EFECTOS SOBRE LA SALUD DEBIDO A LOS CONTAMINANTES EN EL AGUA

In order for the lecturers to assess the level of competence student teachers had reached, they observed them during lesson delivery in classrooms using observation forms to score the student teachers’ performance. The categories they used on the observation form were determined a priori. The structured observational system that was used for observation was a high-inference one and this permits greater observer judgment in determining the category to which an event is assigned (Galton, 1979). The visits to the school by lecturers for supervision generated a number of concerns for student teachers. This was evident in the not- so-positive attitude of student teachers towards supervision. Student teachers seemed to report negatively of any negative comments that supervisors made about how they had conducted themselves in a supervised lesson.

8.6.1 The assessor role of supervisors

I found that the supervisor’s dual responsibilities of facilitator and assessor often created problems in developing a close, trusting relationship with the student teacher. The evaluation function of supervision led some student teachers to attempt to project a positive image of themselves and a negative image of supervisors, rather than admitting weaknesses in their ability to carry out some activities during their lesson delivery.

The views from student teachers below signify the impact of the clash between supervisors and student teachers. One student teacher said:

One of the supervisors asked me to write a lesson plan for home economics and teach yet Home Economics was not on the time table on that day (student teacher).

Another student teacher said:

Supervisors were just crushing my teaching style for the sake of criticizing and giving me lower grades. Again the way I plan and teach cannot be the same way the supervisor can plan and teach. So the advice should be given depending on one’s plan and way of teaching (student teacher).

Student teachers tended to resist unplanned situations where supervisors would observe lessons. Some student teachers were worried with the assessment component of teaching practice. This was reflected in the sentiments by a student teacher who said:

The presence of the supervisor on Friday affected all the classroom proceedings. One can imagine being supervised consecutively on Thursday and Friday. It really gives you heartache. I really had to change my approach to the lesson just to make sure that I impress the lecturer (student teacher).

Here, the activity setting of supervision during teaching practice caused concern for student teachers where lecturers were seen more as assessors than facilitators. The facilitator role was rarely visible and the assessor role seemed to be dominant. Stones and Morris (1972) also reported considerable research evidence of conflicts among student teachers and supervisors. The conflicts could be said to have been created because there were two competing objects within teaching practice. The object that mediated the supervisors’ actions seemed to be that of assessment. Student teachers felt the pressure to satisfy the object of assessment so that they would have positive outcome at the end of the teacher education programme. This seemed to make teaching practice an activity whose primary goal was the assessment of student teachers. In such a setting, tensions were likely to be high. This seemed to be a crucial part of the system of the training/college and this clashed with elements of others systems such as the student teachers’ systems.

The activity setting of supervision, with its emphasis on assessment also seemed to have bred a lot of misunderstanding between the communities involved in teaching practice especially

supervisors and student teachers. In other studies communication between student teachers and college supervisor was often reported to be a problem (Yee, 1969).

Some student teachers thought that supervisors were unnecessarily not observant enough during the supervision sessions. The following sentiments from student teachers alluded to this:

The supervisor accused me that I did not attend to pupils who did not participate in the lesson yet it was done. He also said I did not tell the pupils what next lesson would be yet this was done. Pupils even asked me which books to read (student teacher).

I was told to apply knowledge learned in history to everyday life. But the supervisor explained some ideas which are applicable in Bible Knowledge not History. How can I know such things which are not written in History books (student teacher)?

I had a problem to convince a supervisor who accused me of not correcting a pupil while narrating a story yet we are told in English not to correct a pupil because what we are after is communication not verb tense (student teacher).

The sentiments showed that there were misunderstanding between student teachers and the supervisors. In most cases, student teachers tended to defend their actions during lessons. It would be argued that what was at stake during the post-observation conference was the grade that the student teachers got. Student teachers tried to make justifications of what had gone on in the lessons they had conducted to attain a better grade so that their overall outcomes on teacher education programme were good.

The other misunderstanding was related to the gate-keeping role of supervision. Gate- keeping or determining entrance to the profession was one of the major functions of the activity setting of supervision. Assigning a final grade was exclusively the responsibility of the college supervisor. Two student teachers made the following comments:

I was given a zero grade for concluding a lesson a bit late. I thought that was very unfair (student teacher).

Some supervisors are just very critical. Though they would want you to plan and teach in accordance to your ability they fail to accept your view in as far as grading is concerned. The supervisor on Thursday was just very critical and his grading affected me. You can imagine failing to give you best but they just grade you within the same range. It really frustrates and I don’t think I will work harder than that (student teacher).

The misunderstanding may be said to generate resentment between student teachers and supervisors. The pressure to excel in their programme put student teachers and supervisors on a collision course. This epitomized a clash of the college system and the student teacher system as well as the existence of competing goals between the two systems. It could be argued that the majority of student teachers seemed to expect positive remarks for them to appreciate the supervision sessions. This could be because positive remarks could translate to a better grade which eventually was used for assessing the performance of student teachers on their teacher education programme.

8.6.2 Specialization of the supervisors

I found that some student teachers thought that lecturers who supervised them were not subject specialists and therefore unable to objectively assess them. The student teachers thought that such lecturers were not appropriate for supervising their lessons and offering objective support for learning to teach in subjects they were planning to teach at the end of the programme. According to some student teachers, subject methodologies were different and when a lecturer who supervised them had not taught them the methodology or was not a specialist in the subject, supervision raised concerns. A student teacher said:

Supervisors are a bit of a problem in that they find difficulties in understanding a lesson in a subject which they do not teach but have been told to supervise (student teacher).

Another student teacher said:

Some supervisors are not conversant with subjects which they do not teach such that it becomes a problem to convince them (student teacher).

The thinking here suggested that specialist lecturers had to be the ones to supervise lessons. This would bring harmony to the activity setting of supervision and teaching practice in general. Equally, experienced subject specialists were ideal for supervision unlike subject specialists with no experience and no knowledge of the realities of secondary school teaching (Gaynor, 1998). The non-specialist supervisor was thought of not being versed in the values and practices that governed lessons in other subjects. This confirms that there were different values and practices among teacher educators. The different subject contents which student teachers were learning in college seemed to represent different activity settings. Different methodological practices guided the subjects when translated into secondary school curriculum.

I noted in some cases that lecturers who supervised student teachers were secondary teachers who had secured a teaching position in college quite early after graduating, although there was little to ensure that they had solid pedagogical knowledge, appropriate teaching skills, or the ability to act as change agents in teacher education (Gaynor, 1998). In my field notes I made the following observation:

I observed that one of the supervisors was known to me from university days. He had only taught in secondary school for few months. He secured a teaching position as an assistant lecturer at the college and reported for duties when student teachers were in secondary schools for teaching practice. However, he was incorporated in the team of supervisors and observed lessons without the help of an experienced member of staff (field notes).

This observation added weight to the view that some individuals who supervised student teachers were not inducted in the supervision role. Within an activity theory framework, this meant that some members of the college system required to be fully inducted in their newly

found profession before they could supervise student teachers competently. These new members in the community of lecturers also needed to benefit from legitimate peripheral participation (Wenger, 1988) at the college level before they could offer facilitative supervision to the student teachers’ systems.