Date of Graduation

12-2013

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science in Agricultural & Extension Education (MS)

Degree Level

Graduate

Department

Agricultural Education, Communications and Technology

Advisor/Mentor

Edgar, Don W.

Committee Member

Shoulders, Catherine W.

Second Committee Member

Dunn, Karee E.

Keywords

Education; Agricultural education; Coorperating teacher; Secondary education; Self-efficacy; Student teaching; Teaching efficacy

Abstract

The relationship between cooperating teacher and student has been found as one of the key elements that affect the overall teaching efficacy of student teachers and their decision to enter the teaching field after graduation (Edgar, 2007; Edgar, Roberts, & Murphy, 2011,2008; Kasperbauer et al., 2007a; Roberts, Greiman, Murphy, Ricketts, Harlin, & Briers 2009; Roberts, Harlin, & Briers, 2007, Roberts, Harlin, & Ricketts, 2006; Roberts Mowen, Edgar, Harlin & Briers, 2007, Stripling, Ricketts, Roberts & Harlin, 2008; Wolf, 2011; Wolf et al., 2010). Therefore, determining impacts towards teaching efficacy during the student teaching experience could play a vital role in future teachers' success. The purpose of this study was to assess teaching efficacy and the relationship between student teacher and cooperating teacher through a structured communication instrument at multiple universities.

Data was collected from participants of this study on three variables; teaching efficacy, communication, and relationship. Data to address teaching efficacy was collected during the 2012 and 2013 spring semester at two universities {University of Arkansas (N = 27) and the University of Georgia (N = 32)}. To determine if a difference existed between universities based on teaching efficacy an ANOVA was used. The overall model was not significant (Between Groups, f = .568 and p = .687). The null hypothesis was accepted. To determine if a difference existed in student teachers perceptions bet multiple universities towards teaching an ANOVA was used. The overall model was not significant (Between Groups, f = 1.631 and p = .180). The null hypothesis was accepted. To determine if there was difference in teaching efficacy and student teachers/cooperating teacher relationship a MANOVA was used to test the hypothesis. The overall model was not significant therefore the null hypothesis was retained. Further research should be conducted to see the direct effects of the behaviors, personal factors, and the environment of preservice teaching. It is also suggested that future research be conducted to define the specifics of the behavioral factors, environmental, and personal factors in terms of agriculture education.

Download

Share

COinS