Table of Contents
KATERINA ZOUNHIA, DIMITRIS HATZIHARISTOS
Faculty of Physical Education & Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Correspondence should be addressed to: Katerina Zounhia, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of Physical Education & Sport Science 41, Ethnikis Antistasis 17237 Dafne, Athens – Greece, Fax: +30210 7276058, E-mail: 
Table of Contents
Key words: rapport, cooperating teacher, teaching concerns.
The first aim of this study was to test the Purdue Student Teacher Opinionaire (PSTO) in Greek educational environment. The second aim was to examine student teachers’ concerns in relation to the perceived student teachers’ rapport with the cooperating teacher. The subjects for this study were 327 3rd-year Greek physical education students (142 male and 185 female). The Teacher Concern Questionnaire (TCQ) [18] and the Purdue Student Teacher Opinionaire (PSTO) [35] served as the data-gathering instruments. Results showed that the students were highly concerned about learning of pupils and pupils’ progress. The “routine and inflexibility of the teaching situation” and the “class control” were the highest concerns. Female students were significantly more concerned than male students. Female students were significantly more “compatible” with their cooperating teacher than male students. However, good rapport with cooperating teacher does not correlate significantly with the total concern score and the majority of concern items.
Teaching practice is considered by the experts to be one of the most critical aspects of professional preparation [1, 7, 10, 36, 47]. Research has shown that generally teaching practice is a cause of anxiety for student teachersand also for the student teachers of physical education [1, 7, 9, 10, 25, 34].
Teacher concerns among physical education student teachers have been tested on the basis of Fuller’ s theory of developmental conceptualisation. The work of Fuller [13] contributed greatly to the understanding of developmental aspects of teacher concerns. Fuller [13] defined concerns in terms of perceived problems or worries of teachers. In her classic Concerns Model, she identified changes in the focus of teacher concerns that occur over time. She classified concerns into three dimensions: self, task, and impact. The self scale represents concerns about a teacher’s own adequacy and survival in the teaching environment. The task scale deals with concerns about the daily teaching tasks. The impact scale represents teacher concerns about student learning.
The Teacher’s Concern Questionnaire (TCQ) developed by George [18] has been applied extensively to measuring teacher concerns. In particular, in the field of physical education some of the researchers who have used the TCQ include Behets [1], Boggess et al. [3], Capel [7, 9], Fung [15], Meek, [28], Rikard and Knight [38], Wendt and Bain [52]. According to Behets and Meek [2], despite the availability of several quantitative instruments and qualitative methods, researchers investigating Physical Education teachers’ concerns have predominantly used the TCQ to gather data.
The cooperating teacher[ 1] is a critical factor in the professional preparation of student teachers [11, 16, 17, 33, 50, 51]. Cooperating teachers have a tremendous influence on teaching behavior of student teachers during teaching and even after graduation as they begin their teaching career [33, 45, 49]. According to Hawkey [19, p. 332], “The relationship established between cooperating teachers and student teachers is the avenue through which all mentoring processes are completed with the interplay of cognitive, affective, and interpersonal factors”. Joyce [21, p. 32] has observed that “...it is generally believed that the most influential feature of the most influential program component is the cooperating teacher.” Osunde [33] found that the majority of the student teachers perceived good classroom organization (80%) and positive rapport with their cooperating teacher (64%) as the most essential qualities, which made a significant impact on their preparation. According to Sudzina, Geibelhaus and Coolican [41], when student teachers thought of mentoring and mentor qualities, they thought of supportive and collaborative role models. Student teachers saw their own responsibilities as accepting constructive criticism, working hard, and being willing to change and to try new things. They attributed success in student teaching to a positive relationship with their cooperating teachers and a supportive work environment. McJunkin et al. [27] suggested that the attitudes and professional practices of the cooperating teachers had to be congruent with student teachers’ beliefs about the supervision style. The above-mentioned researchers found that the majority of student teachers preferred a collaborative style of supervision and they should be considered partners in the teaching-learning processes.Collaborative supervision assumes shared ownership in problem solving and decision making. Murray-Harvey [29] found that the cooperating teacher was regarded by student teachers as the most important factor in coping with practicum stresses. Student teachers’ responses highlighted the supportive role of the cooperating teacher. The main responses focused on the opportunity to “debrief with the teacher” and “talk through problems”. Such a finding would highlight the importance of student teachers establishing an effective working relationship with their cooperating teachers.
Strong and Baron [40] analysed how mentors made pedagogical suggestions to novice teachers during mentoring conversations and how the teachers responded. The analysis revealed an extreme effort of mentors to avoid giving direct advice, and a corpus that included many different indirect suggestions focused mainly on teaching, about one-third of which produced elaborated responses from novice teachers. It is suggested that the observed conversational patterns may be largely explained by the philosophy of the program (based on the Cognitive Coaching Model) of which the mentors and novice teachers are a part.
The research on student teaching experience from the point of view of the cooperating teachers indicates that their rapport with student teachers is a key element in determining success in student teaching [5, 23]. Kahn [22] found out by way of interviews with 20 cooperating teachers that a good working rapport, in which mutual learning and professional growth take place, is an element of success. Participants also defined success through particular attributes of the cooperating teacher, including flexibility, providing a number of opportunities to teach and learn, and frequent, constructive feedback. Koskela and Ganser [23] examined how cooperating teachers reflected on their own work and professional development. They found that cooperating teachers perceived their role as models, guides and facilitators. However, 145 (59.7%) from 243 participants expressed uncertainty about their role as cooperating teacher.
The research concerning physical education cooperating teachers focuses mainly on the feedback function of their roles [20, 32, 37, 39, 43, 44, 46]. As a result we may conclude that both student teachers and cooperating teachers consider the rapport to be a crucial factor in the success of the teaching practice. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that, in the above-mentioned studies, the rapport was regarded and looked at only as a general factor.
Trimble [47] defined rapport as a comfortable and unconstrained relationship and mutual confidence between two or more individuals. The aforementioned researcher studied the rapport by means of eighteen (18) items. Every item referred to a distinct attitude and behaviour on the cooperating teachers’ behalf, which the student teachers took into consideration and then evaluated. Trimble [47] suggested avoiding dissonance in student and cooperating teacher relationships in order to facilitate a more harmonious situation, which would help to foster optimal growth in the teaching experience. In his study the perceived student teacher rapport with cooperating teachers was studied in comparison with the cooperating teachers’ authoritarianism.
The literature remains in general agreement concerning the great importance of the student teaching experience and of the cooperating teacher in that experience. However, we do not know whether the perceived student teacher rapport with cooperating teachers do have a significant impact on teaching concerns during the teaching practice period. From the review of the literature it was ascertained that the perceived student teacher rapport with cooperating teacher had not been investigated.
In Greece, up to this moment, no study has been undertaken to examine the above issue. The present study intends to provide information concerning this point. The first purpose of this study was to test the PSTO in the Greek educational environment. Another purpose was to examine student teachers’ concerns in relation to the perceived student teacher rapport with the cooperating teacher.
The subjects selected for this study were 327 third-year physical education students (142 males and 185 females) from the Physical Education and Sport Science Faculty at the University of Athens, Greece, who had completed their teaching practice at schools.
The Teacher Concerns Questionnaire (TCQ) [18] and the Purdue Student Teacher Opinionaire (PSTO) [35] were translated into Greek and served as the data-gathering instruments. The TCQ and the PSTO were administered after the teaching practice period.
The TCQ (Figure 1) was used to measure self, task and impact concerns. It consists of 15 questions,five items for each of the three concerns scales. Specifically, items 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15 measure self concerns. Items 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14 measure task concerns and items 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 measure impact concerns. Each item is scored on a five point likert scale ranging from not concerned (1) to extremely concerned (5).
The PSTO, presented in Figure 2, was developed by Price [35]. Her purpose was to design an instrument that could be used to measure student teacher morale. The PSTO was used as her primary source for item statements. This instrument contained 100 item statements and included 12 factors purported to measure teacher morale. In Trimble’s study [47] the use of PSTO was limited in scope to include only one factor, that is, perceived student teacher rapport with the cooperating teacher. This factor was measured by 18 items. In the present study PSTO was used as in Trimble’s study [47]. That is to measure the perceived student teacher rapport with the cooperating teacher. Each item is scored on a five point likert scale ranging from disagree (1) to agree (5).
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10.0 was used to analyse the data. Reliability was assessed for the TCQ and PSTO using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient.
Descriptive statistics were also calculated for each of the variables. T-test for independent samples was conducted to determine the significant differences between male and female students.
Pearson coefficient of correlation was conducted to identify the relation of the overall mean score of the PSTO items with the total concern score and each item of the TCQ questionnaire.
The internal consistency of the TCQ for male and female students was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients presented in Table 1. As it can be seen, reliability coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.66 for self concerns, 0.55 to 0.56 for task concerns and 0.79 to 0.80 for impact concerns. The reliability of the PSTO was 0.91 for the male and 0.89 for the female students, respectively. Nunnally [31, p. 245] suggests a value of 0.70 as a lower acceptable bound of alpha. DeVellis [12, pp. 95-96] recommends an alpha below 0.60 as unacceptable, 0.60-0.65 as undesirable, 0.65-0.70 as minimally acceptable, 0.70-0.80 as respectable, 0.80-0.90 as very good, and above 0.90 as excellent. According to the above recommendations, the range of alpha coefficient for the TCQ was undesirable for the self domain, respectable for the impact domain and unacceptable for the task domain. Consistent with the past research [1, 3, 18, 28, 38], the internal consistency of the task scale was very low. Alpha coefficient for the PSTO was considered very good.
Table 1. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the TCQ
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the total concern score and individual items on the TCQ for male and female students
Based on the reliability analysis of the TCQ a further analysis of the findings in relation to the three-scale TCQ was impossible. As a result, they were analysed with reference to the total concern score and to each individual item separately.
Table 2 shows mean scores of individual items and total concern score for the whole sample and also for both sexes identified on the TCQ. These ranged from 2.00 to 3.91, and the total concern score was 3.39. The eventcausingmost concern forstudent teachers was “the routine and inflexibility of the teaching situation”. This item on the task scale had the highest score (item 14, M=3.91) of all the items on the TCQ. This was followed by an item on the self scale “maintaining the appropriate degree of class control”, then concerns on the impact scale “challenging unmotivated students”, “guiding students toward intellectual and emotional growth” and “meeting the needs of different kinds of students”. The event causing least concern was “doing well when a supervisor is present” (item 3, M=2.00). The female students’ scores is higher than the male students’ in relation to the total concern score (t=4.00, p<0.001) and within 12 out of the 15 items (in 10 items the difference is statistically significant).
Table 3 contains mean scores, standard deviations and t-value for PSTO items and total rapport score for the entire sample and both sexes. Scores for the individual items on the PSTO ranged from 3.44 to 4.61 indicating that there were no events which showed students not to have good rapport with the cooperating teacher. The item with the highest score was: “My personality did not often conflict with that of my cooperating teacher” (item 7, M=4.61). This was followed by the item “My cooperating teacher did not interrupt my classes unnecessarily” (item 12, M=4.57). The item, which students disagreed mostly on, was “My cooperating teacher showed a great deal of initiative and creativity in teaching” (item 3, M= 3.44). Statistically significant differences for male students were found in one item (item 3), while for female students they were found in the total rapport score (t=2.13, p<0.05) and in eight individual items (item 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16 and 18).
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the total rapport score and individual items on the PSTO for male and female students
There were no significant correlations between the total rapport score and the total concern score of the entire sample and the total concern score of the male and female student teachers (Table 4). For the entire sample there was a significant correlation between the total rapport score and item 3 “Doing well when a supervisor is present” (r=–0.20, p<0.001), item 9 “Being accepted and respected by professional persons” (r=–0.19, p<0.001) and item 12 “Whether each student is getting what he/she needs” (r=0.18, p<0.001). For male student teachers there were significant correlations between the total rapport score and item 3 (r=–0.32, p<0.001) and item 9 (r=–0.17, p<0.05). For female student teachers there were significant correlations between the total rapport score and item 9 (r=–0.20, p<0.01) and item 12 (r=0.19, p<0.01).
Table 4. Correlation of the total rapport score with total concern score and TCQ items
From the results of this study, it is ascertained that the highest score of all student teachers’ concerns is that of routine and inflexibility of the teaching situation, followed by the concern of maintenance of class control. This finding is similar to the findings of Capel, [10] and Boggess et al., [13]. McBride et al. [25] also stated that despite the years of teaching, physical education teachers still had concerns about discipline and maintaining class control. The finding that item 8 “challenging unmotivated students” had the highest score of the impact items is in accordance with Behets’ [1] finding and confirms student teachers’ concern for their pupils. The finding of this study that the event causing least concern in both sexes, was “doing well when a supervisor is present” is the exactly opposite to that found by Behets [1], who administered the TCQ to 100 fourth-year physical education students from the Physical Education Department at the University of Leuven, and by Capel [7], who administered the TCQ to 124 first-year physical education undergraduate students from one institution in England. They found that this event caused most concern. This may be due to differences in the teaching practice process, cultural differences and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher.
In the Faculty of Physical Education at the University of Athens, the university supervisors send the Ministry of Education permission to the school directors before commencement of teaching practice, and the schedule with instructions about the teaching practice to the cooperating teachers in each school (about 70 schools). Additionally, it is requested by the cooperating teachers to complete the evaluation sheet of student teachers.The cooperating teachers do not attend the training programme organised by the university.
The TCQ results showed that students of both sexes experienced a moderate intensity of concern. This is in line with other studies which point to the teaching practice as a cause of anxiety for students [1, 7, 9, 10, 34]. The TCQ results also showed that female students were significantly more concerned than male students. They also suggest that the highest concern on the TCQ scale was caused by the impact on the pupils (impact concerns) for both sexes, especially for female students. A similar trend has been reported in other related studies [1, 3].
In this study female students were significantly more concerned than male students. This finding counters the conclusion made by Paese and Zinkgraf [34] that male and female student teachers do not differ significantly. Moreover, it is not in line with the findings from studies referred to in Veenman’s review [48].
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the students, after their teaching practice period, were highly concerned about pupils’ learning and progress (impact concerns). In addition, female students were significantly more concerned than male students.
In this study the mean scores of 18 items of the PSTO show that there is a good rapport with the cooperating teacher. The female students are significantly more “compatible” with their cooperating teacher than the male students. What is worth mentioning is the fact that female students are stricter only in their observations relating to the element of creativity of the cooperating teacher. In almost all other attitudes and behaviours, which constitute the perceived rapport, the female students considered that they responded to their cooperating teachers at a higher degree than the male students did. The results, concerning the perceived student rapport with the cooperating teachercan be explained by Lortie’s [24] socialization theory. According to it, in the students’ mind there is a model of the teacher’s role already formed due to their long-lived contact with the teachers. When they are in school as student teachers, they judge the cooperating teachers’ attitudes and professional practices according to their own prototype. Lortie [24, p. 62] noted that, “in the terminology of symbolic interaction theory, the student learns to ‘take the role’ of the classroom teacher, to engage in at least enough empathy to anticipate the teacher’s probable reaction to his behavior. This requires that the student project himself into the teacher’s position and imagine how he/she feels about various student actions. Motivation to engage in such role taking is especially high when students have already decided to become teachers.” Therefore, when teaching practice is undertaken with no external interference, student teachers are more likely to be positive towards their untrained cooperating teachers’ behaviours and professional practices, as the latter are in line with the students’ model-teacher formed during their “general schooling and their apprenticeship of observation”.
The negative correlation between the total rapport score and concern item 3 “Doing well when a supervisor is present” and concern item 9 “Being accepted and respected by professional persons” indicates that when the student is observed, evaluated and assessed by the supervising staff, his/her concern is reduced in case his/her rapport with the cooperating teachers improves. This finding supports Burn’s [6], Brucklacher’s [5], McIntyre and Hagger’s [26] and Murray-Harvey’s [29] suggestion that collaborative teaching, in which the cooperating teacher and the student take joint responsibility for the lesson, planning it together and then each playing a different part in the teaching process, provides a situation in which the student teacher can practice the necessary skills in a safe environment. Boggess et al. [3] suggested that collaborative teaching could also make the complexity of lesson planning more accessible to students, and therefore alleviate their anxiety.
The lack of any significant correlation between the total rapport score on the one hand, and the total concern score and the majority of concern items on the other hand, means that the cooperating teachers have a limited effect on students’ behaviour during teaching practice period. In this study, the intervention process proposed by Fuller [14] to support student teachers was not tested because the responsibility of the cooperating teacher to be present during all lessons cannot be equivalent to the intervention process proposed by Fuller, which includes assessment, awareness, arousal and movement with supervisory intervention being guided by data sources of systematic observation, value judgment and experiences.
Randall [36] and Borko and Mayfield [4] highlighted that the cooperating teachers, through daily interactions with student teachers, served as role models for them. Cooperating teachers are the dominant influence on the attitudes and behaviours of student teachers. Moreover, Murray-Harvey [29] found that cooperating teacher was regarded by student teachers as the most important factor in coping with practicum stresses. Student teachers’ responses highlighted the supportive role of the cooperating teacher. However, the above-mentioned researchers stress the fact that the cooperating teacher has to be adequately prepared by the university supervisor in order to perform his or her role successfully.
The results of this study are in line with Capel’s [8] findingthat cooperating teachers have not been adequately prepared to guide effectively student teachers. In addition to Capel, also Paese and Zinkgraf [34, p. 314] observe that, “If cooperating teachers are given workshops, seminars, or even handouts detailing the student teaching program and the student teachers’ concerns, many problems can be avoided. Providing guidelines that speak to the week-by-week expectations, preparations, conferences, and evaluations can help to alleviate stress and hopefully increase perceptions of teacher efficacy.”
Rikard and Veal [37] found that no systematic preparation of cooperating teachers was done by their sponsoring universities for their role of supervisors. Most cooperating teachers defined their supervisory roles by trial and error. Moreover, after an extensive review of the literature Rikard and Veal [37] referred to quite a few studies, where they found significant improvements in the supervisory skills of cooperating teachers who participated in university-based training programmes for cooperating teachers. The above researchers indicated an urgent need to establish a model for systematic preparation for the role of cooperating teacher.
It is worth mentioning that nowadays, using a Web-based learning environment, communication among parts of the teaching practice can be facilitated. NoorShah [30] created a teaching practice website as a tool in overcoming communication problems faced in the traditional setting of practical teaching program. On the teaching practice website, the university supervisor, cooperating teachers and student teachers can contact and influence each other. Additionally, thanks to the Internet the feedback and all necessary information are transferred to all the parts involved in teaching practice very fast. As a result, problems can be solved quickly and serious mistakes in the students teaching practice can be avoided.
Based on the results of this study and suggestions from the above-mentioned relative studies, it has to be stressed that the university supervisors should search for ways of stimulating cooperating teachers in order to intervene substantially on student teachers’ development. Such ways can include systematic observation and assessment of the teaching process by the cooperating teacher. In order to fulfill the above tasks cooperating teachers must be given more responsibilities to take part in seminars and to be given detailed instructions by university supervisors about their involvement in the teaching practice process. Furthermore, students must be prepared to be observed, evaluated and assessed by cooperating teachers.
Behets, D., Concern of Preservice Physical Education Teachers, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1990, 10, pp. 66-75.
Behets, D., Meek, G., Physical Educators’ Concern. (in:) Y.V. Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle, M. Durand and R. Seiler eds., Psychology for Physical Educators, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL 1999, pp. 479-499.
Boggess, T.E., McBride, R.E., Griffey, D.C., The concerns of physical education student teachers: A developmental view, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1985, 4 (3), pp. 202-211.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., The Roles of the Cooperating Teacher and University Supervisor in Learning to teach, “Teaching and Teacher Education”, 1995, 11 (5), pp. 501-518.
Brucklacher, B., Cooperating Teachers' Evaluations of Student Teachers: All "A's"?, “Journal of Instructional Psychology”, 1998, 25, pp. 67-72.
Burn, K., Collaborative teaching (in:) M. Wilkin, ed., Mentoring in Schools, Kogan Page, London 1992, pp. 133-143.
Capel, S., Anxieties of Physical Education Students on first teaching practice, “European Physical Education. Review”, 1996, 2 (1), pp. 30-40.
Capel, S., Changes in students’ anxieties and concerns after their first and second teaching practices, “Educational Research”, 1997, 39 (2), pp. 211-228.
Capel, S., A longitudinal study of the stages of development or concern of secondary physical education students, “European Journal of Physical Education”, 1998a, 3 (2), pp. 185-199.
Capel, S., Experiences of Physical Education Students in Learning to Teach, “European Physical Education Review”, 1998b, 4 (2), pp. 127-144.
Clarke, A., Characteristics of Co-operating Teachers, “Canadian Journal of Education”, 2001, 26 (2), pp. 237-256.
DeVellis, R.F., Scale development: Theory and applications. (2nd ed.), “Applied Social Research Methods Series”, Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, London and New Delhi 2003.
Fuller, F., Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualisation, “American Educational Research Journal”, 1969, 6, pp. 207-226.
Fuller, F., Achieving competencies through the teachers’ concerns-self confirmation model of personalized teacher education, Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 1974.
Fung, L., Concerns among pre- and in-service physical educators, “Physical Education Review”, 1993, 16 (1), pp. 27-30.
Ganser, T., The cooperating teacher’s role, “The Teacher Educator”, 1996, 31, pp. 283-291.
Ganser, T., How Teachers compare the roles of cooperating teacher and mentor, “The Educational Forum”, 2002, 66, pp. 380-385.
George, A.A., Measuring self, task, and impact concerns: A manual for use of the Teacher Concerns Questionnaire, R & D Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas, Austin 1978.
Hawkey, K., Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature review and agenda for research, “Journal of Teacher Education”, 1997, 48 (5), pp. 325-335.
Jones, D.L., Sparks, W.G., Contemporary supervisory practices: Profiling the physical education cooperatingteacher, “The Chronicle of Physical Education in Higher Education”, 1998, 9, (3), 5,pp.14-15.
Joyce, B.R., Training research and preservice teacher education: A reconsideration, “Journal of Teacher Education”, 1988, 39 (5), pp. 32-36.
Kahn, B., Portrait of Success: Cooperating Teachers and the Student Teaching Experience. Action in Teacher Education, 2001, 22 (4), pp. 48-58.
Koskela, R., Ganser, T., The cooperating teacher role and career development, “Education”, 1999, 119 (1), pp. 106-119 and 125.
Lortie, D.C., Schoolteacher, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 1975.
McBride, R.E., Boggess, T.E, Griffey, D.C., Concerns of inservice physical education teachers as compared with Fuller’s concern model, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1986, 5 (3), pp. 149-156.
McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., Teachers’ expertise and models of mentoring (in:) D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, M. Wilkin, eds., Mentoring: Perspectives on School-based Teacher Education, Kogan Page, London 1993, pp. 86-102.
McJunkin, M.A., Justen III, J.F., Strickland, H., Justen, S., Supervisory styles preferred by student teachers, “Clearing House”, 1998, 71 (4), pp. 248--251.
Meek, G., The teacher concerns questionnaire with preservice physical educators in Great Britain: Being concerned with concerns, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1996, 16 (1), pp. 20-29.
Murray-Harvey, R., How teacher education students cope with practicum concerns source, “The Teacher Educator”, 2001, 37 (2), pp. 117-132.
NoorShah, M.S., Practical teaching program online: Overcoming communication issues,. “Internet and Higher Education”, 2002, 4, pp. 193-201.
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric theory (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York 1978.
O' Sullivan, M., Professional development of co-operating teachers (in:) T.J. Williams, L. Almond, and A. Sparkes, eds., Sport and physical activity: Moving towards excellence,., E & FN Spon, London 1990, pp. 61-73.
Osunde, E.O., The effect of student teachers on the teaching behaviors of cooperating teachers, “Education”, 1996, 116 (4), pp. 612-618.
Paese, P., Zinkgraf, S., The Effect of Student Teaching on Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Stress, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1991, 10 (3), pp. 307-315.
Price, J., The Development of an Instrument to Measure Student Teacher Morale, (Purdue Student Teacher Opinionaire), “Dissertation Abstracts”, 1969, vol. 30, p. 4869.
Randall, L.E., Systematic Supervision for Physical Education, Human Kinetics, Champaign IL 1992.
Rikard, G.L., Veal, M.L., Cooperatingteachers: Insight into their preparation, beliefs, and practices, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1996, 15 (3), pp. 279-298.
Rikard, L.G., Knight, S.M., Obstacles to Professional Development: Interns’ Desire to Fit in, Get Along, and Be Real Teachers, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1997, 16 (4), pp. 440-453.
Siedentop, D., The Ohio State University supervision research program summary report, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1981, Introductory Issue, pp. 30-38.
Strong, M., Baron, W., An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: suggestions and responses, “Teaching and Teacher Education”, 2004, 20, pp. 47-57.
Sudzina, M., Giebelhaus, C., Coolican, M., Mentor or Tormentor: The Role of the Cooperating Teacher in Student Teacher Success or Failure, “Action in Teacher Education”, 1997, 18, pp. 23-35.
Tannehill, D., Student teaching: A view from the other side, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1989, 8 (3), pp. 243-253.
Tannehill, D., Zakrajsek, D., What's happening in the supervision of student teachers in secondary physical education, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1988, 8(1), pp. 1-12.
Tannehill, D., Zakrajsek, D., Effects of a self-directed training program on cooperatingteacher behavior, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1990, 9 (2), pp. 140-151.
Tannehil, D., Goc-Karp, G., The student teaching practicum: placement trends and issues, “Physical Educator”, 1992, 49 (1), pp. 45-55.
Tjeerdsma, B.L., Cooperatingteacher perceptions of an experience in the student teaching practicum, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1998, 17 (2), pp. 214-230.
Trimble, R.T., The effect of the student teaching experience on authoritarianism in student and cooperating teachers in physical education and other teaching specialties, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 1974.
Veenman, M.L., Perceived Problems of Beginning Teacher, “Review of Educational Research”, 1984, 54 (2), pp. 143-178.
Vogt, M., A study of the congruence between preservice teachers’ and cooperating teachers’ attitudes and practices toward high and low achievers, Doctoral dissertation, UMI Dissertation Services, University of Oregon 1989.
Watts, D., Student teaching (in:) M. Haberman and J. M. Backus eds., Advances in teacher education, NJ: Ablex, (Vol. 3), Norwood, 1987, pp. 151- 167.
Weasmer, J., Woods, M.A., The role of the host teacher in student teaching experience, “The Clearing House”, 2003, 76 (4), pp. 174-177.
Wendt, J.C., Bain, L.L., Concerns of preservice and inservice physical educators, “Journal of Teaching in Physical Education”, 1989a, 8 (2), pp. 177-180.
Figure 1. Items on the Teacher Concerns Questionnaire (TCQ)
Figure 2. Items on the Purdue Student – Teacher Opinionaire
[ 1] Cooperating Teacher is an in-service teacher, usually at the secondary or elementary level who accepts a teacher-in-training into his/her teaching situation in order to share the experience of the actual teaching-learning setting (Trimble, 1974).