5.1 Introduction

This section looks at some of the ways in which TP was carried out and experienced by the student teachers, with particular reference to the practice of supervision, and to the support offered by the schools.

5.2 Supervision

One of the major concerns expressed in the studies that evaluated the NTTC teaching practice over the years has been over the supervision of TP itself (Sebatane et Al, 1987; Hopkins, 1996; Ntho, 1998; and Moorosi, 1998). In line with the previous studies on teaching practice, participants of this study were asked to comment on a number of issues concerning supervision of teaching practice.

Students are supposed to be visited at least four times by college lecturers. However, as Table 2 shows, almost half of the students (49%) reported only two visits, and only 15% said they got the stipulated number or more.

Problems with transport to schools are often said to affect the school visits and therefore undermine proper professional support of students in teaching practice. However, an analysis by district shows that geographical distance from the college is only part of the reason. Certainly few students in the outlying districts of Quthing and Mohale's Hoek had more than two visits, but neither did half the students in Maseru. Proportionately more students got three or more visits in Berea, Mafeteng and Butha-buthe. Other problems are discussed below.

Table 2: Number of times visited by district

District	1	2	3	4 or more	No response	Total
Mafeteng	1	2	7	5	-	15
Quthing	-	6	1		-	7
Leribe	3	13	8	2	-	26
Berea	1	6	7	3	1	18
Mohale' Hoek	-	8	2	-	-	10
Maseru	7	10	14	4	-	35
Butha-Buthe	-	2	3	3	-	8
Total	12 (10%)	47 (39%)	42 (35%)	17 (13%)	1 (0.8%)	119

The student teachers were asked to indicate the number of times they were visited by the same lecturer. The majority (37.8%) of the student teachers who were visited by the same lecturer were in the Leribe district, followed by those who were in Maseru with 24.3%, Berea with 16.2% and then Mafeteng with 13.5%.

Table 3: Number of times a Lecturer visited a student by district

District	How many different Lecturers visited?
	Same Lecturer	2 different lecturers	3 or more lecturers
Mafeteng	5 (13.5%)	5 (31.3%)	5 (7.9%)
Quthing	-	2 (12.5%)	5 (7.9%)
Leribe	14 (37.8%)	1 (6.3%)	9 (14.3%)
Berea	6 (16.2%)	3 (18.8%)	9 (14.3%)
Mohale's Hoek	1 (2.7%)	10 (17.0%)	9 (14.3%)
Maseru	9 (24.3%)	5 (31.3%)	20 (31.7%)
Buthat-Buthe	2 (5.4%)	8(14.9%)	6 (9.5%)
Total	37 (100%)	16 (100%)	63 (100%)

Table 3 tends to suggest that the students who were placed in the furthest districts, Quthing, Mohale's Hoek and Butha-Buthe were not as regularly visited by the same lecturer as those who were in the districts near Maseru. Perhaps, long distance between the College and those districts is one of the contributory factors to the observed situation. Regrettably, it would seem that students who choose these districts run a risk of not receiving consistent professional support.

Respondents were asked to indicate the type of assistance that lecturers provided during their visits. The figures can only give a partial picture as they depend on student recall, but they indicate that while written and verbal feed back is quite common, students are infrequently told what grade they were given, and sometimes they feel the observer has given them nothing at all. The table confirms other data from students and lecturers that visits are often rushed, with little time for post-observation conferencing and advice. The fact that students are sometimes graded even on the first visit suggests that lecturers know they may not return.

Table 4: Type of Assistance Provided by Tutors during their TP visits

Visits	Type of Assistance
	Given a grade	Written feedback	Verbal feedback	Observed-but no feedback
1st visit	15	24	20	11
2nd visit	10	19	16	9
3rd visit	11	7	14	-
4th visit	2	6	4	4
Total	38	56	54	24

It seems from this data that Hopkin's recommendations for improving supervision had so far had little effect. A long-standing problem is that tutors supervising one year-group of students still have their other teaching and college duties to perform. While some departments make internal arrangements to free certain lecturers to undertake supervision on behalf of the department, others do not.

Lecturers interviewed highlighted the following issues: the negative impact of staff turnover on teaching practice; problems in travelling to sites; and the need to have more vehicles for both teaching practice and teaching practice preparation. However, one of the respondents said some changes concerning transport - the use of personal cars against expense claims - had allowed lecturers to visit students somewhat more regularly.

It was later reported that certain changes made in 1999 may alleviate the problem in future. Attempts have been made to allocate supervisors to specific groups of students within the same schools or district. Those visiting remote areas may claim a subsistence allowance for overnight stays.

5.3 Experiences in Schools

Schools are supposed to introduce students to teaching in a supported and phased way, but this does not always seem to be the case. For example, trainees are not supposed to teach more than 15 periods a week (Hopkin, 1996) but when asked to indicate the number of teaching periods they were allocated during TP, they reported a wide range: from just two to 36 periods a week. Only 32 (26.7%) student teachers indicated that they had a teaching load of 15 periods while 15 (12.5%) reported that they taught for 18 periods. This situation might mean that some students operate as full time teachers in the schools in which they are placed during those four months of their TP. It can be speculated that they either relieve teachers who go on sick and/or maternity leave or those who join the Examinations Council marking board for standard 7 examinations.

The respondents were asked to comment on the level of difficulty they encountered with certain aspects of teaching, and whether they got help with such aspects. The following two tables show the responses.

Table 5: Student Perceptions of the Level of Difficulty of Some Aspects of Teaching

Aspects of teaching	Difficult	Moderately difficult	Easy	No response
Lesson planning	2 (1.7%)	33 (27.5%)	80 (66.7%)	5 (4.2%)
Scheming	40 (33.3%)	-	74 (61.7%)	6 (5.0%)
Record of work done	5 (4.2%)	22 (18.3%)	87 (72.5%)	6 (5.0%)
Deciding on appropriate teaching methods	11 (9.2%)	59 (49.2%)	47 (39.2%)	3 (2.5%)
Classroom control	30 (25.0%)	29 (24.2%)	37 (30.8%)	24 (20.0%)
Finding appropriate teaching materials	23 (19.2%)	32 (26.7%)	35 (29.2%)	30 (25.0%)
Class size	42 (35.0%)	34 (28.3%)	34 (28.3%)	10 (8.3%)
Total	152	209	394	84

The patterns shown in Table 5 suggest that students' greatest difficulties concerned managing and controlling the large classes common in many Lesotho primary schools. Finding appropriate teaching materials and deciding on appropriate teaching methods could also be problematic. While they found lesson planning and recording work relatively easy, a third found it hard to produce schemes of work. These findings have implications for the College curriculum and the need to prepare students more adequately for large classes and for some of the more advanced professional skills.

When asked to comment on the level of help received on these aspects of teaching, many student teachers' responses were fairly positive, but it was clear there were also gaps in the support they were given.

Table 6: Aspects of teaching which trainees did not get sufficient help with from the school when they needed it

Aspects of teaching	No help	Some help	Enough help	No response
Lesson planning	28 (35.0%)	35 (29.2%)	44 (36.7%)	13 (10.8%)
Scheming	14 (11.7%)	26 (21.7%)	63 (52.5%)	17 (14.2%)
Record of work done	21 (17.5%)	26 (21.7%)	59 (49.2%)	14 (11.7%)
Deciding on appropriate Methods of teaching	31 (25.8%)	36 (30.0%)	43 (35.8%)	10 (8.3%)
Classroom control	32 (26.7%)	30 (25.0%)	44 (36.6%)	14 (11.7%)
Finding appropriate Teaching materials	25 (20.8%)	35 (29.2%)	46 (38.3%)	14 (11.7%)
Ability to express myself	29 (15.8%)	26 (21.7%)	34 (28.3%)	41 (65.8%)
Knowledge of contents To be taught	14 (11.7%)	34 (28.3%)	36 (30.7%)	36 (30.0%)

The figures in Table 6 suggest that substantial numbers of trainees - over a third in most cases - felt the school gave them enough help, and many more got at least 'some help'. Taking these two tables together, one can see that in some areas where they had little support, such as lesson planning, most felt confident about handling it on their own. Conversely, in areas such as classroom control and selecting appropriate teaching methods, which many find difficult, it is worrying that a quarter felt they had received no help at all.

5.4 School and College Partnership - cooperating teachers

It is clear that student teachers expect some professional assistance to be provided by the cooperating teachers and that they are disappointed if it does not come. In fact, according to Moorosi (1998) co-operating teachers were introduced in schools with the purpose of assisting the College, especially after the decision to re-deploy the field-based College intern supervisors. Thus, students should not, under normal circumstances, be experiencing the kind of frustrations they have reported in this sub-study.

However, it seems that little attention has been paid to preparing such teachers to take on this responsibility. Hopkin (1996) suggested that workshops should be set up to explain to teachers the role expected of them, and to make them conversant with the assessment procedures in which they were to play their part. The Teaching Practice Coordinator, said that in 1997 three training workshops were indeed held, on a regional level, with the purpose of:

(a) familiarizing principals of schools and co-operating teachers with the importance of teaching practice and on College's expectation concerning the role they were to play in helping student teachers; and

(b) examining the observation instruments, their implications and the mode of evaluation.

The fact that no such workshops were held in 1998 nor in 1999, implies that co-operating teachers and school principals are not given regular training for their task of helping the students when on TP. Furthermore, new headteachers get appointed in schools and they too would benefit from such training. It is hardly surprising therefore that the findings of the previous TP evaluation studies consistently report poor or low level of participation by cooperating teachers in helping student teachers.