Professional education courses in teacher preparation programs vary in content depending on state certification and individual college or university requirements. One component, however, is essential to all professional education programs: the pre-service teaching experience (Meade 1991). Program requirements may vary from a single teaching experience (e.g., fifteen weeks during the senior year) to multiple teaching experiences (e.g., six weeks during the junior year and ten weeks during the senior year). The intent of the pre-service teaching experience is to provide students with a setting in which to apply the skills they have learned. Although teacher education certification and accreditation groups (e.g., Illinois Board of Higher Education, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) emphasize the need for students to have supervised practice before they receive teaching certification, little has been done on coordinating the means for evaluating the pre-service teaching experience. There are as many ways for evaluating student teachers' performances as there are teacher preparation programs. When evaluating pre-service teachers' performances, two types of evaluations are necessary: (a) formative evaluations for providing information related to the improvement of instruction, and (b) summative evaluations for providing university faculty members with information on which to base decisions concerning pre-service teachers' level of success (i.e., pass or fail) (Cangelosi 1991; Cooper 1984). Providing feedback for the purpose of instructional improvement is the main objective of the pre-service teaching experience. Information obtained from the supervisors' observations is intended to provide formative feedback to pre-service teachers in order to allow them to make teaching-related decisions. The secondary function of the evaluation process is to evaluate pre-service teachers' performances and make summative
[1]
R. Soar.
Teacher Evaluation: A Critique of Currently Used Methods.
,
1983
.
[2]
Peter F. Oliva.
Supervision for today's schools
,
1983
.
[3]
L. Davidman,et al.
Classroom Discipline for Effective Teaching and Learning Laurel Tanner New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978
,
1980
.
[4]
J. Kounin,et al.
Degree of continuity of a lesson's signal system and the task involvement of children.
,
1975
.
[5]
William Capie.
Coming of Age: Systematic Performance Evaluation.
,
1985
.
[6]
J. Brasseur,et al.
Observed differences between direct, indirect, and direct/indirect videotaped supervisory conferences.
,
1983,
Journal of speech and hearing research.
[7]
L. Barber,et al.
Merit Pay and Teacher Evaluation.
,
1983
.
[8]
James S. Cangelosi.
Evaluating Teaching: A Suggestion for Principals
,
1984
.
[9]
P. Gump,et al.
Signal Systems of Lesson Settings and the Task-Related Behavior of Preschool Children.
,
1974
.
[10]
James S. Cangelosi.
Evaluating Classroom Instruction
,
1990
.
[11]
Edward Meade.
Reshaping the Clinical Phase of Teacher Preparation.
,
1991
.
[12]
R. Soar.
Measures of Quality in the Classroom.
,
1983
.
[13]
Charlie Coffman.
Supervision for Today's Schools, Second Edition by Peter F. Oliva New York: Longman, 1984
,
1984
.