre, D. J. & Killian, J. E. (1987). The influence of supervisory training for cooperating teachers on preservice teachersÕ development during early field experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5), 277-282. Meggitt, P. H. (1980). Training supervisors in secondary schools. In W. Newman and W. Arkins (Eds.), The role of school experience in teacher education. The collected papers of the second national conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education (pp. 195-200). Armidale College of Advanced Education, Armidale. Morehead, M., & Waters, S. (1987). Enhancing Collegiality: A model for training cooperating teachers. Teacher Educator, 23 (2), 28-31. Morris, J. E. (1980). Evaluating the effectiveness of the university supervisor of student teachers: Role of the coordinator of field experiences, Peabody Journal of Education, 57, 148-151. Morris, J. R. (1974). The effects of the university supervisor on the performance and adjustment of student teachers, The Journal of Educational Research, 67 (8), 358-362. Nabors, M. L., & Richard, C. C. (1987). Constructive feedback: An essential ingredient in the recipe for successful student teaching. Journal of Teaching Practice, 7 (1), 28-31. Northfield. J. (1989). Capitalising on the potential of the school experience. In K. Appleton, D. Price & K. Zeichner (Eds.), The practicum in teacher education. Proceedings of the fourth national conference (pp. 98-102). Rockhampton, Queensland: University College of Central Queensland. Perrodin, A. F. (1961). In support of supervising teacher education programs. The Journal of Teacher Education, 12 (1), 36-38. Preston, R. G. (1986, January - February). Student teachers: A role in inservice for supervisors. Paper presented at the third national Conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education, Deakin University Geelong, Vic. Price D. (1986, January - February). Models of supervision- Styles and strategies. Paper presented at the third national Conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education, Deakin University Geelong, Vic. Price, D. A. (1987). The practicum and its supervision. In K. Eltis (Ed.), Australian Teacher Education in Review (pp. 105- 133). Bedford Park, South Australia: South Pacific Association for Teacher Education. Price, D., & Sellars, N. (1986, January - February). Models of supervision - Styles and strategies. Paper presented at the third national Conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education, Deakin University Geelong, Vic. Ratajczak, L., & Hauser, J. (1990). Energizing cooperating teachers: An experimental seminars model. Paper presented at ATE Summer Workshop- 1990 Towson State University Baltimore. Maryland. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 304). Reed, B. (1993, February). Supervision skills for educators course- A collaborative action research project involving the practicum. Paper presented at the fifth National Practicum Conference and first National Cross Disciplinary conference on Practical Experience in Professional Education, Macquarie University, Sydney. Sadler, D. R. (1987). Evaluating the effectiveness of inservice education: Problems and possibilities. In M. Anstey, G. Bull and G. D. Postle (Eds.), Inservice education. Trends of the past, themes for the future. (pp. 289-307). Centre for Research and Development in Curriculum, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, New South Wales. Schuttenberg, E. M. (1983). Preparing the educated teacher for the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (4),14-17. Sebastian, P., Jacka, B., & Chittams, K. (1983). An innovatory in-service programme for field supervisors in full day education/care programs. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 8 (1), 27-29. Sellars, N. (1981). A training course for supervisory teachers: An exercise in nettle-grasping. The Australian Journal of Teaching Practice, 2 (1), 29-45. Simpson, T., Millwater, S., & Yarrow, A. (1992). S.I.S.T.E.R. (Supervision in schools to enhance reflectivity). In Yarrow, A. (Ed.). Teaching role in supervision of the practicum. Cross- faculty perspectives (pp. 40-54). Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland University of Technology. Taggart, A. (1988). Co-operating teachers as teacher educators. The Journal of Teaching Practice, 8 (1), 38-46. Thurber, J. C. (1978). Practical observations from the field. In L. Rubin (Ed.), The in-service education of teachers. Trends, processes, and prescriptions (pp. 262-265). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Tibble, J. W. (1971). The organization and supervision of school practice. In J. W. Tibble (Ed.), The future of teacher education (pp. 100-110). London: Routledge and K. Paul. Traill, R. D. & Kemp, D. M. (1980). Achieving effective relationships with practice teaching schools. In W. Newman and W. Arkins (Eds.), The role of school experience in teacher education. The collected papers of the second national conference on the Practicum in Teacher Education (pp. 137- 142). Armidale College of Advanced Education, Armidale. Turney, C., Cairns, L. G., Eltis, K. J., Hatton, N., Thew, D. M., Towler, J., & Wright, R. (1982a). The practicum in teacher education. Research, practice and supervision. Press Building, University of Sydney: Sydney University Press. Turney, C., Cairns, L. G., Eltis, K. J., Hatton, N., Thew, D. M., Towler, J., & Wright, R. (1982b). Supervisor Development Programmes. Role Handbook. Press Building, University of Sydney: Sydney University Press. Turney, C., Eltis, K., Towler, J., & Wright, R. (1985). A new basis for teacher education - The practicum curriculum. Sydney: Sydmac Academic Press. Werner, M. & Butterworth, D. (1982). Co-operating teacher development through in-service support. The Australian Journal of Teaching Practice, 3 (1), 71-76. Wilson, S., & Cameron, R. (1992, June - July). Developing reflective student teachers: A professional development program for cooperating teachers. Paper presented at the twenty- second annual Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, Ballina, NSW. Woodward, H., & Gaffey, C. (1992, June-July). So you wanted to be a teacher? Paper presented at the twenty-second annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Ballina, NSW. Yarrow, A. (Ed.) (1992). Teaching role of supervision in the practicum. Cross-faculty perspectives. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland University of Technology. Yarrow, A & associates. (1984). The characteristics of college personnel involved in field studies. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 12 (1), 39-51. Zeichner, K. (1986). The practicum as an occasion for learning to teach. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 14 (2), 11-27. Zeichner, K. (1989a). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking to the 1990Õs. In K. Appleton, D. Price & K. Zeichner (Eds.), The practicum in teacher education. Proceedings of the fourth national conference (pp. 13-30). Rockhampton, Queensland: University College of Central Queensland. Appendix 1 Subjects: The Supervising Teachers (Phillip supervising teachers n = 53; Fisher n = 18 ) Variable Phillip Fisher No. % No. % A. PERSONAL BACKGROUND Gender: Male 9 17.0 5 27.8 Female 44 83.0 13 72.2 Total 53 100.0 18 100.0 Age: 20-29 years 5 9.4 5 27.8 30-39 years 24 45.3 10 55.6 40-49 years 21 39.6 3 16.7 50+ years 3 5.7 0 0.0 Total 53 100.0 18 100.1# B. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND Full-time Teaching Experience: 0-4 years 7 13.2 4 22.3 5-9 years 5 9.5 3 16.7 10-14 years 22 41.5 7 39.1 15-19 years 8 15.2 2 11.1 20 years + 11 20.9 2 11.2 Total 53 100.3# 18 100.4# Part-time Teaching Experience: None 35 66.0 12 66.7 1-4 years 10 18.9 5 27.8 5-9 years 5 9.4 1 5.6 10-14 years 2 3.8 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 n.a 1 1.9 0 0.0 Current position: Teacher 42 79.2 11 61.1 Executive teacher 4 7.5 6 33.3 Assistant Principal (Infants) 2 3.8 0 0.0 Assistant Principal (Primary) 2 3.8 1 5.6 Deputy Principal 2 3.8 0 0.0 Other 1 1.9 0 0.0 Total 53 100.0 18 100.0 (appendix continues) Appendix 1 (continued) Variable Phillip Fisher No. % No. % Promotion List Held: No list 26 49.1 9 50.0 List 1 17 32.1 4 22.2 List 2 7 13.2 3 16.7 List 3 1 1.9 0 0.0 List 4 1 1.9 0 0.0 n.a 1 1.9 2 11.1 Total 53 100.1# 18 100.0 Class Taught: Infants (Kindergarten to Year 2) 27 a 50.9 4 22.2 Primary (Year 3 to Year 6) 26 49.1 11 61.1 Other 3 5.7 3 16.7 Highest Qualification: 2 year trained 10 18.9 0 0.0 3 year Diploma of Teaching 23 43.4 3 16.7 4 year trained (a Bachelor Degree and may include a diploma of education) 12 22.6 11 61.1 Postgraduate diploma 5 9.4 1 5.6 Postgraduate degree 1 1.9 1 5.6 Other 2 3.8 2 11.1 Total 53 100.0 18 100.1# Years employed at present school: 0-1 years 0 0.0 3 16.7 2- 5 years 35 66.0 10 55.6 6-10 years 11 20.8 4 22.3 >10 years 7 13.3 1 5.6 Total 53 100.1# 18 100.2# Experience as a supervisor of student teachers for current teacher education institution: 0-1 year 23 c 44.2 7 d 53.8 2 years 11 21.2 4 30.8 3-5 years 12 23.0 2 15.4 6-10 years 5 9.5 0 0.0 >10 years 1 1.9 0 0.0 Experience as a supervisor of student teachers for other teacher education institutions: none 26 49.1 7 38.9# 1 year 2 3.8 1 5.6 2 years 2 3.8 2 11.1 3-5 years 7 13.2 2 11.1 6-10 years 12 22.6 3 16.7 (appendix continues) Appendix 1 (continued) Variable Phillip Fisher No. % No. % >10 years 3 5.6 1 5.6 Other 1 1.9 2 11.1 Professional Development undertaken in last 12 months: Professional reading : books 42 a 79.2 14 a 77.8 journal articles 46 88.5 11 61.1 curriculum documents & employer directives 51 96.2 13 72.2 Non-award courses: school staff development days- 1-2 days 40 75.4 12 66.6# 3-4 days 7 13.2 6 33.3 5+ days 6 11.4 0 0.0 workshops (within school hours) None 15 28.3 9 50.0# 1-2 28 52.8 8 44.5 3-4 8 15.1 1 5.6 5+ 2 3.8 0 0.0 workshops (outside school hours) None 8 15.1 8 44.4 1-2 12 22.6 2 11.1 3-4 7 13.2 0 0.0 5+ 9 17.0 3 16.7 Attended but number not specified 17 32.1 5 27.8 conferences none 35 66.0 10 55.6# 1-2 9 17.0 3 16.7 3-4 1 1.9 1 5.6 5+ 1 1.9 0 0.0 Attended but number not specified 7 13.2 4 22.2 Award courses: postgraduate diploma 3 5.7 2 11.8 postgraduate degree 3 5.7 1 5.9 (appendix continues) Appendix 1 (continues) Variable Phillip Fisher No. % No. % Main reasons for supervising a student teacher: to share own knowledge of teaching with student teachers 41 a 77.4 16 a 88.9 to assist student teachers learn about the Òreal worldÓ of teaching 37 69.8 10 55.6 as a means of self professional development 35 66.0 13 72.2 to enable student teachers to practise in the classroom what they had learnt at their teacher education institution 32 60.4 10 55.6 to ensure a better quality of beginning teacher 26 49.1 8 44.4 for the payment 19 35.8 8 44.4 to ensure better teacher training than self had received 9 17.0 4 22.2 to meet other teachers 8 15.1 3 16.7 to understand the goals and requirements of the teacher education institution 6 11.3 2 11.1 Other reasons 4 7.5 4 22.2 to assist own desires for promotion 4 7.5 0 0.0 Note. n.a Not measured. a More than one category may be checked by respondents. b n = 52. c n = 13 # Error due to rounding