Abstract
With the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals in place, the quality of teacher education is a global concern. With so much talent mobility and brain circulation, any migration of low-quality educators from one region will affect the quality of education in the destination part of the global village. The study examined how the interplay in the aftermath of the cyclones, COVID-19, supervisors’ quality, and student characteristics impacted student-teachers' experiences during the scrambled teaching practice supervision model. Thematic and content analyses of data from document analysis and semi-structured interviews from purposefully sampled Southern Africa Development Community countries revealed that relying on physical teaching practice supervision negatively impacts assessment, especially when even non-specialists are involved in the supervision. Educators’ inadequate pedagogical content knowledge, space effect, and multiple exposures to assessment compromise teacher education amidst pandemics and natural disasters. The study recommends migration to computer-based online supervision strategies as a mitigation strategy. Recommendations for an educational policy, practicum, and architectural adaption are discussed.
Plain language summary
This phenomenological qualitative study examined student teachers’ views on non-specialist faculty teaching supervision during natural disasters and pandemics. Trained research assistants interviewed people in four countries. 35 newly graduated teachers from five Southern African Development Community nations were interviewed. NVivo 12 thematic and content analysis showed that non-specialist faculty supervising teacher interns during their final field practice degrades higher education. The study found that this scrambled teaching practice supervision policy during natural disasters and COVID-19 increased subjectivity in scoring and grading, decreased professional feedback, stifled intern innovation and creativity, and created tense environments as supervisors avoided pre- and post-conferences with interns. The guideline also encouraged interns to cheat by fabricating new lectures to please evaluators while reworking them with their pupils. Non-specialists were also more theory-bound. The “lag effect,”“spacing effect,” and “distributed effect” during practicum assessment and evaluation are affected by the flash floods and the pandemic’s limited supervision period. Policy ramifications are discussed. The study advises specialized online supervision. By not doing face-to-face interviews, researchers lost rich data from body language, gestures, and other non-verbal communication. Such data would enhance analysis.
Keywords
Introduction
A burgeoning quantity of studies emphasizes the critical need for high-quality teachers (Grossman & Pupik Dean, 2019; Mathisen & Bjørndal, 2016; Musset, 2010) to represent disadvantaged populations (Brooks, 2021). However, extensive research in teacher education (TE) over the last decennium reveals that TE is a systematic process in which the quality of inputs and the environment coalesce to impact the quality of outputs. The process faces many challenges, including a shortage of qualified staff (Moyi, 2017), faculty quality (Eren & Tezel, 2010; Vagi et al., 2019), quality of the programs, cost of production (Hanley & Thompson, 2021; Zeichner, 2014), and assessment. Along that vein, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) TE perpetually suffers the anguishing blow of storms and tropical cyclones, which significantly threaten education practice in SADC, the quality of learner support, and their professional growth (Chertoff et al., 2020; Muhammad et al., 2021; OCHA, 2022a, 2022b). Between 2000 and 2022 the region has suffered a minimum of 30 cyclones (Carnwell, 2021). Face-to-face STP supervision is no longer sufficient in the wake of pandemics like COVID 19, which affect visitation frequency due to mobility restrictions and social distancing (Çamlibel-Acar & Eveyik-Aydin, 2022; Chertoff et al., 2020) and impassable road networks damaged by natural disasters on the rise due to climate change. The actors, such as the curriculum, the teaching practice (TP) students, teacher educators, the environment (Banda et al., 2023), and the quality of the human resources, coalesce in the constellation (Cresswell et al., 2010) to define the quality of the graduate.
The contemporary challenges need mitigation strategies that defy geographical limitations (Banda & Banda, 2023). SADC countries are worrisomely adopting online education systems at a snail’s pace. Notwithstanding this, scholarship on how the interplay among natural disasters, pandemics, and supervisor quality affects student-teacher support and professional development remains low.
TP is an indispensable and crucial stage in the TE process (Becker et al., 2019; Curtis et al., 2019; Goh & Matthews, 2011; Iqbal & Saeed, 2021; Jenset et al., 2018; Rao et al., 2014; Wilson, 2006) for the professional growth of a student-teacher (ST) (Inoue & Oketch, 2008 ; Moyi, 2011 ; Ravishankar et al., 2016). Its models differ with countries and institutions (Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; Lindsay, 1993). Some institutions rely on scrambled teaching practice (STP) supervision (Ingvarson et al., 2013; Uerz et al., 2018; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), while others do not. We define STP as a TP model in which supervisors observe and evaluate STs regardless of differences in their discipline specialties. For example, a music specialist lecturer may evaluate a TP student in chemistry. Similarly, a biology specialist with zero knowledge of French may evaluate a student in French. This mismatch raises questions of quality and consistency between theory and practicum feedback (Mathisen & Bjørndal, 2016). An ST is an individual undergoing an accredited initial TE program to become a professional teacher upon certification (Ingvarson et al., 2013; Uerz et al., 2018; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Zhao defines an ST as a student who is pursuing a career as a teacher and who, as part of their education, spends time in an elementary or secondary school observing classroom activities or providing instruction under close supervision (Zhao, 2012). For purposes of this study, we use the terms “TP student(s)” and “intern(s)” interchangeably with ST(s).
Therefore, preparing teachers for the next generation demands changing how TE institutions operate (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Møller-Skau & Lindstøl, 2022). There is a great need to reorganize, redesign and restructure operational structures in TE to employ effective proactive measures that transcend physical mobility challenges in today’s technologically rich milieu (Fukkink et al., 2011; Mathisen & Bjørndal, 2016), thanks to the increasingly affordable and user-friendly range of instructional technologies for instruction, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment.
Rationale and Application of this Study
Available literature reveals an extensive, profound scholarship on TP within and beyond SADC. Besides, a growing amount of literature is available on teaching and learning during COVID-19. Many studies focus on faculty quality’s role in students’ preparation for field practice, placement issues, and challenges associated with the traditional triadic approach to preservice TP supervision. Despite such a plethora of research, the literature on the impact of non-specialist teacher-educators quality supervising TP against the backdrop of COVID-19 and tropical cyclones’ aftermath remains scanty.
Mobility limitations caused by COVID-19 prevention measures revealed a complication in TP scheduling. While university theoretical components of TE are relatively easier to migrate online, migrating TP supervision remains challenging. The increasing frequency of tropical cyclones in SADC compounds the mobility challenges impacting field practice visits. Despite the dissipation of COVID-19 in many parts of the world, a future recurrence of pandemics with similar magnitude of the adverse impact on education or more cannot be ruled out. Therefore, learning from recent experiences will better equip systems for the future.
Relevance of the Study
A clear and informed policy cannot be overemphasized in TE (Banda et al., 2022). Owing to how important TP is to TE and how the scrambled mode amidst the cyclones and pandemics can increasingly compromise TE quality, this timely study will help inform institutional policy, the institutional and organizational structure of schools of education, resource optimization, and TE practice and curriculum reforms to contribute to the amelioration of TE quality in SADC given the pandemics, natural disasters, and other challenges related to the mismatch in the specialties.
STP Implementation in These Countries
Field practicum duration and model vary with countries and institutions (Luchembe, 2021) due to policy, urgency, and human and nonhuman resource availability (Cuane, 2022; Tahir, 2003). Sometimes supervision coincides with campus theory work, which has a daunting impact on commissioning and the frequency of supervision (Sempowicz & Hudson, 2011).
STP in Malawi and Zambia
STP implementation in Malawi and Zambia is somewhat similar. Some schools of education are joined with other faculties, such that other faculties teach content. In contrast, schools of education handle the methodology and foundation course’s parts during theory, while both entities are involved in field supervision (Luchembe, 2021).
However, there is a different flavor of STP implementation in Zambia besides the one described above: In this study, some participants came from an institution that upgrades professional primary school teachers into secondary school teachers through distance mode. All the faculty are qualified teacher-educators but not qualified in distance education, too (Longe & Chiputa, 2003). This is a great mismatch between one’s specialization and one’s practice.
STP in Mozambique and Madagascar
In Mozambique, the scrambling of the teaching practice is twofold: Firstly, many of those handling TE programs are not specialized in TE, yet they supervise field practicum (Longe & Chiputa, 2003; Tahir, 2003). As a result, some get confused about whether they should supervise, explore, or give student support (Luchembe, 2021). The second model of scrambling of TE supervision is that some TE institutions are equipped with academic staff qualified as secondary school teacher trainers. However, these faculty members handle TE programs for primary education. There is a technical mismatch between their specialization and what they handle (Tahir, 2003).
The circumstance in Madagascar and those that exist in Mozambique are not all that dissimilar from one another. Much as teachers for primary schools receive training over the course of 2 years, teachers for lower secondary schools receive training over the course of 3 years, and general upper secondary school teachers receive training over the course of 5 years at a university, the training and supervision are provided by faculty members specializing in a variety of fields.
STP in Zimbabwe
The implementation of STP in Zimbabwe takes yet a different model. During teaching practice in Zimbabwe, students are supervised and assessed not only by the supervisors assigned to them but also by a group of lecturers supervising them as a team and TP host staff members (Chimhenga, 2017). The school staff are not trained as teacher educators, but may only share a specialization with the student-teachers. The fact that the tutor grades and offers advice induces apprehension in the student, which may impede the student’s ability to assume the role of a teacher. Typically, the supervisor assigns a rating to the trainee’s work. For supervisors to designate accurate student grades, adequate proof must be collected. It should also be noted that corrections and feedback should be clear and instructive to assist students in enhancing their instruction (Chimhenga, 2017). The Zimbabwean setting of STP tends to be deficient in this aspect.
Chimhenga irrevocably argues that this model of supervising or evaluating a student’s lesson occasionally leads to disputes between the trainees and their supervisors (Chimhenga, 2017), resulting in heated verbal exchanges and, on infrequent occasions, physical altercations. This strategy has caused the supervision component to suffer, while trainees believe they have been unfairly treated and regard such appraisals as questionable (Chimhenga, 2017). Research demonstrates that supervisors substantially impact the trainees’ performance during TP. To emphasize the significance of quality supervisors, Marais and Meier noted that student teachers expressed their experience of practical training through a variety of interactions and relationships, a crucial requirement for learning is the student teachers’ relationship with the mentor (Chimhenga, 2017; Marais & Meier, 2004). Smith observed that due to the supervisor’s attitude toward trainees, who tend to be highly subservient, they are made to feel inferior and helpless (Smith, 2010). Some supervisors believe the university has already equipped students with the knowledge and skills necessary to teach. Therefore, they are hesitant to help them develop the fundamental skills they need. Numerous studies have found that inadequacy in the supervision and training of the supervisor (typical of STP) diminishes the efficacy of practical teaching and can result in a negative experience of TP (Marais & Meier, 2004).
Nonetheless, the supervisors are supposed to foster environments that permit TP students to freely express their opinions in a dialogical setting and play the combined roles of instructor and student during this process because TP is grounded in the ideology of emancipatory education since it attempts to empower both TP students and teacher educators to actively participate in the learning process (Chikunda, 2008). Howbeit, many supervisors continue to adopt the neoclassical instrumentalist approach to supervision instead of guiding the students through the maze of professional development and providing for the professional freedoms and ingenuity of the TP students. However, confused, rigid neoclassical instrumentalist supervisors do not allow student creativity and an open-minded, critical approach to the precise dictates of classroom practice (Chikunda, 2008; Moyo, 1997).
General Objective
This study aimed to examine how the interplay among the actors in STP influenced student-teachers’ experiences and professional development.
Specific Objectives
The study is guided by these questions:
What do TP students think about the similarities and differences among methodologies across the different subjects?
What guides TP students’ preferences for the kind of supervisors?
What is the TP students’ assessment of the quality of professional support from the supervisors?
How do TP students rate the effectiveness of supervision regarding the frequency of observations?
How do the TP students feel about the spacing between consecutive observations?
All the above questions coalesce into one main idea: does the type and level of supervision provided in STP optimize professional development in TE when supervised by underqualified supervisors or those whose specialty is not the same as that of the supervisees?
Theoretical Framework
Achieving quality in TE and TP requires “material-semiotic methods.” Therefore, to holistically understand TP students’ experiences during their professional field practice, this study employs the Actor-Network-Theory developed by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law in the 1980s (Bencherki, 2017). The theory assumes that the output of every process depends on the discursively heterogeneous relationships, interactions, and coalescence of the roles of various inextricably and coextensively human and inanimate, or social and technical agents (Alcadipani & Hassard, 2010; Latour, 2005; Walsham, 1997).
The Actors in this Network
With this theory, and in line with available research, the researchers identified the student, the supervisor, the curriculum, the financial resources, the timetabling, and the environment as actors in creating a professional teacher during TP (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014).
One of the actors in the practicum supervision is learner experiences (programing and timetables). Ensuring that preservice teachers have appropriate experience during their training has substantial ramifications for both teacher educators and TP students, ultimately attaining SDG (Eren & Tezel, 2010; Kim & Corcoran, 2017; Liang et al., 2010). The experiences encompass the number of times a student gets observed, the quality of feedback, and the frequency of observations—say, the maximum number of observations per day. It also refers to the spacing between consecutive observations. Research indicates that the “spacing effect” influences information processing and retention (Cayir & Ulupinar, 2021; Sobel et al., 2011). Scholars call it the “distributed effect” as it advocates adequately distributing instruction across a time space (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Dunlosky & Rawson, 2015; Sobel et al., 2011). Regular and evenly spaced assessment improves retention and performance rather than piling all the tests within a short period (McManus, 2016; Surma et al., 2018). There must be a healthy lag effect between consecutive observations (Cepeda et al., 2008; Sobel et al., 2011). The number of visits and the spacing between successive visits are critical (Surma et al., 2018). Some systems use videos to help TP students have enough time to reflect on their practice (Kaneko-Marques, 2015).
Teacher-educator quality is another entity in teaching and learning (Feuer et al., 2013; Kim & Corcoran, 2017). No education system can be better than the quality of its teacher educators (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017). The quality of supervisors influences TP students’ professional and didactic competence (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014). It is vital to attaining quality education (Cayir & Ulupinar, 2021; Vagi et al., 2019).
The quality of TE has been a tremendous global concern (Banda et al., 2021; Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014). Teachers command respect internally commensurate with their general qualifications and specialized professional level (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014). A teacher with less PCK loses respect while supervising and evaluating the TP students. On the other hand, external respect comes from their psycho-social attributes (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014) and executive functions. The quality and characteristics of the TP students are equally important in this framework. Their background, psycho-social aspects, and motivation determine the quality of learning during TP (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014). TP students from homes torn apart by the cyclones and the pandemic need extra support to unleash their potential. Many institutions, faced with budgetary and funding constraints, can significantly compromise TP programs (Greculescu & Todorescu, 2014).
Methods
Design and Participants
The study situates the methodology against the backdrop of the global mobility challenges due to COVID-19 prevention and control measures, and SADC in particular, due to the aftermath of the cyclones and the nature of the TP supervisors. The aftermath of the pandemic and the hurricanes influenced the hypothesis in this study. We hypothesized that involving specialist supervisors only in supervising TP would significantly improve learning during TP.
This phenomenological qualitative study examined how the interplay among the actors in STP influenced student-teachers’ experiences and professional development. Using online interviews to collect unstructured data from bachelor’s degree holders who had just graduated in 2021 from various TEIs from SADC member states. The countries were Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Madagascar. These countries were purposefully sampled because they were recently stricken by the catastrophic Cyclones Idai, affecting education processes and programs and the livelihoods of almost 3 million people (Devi, 2019; UNICEF, 2019), Ana, Emnati, and Batsirai (OCHA, 2022a), which led to the significant loss of COVID-19 vaccines in many health facilities after storage facilities were damaged by the floods (UNICEF, 2022; UNICEF-MADAGASCAR, 2022). The study was conducted while the region was battling against the Omicron strain of the COVID-19 virus traced in one of them and hit by devastating tropical cyclones, which rendered people homeless, without food, without access to schools, and with health infrastructure damaged. Schools were cut off from the road network (OCHA, 2022a; UNICEF, 2022; United_Nations_Malawi, 2022). Some teacher education institutions (TEIs) closed down during this time due to the ravages of COVID-19.
Using the Google Search , we searched for various TEIs in each of the five participant countries, and ranked them. The search words and phrases included "best teacher education institutions in (+Country name)", "top education colleges in (+Country name)", "teacher education supervision in (+Country name)", "teaching practice in (+Country name)", "top ranking colleges of education in (+Country name)", "field practice and teacher education in (+Country name)", and "practicum supervision in (+Country name)". From the lists in each country, we randomly picked one TEI and contacted them using details shared online to help the researchers talk to the TP coordinators at each TEI. Upon request, and upon a scrutiny of our ethical clearance, each TP coordinator provided one graduate’s active and reachable WhatsApp or Facebook messenger contacts.
The sample was confined to 2021 graduates because they had fresh memories of their experiences from field practice, having experienced a double punch from the latest cyclones and COVID-19 pandemic effects by the time of the study. The study enrolled the participants who had finished their various TPs and graduated from their different TE institutions in these countries through the snowball sampling technique. The researchers opted for getting the rest of the participants through snowballing by schoolmates because we wanted to increase the level of confidence and comfortability in the participants to share their lived experiences once they knew their names were proposed by their colleagues or close friends to provide such personal experiences to researchers who were completely strangers in all aspects. Peers trust each other at times more than they do teachers.
Some literature indicates that to ensure an in-depth and richly textured understanding of the issue under research while managing the complexity of data in qualitative studies, samples between around 20 and 50 (Sandelowski, 1995) are sufficient on the principle of information power (Vasileiou et al., 2018), while participants above 50 from the same category could generate enough new data (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Morse indicates that when sampling for qualitative interviews, researchers must consider the study scope, participants’ accessibility, and the study design (Morse, 2000). Since we used open-ended questions, which normally generate richer data (Ogden & Cornwell, 2010), we limited our sample to 35 participants. Of these, 7 were from Madagascar, 7 from Malawi, 7 from Mozambique, 7 from Zambia, and 7 from Zimbabwe. Eleven of them majored in languages (6 males and 5 females). There was a total of 13 females and 22 males. Eleven were from STEM (8 males and 3 females), and 6 were from social sciences (5 males and 1 female) and humanities (2 males and 4 females). 11 participants were between 22 and 24 years old while 24 were between 25 and 27. Participants specializations were mixed this way because the basic assumption here was that including participants from the four broad disciplines would enrich the different perspectives, providing various methodological experiences and content concerning inconsistencies in specialization between teacher-educators and student-teachers. A similar sampling approach was made among preservice teachers in China (Zhang et al., 2018).
The instrument was developed following a thorough evaluation of the available literature. The instrument was validated by three independent professionals in TE who removed some items and introduced more befitting ones. It was later piloted among 20 graduates from schools of education. We collected unstructured text data through interviews conducted remotely through WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Participants shared their lived experiences with TP. All participants responded through texting, and no voice calls were made to minimize errors in transcoding from voice to text. We also collected scanned copies of their duplicate TP observation and evaluation forms. These copies were used to validate statements participants alleged against supervisors. For instance, if one said non-specialists gave higher marks than specialists or vice versa, we verified such statements with the evaluation forms. The interviewers requested the interviewees to make video calls with their cameras turned away for participant anonymity and confidentiality. The call was for the interviewers to introduce themselves to the participant without necessarily looking at the participant's face. This was to increase the sense of confidence and confidentiality. The step was necessary to make the interviewers feel comfortable giving the essential information. The participants were also sent copies of the ethical clearance and were informed that their participation was voluntary. They were also encouraged to obscure their and their supervisors’ names from the evaluation forms.
Data Analysis
Using an inductive approach, since we had two different formats of data (scanned images and unstructured plain text), we blended content data analysis and thematic data analysis in NVivo 10. The unstructured data was cleaned before coding and developing the relevant themes. After loading the scripts into the system, we developed initial codes. Then we ran the word frequency query to help generate a new set of codes based on the most frequent words across all the text data files. We queried the most frequently occurring 100 words, at least four characters each. We chose the 100 most frequently occurring words because we deemed it fit that the list would be long enough to yield adequate keywords to generate the second set of codes. We chose the minimum length of each word to be three characters because we were minimizing the inclusion of many less critical simple morphemes (such as “is, was, can, has, be, I, he, she, we, etc.), which were less informative as regards development of our codes.
Subsequently, each word was traced to understand its context and the stories around them. However, going through the texts again revealed other less frequently occurring words that carried exciting stories we finally included in the themes. We compared and contrasted this second set of codes with the initial one to group them into the third set of umbrella codes. The third set that we refactored this last set helped us come up with the themes. We used the scanned documents to vet some of the themes. For instance, we checked when a participant claimed that a supervisor was not giving explicit comments or inadequate feedback. In that case, we reviewed the scripts and scanned copies of the observation and evaluation forms. We finally came up with four themes, though they are not presented in that order due to cross-cutting elements among them:
Inconsistencies (lesson plan format, subject-specific pedagogies). This theme was related to the first objective, which analyzed students’ perceptions of the similarities and differences among methodologies for different learning areas.
Insufficient feedback (influenced by situational and personal characteristics, diagnostic thinking, and diagnostic behavior). This theme addressed the second objective about what guided students’ preferences concerning the type of supervisors and their assessment of the quality of professional support from the supervisors.
Irregular programming (spacing effect, distributed effect, lag effect). This theme was related to the TP students’ rating of the effectiveness of supervision regarding the frequency and the spacing between consecutive observations.
Environment (executive functions, social and emotional learning, pre-conference, or the lack of it, affecting the emotional stability, TP students being disturbed by the type of supervisors). This theme addressed the second objective about what guided students’ preferences concerning the kind of supervisors and their assessment of the quality of professional support from the supervisors.
Results
The participants’ responses indicated significant contrasts between experiences with specialists and non-specialists. The differences were in methodologies, quality of discussions and feedback, and the learning atmosphere. Here we present the results along with these themes. We include selected quotations to highlight the points raised. For anonymity, we used name codes for all the interviewees.
There was a total of 112 observations for the 35 participants. Non-specialists carried out 71.4% (n = 80) of the observations, while specialists carried out only 28.6% (n = 32). Some situations indicated that there were more students compared to the total number of visits by specialists, meaning specialists never visited some students. Twenty percent of the students complained of having had more than one supervision within a day. Of the observations that violated the principle of distributed effect, 71% were from languages, 29% from STEM, and none were from social sciences and humanities. All the multiple observations within a day were carried out toward the end of the TP period, indicating that the supervision team was running short of time. Extant studies show that supervision commences late (Kiggundu & Nayimuli, 2009; Msangya et al., 2016), and the supervision time usually is inadequate (Manchishi & Mwanza, 2014; Msuya, 2022).
The concerned students lamented that the duration between their arrival at placement schools and their first observations was worrisomely longer than that of their colleagues. At the same time, the subsequent observations were too close to each other (Table 1).
Sample Distribution by Specialty.
Inconsistencies
There was a hot debate between supervisors and students on lesson plan formats. Most non-specialist supervisors expressed ignorance about the existence or possibility of customized departmental lesson plans. Others also penalized the TP students for using the generic lesson plan format.
He did not know the format of our lesson plan. I felt terrible. (TP student J) For example, in conflicts from the lesson plan, there was much debate which had no solutions as lecturers insisted that they were right (TP student A) We had a significant challenge when he suggested that my lesson plan format was unsuitable. He came from a department whose lesson plan templates differed from ours. (TP student B) There were conflicts in the lesson plan format. He advocated a structure with which I was not very familiar. Some designs are subject-specific, while others are generic. (TP student C)
However, few supervisors accepted the customized lesson plans provided by the specific departments and quickly understood the TP students’ different lesson plan formats. Some students promptly acknowledged that some supervisors could appreciate that prescriptive campus lectures and theories were subordinate to situational understanding. This acknowledgment is reflected in a proposal for a hermeneutic paradigm by Chikunda (2008) in Zimbabwe for a more flexible interaction between student teachers and teacher-educators. This was what some interviewees intimated: He followed the marking sheet and lesson plan design, so our discussion was okay. (TP student D) In my case, it was okay since it seemed they were oriented on the format of science lesson plans. (TP student E)
Non-specialists without customized formats stressed the TP students with monologs of prescriptive pre-conferences. TP students emphasized that contradictions confused them a lot. One participant had this to say: To me, both specialists and non-specialists are welcome. I only request that everyone has uniform ideas on what to supervise if that time comes. Not that they should be using the information which they obtained from elsewhere. (TP student F)
Insufficient Feedback, Environment, and Irregular Programming
Students were concerned about supervisors’ PCK, which they opined that it affected the clarity of written feedback and scoring. Two students from language students indicated a lack of satisfaction with vaguely written remarks (such as: not well done, good, not very good) without specifying how to make practice better. This influenced them to question the scoring criteria by non-specialists without adequately commenting on the content knowledge. The quotation below highlights the students’ experience: Marks awarded by a specialist are more genuine than those of a non-specialist. (TP student B) I was waiting for feedback on the mastery of content, and paradoxically, he was handicapped in that area, yet he was required to assign a grade to that attribute. So grading was somehow unfair. I did not get what I deserved. How could he ably comment on my content mastery when he does not have it himself? Could he understand and appreciate specific methods? (TP student C) On the score, marks allocation by a specialist were better and more honest than by a non-specialist. The latter is usually subjective. (TP student G) Specialists differ in scoring from non-specialists in the content knowledge area. Non-specialists cannot justify their grades well. That is a big challenge; they had to justify such a score. However, they allocated them well on general classroom routines, dressing, and presentability issues. The score from specialists was more justifiable and not subjective. I recommend specialists. (TP student M)
The quotes above indicate that such supervisors were preoccupied with fulfilling their duties as assessors without reflecting on the impact on professional development. Our findings suggest that students felt that marks were awarded arbitrarily. These findings corroborate research results by Chikunda (2008).
Generally, TP students reported unpleasant psychological experiences with non-specialists. Many were afraid, anxious, and deranged. Notwithstanding this experience, some who were used to the supervision by non-specialists during micro-teaching did not feel muchly deranged by the situation. They testified that a good pre-conference could invigorate the student and positively impact lesson presentation. These findings corroborate a study by Kushwaha indicating that interns undergo much psychological disequilibrium, which needs to be carefully handled by supervisors such that some interns choose to run away from supervisors (Kushwaha, 2022). Chimhenga reports that some supervisors do not attempt to create a friendly atmosphere for interns (Chimhenga, 2017).
Initially, I had very negative feelings. I was scared and full of fear and disappointed at first. However, from the pre-conference discussions, I realized the lecturer was not there to frighten me but correct me (TP student H). The pre-conference helped me to sober up and relax. It relaxed me because they told me to be free, express myself, and not think about the arrangement as a process for fighting for a score. (TP student G)
To score higher, some TP students cheated the non-specialists by saying that what they were doing in the classroom was what they were taught in college, even when they knew it was a lie.
For example, I defended myself on something I knew I messed up. He was easily convinced and considered it the right thing in our department, and the marks I lost on that were restored. (TP student I)
In general, many TP students preferred specialist supervisors who could point out both strengths and areas that needed improvement. In particular, those with a good mastery of content knowledge preferred specialists more than those who were not so confident. TP students were more anxious about supervisors’ emphasis on grading than on the learning process. Since the supervisors possessed less expert knowledge, TP students assumed that emphasis was on the grade than the process. Our results are consistent with those of Chimhenga (2017). In Zimbabwe, Wailer et al. (2002) also found that students are worried about supervisors who are preoccupied with grading and not tutoring (Wailer et al., 2002). TP student F remarked as follows when confronted with a non-specialist supervisor: When I found out that it was not a lecturer from my department, I was so scared and anxious and had many questions in mind about whether he would be able to know what we do in our department. Will he grade me properly? So, I had a lot in mind. This thought deranged me and made me lose attention. I was worried about my score. I knew his content knowledge mastery would leave a lot to be desired. I was so confident in my content mastery. I needed someone who could follow through and give me befitting grades and feedback to help me unleash my potential. (TP student F)
The majority of the students felt that discussing with rigid supervisors with inadequate PCK was significantly non-productive. Supervisors were more concerned with prescribed outcomes than the process. Some were not willing to listen to TP students’ views. This made TP students feel that the rigid and monolog feedback was not helpful for professional development. A study in India indicated that some supervisors dominate discussions with students, while others do not regard any input from the interns (Kushwaha, 2022). Chimhenga also reports that students complained about supervisors filling out all the comments without students’ explanations (Chimhenga, 2017). Another study in Zimbabwe revealed that the supervisors were interested in the outcome, not the process (Wailer et al., 2002); Chiromo indicated that neoclassical instrumentalists’ prescriptive approach to supervision hampered fruitful dialog between TP students and supervisors (Chikunda, 2005; Chiromo, 2004). Below are quotations from two participants: We had an awful discussion. We did not discuss it the way it was supposed to because he did not know much about the concepts. His content knowledge was inadequate. His feedback was inadequate; it was a waste of time talking with a supervisor whose knowledge was below that of the student in the subject. He didn’t want to listen to my views. (TP student J) There were areas where we had to argue so much about content knowledge. Being a non-specialist, he was not very conversant with the syllabus requirements. We wasted time arguing. I understand he had a grounding in methodologies. However, the methods I felt he advocated were unsuitable for my lesson. Approaches in languages contrasted sharply with the methodologies in computer studies. (TP student C)
On the other hand, those with challenges in content mastery feared specialists because they would quickly find flaws in lesson planning, presentation, and content knowledge. A study in Malaysia revealed that students feared being supervised (Hoque et al., 2020). As a result, they rehearse lessons with students and repeat the best lessons when supervisors come just to register high performance and class participation. That way, the supervisor sees high student participation and misconstrues it for effective teaching. For instance, TP student H and TP student B said: I gained confidence and felt okay that I could deliver fully since non-specialists may not scrutinize my weaknesses in the instruction presentation due to a lack of content knowledge. Sometimes, I repeated the same lessons to cheat supervisors for a higher grade (TP student H).
Consequently, they hoped to cash in on the lack of expertise and cheat the supervisor in case of any questions. They end up teaching plastic lessons to please the supervisors. This finding corroborates the findings by Ongóndo (Ong’ondo & Borg, 2011).
Looking at myself as someone with possible challenges with content knowledge, honestly, I felt relieved I was like I would pass easily since he would not be able to figure out some errors in the content, that is, if I had left other information on the topic. I thought he would easily miss out on some crucial observations/mistakes. He could approve of something not praiseworthy. (TP student B)
Non-performers were concerned more with scores and not feedback that would lead to improvement than the higher performers.
I felt okay because I hoped for a better score knowing that the content knowledge would not be checked but the methods and other things, so I was up for it. I was concerned with the score. I was concerned about the score, so having someone who could not notice a mistake would work to my advantage. (TP student K)
Most of the latter paid more attention to professional development and were interested in more feedback than the scores. However, it was common for the TP students to complain about the quality of post-conferencing when the supervisors argued with inadequate content knowledge. Moreover, institutions were not scheduling the observations regularly. Some observations were done consecutively too close to each other, without enough time to reflect on the previous lesson observation comments, while others were done after TP students had finished all that was in the schemes of work. This frustrated many TP students. Sometimes two post-conferences were combined after the last class, so the first observation was either wholly useless or negatively impacted the subsequent one. Many of the 35 respondents in this study had very few observations. Elsewhere, few had up to three observations. Three respondents had three supervisions each, one had five visits, three had four visits, and 28 had two supervisions each. In worse scenarios, some TP students had two back-to-back supervisions with the same supervisor on the same day. In Zambia, Sempowicz and Hudson also found similar irregular scheduling of observation lumped toward the end of the TP period, making supervisors rush through the exercise to meet the minimum target number of supervisions per student (Sempowicz & Hudson, 2011).
The student would need enough break time to solicit the aids. Otherwise, they risk repeating the same mistakes in subsequent deficiencies. For example, inadequate instructional aids could not be rectified with back presentations.
Students’ perceptions about how COVID-19 and cyclones impacted the spacing and distributed effect
TP students from some schools remarked that supervision commenced very late due to temporary COVID-19-related school closure, close to the end of the term, and lecturers had to make many class observations within the shortest period. This forced them to hurry through. In some cases, they had no pre-conferences. They arrived late at the school due to bad roads damaged by cyclones.
Sometimes supervisors left the post-conferences in limbo because they had to rush for another class observation. Other times, they would connect one student with two observations back-to-back without sandwiching them with a post-conference. That scenario left TP students repeating the same mistakes or even worse than the preceding lesson. This experience deprived the students of adequate feedback, as seen from the following quotations: Since the observations were back-to-back, I had insufficient time to effect some of the feedback, so I kept repeating the same mistakes; the observations were done consecutively (TP student L). I would not say I liked it most because I was given unsatisfactory remarks and was asked to have another lesson immediately after the first post-conference. When could I reflect on the feedback? I needed time to do that, so a day or two before another observation would have sufficed (TP student B). The comments depicted the same thing. There was no conflict. In the second lesson, I made the same mistakes (inadequate teaching and learning resources) because I had no time to correct them with back-to-back observations (TP student F). The time between the first observation and the next one was not enough, but the lesson observation itself began late than scheduled, so it affected the whole process because, for some of us, we had almost finished the content in the syllabus when they were coming for the second time to grade our lesson observations—poor scheduling of TP (TP student G).
There was not enough time to reflect, assimilate, and apply the feedback given in the subsequent lessons. They were back-to-back. So, the blunders I made in the previous lesson were the same in the subsequent one since both lessons were on the same day (TP student K).
Where discussions were concluded, they were not given ample time to reflect on the suggestions from the post-conference to apply them in the subsequent lessons. Some TP students complained of non-professional practices by the supervisors. Of particular interest was that some supervisors slept in class while others were busy on their mobiles during lesson observation. However, they would ask the usual self-reflection question, “Tell me how you think about your lesson. How was your lesson?” when the supervisor did not actively observe it. Anastasia said:
Some non-specialists did not know their work and were very subjective about allocating marks. (TP student K)
These results agree with previous study findings (Chikunda, 2008; Wailer et al., 2002) in which supervisors were against time to fulfill their quantitative targets of a minimum of three visits per student before the end of the TP period.
Discussion
The study aimed to examine how the interplay in the aftermath of the cyclones, COVID-19, the quality of the supervisors, and student characteristics impacted TP students’ experiences during the STP supervision model. The study revealed that STP was highly compromised due to delays caused by flash floods that disrupted road networks, rendering them impassable, and by COVID-19 prevention and control measures that crippled mobility and consequently delayed the commissioning of TP supervision.
On the one hand, TP students felt stressed in the complex milieu where supervisors distanced themselves from the interns. This was why they reported having psychosocial derangements upon seeing strangers examine them. Students anticipated the pre-conference to assess the supervisor’s personality and create a friendly atmosphere before classroom observations. They experienced more stress because they were anxious about facing failure emanating from non-specialists’ misjudgment of their excellent work. Supervisors who bypassed pre-conferencing worsened the negative emotions. Previous research indicates that supervisors’ unfriendliness stresses out students (Chaw & Kopp, 2021; Rosemary et al., 2013). Marais and Meier indicate that student teachers’ stress is compounded by the multiple roles they play simultaneously before their supervisors and learners (Marais & Meier, 2004); afraid of and stressed by non-specialists because they were strangers to the content, methodology, and the student (Kaunitz et al., 1986 ; Witt et al., 2022). On the other hand, the lowly self-efficacious preferred non-specialists who would not readily identify their incompetence. They wanted to exploit the loophole in the supervisors’ inability to identify the flaws by cheating by teaching fake lessons that seemed appealing to the unsuspecting supervisors. Prior studies indicate that student teachers will repeat a lesson when they have a supervisor to portray maximum learner involvement and understanding. They teach plastic lessons to fool the supervisors and get away with a passing grade (Ong’ondo & Borg, 2011).
On the contrary, highly efficacious students are confident of passing. They purg their fears and long to face professionally challenging situations. Therefore, they highly recommend supervision by experts who understand the dynamics of subject-specific methodologies and content. All they need is appropriate professional advice for development.
Our findings indicated that students complain about supervisors who do not take dialogic discussions seriously. They either do not take TP students’ views seriously due to their philosophy about TP, the teacher-educator’s status, or that of the students. A teacher whose self-efficacy is at stake will develop some defensive mechanisms, such as not giving enough attention for fear of exposing their weakness before the students. This hampers students’ performance. Marais and Meier reported similar findings. Their results indicated that supervisors rush through the class observation without in-depth post-conferencing with their students and find students’ requests for help disturbing, as evidenced by previous studies (Sempowicz & Hudson, 2011).
Due to the delayed commencement of TP supervision, teacher educators did not have adequate time to space the observations regularly. The schedule was at the mercy of the disasters, and the COVID-19 prevention measures limited mobility. Supervision was commissioned after a wave of COVID-19 had died down, while in other areas, it was after flash floods were rescinded and roads maintained. Since the uplifting of travel bans was unpredictable, the arrangement contributed to disorganized TP. The study revealed severe irregularities in supervision schedules. While some participants complained about inadequate visits, some were visited by non-specialists only, while others were visited too frequently without enough time to prepare lesson plans for subsequent presentations. Students express dissatisfaction with observation massed together; such an arrangement adversely impacts students’ reflection and preparation for subsequent lessons. These findings are consistent with extant studies carried out before COVID 19, revealing irregularities during TP supervision (Akhan & Kaymak, n.d.) that supervision starts too late in the semester, leading to insufficient supervision (Matoti & Odora, 2016), with some students in South Africa (a member state of SADC) not being assessed at all (Matoti & Odora, 2016). At the same time, others are visited too frequently, giving them no time to prepare for subsequent observations (Veenman, 1984).
Other students complain of being “rushed through” multiple visits within a day with no pre-conferences or post-conferences. Such supervision schedules deny students the opportunity for retrieval practice and ample time between the consecutive observations to reflect on their feedback to implement in the subsequent lessons the same day. Those with a poor grade in a prior observation had not yet recovered from the shock before the subsequent assessment. Evaluation forms revealed that those with supervisions too close together kept getting the same remarks and narrow grade range. These experiences constitute a profound marginalization of the TP management and a dismal compromise on the quality of professional TE. Students need enough time to prepare for the subsequent assessment. Back-to-back supervision violate the principle of the spacing effect. These findings are consistent with previous research, which reported insufficient feedback (Ebrahim et al., 2017; Kirbulut et al., 2012), a lack of postmortem (Chimhenga, 2016; Manchishi & Mwanza, 2014; Mapolisa & Tshabalala, 2014; Marais & Meier, 2004; Matoti & Odora, 2016; Rosemary et al., 2013), and short lapses between consecutive observations (Veenman, 1984).
Mobility restrictions due to COVID-19 and the effects of the cyclones delayed the commissioning of field visits. Notwithstanding this, the host schools would not adjust their calendars to accommodate the TP. Consequently, despite reducing the time available for supervision, the number of candidates for observation was as constant as the supervisors. Subsequently, the frequency of visits was scaled down and squeezed within the shortest available time. While some students were assessed sufficiently and effectively, others were under-assessed. This spiked complaints against multiple observations within a day, in which supervisors did not pay much attention to the spacing effect, a crucial factor in academic performance. Students complained about the duration of the TP period as being too short. Our findings corroborate studies in Kenya (Koross, 2016). In Kenya, Koross, and Zimbabwe, Ngara reported that supervision was neither timeous nor regular (Rosemary et al., 2013), while in other countries, some TP students were not supervised at all (Manchishi & Mwanza, 2014; Matoti & Odora, 2016; Msangya et al., 2016; Msuya, 2022).
A fair assessment demands that the assessor know what is being assessed (Yarrow et al., 1996). Non-specialists, devoid of PCKg commensurate with fair assessment, were afraid of assigning a failing grade in areas they did not understand because they were afraid of the students challenging them. Giving a failing grade to a student would expose their guesswork if they sought a justification for the grade. The candidates doubted the objectivity of a non-specialist scoring students’ content knowledge. Our study revealed that the students noted a higher degree of subjectivity and bias in scoring. They opined that non-specialists could not justify the grades. Our findings corroborate extant research that biases and favoritism were evident during TP supervision and assessment in Nigeria and Zimbabwe (Eke Eya & Chinweuba Chukwu, 2012; Rosemary et al., 2013). Chimhenga found that the supervisors’ comments and grades do not match. None of the two corresponded to the other (Chimhenga, 2017).
This study revealed that students questioned the competence, objectivity, and impartiality of those supervisors who assigned grades to the lesson planning without looking at the lesson plans. This finding aligns with extant research indicating supervisors assess just part of the lesson (Rosemary et al., 2013), while others do not even check the lesson plans.
Faculty members who could not communicate concrete, accurate feedback due to inadequate content and pedagogical knowledge significantly lost the respect of students. Our findings corroborate the available literature. TP students’ comments indicated a lack of respect for supervisors whose discussions were rated as a waste of time. Students were quick to notice faculty inefficacies and inabilities and did not like those who portrayed signs of resistance to new ideas from students. Greculescu and Todorescu (2014) also found that students will disrespect teachers more if they cannot communicate feedback effectively. Except for a few who wanted to get away with a raw deal, students preferred experts for meaningful feedback and growth to help them reflect on how to enact subsequent instructional strategies. Specialist professionals are expected to initiate and sustain a meaningful dialog with the student teachers because they possess the PCK. It was from such talks that students expected and preferred to learn.
Within this teaching-learning social contract where an expert teacher must mediate learning (Pappa et al., 2017) and provide meaningful and adequate feedback, it was logical that TP students in this study bemoaned monolog-like, unsatisfactory, and insufficient feedback from supervisors devoid of student input. Our findings corroborate study results in Zimbabwe (Mapolisa & Tshabalala, 2014), Turkey (Ok, 2005), South Africa (Marais & Meier, 2004; Matoti & Odora, 2016), and Kuwait (Ebrahim et al., 2017). Previous research found that supervisors finalized comments on the observation forms before discussing them with the interns, and others did not even discuss anything with the TP students (Chimhenga, 2017).
Students believe that, besides generic pedagogy, specific subjects demand specific methodologies. This was evident in students’ complaints against supervisors who penalized them when they employed subject-specific methodologies. Some non-specialist supervisors found this inconsistency disturbing and could not direct students properly. Marais and Meier also found that different supervisors preferred advising based on one’s module of choice when dealing with students (Marais & Meier, 2004). Another study in Turkey revealed similar disparities between theory and practice attributable to the lack of field-specific competencies and the ability to delineate assessment and evaluation among the subject-specific pedagogies. In Zimbabwe, similar findings were reported by Rosemary et al. (2013).
Such contradictions put supervisors in an awkward position and confuse highly innovative students (Ok, 2005). Scholarship in TE attributes such inconsistencies stemming from the various lecturers’ academic backgrounds and the poor feedback militated against the importance and value of TP observation (Bush, 1987; Wilson, 2006).
Conclusion
Much as the supervision procedure has three steps (pre-conference, observation, and post-conference), specialists and non-specialists emphasize the second step. Among others, students bemoaned contradictory feedback, insufficient feedback, a lack of timeous supervisor’s arrival, timorous environments, the lag effect, and the lousy space effect. Despite the TP supervision having various strengths, this study emphasized the challenges of STP amidst cyclones and pandemics. It was observed that STP faced multiple challenges emanating from the various actors in the TP supervision network. Although the supervision procedure has three steps (pre-conference, observation, and post-conference), specialists and non-specialists emphasized the second step. Among others, students bemoaned contradictory feedback, insufficient feedback, a lack of timeous supervisor’s arrival, timorous environments, the lag effect, and the lousy space effect.
Using non-specialists in supervision proved undesirable for quality as it encouraged students to cheat and supervisors to concentrate only on selected areas during observation. The supervisors were also more subjective because of a lack of expert knowledge for judgment. The majority of the students preferred specialists. Highly efficacious students prioritized professional development over passing TP, while their counterparts were preoccupied with the desire to earn better marks than professional development. Some of them lacked expert and professional judgment to navigate the dynamics of field practice as they observed and advised TP students in the classroom.
The study revealed the need to pay attention to the distributed effect during observation. It was clear that the aftermath of tropical cyclones and the pandemic adversely compounded the challenges of STP. COVID-19 and climate change have rendered the traditional approaches to evaluating TP students significantly unsuitable.
Recommendations
Managing the interplay among all the actors is paramount to achieving quality TE and the UN's 2030 global agenda. With the increasing climatic change, which makes the future of the traditional approach to TP so bleak, SADC countries need to migrate TP supervision to digital platforms to circumvent the challenges of pandemics and spatial dictates. However, bearing in mind the faculty’s technological skills and the general mindset, this intervention may not be on a full scale very soon. Considering affordable technologies for instruction is a good start. Besides, they must adapt their road and education institutions’ infrastructure to disaster-resilient designs.
They need to realize that pandemics may not end here, nor will natural disasters. As such, they need to seriously consider investing in communication technologies, human resource development, and electrifying rural academic institutions to facilitate practical online TP observation and evaluation.
They must develop contingency measures in case of disasters and epidemics impacting TE. This study recommends reviewing the purpose of practicums and the entire academic achievement assessment, rather than just over-focusing on grading using unqualified supervisors.
Limitations
The authors admit the challenges of collecting data through online interviews with participants who had never met them face-to-face. Since the interviews were neither face-to-face nor on camera, data collection failed to capture the accompanying body language, tone, and other non-written communication data, which would have enriched data analysis and reporting.
Besides, the sample was not large enough to represent the views of all institutions that practice scrambled TP supervision. We propose further research involving participants from more teaching subject combinations. Therefore, the applicability of the study is limited.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We sincerely acknowledge all the student-teachers from the five different countries who voluntarily participated in the online interviews without necessarily demanding for a refund for the cellular data
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the “China National Social Science Foundation (project approval number BIA190194)”.
Ethical Clearance
The ethical clearance and approval were granted by MZUNIREC, Ref No: MZUNIREC/DOR/21/55. Data collection was done strictly to the standards stipulated in the ethical clearance from MZUNIREC.
The ethical clearance from MZUNIREC guided data collection and management.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is available from the authors upon reasonable request.