Comparing the Feedback of University Supervisor and Cooperating Teachers for Preservice Science Teachers within the Scope of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Abstract

To comprehend the perspectives of school and university mentors in evaluating practicum experiences based on educational reform, this study aimed to investigate the feedback, within the framework of pedagogical content knowledge, provided by two cooperating teachers and a university supervisor to preservice teachers. Observation and document were used for data collection. Data collected within the context of the Teaching Practice course were analyzed deductively, considering the components of pedagogical content knowledge. Findings showed that although feedback given by mentors was positive or corrective, specific changes suggested by mentors about the preservice teachers’ teaching practices were rather corrective. Although mentors’ feedback seems to be concentrated in the fields of ‘instructional strategies and representation’ and ‘pedagogy,’ the majority of feedback provided in other PCK components points out those mentors focused on student learning within the knowledge of ‘student understanding’. Feedback indicated that mentors especially attached importance to students’ understanding of the subject and active participation in the learning, which are the goals of a science teaching program. The other aims of teaching based on inquiry and students’ self-responsibilities in learning seemed to be in the background. Although mentors’ feedback pointed out some differences in the categories of curriculum and assessment, they were consistent in general.

Keywords

• feedback
• pedagogical content knowledge
• university supervisor
• cooperating teacher
• science
• prospective teacher
• preservice teacher
• teaching practice

Kaynakça

1. Allen, J. M., Butler-Mader, C., & Smith, R. A. (2010). A fundamental partnership: the experiences of practising teachers as lecturers in a preservice teacher education programme. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(5), 615-632.
2. Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115-126.
3. Andrew, L. (2007). A new university supervisor: Their experiences and enrichment. Essays in Education, 22(1), 12-27.
4. Arkün-Kocadere, S., & Askar, P. (2013). A review of views about student teaching courses and an application model proposal. H.U. Journal of Education, 28(2), 27-43.
5. Asplin, K. N., & Marks, M. J. (2013). Increasing the influence of university supervisors during student teaching. The Professional Educator, 37(1), 237-342.
6. Badger, J. (2012). Analyzing levels of feedback delivered by cooperating teachers and supervisors in a teacher internship: A case study. Georgia Educational Researcher, 9(1), 21-39.
7. Bates, A. J., & Burbank, M. D. (2008). Effective student teacher supervision in the era of no child left behind. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 1-11.
8. Bekmezci, S. M., & Ateş, Ö. (2017). Science curriculum from the perspectives of Turkish teachers: Problems encountered and suggestions for solutions. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(10), 137-158.

9. Bjørndal, C. R. (2020). Student teachers’ responses to critical mentor feedback: A study of face-saving strategies in teaching placements. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103047.
10. Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform‐based science teaching through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94(6), 1049-1071.
11. Bradbury, L. U., & Koballa, T. R. (2007). Mentor advice giving in an alternative certification program for secondary science teaching: Opportunities and roadblocks in developing a knowledge base for teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 817-840.
12. Bullough, R. V. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 143-155.
13. Bunton, D., Stimpson, P., & Lopez-Real, F. (2002). University tutors’ practicum observation notes: Format and content. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10(3), 233-252.
14. Burbank, M. D., Bates, A., & Gupta, U. (2016). The influence of teacher development on secondary content area supervision among preservice teachers. The Teacher Educator, 51(1), 55-69.
15. Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2016). The changing nature of the role of the university supervisor and function of preservice teacher supervision in an era of clinically-rich practice. Action in Teacher Education, 38(4), 410-425.
16. Chaliès, S., Ria, L., Bertone, S., Trohel, J., & Durand, M. (2004). Interactions between preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-lesson interviews. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 765-781.
17. Chawla, V., & Thukral, P. (2011). Effects of student feedback on teaching competence of student teachers: A microteaching experiment. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1), 77-87.
18. Christensen, B. J., & Johnson, B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, Research Edition. Allyn & Bacon.
19. Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-202.
20. Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2012). An international perspective on science curriculum development and implementation. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 771-782). Springer.
21. Cornelius, K. E., & Nagro, S. A. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 133-146.
22. Crasborn, F., Hennissen P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(3), 499-514.
23. Crutcher, P. A., & Naseem, S. (2016). Cheerleading and cynicism of effective mentoring in current empirical research. Educational Review, 68(1), 40-55.
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57(3), 300-314.
25. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teacher’s face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.
26. De la Cruz, M. S. D., Kopec, M. T., & Wimsatt, L. A. (2015). Resident perceptions of giving and receiving peer-to-peer feedback. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(2), 208-213.
27. Eck, C. J., & Ramsey, J. W. (2019). An analysis of cooperating teacher feedback: a qualitative inquiry. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 3(2), 97-113.
28. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
29. Fernandez, M. L., & Erbilgin, E. (2009). Examining the supervision of mathematics student teachers through analysis of conference communications. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 93-110.
30. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
31. Getachew, T., Terfa, D., Tadesse, M., Atnafu, M., & Alemu, M. (2020). Ethiopian preservice primary science teachers’ perceptions of mentoring in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(8), 894-913.
32. González-Toro, C. M., Cherubini, J. M., Doig, S. R., & Fernández-Vivó, M. (2020). Supervisor feedback: Perceptions from physical education teacher candidates. Physical Educator, 77(3), 553-574.
33. Grudnoff, L. (2011). Rethinking the practicum: Limitations and possibilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 223-234.
34. Gurl, T. J. (2019). Classroom practices of cooperating teachers and their relationship to collaboration quality and time: Perceptions of student teachers. Teaching Education, 30(2), 177-199.
35. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145-167.
36. Hattie, H., & Timperley, J. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
37. Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching personal and social responsibility in physical education. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Students learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (pp. 241-254). Human Kinetics.
38. Holbrook, K. R. (2022). Measuring students’ perceptions of student teaching university supervisors: Scenario-based scale development using rasch and guttman facet theory [Doctoral dissertation]. Boston College.
39. Hudson, P. (2014). Feedback consistencies and inconsistencies: Eight mentors’ observations on one preservice teacher’s lesson. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 63-73.
40. Hudson, P. (2016). Forming the mentor-mentee relationship. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(1), 30-43.
41. Hudson, P., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2005). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for effective primary science teaching. Science Education, 89(4), 657–674.
42. Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). The influence of a standards-based qualification on student inquiry in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
43. Jing-Jing, H. U. (2014). A critical review of pedagogical content knowledge components: Nature, principle and trend. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(4), 411-424.
44. Jones, C. K., Kelsey, K. D., & Brown, N. R. (2014). Climbing the steps toward a successful cooperating teacher/student teacher mentoring relationship. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(2), 33-47.
45. Kahan, D., Sinclair, C., Saucier, L., & Caiozzi, N. N. (2003). Feedback profiles of cooperating teachers supervising the same student. Physical Educator, 60(4), 180-193.
46. Kastberg, S. E., Lischka, A. E., & Hillman, S. L. (2020). Characterizing mathematics teacher educators’ written feedback to prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(2), 131-152.
47. Koballa, T. R., & Bradbury, L. U. (2012). Mentoring in support of reform-based science teaching. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 361-371). Springer.
48. Komiskey, C., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2004). Supervisors’ perceptions about giving and receiving corrective feedback: Implications for counselor education and supervision [Doctoral dissertation]. University of New Orleans.
49. MacDougall, L., Mtika, P., Reid, I., & Weir, D. (2013). Enhancing feedback in student-teacher field experience in Scotland: The role of school–university partnership. Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 420-437.
50. Matsko, K. K., Ronfeldt, M., Nolan, H. G., Klugman, J., Reininger, M., & Brockman, S. L. (2020). Cooperating teacher as model and coach: What leads to student teachers’ perceptions of preparedness?. Journal of teacher education, 71(1), 41-62.
51. McAlister, A., Lee, D., Ehlert, K., Kajfez, R., Faber, C., & Kennedy, M. (2017). Qualitative coding: an approach to assess inter-rater reliability (pp. 5-9). Conference: ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
52. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017). General competencies for teaching profession. Ministry of National Education Republic of Turkey Directorate General for Teacher Training and Development.
53. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018a). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Primary education institutions’ science instruction program]. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
54. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018b). Teaching practice guidelines. Ministry of National Education Republic of Turkey Directorate General for Teacher Training and Development.
55. Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.
56. Nguyen, H. T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 655-662.
57. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13.
58. Paker, T. (2008). Problems of student teachers regarding the feedback of university supervisors and mentors during teaching practice. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(23), 132.
59. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications.
60. Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388.
61. Polat, K., Eyceyurt Türk, G., & Altaylı Özgül, D. (2020). Investigation of teaching practice course in school, faculty and preservice teacher dimensions. Eurasian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(2), 129-147.
62. Portelance, L., Caron, J., & Martineau, S. (2016). Collaboration through knowledge sharing between cooperating teachers and university supervisors. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 26 (1), 36-51.
63. Puttick, S., & Wynn, J. (2020). Constructing ‘good teaching’ through written lesson observation feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 47(2), 152-169.
64. Ranade, M. (2008). Science education in India. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international perspective of context on science curricula development and implementation, (pp. 99-114). Sense.
65. Range, B., Duncan, H., & Hvidston, D. (2013). How faculty supervise and mentor preservice teachers: Implications for principal supervision of novice teachers. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(2), 43-58.
66. Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., Hawley, T. S., & Blasik, J. (2011). Reifying the ontology of individualism at the expense of democracy: An examination of university supervisors’ written feedback to student teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 29-47.
67. Saka, M. (2019). Evaluations of science teachers regarding the classes of school experience and teaching practices. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 127-148.
68. Sandvik, L. V., Solhaug, T., Lejonberg, E., Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. N. (2019). Predictions of school mentors’ effort in teacher education programmes. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 574-590.
69. Scheeler, M. C. (2008). Generalizing effective teaching skills: The missing link in teacher preparation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(2), 145-159.
70. Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, M. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 59–70.
71. Schwartz, C., Walkowiak, T. A., Poling, L., Richardson, K., & Polly, D. (2018). The nature of feedback given to elementary student teachers from university supervisors after observations of mathematics lessons. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 20(1), 62-85.
72. Shantz, D. (1995). Teacher education: Teaching innovation or providing an apprenticeship? Education, 115(3), 339-344.
73. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
74. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
75. Sim, C. (2010). Sustaining productive collaboration between faculties and schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 518-528.
76. Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in preservice teacher education: The voice of the students. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289-302.
77. Soares, A., & Lock, R. (2007). Preservice science teachers’ perceptions of written lesson appraisals: The impact of styles of mentoring. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 75-90.
78. Steadman, S. C., & Brown, S. D. (2011). Defining the job of university supervisor: A department-wide Study of University Supervisors’ Practice. Issues in Teacher Education, 20(1), 51-68.
79. Tang, S. Y. F., & Chow, A. W. K. (2007). Communicating feedback in teaching practice supervision in a learning-oriented field experience assessment framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1066-1085.
80. Tarekegn, G., Terfa, D., Tadesse, M., Atnafu, M., & Alemu, M. (2020). Ethiopian preservice primary science teachers’ perceptions of mentoring in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(8), 894-913.
81. Tillema, H. H. (2009). Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 155-167.
82. Topkaya, Y., Tokcan, H., & Kara, C. (2012). Opinions of prospective social studies teachers’ views about teacher practice course. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 5(7), 663-678.
83. Van Zee, E. H., Lay, D., & Roberts, D. (2003). Fostering collaborative inquiries by prospective and practicing elementary and middle school teachers. Science Education, 87(4), 588-612.
84. Vertemara, V., & Flushman, T. (2017). Emphasis of university supervisor feedback to teacher candidates. Journal of Student Research, 6(2), 45-55.
85. Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. (2001). Doing reflective supervision with student teachers in a professional development school culture. Reflective practice, 2(2), 125-154.
86. Wilson, E. K. (2006). The impact of an alternative model of student teacher supervision: Views of the participants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 22-31.
87. Won, N., Liu, K., & Bukko, D. (2019). Developing instructional skills: Perspectives of feedback in student teaching. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 21(2), 8.
88. Yayli, D. (2008). Theory-practice dichotomy in inquiry: Meanings and preservice teacher mentor teacher tension in Turkish literacy classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 889-900.
89. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.) Sage Publications.