(introduction...)

The above description of the teacher education curriculum could be referred to as the "official curriculum" as reported by the academic staff. This is the curriculum as documented in the official calendar of the university. The section below will focus on the final year students of the 1999 cohort and their reported experiences of their teacher preparation course. The data was gathered after students had returned from their second placement for an extended period within a school context. This section constitutes an evaluation of the curriculum in terms of developing competent teachers.

5.1 Course delivery

The student reported that they experienced a range of different group sizes during their teacher preparation course. 74% of the respondents indicated that the dominant form of groupings was in the form of lectures in groups larger than 60. This is a reflection on the number of plenary sessions in the Educational Theory courses, the English Usage course, and the "content" courses in the feeder faculties. 98% of the students also reported that tutorial groups sessions of smaller groups were evident often or very often. The questionnaire also reported that over 60% of the students valued demonstration lessons but that they rarely took place.

5.2 Theory and Practice

Table 8: Preference for time distribution of the component parts of the curriculum

	Much more time needed		More time		Stay the same		Less time		Much less time
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Teaching Practice	54	40	25	18	35	26	18	13	4	3
Mathematics	44	27	30	19	42	26	4	3
Science	38	24	38	24	47	29	4	3	1	1
English	25	16	45	28	60	37	8	5
Social Studies	15	9	40	25	66	41	7	4	3	2
Integrated Arts	18	11	28	17	58	36	12	8	4	3
Average		21		22		33		6		2

43% of the respondents indicated that they believed that much more time was needed in the teacher education programme. (However less than 1% indicated that the overall length of the teacher education programme should be increased beyond 4 years.) Students indicated a preference for more time to be spent on developing their competence in the subject disciplines: 47% indicated that more time needs to be spent on developing their competence in Science, 44% in English, 34% in Social Studies and 28% in Integrated Arts. In particular 58% of the students indicated a preference for more time to be spent on Teaching Practice.

This is confirmed by the data, which indicated that 79% indicated a preference for more/much more time to be spent on the practical components of the course. Students are uncertain about the value of the theoretical dimensions of their course: 49% indicated that less time should be spent on theoretical dimensions of the course, yet 24% indicated that these dimensions should remain the same. This is consistent with the views of novice student teachers who desire more direct support in developing their practical expertise.

Table 9 below indicates how the different components of the course was rated in terms of their usefulness to the student teachers in terms of their future role as a teachers:

Table 9: Usefulness of course components to future role as a teacher

	Very Important		Important		Minor Importance		Not Important
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Practice related
Practical Work	117	78	29	19	4	3
Work in Schools	82	54	48	32	14	9	7	5
Pedagogical Issues
Demonstration lessons	88	58	47	31	12	8	4	3
Methodology	81	54	54	36	12	8	2	1
Groupwork	78	52	56	38	11	7	4	3
Smaller teaching groups	70	47	55	37	18	12	5	3
Textbooks	55	37	52	35	28	19	13	9
English language Teaching	48	32	70	47	21	14	8	5
Subject Content	32	22	67	47	32	22	13	9
Assessment related
Lecture notes	20	18	43	29	64	43	22	15
Examination preparation assistance	105	70	33	22	9	6.	4	3
Self Study	71	48	45	31	23	16	8	5

The last three items related to assessment perhaps reflect the timing when this questionnaire was administered: just prior to the final examination when students are concerned with passing or failing the examination. Again a pattern of preference for practical work (97%) and more contact with schools (86%) emerges as the important components of the course for the students. 89% again demonstrate a preference for demonstration lessons as a source of influence on their future role. 90% of the student rated the subject methodology components of the course as important/very important. 69% indicated their high rating (very important/important) for the subject content areas of the course.

5.3 Content and Methodology

A distinction between the subject content components and the subject methodology components is reflected in the Table 10 below.

Table 10: Preference for Time distribution across Content and Method sections of the curriculum

	Much more time needed		More time		Same time		Less time		Much less time
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
CONTENT	21	15	37	26	46	32	35	24	6	4
METHOD	54	37	53	37	23	16	9	6	6	4

74% of the students showed a preference for more emphasis in time to be allocated to the methodology section o the course. Only 40% indicated that there should be more/much more time spent on the content area of the course. This critique may be offered in terms of the number of hours spent outside the School of Educational Studies in the undergraduate content majors course.

"I was exposed in my final year of study to the teacher education programme in the Faculty of Education. Suddenly all my certainties were being challenged. I felt that I knew very little about how to teach the English language. Not how to teach grammar: that I had had several years of primary schooling drummed into me. In the 'lectures' in Special Method English. I became aware of the complex and integrated relationship between the different modes of language: reading, writing, speaking and listening. I had taken for granted that the spoken and written forms of language were the only important modes of language that a teacher needs to concentrate on when teaching English. In fact, I was going to be a secondary school teacher, and I thought that the knowledge of English literature was to be the prime focus of my teaching in the secondary school. I felt that my English I, II and II courses had adequately prepared me for this. What more can the Special Method English course teach me?" Emmanuel: Student teacher 19976

⁶ Extract from life history biography of student teacher in Samuel (1998)

68% of the students responded that they found the Mathematics component of the course very useful, but 91% indicated that they found the courses difficult/very difficult. This should be related to the data reported earlier concerning the poor competence in their secondary school mathematics.

Similarly the 74% of the students studying Science found the course content useful, but difficult/very difficult. 42% of the English students found the course very useful, but 64% indicated that the course was difficult/very difficult.

5.4 Teaching Practice

A more comprehensive report is necessary to depict the evaluation of the Teaching Practice component of the B. Paed course. In this section only some of the salient features and critique of the TP component will be offered.

The primary school student teachers of the sample indicated that the majority had been assigned the lower grades 3 and 4 to teach during their School-Based Teaching Practice. Many of the students were assigned to teach History or Geography in the school curriculum. Only 3% of the students indicated that they were assigned a full range of school subjects to teach in a primary school.

54% of the respondents indicated that they were not familiar with the textbooks that the schools were using before they went out to SBTP. 47% indicated that they did not have access to the school textbooks before SBTP. This suggests that nearly half of the cohort were not exposed in their university courses to textbooks. This may arise from the focus of the course on students developing their own textual material, given the strong critique that the university lecturers offer about the quality of school textbooks. 18% of the students indicated that they obtained the textbooks from the school. This suggests that the students chose to rely on other sources to generate material for their classroom lessons.

The majority of students (56%) indicated that they experienced 4 or more visits from their supervising lecturers during their six-week placement in the second session of SBTP. 82% of them nevertheless indicated that they required much more supervision from these lecturers.

In Table 11 the students ranked the following individuals as providing support during SBTP:

Table 11: Support during SBTP

	Very Useful		Quite Useful		Not much use		No use
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Class Teachers	81	59	37	27	16	12	4	3
Peers	80	57	45	32	9	7	4	3
Method Lecturers	80	57	41	29	15	11	4	3
Caretaker Supervisors	60	49	33	27	17	14	13	11
Other teachers	47	36	52	40	25	19	7	5
Teaching Practice Co-ordinator	40	32	37	30	27	22	19	15
Principal	38	29	43	33	32	24	19	14

The students indicated that they received the most support form the class teacher (59%), the method lecturers who supervise them (57%) and their student peers (57%). This suggests that the model of collaborative partnership between these three participant groups is perceived as useful to the student teachers. However these statistics do not reveal whether the class teachers interacted with the student teacher in the absence of the other participants. Reflections on teaching practice by the university staff members indicate that there is little engagement with the class teachers during their visits to schools.

In assisting them to prepare for SBTP the students ranked the following sources of influence:

Table 12: Resources to Prepare for SBTP

	Very Useful		Useful		Not very Useful		Of no use		Did not take place
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Media Education	65	45	60	41	16	11	5	3	-	-
Discussions with School teachers	53	37	66	46	12	8	4	3	10	7
Discussions with Lecturers	45	33	62	46	21	16	5	4	2	2
Lectures	34	28	55	45	26	21	5	4	2	2
Lecturers' Method notes	31	24	53	41	32	24	14	11	1	1
Professional Studies	15	12	44	34	28	21	31	24	13	10

This table highlights the importance that students afford to the Media Education course (86% rated this course as useful/very useful). This could be explained in terms of the students needing to develop alternative material in their action research projects. The school textbooks usually were not adequate to address the identified problems that students encountered. 82% indicated the usefulness of the mentor teacher as a resource during SBTP. The poor rating of the Professional Studies course (24%) is worth noting.

Possible improvements to the TP course were indicated through the students' expression of where they preferred more time to be allocated in their teacher preparation course. Table 13 below describes this preference.

92% suggested more time should be spent on preparation at the university prior to SBTP. 97% indicated the need to spend more time on learning to design teaching and learning material. 88% ranked watching other teachers teach as valuable. 82% felt the need for subject method lecturers to spend more time supervising them during SBTP. The demonstration lesson of method lecturers was ranked by 87% as needing more time/much more time.

Table 13: Improving Teaching Practice

	Much more time needed		More time		No change		Less needed
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Preparation at university	99	70	32	23	6	42	5	4
Teaching and Learning Materials	89	61	3	36	4	3	-	-
Watching experienced teachers teach	72	50	56	39	11	8	6	4
Demonstration lessons by lecturers	72	49	57	39	15	10	4	3
Help in lesson planning	67	46	69	47	8	6	2	1
Visits by Method lecturers	62	43	57	39	20	14	7	5
No. of weeks on TP	58	40	29	20	44	30	16	11
Follow up discussions at university	57	39	61	42	19	13	8	6
School Teachers' input	50	36	66	47	21	15	4	3
Micro-teaching	49	36	52	39	28	21	6	4
Professional Studies	45	32	45	32	30	21	23	16
Principal's input	38	27	55	40	35	25	11	8

5.5 Overall rating

The overall rating of the course was good. 58% rated the entire course as good/excellent. However there is a definite poor rating of the quality of teaching/supervision in preparing students for the Teaching Practice component of the curriculum. 56% rated this component as poor/average. High ratings are attributed to the Subject contents area of the course. 68% rated this component as excellent/good; 60% rated the Methodology courses as excellent or good and 59% rated the Educational Theory components as excellent or good.