AN INVESTIGATION OF EVALUATION METHODS OF TEACHING PRACTICE OF FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Abstract

Teaching practice is a major and joint responsibility of teacher education institutions, schools, prospective teachers, supervisors, head of the school and cooperating teachers. This study was aimed to investigate evaluation methods of teaching practice of formal and non-formal teacher education institutions in Pakistan. Major objectives of the study were: to examine the evaluation methods of teaching practice used in formal and non formal teacher education institutions; to compare the evaluation methods of teaching practice implemented in formal and non formal teacher education institutions; to analyze the effectiveness of teaching practice at formal and non formal teacher education institutions; and to find out the problems/weaknesses in evaluation of teaching practice in both formal and non formal teacher education institutions. The population of this research study was (1) all the 2000 teaching practice supervisors both from formal and non formal teacher education institutions of Punjab offering teacher education programmes i.e. B.Ed (Hons) and Masters in Education and (2) All the 4000 prospective teachers have been experienced the teaching practice of both formal and non formal teacher education institutions of Punjab offering teacher education programmes i.e. B.Ed and Masters in Education. University of the Punjab, University of Education and Fatima Jinnah Women University were selected through conveniently random sampling as formal teacher education institutions for the sample of study. AIOU (Allama Iqbal Open University) Islamabad in Pakistan is a non formal institution providing the education to masses through correspondence material. Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan, Attock regional centers of (Allama Iqbal Open University)were selected as non formal teacher education institutions. Two questionnaires were developed on the basis of related literature for prospective teachers and supervisors to get the responses. The data was collected by administering the validated questionnaires. Four hundred prospective teachers were selected randomly in which 200 prospective teachers from formal universities and 200 were selected xvii from non formal universities. Two hundred supervisors were randomly selected from the sample universities. The problems and weaknesses of evaluation of teaching practice were found out by open ended items in the questionnaires. The data collected was analyzed and interpreted by using percentages and two-way chi-square square techniques to compare the responses of formal and non-formal prospective teachers and teaching practice supervisors. Inferred results were discussed and reported. The major conclusions of the study were that the prospective teachers of both formal and non formal teacher education institutions are not very satisfied with the duration of teaching practice. According to the opinion of majority of respondents it should be more than two months. It was revealed that the Head of the practicing school and cooperating teachers had no role in the evaluation of teaching practice. The respondents of both the systems revealed that rules and regulations regarding teaching practice and evaluation criteria were provided to them before the commencement of teaching practice. Majority of the prospective teachers said that they were being evaluated by the supervisors once or twice in entire teaching practice. Some of the recommendations were (1) there is a need to put in place a continuous system of monitoring and evaluation of teaching practice including observations of prospective teachers for both formal and non-formal teacher education institutions. (2) There must be role of cooperating teacher and head of the practicing schools in evaluation of teaching practice. (3) The time period of teaching practice may be increased. (4) The evaluation of teaching practice may be done both by internal and external evaluators. (5) Self evaluation of prospective teachers may be included in the evaluation of teaching practice