6.3 Teaching Practice

Regarding the preferred length of the Teaching Practice period, at the start of the course the majority (58%) of students felt that it should remain one school term in length. Almost a third of the group (31%), however, felt that it should be increased by three months, with very few (5%) indicating that the period should be decreased. At the end of their HDE year there was a definite shift towards more students feeling that the Teaching Practice period should be increased by 3 months and less students feeling that it should remain the same length than had been the case at the beginning of the HDE course (see Table 18 below).

Table 18: Responses to question regarding ideal length of Teaching Practice

The importance that students attach to getting practical experience in teaching is substantiated by some of the responses to an open-ended question included in the exit questionnaire, in which students could comment on any aspect of the course. Most of the respondents chose not to reply to this question, but of those that did, the majority commented on the Teaching Practice period, with a number feeling that the period should be increased. The main reasons cited were that they needed more time to adapt to what was happening in classrooms and that a lack of appropriate educational background necessitated a longer teaching practice period.

“I wish the faculty can give more time for student teachers on practice teaching, especially those who have no foundation in education” (female, 30 years)

“Teaching practice must be increased. Some of us take a long time to adapt in the classroom to the teaching process. These people need to be given enough time. Teaching Practice is too short.” (male, 23 years)

“Nothing can prepare you for teaching practice, except teaching practice itself” (female, 21 years).

The responses to a question posed to the students in the entry questionnaire on what would make their Teaching Practice more valuable showed that over 70% felt that they needed teaching and learning materials, help with lesson planning, and to be able to watch experienced teachers (see Table 19). Approximately 60% felt that they needed preparation in the faculty, visits by lecturers during their Teaching Practice period and demonstration lessons by lecturers. Approximately half felt that they needed input from the school principal and follow-up discussions in the faculty of education.

A similar question was posed in the exit questionnaire in which students were asked what they felt would make the Teaching Practice period more valuable for the students (see Table 20). Over 60% of the students felt that they needed more preparation in faculty, more visits by lecturers, greater input from the school teachers, more time to watch experienced teachers more teaching and learning materials and more help in lesson planning. Note needs to be taken of the large number of ‘no responses’ to this question will which affect the validity of this data. Nevertheless, the responses are very similar to those given in the entry questionnaire.

Table 19: Responses to the question: “What will make Teaching Practice valuable?” (entry questionnaire) (N = 178)

Table 20: Responses to the question: “How can teaching practice be changed to make it more valuable for student teachers?” (exit questionnaire) (N = 48)

It appears from the responses that the students were able to teach a fair number of lessons during their Teaching Practice period. However, most did not seem to meet the required average of teaching two new lessons per day during the period that they were at schools. Almost half (51%) of the students only taught between one and four lessons per week, 21% between 5 and 10 lessons and 13% between 11 and 15 lessons per week. Most students appeared to have also observed lessons during their teaching practice period, but 19% said that they had not observed any lessons during this period. This was despite the fact that observing an average of two lessons per day is a requirement of their Teaching Practice. If what these students reported is correct, then this implies that quite a number of students did not fulfil the basic requirements for the number of lessons taught and/or lessons observed and that this is not being picked up by the monitoring and evaluation system that is currently in place.

As far as observation and supervision of the lessons taught by the students, it appears as if the class teacher observed lessons in most cases (see Table 21). Worrying is the fact that in 19% of the cases students said that they had not been observed by their lecturer. However, this could have been due to misunderstanding the question, as some students were supervised by people outside of the faculty, who are not lecturers.

Table 21: Observation of lessons taught by students during the teaching practice period

In reflecting back on the teaching practice period, 68% of the students felt that they had been well-prepared for their term in the schools and a further 19% that the preparation had been ‘average’. Only 4% felt that their preparation had been poor.

Most of the students (77%) felt that the assessment of their teaching practice was a good measure of their achievement. Roughly one-third of the students (35%), however, felt that the schools where they had done their teaching practice did not have enough resources for their practice. However, the remaining two-thirds appeared to feel that enough resources were available at their schools.