An Evaluation of the Functionality of Field Study Courses in the Teacher Education Program
This study aimed to determine the functionality of the field courses in compliance with the standards set by the seven identified areas of evaluation, namely: institutional VMGO, administration, supervision of instruction, faculty eligibility, pedagogical principles, curriculum and learning competencies. It also intended to identify the problems encountered by students and teachers that influence the degree of functionality of field study courses in the teacher education program of the institution.
Findings revealed that in general, the degree of functionality of the field study courses in compliance with the minimum standards set by the seven identified areas of evaluation is operational, with areas identified as compliant but not functional, and functional but not compliant. It is only in the areas of institutional VMGO and the supervision of instruction that the functionality of the field courses is found fully operational. The administration, faculty eligibility, pedagogical principles, curriculum and learning principles are operational. Thus, the assumption on the connectivity of the operation and implementation of educational programs in the teacher education program to that of the existing educational functions is strengthened.
The problems were summarized into five general categories. For the students, deficient time for field study observation, difficulty in dealing with the cooperating teacher and the supervising teacher, FS student observer as substitute of the FS cooperating teacher, difficulty in adjusting to actual classroom instruction, and lack of communication on matters what to do, what to submit and when to submit, were their major problems. For FS teachers, on the other hand, deficient time for field study orientation, difficulty in dealing with the cooperating schools, scarcity of references, overloading, and unclear, inefficient, inadequate implementation guidelines were their problems. Both the students and the teachers identified inadequate time as their first major problem, and they were aware that these problems are recursive in nature.
Ausubel, D.P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 90-98.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay, 389-397.
Bogayao. (1996). Educator: Magazine for Teachers. Lipa City: Eferza Academic Publications, 435-456.
Bowers, C.A. (1993). Critical essays on education, modernity and the recovery of the ecological imperative. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Brown, P. T. (2002). Curriculum Planning for Better Schools in the Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 156-231.
Bureau of Secondary Education of the Department of Education. (2010).
Calmorin, L. P. (2005). Measurement and Evaluation. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore Inc, Inc., 171-293.
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order 30, Series 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ched.edu.ph.gov
CHEDRO CAR Processing Evaluation Report. (2012).
Corpuz, B.B. and Salandanan, G.G. (2007). Principles of Teaching. Quezon City: Lorimar Publishing Inc., 11-54.
Cummins, J. D. (2009). Review of the Philippine Curriculum and Teaching Management in Classroom Instruction: Delta Publishing Company, 134-245.
Department of Education, (2010). Curriculum Evaluation. Rex Publishing House, Inc., Manila, Philippines. Pp. 45 – 56.
Disimulacion, E.C. (2007). The teacher in the new millennium. The Modern Teacher, Vol. 55
Gardner, H. (2007). Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 125-126.
Lanier, J.E. and Featherstone, J.A. (1988). A new commitment to teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 18-20.
Lardizabal, A.S. (2000). Principles and Methods of Teaching. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., 2-95.
Mckeough, Phillips and Lupart. (2006). Understanding Literacy Development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and Publishers, 170-186.
Recto, A.S. (2005). Foundations of Education. Quezon City: Rex Printing Co. Inc., 152-156.
Rednick, L. B. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement. American Educational Research Association, Vol. 3. P.3.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.rdcregion1resultseval.etml
Salandanan, G. G. (2001). Teacher Education Journal. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co. Inc., 1-13.
Simonson, A.K. and Crawford, S.F. (2004). Society in the Modern Times. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Press, 378-393.
Smith, S.G. (2002). Being professional, bring practical. A pare presented to the Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Pp. 2-5.
Swanson, R. (2007). Analysis for Improving Performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 310-315.
Technical Panel for Education (TEC), Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2007). Experiential Learning course handbook.
Tujan, A. (2004). Transformative Education. Manila: IBON Books, 187-206.
Weller, D. (1999). Quality Middle School leadership. Pennsylvania: Tectomic Publishing Co., Inc. 32-99.
Young, et al (2001). Educating Pre-Service Teachers. North Central Education Laboratory, 6.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the IJRDO Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.