Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.5
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
016
, pp
. 10
1
~
11
2
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
01
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Difficulties in Field-Based Ob
servation among Pre-Service
Teachers: Implications to Practice Teaching
Marip
a
z
C.
A
b
as
College of
Education
,
Cotabato
City
St
at
e Poly
t
e
c
hni
c Col
l
e
g
e,
P
h
i
l
i
ppi
ne
s
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received 13 Apr, 2016
Rev
i
sed
May 12
, 20
16
Accepted
May 23, 2016
Field-based obs
ervation has lon
g
been a
central part of pr
e-s
e
r
v
ice t
e
a
c
her
education in man
y
coun
tries and is
crucial f
o
r im
plem
enting effect
ive
practicum of pre-service teach
ers. This
p
a
per fo
cused on the p
e
rs
pectives of
graduating pre-
service
teacher
s
rega
rding th
eir diff
icul
ties
rela
ted t
o
administrative support, c
ooperating teachers, student
superviso
r
s, students,
peers,
assigned
tasks and learning e
nvironment during th
eir 17
-hour field
observation
in selected priv
ate an
d pub
lic secondar
y
schools
.
An explanator
y
sequential mixed-methods research
design was adopted utilizing surv
ey
questionnaire,
Focus Group Interviews
, and
Key
In
formant Interv
iew.
Quantitativ
e data were obtain
e
d
from 136
sa
mple respondents through
stratified r
a
ndo
m sampling using propor
tion
a
te allo
cation while qualitativ
e
data w
e
re g
a
the
r
ed from
10 pre-s
e
rvic
e t
e
a
c
hers,
10 cooper
a
ting
t
each
ers, six
student superv
isors and two s
c
h
ool prin
cipals who were
chosen
purposively
.
Results of d
e
scri
ptive
stat
istic
al
anal
ysis se
rv
ed
as basis
for
the design
o
f
qualitativ
e in
ter
v
iew and focus
group schedules
which help
ed the resear
cher
to “explain
,
or
elabor
ate on
the quant
ita
tive
res
u
lts”.
Findings
of the
stu
d
y
showed that pre-
service teach
ers
had ove
r-
all moderate diff
icu
lties during the
field observatio
n particu
l
ar
ly
on st
udents, as
signed tasks and learnin
g
environment. Findings of th
e s
t
ud
y
we
re substantiated throug
h in-dep
th
discussions of q
u
alitativ
e d
a
ta. I
m
pli
cations
wer
e
determined
fo
r continued
enhancements of
the practicum component
that can help bridg
e
the th
eor
y
–
pract
ice
nexus
in pre-s
e
rv
ic
e t
each
er
educ
atio
n, and
con
t
rib
u
te
to t
h
e
developm
ent
of
t
each
ers
’
profes
s
i
onal
com
p
eten
ci
es
.
Keyword:
Field Study C
o
urses
Fi
el
d-B
a
se
d O
b
ser
v
at
i
o
n
Pre-s
e
rvice Te
achers
Pre-Service Te
achers
’
Difficu
lties
Teacher E
duca
tion
Copyright ©
201
6 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Maripaz C. Abas,
Co
lleg
e
o
f
Educatio
n
Co
tab
a
to City State Po
lytechn
i
c Co
lleg
e
,
Sin
s
uat Av
en
ue, Co
tab
a
to
Cit
y
, Ph
ilipp
i
n
e
s.
Em
a
il: maripazabas@ya
h
oo.c
om
1.
INTRODUCTION
As a
l
e
gal
f
r
a
m
ewor
k
of
P
h
i
l
i
ppi
ne
hi
g
h
er
ed
ucat
i
o
n sy
s
t
em
, Hi
ghe
r
E
ducat
i
o
n
Act
of
1
9
9
4
[
1
]
d
eclares und
er Sectio
n
2
that, “Th
e
State sh
all p
r
o
t
ect, fo
ster an
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e th
e rig
h
t
o
f
all citiz
en
s t
o
affo
rd
ab
le qu
ality ed
u
catio
n
at all lev
e
ls an
d
sh
all tak
e
app
r
op
riate step
s to
en
su
re t
h
at ed
u
cation
sh
all b
e
accessible
to all”
(sec. 2). It
also
provi
de
s for t
h
e a
d
va
ncem
ent of le
arni
ng as
well as the
educat
ion
of
p
r
o
f
ession
als.
Si
m
ilarly,
it ca
lls fo
r state-sup
ported
in
s
titu
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
h
i
g
h
e
r
learn
i
ng
to
d
i
rect th
eir p
r
o
g
ra
m
s
t
o
nat
i
onal
,
re
gi
o
n
al
o
r
l
o
cal
de
vel
o
pm
ent
pl
ans.
In
consonance
with
R
A
No. 7722
, undergraduate teache
r
e
d
ucation in Hi
gher
Education Institutions
(
H
EI
s) thr
ough
ou
t t
h
e co
un
t
r
y con
tinu
o
u
s
l
y
p
r
ep
ar
es
p
r
osp
ectiv
e teacher
s
o
f
b
a
sic edu
catio
n sector
to
fu
lf
il
th
eir ro
les an
d
respon
sib
ilities an
d
h
e
l
p
s su
st
ain
q
u
a
lity
ed
ucatio
n
.
Teach
e
r edu
catio
n
p
r
o
g
ram
s
[2
] work
fo
r
t
h
e “hi
ghe
st
st
anda
r
d
s
of
o
b
j
ect
i
v
es, c
o
m
ponent
s a
n
d
pr
oc
esses o
f
t
eac
he
r ed
ucat
i
o
n c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
” (p.
1
).
Th
us
,
t
h
e C
o
m
m
i
ssion
on
Hi
g
h
e
r
Educat
i
o
n M
e
m
o
ran
d
u
m
O
r
de
r (C
M
O
)
No
. 3
0
, s.
2
0
0
4
,
w
h
i
c
h
pri
m
ari
l
y
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
10
1 – 1
1
2
10
2
rationalizes the unde
rgra
duat
e
teacher
e
d
uc
ation to
be att
une
d t
o
gl
obal
trends a
nd c
o
m
p
lexities, heighte
n
s
the policies and sta
nda
rds for unde
rgra
duate
teacher educat
ion c
u
rricul
u
m.
1.
1.
Fi
el
d-B
a
sed
O
b
serv
ati
o
n as
Inte
gral
Par
t
of
T
e
acher
E
d
uca
t
i
o
n
Cu
rri
cul
u
m
Field-based
observation has
been
im
ple
m
ented by public and pr
ivate HEIs offering teache
r
educat
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
am
s i
n
t
h
e c
o
unt
ry
t
o
ha
ve
m
eani
n
g
f
ul
e
x
pos
u
r
es i
n
act
ual
l
ear
ni
n
g
e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
an
d
gai
n
profound unde
rstanding
and
appreciation of
future practic
um
experien
ce
s as well as teaching professi
on.T
his
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n of
fi
el
d ex
pe
ri
ences i
s
an o
p
t
i
on t
o
t
h
e t
r
a
d
i
t
i
onal
cl
assr
o
o
m
observat
i
o
n pr
o
g
ram
s
adopt
e
d
i
n
th
e p
a
st.
Fi
el
d-
based
ob
servat
i
o
n
i
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
at
i
n
g
sc
h
ool
s
i
s
part
of
Ex
pe
ri
ent
i
a
l
Learni
ng
C
o
u
r
ses (E
LC
)
whic
h are fundam
ental and critical asp
ects of teacher e
d
ucation c
u
rriculum
[3]. As one of the ELC
, Field
Stu
d
y
(FS)
6
en
titled
On
B
eco
m
i
n
g
a Teach
er is ali
g
n
e
d
to
profession
al edu
cation
co
urse Th
e Teach
ing
Pro
f
essi
on
whi
c
h i
s
m
a
ndat
e
d
by
C
M
O 30
, s. 2
0
0
4
. Li
ke t
h
e ot
her FS c
o
urses
,
FS
6 de
vel
o
ps com
p
et
enci
e
s
found in t
h
e
National
Competency-B
ase
d
Teache
r
Standards (NCBTS)
a
n
d
CMO No. 30, s. 2004.
It
als
o
serve
s
as a
gui
de to
bec
o
m
i
n
g
an effective
teacher
as
refl
ected in the
T
eacher
Education a
n
d
Devel
o
pm
ent
M
a
p i
n
t
h
e
pre
-
ser
v
i
ce e
ducat
i
on
[
4
]
.
Un
de
r A
r
t
i
c
l
e
V, S
ec.
13
o
f
C
M
O
30
, s.
20
0
4
[
2
]
,
it states th
at “Field
Stud
y (
F
S) co
ur
ses ar
e
i
n
t
e
nde
d t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e st
u
d
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
p
r
act
i
cal
learni
ng e
xpe
ri
ences i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
ey
obse
r
ve
, veri
fy
,
refl
ect
on
, a
n
d
actually experi
ence differe
n
t com
pone
nt
s of teaching-learning processes
in
actual school settings”. In this
case, p
r
act
i
cal
expe
ri
ences
wi
l
l
begu
n wi
t
h
f
i
el
d obse
r
vat
i
o
n an
d g
r
a
dual
l
y
i
n
t
e
nsi
f
y
unt
i
l
st
udent
s
un
de
rt
ake
practice teaching” (p.
5). As suc
h
, th
e interface of theory and
practice thro
ugh the proliferation
of field-ba
s
e
d
expe
riences
[5] bec
o
m
e
s a crucial part
of
p
r
e
-
ser
v
i
ce
e
ducat
i
on [
6
]
.
Th
e presen
t stu
d
y
d
ealt with
th
e concl
u
d
i
ng fi
el
d
-
bas
e
d o
b
ser
v
at
i
o
n
i
n
l
i
n
e wi
t
h
FS 6 of t
h
e
Bachelor of Se
conda
r
y
Educa
tion
(BSE
d) fourt
h
year pre-s
e
rvice teache
r
s
under vari
ous
progra
m
s
or areas of
specializations
suc
h
as Englis
h, Ma
th
em
atic
s,
Mu
sic, Arts, Ph
ysical
Ed
uca
t
i
on an
d
Heal
t
h
(M
APE
H
)
,
I
s
l
a
m
i
c
Ed
ucat
i
on a
n
d
Tech
ni
cal
and
Li
vel
i
h
o
o
d
Ed
ucat
i
on
(TLE
).
Thi
s
fi
el
d e
x
peri
e
n
ce co
ver
s
17
-
h
o
u
r
of
f-
c
a
m
pus
observation
pe
riod that allows pre
-
se
rvice teachers “t
o observe in act
ual
settings, a
n
alyze the experienc
e
and
reflect on t
h
e e
xpe
rience”
(5
p. i
x
).
1.
2.
Pre-ser
v
ice
Te
achers
’ Challenges
It is highly desirable to e
m
phasize
the
im
portanc
e of field-ba
sed observation in teache
r
education. During t
h
is field a
c
tivity,
pre-se
rvice teache
r
s build
work
relati
ons
hip
with c
o
ope
r
ating tea
c
hers
t
o
pl
an l
e
sso
ns
, p
r
epa
r
e p
r
o
j
ect
s
,
assess st
ude
nt
kn
owl
e
dge
,
learn
varied teac
hing styl
es and effective class
r
oo
m
man
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
[7
], and
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
th
eir teach
i
ng
sk
ills an
d
kn
owledg
e i
n
a classroo
m
se
t
tin
g
[6
],[8
],[9
]. Thu
s
,
they bec
o
m
e
aware
of
problem
s
and issues
concerni
ng te
aching
practic
e, under
g
o
pr
o
cess
o
f
bec
o
m
i
ng a
profe
ssional [8],
m
a
ster skills bene
fi
cial to teaching professi
on
[5],[8] and learn speci
fi
c types of
be
haviours
through good
t
each
ers
[10].
Th
ou
g
h
suc
h
f
i
el
d obse
r
v
a
t
i
o
n i
s
defi
ni
t
e
l
y
a hel
p
ful element of pre-se
rvi
ce education, the
r
e are
restrain
i
n
g
fo
rces th
at affect its i
m
p
l
e
m
en
t
a
tio
n
towa
rd
s
q
u
a
lity and
imp
act of a
field exp
e
rien
ce [11
]
. In
effect, i
nve
stigating the c
h
a
llenges
faced
by pre-se
rv
ice teachers
during field ob
se
rvation in t
h
eir final
sch
ool
i
n
g y
ear
co
ul
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
si
g
h
t
s
i
n
t
h
ei
r earl
y
p
r
ofessi
onal
st
e
p
s.
So
m
e
of t
h
ese
ch
al
l
e
nges e
x
pre
s
sed
a
s
diffic
u
lties include te
nsions
[12]
, va
ried e
xperiences,
opinions, beliefs
and c
o
ncepti
ons
of teachi
n
g and
learning [13], basic
understa
ndi
ng of
the se
conda
r
y school
culture a
n
d c
o
nt
ext for teachi
ng a
n
d learning [12],
in
teractio
n wit
h
st
u
d
e
n
t
s,
awaren
es
s of teach
ing
sk
ills an
d techn
i
qu
es, reflectiv
e th
ink
i
ng
d
u
ring
t
h
e in
itial
stages
of the
pre-service aca
de
mic progra
m
,
a
n
d practical teaching
resource
s.
B
a
sed o
n
a
v
ai
l
a
bl
e fo
rei
g
n
and l
o
cal
st
u
d
i
es revi
ewe
d
,
alm
o
st all considere
d
pre-se
rvice fiel
d
expe
rience as teaching practicum
and not
as field observation in c
o
operati
ng sc
hools. T
h
ese studies include
d,
am
ong
othe
rs,
com
p
arative study on
sc
hool
practitione
rs’ and unive
r
sity
staff m
e
m
b
ers’ perce
p
tions of pre
-
service teacher educ
ation practicum
[
14], pre-serv
ice teachers’
reflection
on teaching actions
i
n
im
pl
em
ent
i
ng on
-cam
pus m
i
crot
eac
hi
n
g
[5]
,
com
p
ari
s
o
n
of
t
w
o
su
per
v
i
s
o
r
y
m
odel
s
i
n
a
pre
-
ser
v
i
ce t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
pract
i
c
um
[15]
, adm
i
ni
st
rat
i
on o
f
of
f
‐
cam
pus st
u
d
ent
t
eac
hi
n
g
[
16]
, t
r
a
c
i
ng t
h
e
devel
opm
ent
of p
r
e-
servi
ce
teachers
’ e
ffic
acy beliefs in teachin
g m
a
thematics during
fiel
dwork [17],
assessm
ent of
pre
-
service la
ngua
ge
teachers
’
pract
icum
observation form
s [3],
im
pact of
t
h
e school-base
d
practicum
on pre-se
rvice
teac
hers
’
affective
de
velopm
ent in m
a
t
h
em
at
ics [6
], incorporation
of pr
e-se
rvice teachers a
s
‘c
o
mmunities of practice’
[12], a
n
d probl
e
m
s of C
o
llege
coordinat
o
r
i
n
an off-cam
pus
stude
nt teachi
n
g
program
[18].
Som
e
studies on pre-se
rvice edu
cation foc
u
s
e
d on ot
her as
pects lik
e pre-s
e
rvice teache
r
perce
p
tions
of m
e
ntor teachers
’
de
veloping us
e of mentoring ski
lls [19], perc
eptions of pre-se
rvice teachers
on
i
n
n
ovat
i
o
ns
[
7
]
,
cat
ego
r
i
e
s
of
q
u
est
i
o
ni
n
g
use
d
by
pre
s
ervi
ce t
eac
he
rs
du
ri
n
g
di
a
g
n
o
st
i
c
m
a
t
h
em
at
i
c
s
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Difficu
lties in
Field
-
Ba
sed Ob
serva
tio
n amo
n
g
Pre-S
e
rvic
e Tea
c
h
e
rs:
Imp
lica
tio
ns .... (Ma
r
ipa
z
C
.
Aba
s
)
10
3
intervie
ws [20], and e
ffect
of field e
x
perie
n
ce durin
g ele
m
entary
m
e
thods
course
s
on pre-service teacher
beha
vi
o
r
[2
1]
.
Havi
ng e
n
countere
d
diffic
u
lties duri
ng fiel
d-base
d
observation, pr
e-se
rvice teachers from
differe
nt
maj
o
r
field
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
en
m
a
d
e
aware of in
itial ad
j
u
stmen
t
s fro
m
in
-ca
m
p
u
s
exp
e
rien
ce to
o
f
f-cam
p
u
s
exposure
. The
prese
n
ce of c
h
allenge
s enc
o
unte
r
ed by
pre
-
service teache
r
s will necessitate rethinking and
reform
to enhance
the c
o
nduct
of
fut
u
re field-ba
sed observations
leading to s
u
ccess
f
ul
prac
ticu
m
.
Im
plications from
the study findi
ngs
a
r
e
explore
d
in
pre
p
aration fo
r im
prove
d
practicum teaching i
n
particula
r
a
n
d teacher education program
in gene
ral.
Literatures and studies are
sc
arce
rega
rdi
n
g pre-se
rvice
teachers’
perceptions of diffic
u
lties
duri
ng
field
-
b
a
sed
ob
serv
ation
in
th
ei
r resp
ectiv
e coo
p
e
rating
schools. He
nce, t
h
e
prese
n
t study aim
e
d at addre
ssing
t
h
i
s
researc
h
g
a
p t
o
co
nt
ri
b
u
t
e
t
o
a body
o
f
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e o
n
of
f-cam
pus o
b
s
ervat
i
o
n ex
pe
ri
ences. S
p
eci
f
i
cal
l
y
,
the study tried
to identify and explai
n the di
fficulties enc
o
unte
r
ed
by pre
-
service teache
r
s during field-base
d
obs
ervations in the areas
of adm
i
ni
strativ
e support, c
o
ope
rating teachers
,
student
supervisors, st
ude
nts,
peers/
c
o
-
p
re
-se
r
vi
ce t
eac
her
s
,
assi
gne
d
t
a
sks
,
an
d l
e
a
r
ni
ng
e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
.
It
al
so
dre
w
t
h
e i
m
pli
cat
i
ons
of
t
h
ese
diffic
u
lties in t
h
e e
nha
ncem
ent of
practi
ce t
eaching am
ong pre-se
rvice tea
c
hers.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
An e
x
pl
anat
o
r
y
seque
nt
i
a
l
m
i
xed m
e
t
hods
r
e
search
desi
g
n
was use
d
i
n
t
h
e st
udy
.
Usi
n
g
expl
a
n
at
o
r
y
sequ
en
tial d
e
si
g
n
i
n
vo
lv
es two
-
ph
ase process –
co
llecting
an
d
an
alyzin
g
q
u
a
n
titativ
e d
a
ta first fo
llowed
b
y
co
llectin
g
qu
al
itativ
e d
a
ta to
ex
pou
nd
th
e
qu
an
titativ
e findin
g
s
[22
]
. Th
e u
n
d
e
rlying
purpo
se
o
f
th
is
desig
n
is
that results in the first phas
e give a
gene
ral picture
o
f
th
e
r
e
s
e
ar
ch
pro
b
l
e
m
b
u
t
s
u
ch
a
r
e
in
ad
eq
ua
te
b
y
th
em
selv
es. Particu
l
arly, “there is a n
eed to
b
u
ild
on
th
e q
u
a
n
titativ
e resu
lts, th
rou
g
h
qu
alitativ
e d
a
ta
col
l
ect
i
on,
i
n
o
r
de
r t
o
re
fi
ne,
ext
e
n
d
,
o
r
e
xpl
ai
n t
h
e
ge
neral
pi
ct
ure”
(
p
.
3
9
5
)
[
23]
.
The prim
ary form
of data collecti
o
n
,
i.e., surv
ey qu
estio
nn
aire, was
p
r
i
o
ritized
and
supp
orted
b
y
the
secon
d
a
r
y
fo
rm o
f
d
a
ta co
llectio
n
,
i.
e.
Fo
cus G
r
ou
p
In
ter
v
iew
(
F
G
I
)
an
d
K
e
y In
fo
r
m
an
t I
n
terv
iew (K
II)
[2
2]
to
ex
p
l
ain
m
o
re th
e q
u
a
n
titativ
e o
u
t
co
m
e
resu
lts, und
erstan
d
b
e
tter th
eir d
i
fficu
lties n
o
t
prov
id
ed
in
the
p
r
im
ary d
a
ta so
urce and
su
bstan
tiate furth
e
r resp
on
ses.
Fo
r qu
an
titativ
e ph
ase, th
e st
u
d
y
surv
eyed
1
3
6
p
a
rticip
an
t
s
con
s
isting
o
f
fiv
e
group
s
o
f
g
r
adu
a
ting
pre
-
ser
v
i
ce t
e
a
c
hers
m
a
jori
n
g
i
n
E
n
gl
i
s
h,
Isl
a
m
i
c Educa
tion
(IE), Mu
sic,
Arts, Ph
ysical Edu
catio
n and
Health
(MAPE
H
), M
a
them
atics, and Tec
hnical a
n
d Livelihoo
d Edu
cation
(
T
LE)
u
n
d
e
r
Bach
elor
of
Seco
nd
ar
y
Ed
ucat
i
on (B
S
E
d)
deg
r
ee p
r
og
ram
at t
h
e
C
o
t
a
bat
o
C
ity State Polytec
hnic College (CCSPC), a Te
acher
Education Insti
t
ution (T
EI) in
Cotabato City, Sout
hern Phili
ppi
nes.
The
s
e pre
-
service teach
ers took up Field
Study (FS)
6
as their last
field observation course
be
fore practice teaching. For
qualitative phase,
10
pre
-
service teac
he
rs,
six st
ude
nt supervisors, 10 c
o
op
e
r
ating teache
r
s,
and two
sc
hool princi
pals
were
in
terv
iewed.
Sequential
m
i
xed-m
e
thod sa
m
p
ling was ut
ilized in
selecting qua
n
titative sa
m
p
le using probability
sam
p
lin
g
(strat
ified
rand
o
m
sa
m
p
lin
g
tech
n
i
q
u
e
) and
q
u
a
litativ
e sam
p
le u
s
in
g pu
rpo
s
iv
e sam
p
lin
g
strat
e
g
i
es,
one
aft
e
r t
h
e
o
t
her
[
24]
.
Sl
o
v
i
n’s
f
o
rm
ul
a at
.0
5
al
p
h
a
le
vel was als
o
us
ed t
o
calculate
the sam
p
le si
ze for
sur
v
ey
q
u
est
i
o
nnai
r
e.
In t
h
e
use
of m
i
xed
m
e
t
hod
resear
ch d
e
si
g
n
,
Gra
ff
[2
4]
su
g
g
est
s
t
h
at
pa
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
ar
e
ch
osen
o
n
th
e
b
a
ses of “wh
o
can
prov
id
e
o
r
yield
d
a
ta th
at
will ad
d
r
ess the research
p
r
ob
lem
”
(p
. 54
). Citin
g
Geertz (197
3),
Gr
aff [2
4
]
po
in
ted ou
t th
at “W
h
e
n
g
e
n
e
rati
n
g
sam
p
le
for q
u
a
litative
ph
ase, research
ers
typ
i
cally
seek
to
estab
lish
sam
p
les
th
at wil
l
p
r
ov
id
e in
fo
r
m
at
i
on at
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
l
e
vel
s
of m
eani
ng,
or a
“t
hi
ck
descri
pt
i
on”
(
p
. 5
5
)
.
The resea
r
c
h
instrum
e
nt, com
posed of t
h
ree parts,
was researche
r-c
ons
t
ructed. Part I
elicited basic
i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on about
p
r
e-se
r
v
i
ce st
udent
s
’
pr
o
f
i
l
e
. Part
II i
n
q
u
i
r
e
d
on c
h
al
l
e
nge
s du
ri
n
g
p
r
e-ser
v
i
ce fi
el
d-
base
d
o
b
s
erv
a
tio
n. Th
ese ob
serv
ati
o
n
d
i
fficu
lties co
v
e
red
52
i
ndicato
r
s reflectin
g
sev
e
n
cr
itical su
pp
ort areas su
ch
as adm
i
ni
st
rati
ve su
pp
o
r
t
,
coo
p
e
r
at
i
ng t
e
a
c
hers/
m
ent
o
rs,
st
ude
nt
su
pe
rvi
s
ors
,
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
, pee
r
s/
co
-s
t
ude
nt
teachers, assi
gned tasks and learni
ng
e
nvironm
ent. These areas were asse
sse
d for their e
x
tent of diffic
u
lty by
u
s
ing
t
h
e rati
ng
scale:
1
-
No
t
a Difficu
lty; 2
-
Slig
h
t
Di
fficu
l
ty; 3
-
Mod
e
rate Difficu
lty; and
4
-
Big
Difficu
lty.
For
Part
II
I, i
n
terview
sche
d
u
l
es were m
a
de
fo
r F
G
I
of pre-service teac
hers and stude
n
t s
upe
rvisors
and
for KII of coope
r
ating
t
eachers
and sc
hool
pri
n
cipals t
o
validate th
e
results of the
surv
ey a
n
d obtain m
o
re
in
fo
rm
atio
n
on th
e ite
m
s
en
umerated
in
th
e q
u
estio
nn
ai
re
.
C
i
t
i
ng Ke
n
d
a
l
l
(20
0
8
)
,
Ha
rr
i
s
and B
r
o
w
n
[2
5]
note
d
that “
W
hile questionnaires
ca
n provide
evi
d
e
n
ce of
patterns
a
m
ong large
popula
tion, qua
litative
in
terv
iew d
a
ta g
a
th
er
m
o
re
in d
e
p
t
h
insigh
ts o
n
p
a
rticip
an
ts’ attitu
d
e
s, thou
gh
ts and
action
s
(p.1)”.
Th
e statistical p
r
o
c
ed
ures
o
f
d
e
term
in
in
g
the v
a
lid
ity and
reliab
ility o
f
su
rv
ey qu
estionn
aire
were
fol
l
o
we
d t
h
r
o
u
gh c
o
m
put
er s
o
ft
ware
pr
o
g
ra
m
.
The fo
ur
p
h
ases
of
de
vel
opm
ent
su
gges
t
ed by
B
e
ns
o
n
an
d
C
l
ark [
2
6]
sh
o
w
t
h
e st
e
p
s
of
pl
an
ni
n
g
, c
o
n
s
t
r
uct
i
n
g, e
v
al
uat
i
n
g
,
an
d c
h
ecki
n
g t
o
see i
f
t
h
e
quest
i
ons
wo
r
k
,
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
10
1 – 1
1
2
10
4
i.e., v
a
lid
ating a research
too
l
. Th
e
fu
nd
amen
tal step
s co
m
p
rised
of rev
i
ewing
th
e l
iteratu
re,
p
r
esen
ting
g
e
n
e
ral
q
u
e
sti
o
n
s
t
o
a targ
et
group
, con
s
tru
c
tin
g
qu
estion
s
fo
r th
e item
p
o
o
l, and
p
ilo
t testin
g
t
h
e item
s
.
Edu
catio
n
exp
e
rts an
d
p
r
actitio
n
e
rs in
th
e fiel
d
s
o
f
En
g
lish
,
Islamic Ed
u
cation
,
MAPEH,
Math
em
a
tics a
n
d
TLE v
a
li
d
a
ted
th
e su
rv
ey in
stru
m
e
n
t
u
s
ing
fo
ur criteria:
(a) co
nfo
r
m
i
t
y
with
th
e
o
b
j
ect
iv
es,
(b) clarity an
d
co
nstru
c
tion
,
(c) lev
e
l o
f
d
i
fficu
lty, a
n
d
(d
)
relev
a
n
ce and
su
itab
ility [2
7
]
. Th
e exp
e
rts did
n
o
t
reject
a
n
y
of t
h
e i
t
e
m
s
;
howev
er, t
h
ey
rec
o
m
m
e
nded
f
o
r
re
wo
rdi
n
g o
f
t
w
o i
t
e
m
s
and p
u
t
t
i
ng ad
di
t
i
onal
ph
rase
to
o
n
e
item in
ar
eas o
f
ad
m
i
n
i
str
a
tiv
e su
ppor
t an
d
pr
e-serv
ice co
o
r
d
i
n
a
to
rs. Based
on
th
ese r
eco
mm
en
d
a
tio
n
s
,
th
e item
s
were
th
en
refi
n
e
d and
fin
a
lized
t
o
satisfy th
e v
a
li
datio
n
criteria.
After th
e co
n
t
en
t v
a
lid
ation
,
th
e su
rv
ey in
stru
m
e
n
t
was tested
fo
r its reliab
ility u
tilizin
g
Sp
lit-Hal
f
M
e
t
h
o
d
an
d S
p
earm
a
n B
r
o
w
n f
o
rm
ul
a. Fu
rt
herm
ore, as
sug
g
est
e
d by
C
r
o
nbac
h
[
2
8]
, t
h
e basel
i
n
e
of
a
coefficient that reaches
0.60 a
nd a
b
ove
is rel
i
able. This also uphol
ds the
no
tion
of sc
holars that an inst
rum
e
nt
p
r
ov
en
h
i
gh
ly reliab
l
e u
s
ing
co
rrelatio
n
index
is also
h
i
g
h
ly v
a
lid
. Th
e su
rv
ey in
stru
m
e
n
t
was
p
ilo
t tested
t
o
20
pre
-
service
teachers. T
h
e
coefficie
n
t va
lue obtai
ned
was 0.86,
whi
c
h is interpret
e
d as highly reliable,
im
pl
y
i
ng t
h
at
t
h
e i
n
st
rum
e
nt
has c
o
nsi
s
t
e
nc
y
.
Qu
an
titativ
e data were an
alyzed
to
ad
dress
th
e sp
ecific
p
r
o
b
l
em
s o
f
th
e
stu
d
y
. Mean
was u
tilized
to
descri
be the extent of difficult
y
f
aced by pre
-
service teache
r
s in ter
m
s
of adm
i
nistrative s
u
pport, cooperating
teachers, st
ude
n
t supervisors, obse
r
ved st
udents, pee
r
s/c
o
-pre
-service teachers
,
assigne
d
tasks a
nd le
arni
ng
en
v
i
ron
m
en
t. Based
on
th
e
d
e
scri
p
tiv
e analysis, q
u
a
litativ
e in
-d
ep
th
an
alysis was do
n
e
t
o
g
e
n
e
rate
m
o
re
co
n
t
ex
tu
al d
a
t
a
, and
fu
rt
h
e
r
p
r
ob
e th
e k
e
y
issu
es th
at h
a
d
em
erg
e
d
from th
e q
u
a
n
titativ
e d
a
ta [29
]
. Th
is
sequential data analysis is conducted “
w
he
n qua
ntita
tive –qualitative pha
s
es of a
study are in chronol
ogical
or
der”
(
p
.
6
0
)
[
24]
.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
3.
1.
On Administr
a
ti
ve
S
upp
ort
Tabl
e
1 s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e e
x
t
e
nt
of
di
ffi
c
u
l
t
y
conc
erni
ng
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
sc
ho
ol
a
d
m
i
ni
st
rat
o
rs.
T
h
ere
are t
w
o
ite
m
s
where
pre-se
rvice
t
eachers ha
d “m
oderate
difficult
y
” suc
h
as
ac
cess to school facilities (1.82) and
p
a
r
ticip
ation
in p
e
r
s
on
al an
d pr
of
ession
al
d
e
velo
p
m
en
t (
1
.92)
.
Tab
l
e
1
.
Difficu
lties related
t
o
ad
m
i
n
i
strativ
e supp
ort (n
=13
6
)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
access to school facilities (library
,
co
m
puter labor
atory
,
instr
u
ctional
devices, etc.
)
1.
86
1.
28
2.
44
1.
82
1.
69
1.
82
M
oder
a
te
D
i
ffic
u
lty
2.
par
ticipation in per
s
onal and
pr
ofessio
n
al develop
m
ent of pr
e-
service teache
r
s
2.
00
1.
56
2.
33
1.
94
1.
77
1.
92
M
oder
a
te
D
i
ffic
u
lty
3.
involvem
e
nt of pr
e-
ser
v
ice
teachers to act
ivities in and out of
the school
1.
71
1.
39
1.
89
1.
47
1.
49
1.
59
No
Difficulty
4.
pr
ovision o
f
secur
ity
and safety
f
o
r p
r
e-serv
ice t
e
a
c
h
e
rs
1.
71
1.
28
1.
89
1.
47
1.
62
1.
59
No
Difficulty
5.
pr
incipal’
s wor
k
r
e
lationship
between cooperati
ng teachers and
pre-service teacher
s
1.
33
1.
17
2.
44
1.
47
1.
69
1.
62
No
Difficulty
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD
or Big Diff
icu
l
ty);
3.26-4
.
00 –
(S
D or Serious Dif
f
iculty
)
According to s
c
hool princi
pals
during KII,
t
h
ere was
provi
sion for
pre-se
rvi
ce teache
r
s
or m
e
ntees
to use the com
pute
r
laboratory, lib
rary and
othe
r teaching
devices
only whe
n
stude
n
ts do
not us
e the
m
and
whe
n
pr
o
p
er c
o
o
r
di
nat
i
o
n i
s
do
ne
wi
t
h
c
o
n
cerne
d sc
h
ool
pers
o
nnel
.
Sc
h
ool
hea
d
s real
l
y
want
e
d
p
r
e-s
e
rvi
c
e
teachers t
o
e
n
joy full access t
o
sc
hool
resources but they c
o
uld
not accom
m
oda
te the
m
all the tim
e
because
of
li
mited
scho
o
l
eq
u
i
p
m
en
t an
d o
t
h
e
r
facilities
and
larg
e po
pu
latio
n
of
studen
t
s who
u
tilize
su
ch
facilitie
s.
Cooperating sc
hools conduc
te
d school activi
ties but participation
of pre-s
e
rvice teache
r
s
in
m
o
st of
th
ese activ
ities was
no
t req
u
i
red
du
ri
n
g
field
-
b
a
sed
ob
serv
ation
p
e
rio
d
.
As a sup
port syste
m
, scho
o
l
pri
n
ci
pal
s
al
on
g
wi
t
h
de
part
m
e
nt
chai
r
p
er
s
ons
re
adi
l
y
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d an
o
r
i
e
n
t
at
i
on sessi
on
rega
rdi
n
g
obse
r
vat
i
o
n
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Difficu
lties in
Field
-
Ba
sed Ob
serva
tio
n amo
n
g
Pre-S
e
rvic
e Tea
c
h
e
rs:
Imp
lica
tio
ns .... (Ma
r
ipa
z
C
.
Aba
s
)
10
5
p
o
licies, assign
m
e
n
t
o
f
classes an
d
respon
sib
ilities as wel
l
as fo
rm
al in
t
r
odu
ctio
n
to
assig
n
e
d
m
e
n
t
o
r
s and
stude
nts to e
n
sure a successful obse
r
vation e
xpe
rience
. Bu
t
they kne
w tha
t
it was still in
sufficient to
prepare
p
r
e-serv
ice teach
e
rs in th
eir
o
b
s
erv
a
tio
n task
s. Th
ey
con
t
en
d
e
d
t
h
at Teach
er Ed
u
cation
In
stitu
tion
s
(TEIs)
have
the
prime responsi
bilit
y to orient t
h
e
i
r pre-se
rv
ice teachers for
off-cam
pus
work and
determ
ine their
pote
n
tials and
readi
n
ess
for practice
teaching.
3.
2.
On Co
oper
a
t
i
n
g
T
e
achers
Table
2 s
h
ows
the indicators
showi
n
g e
x
tent of
diff
iculty on c
o
ope
r
ating teache
r
s
or
mentors. It
reveals t
h
at pre-service teac
hers
ex
peri
e
n
c
e
d “m
oderat
e
di
ffi
c
u
l
t
y
” i
n
t
e
rm
s of w
o
r
k
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
(
1
.
8
1
)
,
interpe
r
sonal skills (1.76)
, cl
assroom
m
a
na
gem
e
nt (1.94), teaching
a
p
proac
h
es (1.80), and instructi
onal
m
a
terials (1.
7
7
)
.
There
we
re i
n
st
ances
whe
n
wo
rk
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
rpe
r
s
onal
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
ps
bet
w
een c
o
o
p
e
r
at
i
n
g t
eac
hers
(m
entors) a
n
d pre
-
service teachers
(m
entees) we
re af
fec
t
ed. Som
e
pre-service
teache
r
s face
d intim
idation
problem
.
During
KII, c
o
ope
rating t
eache
r
s
confirm
e
d how som
e
m
e
ntees
felt frighte
ned eve
n
by the
voice
and
faci
al
exp
r
essi
on
of t
h
ei
r m
e
nt
ors. T
h
ou
gh t
h
e
r
e we
re
som
e
att
i
t
udi
nal
pro
b
l
e
m
s
i
n
m
e
nt
ors, t
h
ey
shar
e
d
t
h
at
som
e
of the m
e
nt
ees dem
onst
r
at
ed un
desi
ra
bl
e act
i
ons an
d val
u
es,
t
oo. T
h
ey
ex
pr
essed t
h
ei
r f
r
u
st
rat
i
o
n
ove
r
pre
-
servic
e teachers
’
tardiness
an
d improper c
o
nduct
,
i.e. as
king t
h
e
m
to sign attenda
nce
form
for
one
t
i
m
e
onl
y
whe
n
i
t
sho
u
l
d
ha
ve bee
n
do
ne
r
i
ght
aft
e
r ea
ch
obse
r
vat
i
on
s
e
ssi
on
. T
hus
,
m
e
nt
ors st
re
ss
ed st
ri
ct
obs
ervance of punctuality
and
discip
line a
m
ong pre
-
service teachers. In ad
dition, the
y
highlighted the late
depl
oy
m
e
nt
of
pre
-
ser
v
i
ce t
e
a
c
hers
i
n
t
h
ei
r s
c
ho
ol
s a
n
d
ab
s
e
nce
of
p
r
o
p
er
sen
d
i
n
g-
of
f
pr
og
ram
.
Despi
t
e
som
e
sho
r
t
c
om
i
ngs of t
h
ei
r m
e
nt
ees,
m
o
st
of t
h
e
m
were consi
d
erat
e and hel
p
f
u
l
i
n
pr
ovi
di
n
g
gui
da
nce an
d
sup
p
o
rt
fo
r bet
t
e
r obse
r
vat
i
o
n
ex
pe
ri
ence.
Table 2. Difficulties
related
t
o
c
o
ope
r
ating t
eachers (n=
1
36)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
coaching or
m
e
ntor
ing of
pre-service teacher
s
2.
19
1.
17
2.
11
1.
45
1.
77
1.
74
No
Difficulty
2.
approachability 1.90
1.
11 2.22
1.51
1.62
1.67
No
Difficulty
3.
patience 1.
86
1.
11
2.
33
1.
39
1.
56
1.
65
No
Difficulty
4.
wor
k
r
e
lationship
1.
90
1.
33
2.
56
1.
49
1.
79
1.
81
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
interpersonal skills
1.95
1.44 2.22
1.51
1.67
1.76
M
oderateDifficulty
6.
punctuality
1.62
1.28
2.00
1.
41
1.49
1.56
No
Difficulty
7.
teaching co
m
p
et
ence
1.67
1.56
1.67
1.61
1.62
1.63
No
Dif
f
i
culty
8.
classr
oo
m
m
a
nagem
e
nt
2.
19
1.
56
2.
11
1.
88
1.
97
1.
94
M
oder
a
teDifficulty
9.
teaching approaches /
m
e
thods / techniques
1.
81
1.
50
2.
33
1.
55
1.
79
1.
80
M
oder
a
teDifficulty
10.
instr
u
ctional m
a
terials
1.
86
1.
61
1.
89
1.
63
1.
85
1.
77
M
oder
a
teDifficulty
11.
student evaluation
1.
67
1.
33
2.
00
1.
57
1.
85
1.
68
No Difficulty
12.
co
mm
unication skills
2.00
1.33 2.11
1.57
1.69
1.74
No
Difficulty
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD
or Big Diff
icu
l
ty);
3.26-4
.
00 –
(S
D or Serious Dif
f
iculty
)
In a
n
FGI wi
th pre
-
service
teachers, the
y
re
lated how their hum
ilia
tion experie
n
c
e
from
their
co
op
eratin
g
teach
ers co
n
t
ribu
ted
to
und
esirab
le wo
rk
con
d
ition
.
Th
ey ad
m
i
tted
th
at s
o
m
e
o
f
th
e
m
s
h
owed
shy
n
ess
,
l
a
pse
s
and l
o
w sel
f
-
c
on
fi
de
nce s
o
t
h
ey
were
not
so rea
d
y
t
o
ad
apt
t
o
ne
w o
b
s
e
rvat
i
o
n t
a
sks
.
They
ad
d
e
d
th
at
u
n
friend
l
y co
mm
u
n
i
catio
n
man
n
e
r an
d
favo
ritism
o
f
m
e
n
t
ors as well
as ab
sen
ce of p
r
o
p
er
ori
e
nt
at
i
on i
n
t
h
e co
n
duct
of
obs
er
vat
i
on t
r
i
gge
re
d u
n
sat
i
s
fact
ory
i
n
t
e
rpe
r
so
nal
rel
a
t
i
o
n
s
. M
o
re
o
v
er
, o
n
t
h
e
issue of teaching
during obse
rvation
pe
riod, som
e
favore
d
handling t
h
eir
m
e
ntors’ clas
ses for valid reasons
(e.g., sick lea
v
e, attenda
nce to sem
i
nars).
What they
n
e
gativ
ely co
mm
e
n
ted
was wh
en
th
ey tau
g
h
t
classes
ev
en
t
h
oug
h
t
h
eir
m
e
n
t
o
r
s
were ju
st aro
und
th
e cam
p
u
s
and
wh
en
th
ey su
b
s
titu
ted
ev
en d
u
ring
Saturday an
d
night class sessions
. They also felt offende
d
when th
ei
r perform
a
nce wa
s com
p
ared
to pre-s
e
rvice teachers
fr
om
ot
her T
E
I
s
.
Furt
herm
ore,
one pre-service
teacher s
h
are
d
how
s
h
e alwa
ys fought
her
nervous
ness whene
v
e
r
she
was wi
t
h
he
r
m
e
nt
or.
A
not
h
e
r o
n
e rel
a
t
e
d her
di
sco
u
r
age
m
ent
and
rel
u
c
t
ance t
o
o
b
se
r
v
e d
u
e t
o
he
r
m
e
nt
or’
s
perfectionist c
h
aracter. Som
e
coope
rating t
eachers
conf
irmed suc
h
pe
rfectionist
and i
n
consi
d
erate
mentors
fo
r rea
s
o
n
s t
h
e
y
di
d
not
di
v
u
l
g
e.
In
th
is case, in
stead of
gettin
g
in
sp
ired
to
do
ob
serv
atio
n
tasks, so
me p
r
e-
serv
ice teach
e
rs tho
ugh
t th
ey
were no
t
g
u
i
d
e
d
p
r
op
erly; th
us, bu
ild
i
n
g a
g
a
p
b
e
tween
th
em
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
10
1 – 1
1
2
10
6
Results indicate also the problem on classroom
m
a
nage
ment as obse
r
ve
d by pre
-
se
rvi
ce teachers.
Som
e
coope
ra
ting teache
r
s
coul
d not com
p
letely cont
rol noisiness a
nd
unruliness
of st
ude
nts
due t
o
ove
r
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
e
d
cl
assro
o
m
s
. Sc
ho
ol
pri
n
ci
pal
s
m
e
nt
i
oned t
h
a
t
ov
erc
r
o
w
ded
n
ess
was
at
t
r
i
b
ut
ed
t
o
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
of
not
re
ject
i
n
g any
st
ude
nt
fr
om
enrol
l
i
ng i
n
t
h
ei
r sc
ho
ol
and t
o
l
ack
of cl
assr
o
o
m
s
. Ad
di
t
i
onal
l
y
,
som
e
coo
p
e
r
at
i
ng t
e
achers
ha
d a
h
a
rd t
i
m
e
m
a
nagi
n
g
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
f
r
om
al
l
wal
k
s of l
i
f
e a
n
d wi
t
h
di
verse
nee
d
s an
d
in
terests. In
th
i
s
situ
atio
n
,
t
h
ey tried
u
s
ing
d
i
fferen
tia
ted
in
stru
ction
wh
ich
requ
ired
ti
m
e
, effo
rts an
d
m
a
t
e
rial
resources to
attain
learn
i
ng
ou
tco
m
es. Howev
e
r, d
e
sp
ite t
h
eir efforts th
ere were still
misb
eh
av
ing
stud
en
ts
who
op
en
ly sh
o
w
ed
ru
d
e
n
e
ss, in
atten
tiv
en
ess an
d
p
a
ssiv
ity in
class. Wh
en
su
ch
misb
ehav
iors p
e
rsisted
,
th
ey
just tende
d to i
g
nore them
. One coop
erating teacher
opi
ne
d that the C
h
ild Protection Policy im
ple
m
e
n
tation
m
a
y
or m
a
y
no
t
be a
fact
o
r
fo
r m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
ng
g
o
o
d
cl
ass
r
oom
m
a
nagem
e
nt
.
Sim
ilarly, findings s
u
ggest
th
at som
e
c
o
ope
r
ating tea
c
hers
ha
d a pre
d
icam
ent on teaching
approaches tha
t
som
e
how af
fected the attainm
e
nt of quali
ty learni
ng. Som
e
pre-service teachers obs
e
rve
d
th
at th
eir m
e
n
t
o
r
s en
d
e
avo
r
ed
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t th
e K to
12
curricu
lu
m
t
h
at requ
ires ex
p
e
rien
tial activ
ities,
learner-ce
ntere
d
strate
gies,
pe
rform
a
nce-ba
s
e
d assessm
en
ts, and
holistic teaching a
p
pr
oach to attain
various
learning com
p
etencies. The
mentors
them
selves sha
r
ed t
h
at som
e
K to
12 l
ear
ni
n
g
e
xpe
ri
ences
we
re n
o
t
su
itab
l
e to
ab
ilities an
d
in
terests o
f
st
ud
en
ts
esp
ecially
from lo
wer section
s
.
In th
is case, learn
i
n
g
task
s in
t
h
e
new
c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
u
m
coul
d
not
b
e
t
o
t
a
l
l
y
fol
l
o
wed;
co
nse
que
nt
l
y
, l
earni
ng
out
c
o
m
e
s wo
u
l
d
not
be
ef
fe
ct
i
v
el
y
ach
iev
e
d
.
Also, it is ev
en
alarmin
g
th
at th
e
p
r
esen
t K t
o
12
curricu
lu
m
reform
was n
o
t
yet fu
lly u
n
d
e
rstoo
d
and i
n
ternalized by m
o
st pre
-
service teache
r
s.
On
one ha
nd,
the pre
-
se
rvice
teachers obs
erved
t
h
at some
m
e
nt
ors
han
d
l
i
ng st
ude
nt
s wi
t
h
u
n
wa
nt
ed at
t
i
t
udes em
pl
oy
ed va
ri
ed t
eac
hi
n
g
st
rat
e
gi
es
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
at
e t
h
em
t
o
participate in class activities
.
On
the ot
her hand, other
mentors still us
ed traditional teach
ing due to their
un
p
r
epa
r
ed
nes
s
for t
h
e
day
’
s l
e
ssons
, l
azi
ness i
n
en
ga
gi
ng st
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
vari
o
u
s l
earni
ng e
xpe
ri
ence
s, and
unwillingness t
o
teach trouble
s
om
e students.
During
KII wit
h
cooperating t
eachers
,
they c
ited th
e lack
of teaching guides
, learners
’ materials and
textbooks as well as inadequa
cy of cl
assroom facili
ties in
th
eir resp
ective
scho
ol
s. T
h
i
s
fi
ndi
ng i
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt
with
p
e
ren
n
i
al
d
ile
mm
a o
n
sch
o
o
l
facilities facing
th
e
p
u
b
l
ic sch
o
o
l
s in
t
h
e coun
try. It
was
b
r
o
ugh
t ou
t also
t
h
at
Ara
b
i
c
Lang
ua
ge an
d I
s
l
a
m
i
c Val
u
es Educat
i
o
n (
A
LIV
E
) s
u
b
j
ect
s had
no
bu
d
g
et
fo
r i
n
st
r
u
c
t
i
onal
materials. So
me teachers provide
d
their own m
a
terials
while others could not affo
rd to buy. One pre
-
servic
e
teacher
observed that
stud
ents in s
o
m
e
classes
had no
books, on
ly their teac
hers
.
This ina
d
e
q
ua
cy of
tech
no
log
y
reso
urces,
wh
ich
m
u
st b
e
ad
d
r
essed
to
su
stain g
ood
p
e
d
a
g
ogical p
r
actices an
d
qu
ality lea
r
ni
ng
am
ong
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
, wa
s af
fi
rm
ed by
sc
h
ool
hea
d
s a
n
d c
o
o
p
era
t
i
ng t
eac
hers
.
3.
3.
On S
t
ude
nt S
upervis
ors
As
gleane
d
i
n
Ta
ble 3,
pre-service teac
hers
enc
o
unte
r
ed “m
ode
rate difficulty” towards t
h
eir
sup
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
n
fi
ve i
t
e
m
s
:
m
e
nt
o
r
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es
(1
.8
0)
, c
o
n
duct
o
f
m
eet
i
ngs
(1
.8
0
)
, a
ssi
g
n
i
n
g
of
t
a
sks
(
1
.
8
3
)
,
lead
ersh
ip
(1
.81
)
, an
d m
o
n
ito
ring
(1
.81
)
.
Tab
l
e 3
.
Difficu
lties
related
t
o
p
r
e-serv
ice
co
ord
i
n
a
tors (n=1
36)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
m
e
ntor
ing str
a
tegies
1.
90
1.
67
2.
11
1.
67
1.
64
1.
80
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
2.
conduct o
f
m
eetin
gs
1.
48
1.
94
2.
00
1.
61
1.
97
1.
80
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
3.
assigning o
f
tasks
1.
62
1.
61
2.
22
1.
69
2.
03
1.
83
M
oder
a
teDifficulty
4.
leader
ship
1.
67
1.
56
2.
44
1.
59
1.
79
1.
81
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
fair
ness
1.
57
1.
28
2.
11
1.
61
1.
62
1.
64
No
Difficulty
6.
wor
k
r
e
lationship
1.
67
1.
33
2.
00
1.
49
1.
72
1.
64
No
Difficulty
7.
coor
dination
1.
71
1.
44
2.
00
1.
57
1.
72
1.
69
No
Difficulty
8.
co
mm
unication skills
1.71
1.39 2.22
1.55
1.67
1.71
No
Difficulty
9.
m
onitor
i
ng of pr
e-
service teache
r
s
1.
86
1.
56
2.
22
1.
61
1.
82
1.
81
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD
or Big Diff
icu
l
ty);
3.26-4
.
00 –
(S
D or Serious Dif
f
iculty
)
Du
ri
n
g
FG
I,
al
l
st
ude
nt
s
u
per
v
i
s
o
r
s cl
ai
m
e
d t
h
at
go
o
d
m
e
nt
o
r
i
n
g t
h
r
o
u
g
h
m
eet
i
ngs a
n
d
wo
r
k
sh
o
p
s
gui
des’
pre
-
se
rvi
ce t
eac
her
s
i
n
pe
rf
orm
i
ng t
h
ei
r t
a
s
k
s.
Ho
we
ver
,
one
su
per
v
i
s
or
re
cal
l
e
d n
o
n
-
hol
di
n
g
of
m
e
nt
ori
n
g ses
s
i
ons a
nd s
o
m
e
exp
r
esse
d t
h
e l
ack of re
gu
l
a
r ori
e
nt
at
i
o
n
m
eeti
ngs an
d
sem
i
nar-w
or
k
s
ho
ps
gi
ve
n t
o
p
r
e-se
rvi
ce st
ude
nt
s,
t
h
ere
b
y
de
pri
v
i
n
g
t
h
e l
a
t
t
e
r
to un
d
e
r
s
tand
cl
ear
ly th
e pur
po
ses
o
f
a f
i
eld-b
a
sed
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Difficu
lties in
Field
-
Ba
sed Ob
serva
tio
n amo
n
g
Pre-S
e
rvic
e Tea
c
h
e
rs:
Imp
lica
tio
ns .... (Ma
r
ipa
z
C
.
Aba
s
)
10
7
obs
er
vat
i
on a
n
d t
h
ei
r r
o
l
e
s as
m
e
nt
ees. In c
ons
o
n
a
n
ce wi
t
h
t
h
i
s
was t
h
e
obs
er
vat
i
on
of
coo
p
e
r
at
i
ng t
e
achers
and
pre
-
servic
e teachers that
stude
nt supe
rvisors lack
e
d
clear im
ple
m
e
n
tation pla
n
a
nd tim
elines for a 17-
ho
u
r
fi
el
d
-
base
d
obs
er
vat
i
o
n
.
In t
e
rm
s of m
e
et
i
ngs, t
w
o
su
p
e
rvi
s
ors
na
rrat
e
d t
h
e a
b
se
nce
of
reg
u
l
a
r
m
e
et
i
ngs
wi
t
h
t
h
ei
r
col
l
eag
ues
t
o
pl
a
n
, i
m
pl
em
ent
and
m
oni
t
o
r fi
el
d
o
b
se
r
v
at
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
br
i
e
fi
ng
be
fo
re
p
r
e-se
rvi
ce t
eac
hers
’
de
pl
oy
m
e
nt
i
n
coo
p
e
r
at
i
ng
sc
ho
ol
s
was n
o
t
eno
u
g
h
t
o
pr
epare st
u
d
ent
s
i
n
t
h
ei
r
of
f-c
am
pus
obse
r
v
a
t
i
on. R
e
gar
d
i
ng t
h
e
abse
nce of
pos
t confe
r
ence
, a supervisor
attribute
d
it to hectic schedules of
pre-se
rvice teachers
.
But for s
o
m
e
pre
-
service teachers a
n
d their m
e
ntors, the
y
asserted
tha
t
such failure
was cause
d
by lack of workpla
n
throughout the
duration
of observation.
Ac
cordingly,
som
e
coope
r
ating t
eachers c
ite
d the lack
of
foc
u
s a
nd
obvious unpre
pare
dness of pre
-
service teachers
duri
ng field-base
d
obs
ervation.
As a whole, stude
nt
su
perv
isors
realized
how essen
tial th
e m
e
e
tin
g
s
are t
o
a
d
dress
rel
e
vant
conce
r
ns a
n
d
share
g
o
o
d
p
r
act
i
ces
obs
erved
by pre-service teachers in th
ei
r res
p
ective sc
hool
s. In fact, s
u
pe
rvis
ors
believe
d that if pre
-
se
rvice
teachers are
overl
o
ade
d
with tasks or
assi
gned
with wrong ta
sks, t
h
ey may burn
out
and
get discourage
d
in
per
f
o
r
m
i
ng t
h
e
i
r real
sc
h
ool
t
a
sks.
Regarding tas
k
assignm
e
nts, the
pre
-
service
teach
ers
commented
on s
o
m
e
su
pervisors who were
not
syste
m
at
ic in
g
i
v
i
ng
assignmen
ts. Th
ey also
sh
ared
th
at so
m
e
su
p
e
rviso
r
s g
a
v
e
late in
form
at
io
n
in
th
e
su
b
m
issio
n
o
f
requ
irem
en
ts
related
to
ob
serv
atio
n.
More
ove
r,
pre
-
service teache
r
s were e
x
cited to obse
r
ve and reflect on their
expe
riences
which t
h
ey
believed
woul
d serve as training ground for practice t
eaching. However, they ex
pre
ssed that supe
rvis
ors
failed to e
ffecti
v
ely lead them
during
t
h
ei
r sc
hed
u
l
e
d
o
b
se
rv
at
i
ons
out
si
de t
h
e C
o
l
l
e
ge (T
E
I).
They
we
re
qui
t
e
dism
ayed because t
h
ey expe
cted a l
o
t of s
u
pport from
supe
rvisors. This
situation wa
s consistent
with the
respon
se
o
f
two sup
e
rv
iso
r
s wh
o no
ted th
e ab
sence of
ov
erall su
p
e
rv
isor th
at
will co
llabo
rate
with
and
co
ord
i
n
a
te p
l
an
n
e
d
activ
ities to
En
g
lish, Islamic
E
d
u
cation
,
MAPEH, Math
em
at
ics an
d TLE su
p
e
rv
iso
r
s.
Cooperating teachers a
nd pre-serv
ice teachers alike empha
sized th
at supervisors shoul
d conduct
quality
m
onitoring of field-ba
sed obse
rvation. Pre
-
se
rvice teachers rem
a
rked
that only ve
ry few of them were
m
oni
t
o
red i
n
t
h
ei
r res
p
ect
i
v
e
scho
ol
s f
o
r t
h
e wh
ol
e d
u
ra
t
i
on
of
o
b
ser
v
at
i
o
n
.
Li
ke
wi
se,
one s
u
per
v
i
s
o
r
ci
t
e
d
th
e absen
c
e of a m
o
n
ito
ring
syste
m
as p
r
o
v
en
b
y
absen
c
e
o
f
con
c
rete pro
g
ram
o
f
activities an
d
m
o
n
ito
ri
ng
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
s f
o
r
al
l
fi
ve
pr
o
g
ra
m
s
.
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e
fo
reg
o
i
n
g st
a
t
em
ent
s
, st
ude
nt
su
per
v
isors failed
to
fu
lly ex
ercise some o
f
th
eir
m
a
ndat
e
d f
u
nc
t
i
ons i
n
s
upe
r
v
i
s
i
ng p
r
e-
ser
v
i
ce st
ude
nt
s.
The id
en
tified
item
s
were critical in
th
e su
ccess o
f
a
fi
el
d-
base
d ex
peri
e
n
ce. L
ogi
cal
l
y
, i
f
t
h
ese
attributes are fully provide
d
,
th
ey can factor in for a
m
eaningful
fi
el
d-
base
d obs
ervat
i
o
n pr
o
g
ra
m
.
3.
4.
On S
t
ude
nts
As Tab
l
e
4
illu
strates, th
e
p
r
e-serv
ice resp
ond
en
ts revealed
th
at th
ey en
cou
n
t
ered “
m
o
d
e
rate
di
ffi
c
u
l
t
y
” i
n
alm
o
st
al
l
i
ndi
cat
ors (
6
out
of
7) i
n
o
b
ser
v
i
n
g st
u
d
e
n
t
s
’ b
e
havi
ors a
n
d pe
rf
orm
a
nce i
n
si
de t
h
e
class.
Tab
l
e
4
.
Difficu
lties related
t
o
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
(n
=1
36)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
students’
level of
under
s
tandin
g
of l
e
ssons
2.
67
2.
11
2.
33
1.
92
2.
03
2.
21
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
2.
students’
par
ticipation in
class activities
2.
67
1.
61
2.
33
2.
06
2.
05
2.
14
M
oder
a
teDifficulty
3.
students’ attitudes and
behaviour
s
2.
86
2.
28
2.
89
2.
57
2.
41
2.
60
Big
Difficulty
4.
students’
m
o
tivation
to
learn
2.
52
1.
94
2.
33
2.
08
2.
08
2.
19
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
students’
social inter
action
in class
2.
62
1.
67
2.
33
1.
94
1.
95
2.
10
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
6.
students’
per
f
orm
a
nce of
class responsibilities
2.
62
2.
00
2.
44
2.
10
2.
13
2.
26
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
7.
students’
attention or
focus
in class
3.
00
2.
17
2.
33
2.
27
2.
15
2.
38
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD
or Big Diff
icu
l
ty);
3.26-4
.
00 –
(S
D or Serious Dif
f
iculty
)
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
10
1 – 1
1
2
10
8
In
terestin
g
l
y, t
h
e respon
d
e
n
t
s h
a
d
“b
ig
d
i
fficu
lty
” on
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’ attitu
des and
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
rs
(2.60).
Problem
s
faced
by public school
system like ove
r
crowde
d classroom
s
, lack of
facilities, teachers’
incom
p
etence, poor class m
a
nagem
e
nt, and lack of c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
nt
are con
t
ri
but
ory
t
o
students
’ m
i
sbehaviors
and dete
riorati
n
g academ
ic perform
a
nce.
Due to di
versity
of stude
n
ts, te
achers
we
re c
h
allenged to c
r
e
a
te an
interactive cla
ss at
m
o
sphere
, enc
o
urage
ac
tive stude
nt
s’ involvem
ent
and utilize
vari
ed teachi
n
g-le
arni
n
g
approaches
and techniques
.
According to pre-se
rvice teac
hers
, classroom environm
ent becam
e
not
advanta
g
eous to l
earni
ng a
nd
stu
d
e
n
t
s rem
a
in
ed p
a
ssiv
e
o
r
un
ru
ly if in
st
ru
ction
a
l in
terv
en
tion
s
were in
app
r
op
riate to
stud
en
ts’ l
e
v
e
l of
k
nowledg
e, interests, n
e
ed
s an
d
ab
ilities. Th
e scho
o
l
p
r
i
n
cip
a
ls ackn
o
wledg
e
d
,
too
,
th
e presence o
f
misch
i
ev
ou
s an
d
ill-m
a
n
n
e
red
stud
en
ts who
m
th
ey b
e
liev
e
d
need
ed
m
o
re assistan
ce,
p
a
tien
c
e and
unde
rstanding on
the pa
rt of t
h
e teachers.
3.
5.
On Peers/
C
o-Pre-ser
v
ice Te
achers
The data shown in Table 5
provides a pict
ure
of
how pre-service teachers wo
rke
d
wi
th peers
.
It
reveals that team
work was pe
rceive
d
as “
m
oderately diffic
u
lt” (1.77). Th
e pre-se
rvice teachers s
h
owe
d
good
i
ndi
cat
o
r
s o
f
pers
o
n
al
and
pr
ofe
ssi
o
n
al
g
r
o
w
t
h
si
nce t
h
ey
had n
o
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
on i
n
t
e
r
p
ers
o
nal
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
(1.61
)
, co
n
c
ern and
u
n
d
e
rstand
ing
(1.68
)
, attitu
d
e
s t
o
wards
p
eers (1
.72
)
, an
d m
o
ral sup
p
o
r
t t
o
p
eers (1
.6
2).
The
pre
-
servic
e teachers t
h
ought that
team
work
problem
may be attri
bute
d
to failure of form
ulating
an
d
im
p
l
e
m
en
t
i
n
g
a un
ified
prog
ram
o
f
activ
ities wh
ere all o
f
th
em
fro
m fiv
e
prog
ram
s
co
u
l
d
work
tog
e
th
er
and e
nga
ge in releva
nt activities a
pproved by the College. Bo
th pre-se
rvi
ce teachers
and cooperating teachers
cl
aim
e
d t
h
at
sup
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s ha
d n
o
o
r
ga
ni
ze
d act
i
v
i
t
y
pro
g
ram
and n
o
pr
ope
r co
or
d
i
nat
i
on
wi
t
h
f
e
l
l
o
w
supervisors. L
i
kewise,
t
h
e pre
-
se
rvice te
achers
reiterat
e
d the
abse
nc
e of
re
gul
a
r
m
eet
i
ngs an
d
p
o
st
-
confere
n
ces
which put to ris
k
the esse
nce of tea
m
work among them
. In eff
ect, they were
una
ble to share their
negative a
nd
positive observa
tions as
a group. For them
, their unity was no
t successfully rea
lized within the
du
rat
i
o
n
of t
h
e
i
r o
b
se
rvat
i
o
n
sessi
on
s.
Table 5. Difficulties
related
t
o
peer
s/c
o
– pre-service
teachers (n=
1
36)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
inter
p
er
sonal r
e
lationship
1.
43
1.
56
2.
11
1.
39
1.
54
1.
61
No Difficulty
2.
concer
n and under
s
tanding
1.
57
1.
44
2.
11
1.
57
1.
72
1.
68
No Difficulty
3.
attitudes towards peers
1.
81 1.56
1.89
1.65 1.67
1.72
No
Difficulty
4.
team
wor
k
1.
81
1.
33
2.
33
1.
53
1.
85
1.
77
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
m
o
r
a
l suppor
t to peer
s
1.
57
1.
22
1.
78
1.
73
1.
82
1.
62
No Difficulty
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD or B
i
g Difficulty
); 3
.
26-4.00 – (SD or Ser
i
ous Difficulty
)
3.
6.
On Assigned Tasks
Table 6 illustrates the pre
-
se
rvice teache
r
s’ diffic
u
lties towards their assigne
d
tasks. It shows tha
t
al
m
o
st all in
d
i
cato
r
s
were
rated
as “m
o
d
e
rately d
i
fficu
lt” ex
cep
t
for
g
u
id
an
ce of
teach
e
rs in fu
lfillin
g th
e
t
a
sks (
1
.
6
8
)
p
e
rcei
ve
d as “n
o di
f
f
i
c
ul
t
y
”. Al
t
h
o
u
gh t
h
e
y
are gui
ded i
n
d
o
i
n
g t
h
e t
a
sks, t
h
e p
r
e-se
rvi
c
e
teachers
found those tas
k
s c
h
allengi
ng. T
h
is finding
po
ints out two is
sues.
First,
the
pre
-
service te
achers
were
n
o
t
so s
k
i
l
l
e
d and
wel
l
-
p
r
epa
r
ed t
o
p
e
r
f
o
rm
t
h
e t
a
sks g
i
ven t
o
t
h
em
by
m
e
nt
ors an
d
sup
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s. S
e
con
d
,
coope
r
ating teachers
ga
ve t
h
e
m
tasks
bey
o
nd their expect
ations
during
obs
ervation pe
riods.
For i
n
stance, i
t
was a
big problem
for those
pre
-
se
rvice te
achers
who la
ck
ed kno
wledg
e
o
n
top
i
cs to
b
e
taugh
t instan
tly.
Exp
ected
ly, th
i
s
typ
e
o
f
task
was no
t refused
b
y
so
m
e
o
f
th
em
; h
o
w
ev
er, th
ey felt u
n
c
om
fo
rtab
le an
d
ten
s
ed
for lack
of
preparation. B
u
t
som
e
coope
ra
ting teache
r
s e
xplaine
d t
h
at th
ey let their
m
e
ntees handl
e
their
classes only when neces
sary,
whe
n
t
h
ere is a
dva
nce
notice to them
and s
upervis
ors
and
when their a
b
se
nce in
class is officially approve
d
by
t
h
e sc
h
ool
pri
n
ci
pal
.
During FGI, the pre
-
se
rvice t
eachers
explained t
h
at
their
other
profe
ssional and m
a
jor c
o
urses i
n
the
C
o
l
l
e
ge we
re t
a
ken u
p
si
m
u
l
t
a
neou
sl
y
wi
t
h
fi
el
d o
b
se
rv
at
i
on as a Fi
el
d St
udy
co
u
r
se
m
a
ndat
e
d i
n
t
h
e
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
. Th
i
s
si
t
u
at
i
on af
f
ect
ed som
e
ho
w t
h
e
num
ber
and t
y
pe
o
f
t
a
sks t
h
ey
c
oul
d
com
p
l
e
t
e
and
m
a
nage
as prescri
b
ed by thei
r s
u
bject t
eache
r
s
and cooperati
n
g teache
r
s.
Th
ey trie
d
pe
rform
i
ng thei
r field-
o
b
s
erv
a
tio
n task
s
wh
ile, at t
h
e sam
e
ti
m
e
,
co
m
p
letin
g
co
urse
req
u
i
remen
t
s in
all su
bj
ects. Sim
i
larly, th
ey
were no
t ex
emp
t
ed fro
m
p
a
rti
c
ip
atin
g in Co
l
l
eg
e
p
r
o
g
ram
s
an
d
activ
ities wh
ich
n
e
ed
ed ti
m
e
fo
r reh
earsal
or
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Difficu
lties in
Field
-
Ba
sed Ob
serva
tio
n amo
n
g
Pre-S
e
rvic
e Tea
c
h
e
rs:
Imp
lica
tio
ns .... (Ma
r
ipa
z
C
.
Aba
s
)
10
9
d
r
y-ru
n.
Th
erefore,
it was h
a
rd
for
th
em
to
co
p
e
with respon
sib
ilities in
the Co
lleg
e
and
in
th
eir coop
eratin
g
schools.
The pre-service teachers bei
n
g ne
w to off-c
a
m
pus ob
se
rva
tion ha
d to a
d
just their routines and
hone
th
eir sk
ills requ
ired
in
ob
servatio
n
tasks.
Howev
e
r,
du
e to
l
azin
e
ss
o
f
so
me to
su
b
m
it req
u
i
rem
e
n
t
s o
n
ti
m
e
,
th
ey h
a
d
tr
ouble co
p
i
ng
w
ith late p
r
ep
ar
atio
n
s
o
f
por
tfo
lio
s, assign
m
e
n
t
s an
d
o
t
h
e
r
pro
j
ects. Th
eir
l
ack
o
f
t
i
m
e
m
a
nagem
e
nt
wa
s a c
o
nt
r
i
but
i
n
g
fact
o
r
t
o
i
n
e
ffi
ci
e
n
t
t
a
sk
per
f
o
rm
ance.
Tab
l
e
6
.
Difficu
lties related
t
o
assi
g
n
e
d
tasks (n
=136
)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
am
ount of class or
school
tasks
2.
10
1.
72
2.
33
1.
80
2.
00
1.
99
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
2.
ty
pes of class or
school tasks
2.
10
1.
89
2.
00
1.
90
1.
90
1.
96
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
3.
am
ount of tim
e
to
fulfil the
tasks
2.
33
2.
00
2.
33
1.
63
2.
15
2.
09
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
4.
m
a
nagem
e
nt of tas
k
s
2.
33
1.
67
2.
00
1.
80
2.
05
1.
97
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
co
m
p
letion of task
s
2.
24
1.
72
2.
00
1.
82
1.
97
1.
95
M
oder
a
te Difficult
y
6.
skills needed to
perform
the
tasks
2.
33
1.
67
2.
44
1.
78
1.
79
2.
00
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
7.
guidance of co
oper
a
ting
teachers in f
u
lf
illing the tasks
2.
05
1.
44
1.
44
1.
61
1.
85
1.
68
No
Difficulty
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD or B
i
g Difficulty
); 3
.
26-4.00 – (SD or Ser
i
ous Difficulty
)
3.
7.
On Le
arning
Environment
Table
7 de
picts the c
o
ndition
of
lea
r
ni
ng envi
ronm
ent
whe
r
e pre
-
se
rvice
teache
r
s had
their first
m
a
xim
i
zed expos
ure on actual teaching-lea
r
ni
ng
process.
As shown in the Table, m
a
jority of indicators
were
rated
as “m
o
d
erately d
i
fficu
lt”. Ex
cep
t
for
lig
h
tin
g,
v
e
n
tilatio
n
an
d security an
d sa
fety, pre-serv
ice teach
ers
h
a
d d
ilemm
a o
n
k
e
y elem
en
ts
in
creatin
g a
facilitat
i
n
g
learn
i
ng
en
v
i
ron
m
en
t.
Tab
l
e
7
.
Difficu
lties related
t
o
learn
i
ng
env
i
ron
m
en
t (n
=1
36
)
M
ean Scor
es
of L
e
vel of Difficulty
Ite
m
s
ENG
MAT
H
IE
TLE
MAPE
H
Overall
Mean
Descr
i
ption
1.
student-teacher rat
i
o
2.29
1.67 2.00
1.
71 1.87
1.91
M
oderate D
i
f
f
i
cult
y
2.
classr
oo
m
size
2.
19
1.
44
2.
22
1.
84
1.
74
1.
89
M
oder
a
te Difficult
y
3.
classroo
m
facilitie
s
2.38
1.
39 2.22
1.92
1.85 1.95
Mode
rate D
i
fficult
y
4.
classr
oo
m
at
m
o
spher
e
2.
33
1.
44
2.
22
1.
88
1.
85
1.
94
M
oder
a
te
Difficult
y
5.
lighting or illu
m
i
n
a
tion
1.
86 1.33
1.89
1.67 1.72
1.69
No
Difficulty
6.
ventilation 2.10
1.39
1.78
1.63
1.74 1.73
No
Difficulty
7.
secur
ity
and safety
1.
86
1.
33
2.
00
1.
79
1.
69
1.
73
No Difficulty
Note:
ENG (English)
,
MATH (Mathematics), IE (
I
slam
ic
Education
)
, TLE
(Technolog
y
and Liv
e
lihoo
d
Education), MAPEH (Music, Arts, Ph
y
s
i
cal
Edu
c
ation
,
and He
alt
h
)
Interpretation:
1.00-1.75
– (ND or No Diff
icu
lty); 1.76-2
.
50 –
(
M
D or Moderate Difficu
lty
)
;
2.51-3.25
– (BD
or Big Diff
icu
l
ty);
3.26-4
.
00 –
(S
D or Serious Dif
f
iculty
)
The fi
ndi
ng s
u
p
p
o
rt
s t
h
e
p
e
rsi
s
t
i
ng
pr
o
b
l
e
m
on cl
assr
o
o
m
envi
ro
nm
ent
i
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
sch
ool
s a
s
mentioned in
Table
1 a
n
d T
a
ble 2.
According t
o
pre
-
se
rvice teachers
,
there
were
overc
r
owded room
s, sm
all
classroom
s
, inadequate classroom
s
,
inade
quate c
h
airs,
insu
fficient libra
ry
refe
renc
es, an
d inade
quat
e
lab
o
rato
ry
equ
i
p
m
en
t and
facilities. Su
ch
p
r
ob
lem
s
were also reco
gn
ized
b
y
sch
o
o
l
p
r
i
n
cipals and
co
op
eratin
g
teach
ers im
p
l
yi
n
g
t
h
at bud
get to
pu
rch
a
se scho
o
l
facilities was eith
er v
e
ry m
i
n
i
mal o
r
una
vai
l
a
bl
e. T
h
ey
al
l
poi
nt
e
d
o
u
t
h
o
w
va
l
u
abl
e
t
h
ese
r
e
so
urces a
r
e,
t
hus i
g
n
o
ri
ng
t
h
em
m
a
y
resul
t
t
o
ineffecti
v
e teac
hing a
n
d learning.
Accord
ing
to
th
em
,
man
a
g
i
ng
a la
r
g
e nu
mb
er
of
stud
en
ts
in a s
m
a
ll c
l
a
ssroom
and a passive class
at
m
o
sp
h
e
re was qu
ite d
i
fficu
lt. Th
is situ
ation
wou
l
d
h
a
ve
an
effect on
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’ attitudes to
wards learn
i
n
g
.
Also, the
pre
-
s
e
rvice teache
r
s
believe
d that
if learni
ng e
nvironm
ent re
m
a
ins unfa
vora
bl
e, minor a
n
d
major
beha
vi
o
r
al
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
woul
d
m
o
st
l
i
k
el
y
emerge i
n
cl
as
s
.
As
observed by them
, when
there a
r
e
noisy
classes
and irresponsible stude
n
ts, a
dditiona
l probl
e
m
s take place
which
were
someti
mes left unattende
d
by t
eachers
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
10
1 – 1
1
2
11
0
not
beca
use
of
i
n
t
e
nt
i
o
n
a
l
neg
l
ect
but
due t
o
press
u
res an
d anxi
et
i
e
s of t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
t
oo m
a
ny
gro
u
p
s
of st
u
d
ent
s
wi
t
h
di
ver
s
e b
ackg
r
ou
n
d
s a
n
d e
xpe
ri
ences
.
R
eal
i
z
i
ng t
h
e
im
port
a
nce
o
f
co
n
duci
v
e l
e
arni
ng e
n
vi
r
o
n
m
ent
,
school princi
pals and c
o
operating
teache
r
s were
doi
ng e
v
erything to so
l
v
e ot
her issue
s
on st
ude
nt-te
acher
ratio
and
classroo
m
size th
roug
h
link
a
g
i
ng
with
o
t
h
e
r
ag
en
cies
o
r
i
n
stitu
tio
n
s
as
partn
e
rs fo
r
p
hysica
l
devel
opm
ent
o
f
t
h
ei
r sch
o
o
l
s
. Ho
we
ver
,
i
t
i
s
wort
h m
e
nt
ioni
ng t
h
at
saf
e
t
y
and securi
t
y
aspect
was not
a
p
r
ob
lem
an
d
this h
a
s
b
e
en
a
great fact
o
r
wh
y p
a
ren
t
s
still co
n
tin
u
e
sen
d
i
n
g
th
eir ch
ild
ren
t
o
scho
o
l
s.
3.
8.
Implicati
o
ns
to Pr
actice
Teaching
Field-based
observation is a
signi
fica
nt element of teacher edu
cation program
that provi
des
pre
-
service teac
he
rs first actual
expe
rience
of
entering
i
n
t
o
t
h
e w
o
rl
d
of
f
o
rm
al
scho
ol
set
t
i
ng w
h
e
r
e
wo
rk
relations
hips
, teacher-student
interactions, pre
p
ara
tion
of class activities, cl
assroom
m
a
nagem
e
nt,
and
adapting to
physical and soci
al envir
onm
ent
becom
e
one’s
dai
l
y
rout
i
n
e
.
In t
h
i
s
case,
fi
el
d o
b
ser
v
at
i
o
n hel
p
s
facilitate pre-service teac
hers to learn a
n
d re
fl
ect for t
h
eir
future
practice t
eaching tasks.
Th
ere are
v
a
ri
ed
p
e
rcep
tion
s
related to
d
i
fficu
lties of
p
r
e-serv
ice teach
e
rs fro
m
d
i
fferen
t m
a
j
o
r
program
s
(English, IE, Math,
MAPE
H, and
TLE).
Noneth
e
l
ess, the dom
inant problem
s
on stude
nts, learning
en
v
i
ron
m
en
t an
d assign
ed
task
s are issu
es
to
con
t
em
p
l
ate
and
reso
l
v
e
urg
e
n
tly. Su
ch
d
i
fficu
lties in
v
a
ri
o
u
s
aspect
s o
f
fi
el
d o
b
se
rvat
i
o
n
m
a
y
bl
ock t
h
e
enha
ncem
ent
of
fi
el
d ex
pe
ri
ences l
i
k
e
pra
c
t
i
c
u
m
. B
a
sed on
KI
I
and F
G
I res
u
l
t
s
, a gap e
x
i
s
t
e
d bet
w
ee
n t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
-l
ear
ni
ng
pract
i
ces ap
pl
i
e
d i
n
act
ual
cl
assro
o
m
sett
ing a
n
d
t
hose c
o
ncept
s
t
a
ug
ht
i
n
fi
e
l
d st
u
d
y
co
ur
ses. T
h
i
s
i
s
al
arm
i
ng o
n
t
h
e part
of t
h
e
TEI c
once
r
ne
d a
n
d
coo
p
e
r
at
i
n
g
sc
ho
ol
s a
n
d a
wa
ke-
u
p cal
l
f
o
r
e
v
ery
one
i
n
vol
v
e
d i
n
fi
el
d
-
b
a
s
e
d e
xpe
ri
ence
s
.
If those
diffic
u
lties continue
to pre
v
ail, two thin
gs m
a
y
happe
n
: First,
pre
-
service teachers m
a
y
hei
g
ht
en t
h
ei
r
di
sco
n
t
e
nt
m
e
nt
on
fi
el
d
obse
r
vat
i
on e
x
peri
e
n
ce an
d
decrea
se t
h
ei
r m
o
ral
e
t
o
wa
rds
pr
act
i
c
um
.
Th
e
p
r
ev
alen
ce o
f
d
i
fficu
lties h
a
d
affected
th
em
p
e
rson
ally.
W
ith
su
ch
d
i
fficu
lties, they felt co
nfu
s
ed
an
d
u
n
c
ertain
if t
h
ey th
em
se
lv
es co
u
l
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
an
d
m
a
k
e
it as fu
t
u
re teach
e
rs. Seco
nd
, su
ch
d
i
fficu
lties may b
e
accepted as
positive challenges to m
a
ke them
m
o
re determ
ined to rea
d
ily face the ri
gors of
practice teaching.
For
t
h
em
, t
h
ey
onl
y
ha
ve
o
n
e rem
a
i
n
i
ng
sem
e
st
er bef
o
r
e
gra
d
uat
i
o
n s
o
t
h
ey
j
u
st
ne
ed t
o
st
ri
ve
ha
rde
r
i
n
p
u
rsu
it of su
ccessfu
l
practicum
.
Field
-
b
a
sed observ
a
tion
resu
lts to
eith
er
po
sitiv
e o
r
n
e
g
a
tive
ch
alleng
es. Pre-serv
ice
teach
e
rs d
i
d
no
t
un
de
rest
im
at
e
bot
h hel
p
f
u
l
a
n
d
di
sast
r
o
us effect
s of p
r
o
b
l
em
s.
Ex
pos
u
r
es
t
o
o
n
-si
t
e
obs
er
vat
i
o
n
s
b
r
o
u
g
h
t
them
insightful learning expe
riences
whi
c
h
t
h
ey
coul
d m
a
xi
m
i
ze t
o
adj
u
st
in a real classroom
situation
for
th
eir p
r
acticum activ
it
y. Th
e d
i
fficu
lties t
h
ey o
b
serv
ed
may serv
e as eye-op
en
ers in th
eir j
ourn
e
y
to
ward
s
i
m
proved prac
tice
teaching. Howe
ver,
considering the
ne
gative effects
of
diffic
u
lties,
genuine reform
s
are
neede
d
i
n
the
conduct of
field-base
d
obse
r
vation as
v
ital c
o
m
pone
nt of t
eacher ed
ucation program
. Afterall,
fi
el
d
obse
r
vat
i
o
n
i
s
not
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
de
gree
p
r
og
ram
co
m
p
l
i
a
nce b
u
t
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
re
p
r
o
f
essi
o
n
al
d
e
vel
o
pm
ent
as wel
l
.
The m
oderat
e
l
e
vel
o
f
di
ffi
c
u
l
t
y
gi
ven t
o
are
a
s o
n
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
assi
gn
ed t
a
s
k
s
an
d l
ear
ni
n
g
e
nvi
ro
nm
ent
di
rect
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
ed
co
o
p
erat
i
n
g
sc
ho
ol
s.
Acco
r
d
i
n
gl
y
,
t
h
i
s
m
a
y
call f
o
r
sust
ai
ne
d
pa
rt
ner
s
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n
coope
r
ating
sc
hools a
nd t
h
e
TEI s
o
th
at they could act togethe
r
on
probl
e
m
s faced by
pre
-
service tea
c
hers
.
Sim
ilarly, field study cours
e
s pri
o
r t
o
practice teach
ing in teache
r
education
c
u
rriculum
,
need
to be
st
ren
g
t
h
e
n
ed
.
The t
h
e
o
ry
-p
ra
ct
i
ce gap c
oul
d b
e
ad
d
r
esse
d
by
st
u
d
ent
s
u
per
v
i
s
o
r
s a
n
d
m
e
nt
ors t
h
r
o
u
gh
g
o
o
d
pl
an
ni
n
g
, i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on, s
u
per
v
i
s
i
o
n a
n
d
m
oni
t
o
ri
ng
o
f
pre
-
ser
v
i
ce t
e
a
c
hers
assi
g
n
e
d
i
n
di
ffe
rent
s
c
ho
ol
sites. In addition,
havi
ng a c
l
ear
m
i
ndset and positive att
itudes c
o
uld
b
oost
pre-se
rvic
e teachers’ m
o
rale to
m
ove forward to a
m
o
re challenging expe
rience, i.e.
, practice teaching. Thus, c
o
m
p
leting the number
of
hours
for field
observation a
l
one doe
s
not gua
ra
ntee
su
cc
ess in practice teaching,
but
it is
m
o
re on how
o
b
s
erv
a
tio
n time was
u
s
ed wisely.
Fu
rt
h
e
rm
o
r
e,
u
nprob
lem
a
t
i
c
field
ob
serv
atio
n
facilitates th
e d
e
v
e
l
o
pmen
t o
f
v
a
l
u
es, sk
ills and
knowledge
nee
d
ed in teaching.
It trai
ns
pre
-
service teache
r
s to be
com
e
role m
odels in
term
s of disci
p
line
,
p
a
tien
ce, passio
n, co
mmit
m
en
t, d
ilig
ence, read
i
n
ess, flex
ib
ility, self-con
fi
d
e
n
ce, respo
n
sib
ility,
accountability, culture se
nsitivity, resour
ce
fulness, creativi
t
y,
tea
m
work, perse
v
e
r
ance
,
and reflective skills.
These
are indispe
n
sable cha
r
acteristics and com
p
etencies
of pre-service teachers to
pre
p
are them
in practice
teaching. They
could
be bette
r orie
nted and
m
o
re prep
a
r
ed
for teaching roles and
responsibilities [30] duri
n
g
the succee
ding practicum
in their res
p
ective
cooperating s
c
hools.
In
gene
ral, the pre-se
rvice teache
r
s
along
with school principals, coope
r
ating teache
r
s
and stud
ent s
upe
rvisors acknowledge
d
tha
t
less problematic, if
not
problem
-free,
field-base
d obse
rvati
o
n is a fund
amental requirem
ent to e
nha
nc
e practical teaching
expe
rience
.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Th
e presen
t stu
d
y
do
cu
m
e
n
t
ed
wh
at
pre-serv
ice
teac
h
e
rs
reg
a
rd
ed as
d
i
fficu
lties on
admin
i
strativ
e
support, c
o
ope
rating teachers
,
stude
nt
supervisors,
peers
,
s
t
ude
nts, assi
gned tasks a
nd le
arni
ng e
nvi
ronment
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.