Evaluation of teaching practicum for pre-service English language teachers: A scale development study

Year 2020, Volume: 16 Issue: 3, 1562 - 1593, 01.10.2020

İlknur Kazaz , Nuray Alagözlü

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803902

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a measurement tool that evaluates the teaching practicum to shed light on the expectations and attitudes of English teacher candidates in relation to teaching practicum. In this context, two measurement tools; expectation scale and reaction scale were prepared based on the amalgamation of Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Theory (2000) and EPOSTL(2007). This study was conducted to have an overall critical analysis of the current practicum program applied in Turkey to determine the pre-service teachers’ views about the existing model and what could be done to make up for the deficits in the current implementation. Within the scope of the study, validity and reliability studies were conducted. For research validity; a pilot study was conducted at a state university with senior level ELT students at 2018-2019 spring academic year. As a result of the pilot study item writing and item pooling stages were completed. Expert opinion was received from three academicians from the field in order not to assess the face validity, content validity and construct validity. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted with 294 senior level ELT students who were taking the School Experience course at 2019-2020 fall term around various universities in Turkey. Working groups were determined based on maximum diversity sampling method. The expectation scale had 85 items at the beginning. According to the results of the structure validity of the research; the expectation scale had a) university supervisors, b) mentor teachers, c) school administrators, d) peer pre-service teachers, e) students, f) practicum school, g) teaching practicum and h) other stakeholders. Parts. The eight-factor structure scale consisted of 73 items. The reaction scale had 44 items at the beginning. As a result of the analysis, the reaction scale consisted of three-factor structure consisting of 39 items. These factors were determined as a) attitudes at the end of the practicum training as a teacher candidate, b) attitudes in relation to the teaching practicum and c) pre-service teachers reactions about teaching practicum. As a result of the CFA application, it has been observed that the scale shows good fit values in general. In line with the applications and analyzes, it can be said that the scales are valid, reliable and they have sufficient values in terms of psychometry.

Keywords

Teaching practicum, pre-service teacher training, program evaluation, scale development

References

• Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2006). Do prospective teachers get enough experience in school placements? Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 353–368.
• Cook, L. (2007). “When in Rome: Influences on special education student teachers’ teaching.” International Journal of Special Education, 22(3): 119-130.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
• Çevik, C. & Alat, K. (2012). “Uygulama öğretmenlerinin öğretmenlik uygulaması dersine yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi.” Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 25(2): 359-380.
• Gan, Z. (2014). Learning from interpersonal interactions during the practicum: a case study of non-native ESL student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 40(2), 128-139.
• Hascher, H. , Cocard, Y. & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory – practice is all? Student teachers’ learning in practicum. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,10(6), pp. 623-637.
• Hudson, P. (2009). “Mentoring preservice teachers in primary mathematics.” The International Journal of Learning, 16(4),: 119-132.
• Kiraz, E. (2003). “Uygulama öğretmeni yeterlik ölçeği: Ölçü aracı geliştirme örneği.” Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1): 387-400.
• Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2000). Evaluating training programs: The four levels—The ASTD handbook of training design and delivery. VA: The American society of training and development; New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Ronfeldt, M. & Reinninger, M. (2012). “More or better student teaching?” Teaching and eacher Education, 28(8): 1091-1106.
• Seferoğlu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service English language teacher education program in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 369-378.
• Smagorinsky, P., Sanford, A. D., & Konopak, B. (2006). “Functional literacy in a Constructivist Key: A nontraditional Student Teacher’s Apprenticeship in a Rural Elementary School.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4): 93-109.
• Zeichner, K. (2002). “Beyond traditional structures of student teaching.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2): 59-64