See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287331834

Supervisors’ Practices in Improving Student Teachers’ Grammar Teaching

Strategies during Practicum: A Comparison of Student Teachers’ and
Supervisors’ Views.

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
3 1,671

1 author:

Mohammad Abdu Al-Mekhlafi

Sana'a University
24 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teaching Writing View project

Practicum View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Abdu Al-Mekhlafi on 19 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Wudpecker Journal of Educational Research ISSN 2315-7267
Vol. 2(1), pp. 006 - 017, Janaury 2013 2013 Wudpecker Journals

Supervisors' practices in improving student teachers'

grammar teaching strategies during practicum: a
comparison of student teachers' and supervisors'
views
Mohammad Abdu Ahmad Al-Mekhlafi, Ismiel Masoud Naji
Department of English, Faculty of Education, Sana’a University, Yemen.

*Corresponding author E-mail: malmekhlafi@yahoo.com.

Accepted 21 January 2013

This study examines the perceptions and views of student teachers and their supervisors about the
roles of the practicum supervisors in preparing the student teachers to teach grammar during
practicum at schools. Ninety-two fourth year student teachers at the Department of English Education
at the University of Sohar in the Sultanate of Oman and forty-seven practicum supervisors at the
cooperating schools of Al-Batinah region participated in this study during the academic year 2010/2011.
The study used qualitative data (questionnaires) on student teachers’ perceptions of supervising them
for teaching English and, in particular, the teaching of grammar. The student teachers questionnaire
was a similar version of the supervisors’ questionnaire. The items of the two questionnaires were
matched. The results of the study indicated that the supervisors often performed their supervision
responsibilities. The scores of the student teachers and the supervisors for almost all supervisor roles
were in line. Student teachers and supervisors differed from each other at a statistically significant level
in terms of “Modeling” and “Pedagogical Knowledge”. Student teachers indicated that their supervisors
most frequently provided them with what they need of Modeling and pedagogical knowledge in the
teaching of grammar during practicum.

Key words: Practicum, student teachers, supervisors, teacher training, comparison, Oman.

INTRODUCTION

This study is a follow- up to the first researcher’s previous
study, Al-Mekhlafi (2012), conducted in the academic
year 2010/2011 as to survey the views of Omani EFL
cooperating teachers at the secondary schools on their
own attitudes towards grammar teaching. It investigated
their perceptions of their practices in developing student
teachers’ grammar teaching. Furthermore, the
relationship between their attitudes towards grammar
teaching and their practices in preparing student teachers
to teach grammar were also investigated. Data revealed
that 86.4% of the cooperating teachers “agreed” with the
statements associated with the grammar teaching self-
perception scale with a mean of 4.32. This implied they
showed a positive self-perception. Results indicated that
the average mean of participants’ practices on the four
subscales, namely: Modelling, personal attributes,
pedagogical knowledge and feedback was 4.04. This
implied that they perceived themselves as having
“medium” capability to supervise grammar teaching.
Results also confirmed that cooperating teachers’ self-
perceptions on teaching grammar were positively related
to their own practices for supervising grammar teaching.
The present study investigates the perceptions and views
of the student teachers and their supervisors in preparing
the student teachers to teach grammar during practicum
at schools.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The practicum occupies a key position in the programs of
teacher training. It is one of the most important phases of
a teacher's professional preparation. It provides the
student teachers with the opportunity to put the theory
they have learned into practice. (Beck and Kosnik, 2002;
Tuli and File, 2009; Smith, 2010; Gujjar et al., 2011; Al-
Sohbani, 2012). Beyond that, it offers the context for
student teachers to develop their personal teaching
007 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.
competence (Smith and Lev-Ari, 2005) and to acquire
and develop the knowledge of teaching and professional
content knowledge of teachers (Shulman, 1987).
Furthermore, it provides student teachers the opportunity
to use the different methods of teaching in real classroom
conditions under the close supervision of competent and
experienced teachers (Koç, 2008; Al-Sohbani, 2012). In
addition, practicum teaches soft skills such as
independent problem-solving, working collegially with
fellow staff teachers and developing professional values
and attitudes (Ramsden, 1992). Tillema (2007) calls it the
core of the teacher education program.
The main role of the student teacher is to be a
responsible, active participant in the teaching practice. It
is of a great importance to involve the university
supervisors (teacher trainers) and school based teachers
(cooperating teachers) in a partnership to support the
student teachers during the practicum (Rorrison and
Barbutiu, 2012). Thus, cooperating schools are used as
authentic sites for student teachers to practice what they
have been taught in the university under the assistance
from the teachers in the school and their university
supervisor. Roberts (2005) and Roberts and Dyer (2004)
suggest that it is the cooperating teacher and cooperating
school that impacts the student teaching experience the
most. University supervisors should work closely with
cooperating teachers, support the student teachers, and
visit the school sites often (Casey and Howson, 1993;
Bullough and Gitlin, 1995; Beck and Kosnik, 2000).
In order to evaluate the teaching practice of the student
teachers, the supervisors observe them while teaching in
the classroom. They evaluate their lesson planning, the
objectives of the lesson, the use of audio visual aids, the
teaching methods, their punctuality, their dress, their
pitch of voice, the use of the board, the start and the end
of lesson, the discipline of the class and the interest of
the students (Gujjar et al., 2011).
Practicum courses at Sohar University
Teaching practice is an essential element in most teacher
education programs (Mohanraj, 2004; Gujjar et al., 2011;
Rorrison and Barbutiu, 2012). The teacher preparation
program at Sohar University in the Sultanate of Oman is
no exception. The four practicum courses offered during
the last four semesters (or two years) of the Bachelor’s
program at the Department of English (Education) at
Sohar University form a compulsory part of the teaching
methods component of the total curriculum. In the first
tem of the 3rd Year, the student teachers take Practicum
One and in the second term, they take Practicum Two,
with three credits and a weightage of 100 marks for each
course in each semester. These two courses take place
at Sohar University under the supervision of a faculty
member. According to the Course Profile of Practicum
(2010), the course “is meant to help student teachers
learn how to develop, deliver and reflect upon the
components of an effective lesson of English as a
Foreign Language (EFL). This course aims to allow
SELTs develop hands on experience in managing the
various phases of an EFL lesson. Finally the course will
help participating SELTs’ build their self-confidence as
reflective classroom practitioners as well as increase their
motivation to be successful teachers with a fairly wide
repertoire of teaching skills”. In these courses “special
emphasis is paid to lesson planning, critical analysis of
teaching materials, the development of classroom
management skills and lesson delivery strategies”
Course Profile of Practicum One (2010).
In the second term, the student teachers take
Practicum Two which requires them to observe their
peers teaching in the class and practice Micro- teaching
under the supervision of their faculty member. Towards
the middle of the term the student teachers visit the
cooperating schools where Practicum Three and Four
courses will take place.
Table 1 presents the four courses of Practicum, the
credit hours for each course and the place where they
take place, i.e. Sohar University or cooperating schools.
Practicum Three and Four take place at the cooperating
schools in Al-Batinah region under the supervision of a
faculty member and a cooperating teacher. These two
courses are aimed at providing the student teachers with
the opportunity to define and refine their teaching skills.
While few schools feel that teaching practice disturbs
their routine and delays the completion of the curriculum,
fortunately, all schools in Al-Batinah region in the
Sultanate of Oman offer teaching practice placement to
the fourth-year student teachers of Sohar University.
They provide university supervisors with full collaboration.
Furthermore, senior English teachers at these schools
act as cooperating supervisors. Some researchers (e.g.,
Sinclair, 1997; Whitford and Metcalf-Turner, 1999; Beck
and Kosnik, 2002) feel this creates a fortunate
cooperation between the campus program and the
practicum and results in good opportunities to strengthen
the school-university partnership.
Before the beginning of the first term of the Fourth
Year, the course coordinator meets all the student
teachers who are taking Practicum 3 and groups them
into fours or fives. Then, he takes the groups to the
cooperating schools of their preferences. He also assigns
every two or four groups to a faculty member of the
Department of English Education as a supervisor. The
university supervisor visits each student teacher in class
3 to 4 times per term. After each observation, he fills in
an observation form for each lesson presentation and
provides the student teachers with feedback. The
university supervisors’ regular visits to the cooperating
school enables him to interact and to share ideas and
advice with the student teachers, the cooperating
 Al-Mekhlafi and Naji 008

Table 1. Practicum courses, credit hours and place.

Course Level Semester Credit Hours Place

Practicum 1 3 1 3 Sohar University
Practicum 2 3 2 3 Sohar University
Practicum 3 4 1 5 Schools
Practicum 4 4 2 5 Schools

supervisor and the school administration concerning the 12. Decide on the final grade of the student teacher
teaching practice. Similarly, the cooperating supervisor in collaboration with the cooperating teacher.
observes the student teachers, fills an observation form
and gives feedback to them after their lesson
presentations. The student teachers go to the Models of practicum supervision
cooperating schools for two days a week (six hours each
day) for fourteen weeks. The teaching practice that student teachers undergo and
In the second term, the process of Practicum Four is the characteristics they develop in their teacher training
nearly the same as that of Practicum Three. The only programs are determined to a large extent by the type of
difference is that the student teachers teach students of “model and approach of teacher education” (Ben-Peretz,
grades ten and/or eleven instead of grades seven to nine 2000). There are two models available to practicum
in Practicum Three. supervision in teacher education programs: the first one
is called “Training” and the second one is “Development”
(Richards and Farrell, 2005). Richards (1989)
Supervisors’ Roles and Practices summarizes the differences between the training and
development models in teacher education in the table 1b
University staff and cooperating teachers in their roles as as follows:
practicum supervisors within school settings play
important roles for developing their student teachers’ Table 1b. Differences between the training and development
teaching skills in EFL. According to Shantz and Brown models in teacher education.
(1999) supervisors are expected to provide their student
Training Development
teachers with a model of instruction, a source of support, deficiency view
feedback and evaluation. What follows is a summary of methods based development view
the common supervisors’ roles during practicum adapted external on-going process
from Koç (2008). Practicum supervisors are expected to: knowledge internal knowledge
improvement awareness
Approach
1. Work with the cooperating teacher in planning the oriented oriented
student teacher’s schedule prescriptive non-prescriptive
2. Check the student teacher’s lesson plans for atomistic holistic approach
approach bottom-up
presentations
top-down
3. Guide the student teacher in lesson planning, narrow
observation and classroom management performance broad
4. Demonstrate for the student teacher different based values based
methods of procedures for teaching Content skills and process based
5. Observe the student teacher for at least two full techniques negotiated
lessons during the semester received curriculum
6. Give written and oral feedback to the student curriculum
teachers about their teaching performance modeling inquiry based
7. Help the student teacher put theory into practice practice reflective
Process
imitation action research
8. Hold weekly conferences with the student short term long term
teachers to discuss their experience at the cooperating technician knower
school Teacher apprentice investigator
9. Serve as a resource consultant for the student Role passive active
teachers subordinate co-participant
10. Share with the student teacher ideas, discoveries expert collaborator
Teacher
and innovations in education model participant
Educator
11. Fill an observation evaluation form for each interventionist facilitator
lesson presentation of the student teacher Source: Richards (1989:8)
 009 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.
According to Rorrison and Barbutiu (2012) practicum
learning for the student teachers should occur in an
atmosphere of open communication (a partnership)
between the student teachers, the cooperating teacher
within the cooperating school and the university
supervisor.
Terms definition
For the purpose of this paper, the following terms will
have the associated definitions:
i. Practicum: The practicum is the supervised
teaching practice in which the student teachers practice
teaching in a school under the direct supervision and
guidance of a university supervisor and/or a cooperating
teacher. Other terms used in the literature are: the
student teaching, teaching practice, field studies, infield
experience, school based experience or internship
(Taneja, 2000; Gujjar et. al., 2011; Al-Sohbani, 2012).
ii. Supervisor: An English instructor at the
Department of English Education who has been assigned
to assist the student teachers in improving their English
teaching skills during practicum at schools. According to
Gujjar et. al (2011) a supervisor has an important role in
teaching practice as:
a- a resource person
b- an adviser
c- a general moral booster
d- an interpreter of feedback
e- an assessor
iii. Cooperative Teacher (Proctor): A teacher
teaching English at the school identified for practicum
could be requested to assist the university supervisor in
observing student teachers teach in classes and offering
them comments and further guidance.
iv. Student teachers: The student teacher is
defined as the student who is engaged in the practicum.
During the period of practicum, the student teacher
becomes part of the school establishment and
undertakes all work that a normal teacher does. Other
terms used in the literature are: trainee-teachers and pre-
service teachers.
The present study
Purpose of the study
This study is not intended to show the level of expertise a
student teacher has reached in the teaching grammar;
instead it aims to show the supervising student teachers
perceive they have received in the area of grammar
teaching and those they have not. In other words, the
purpose of this study was to arrive at an interpretive
account of what practicum supervisors do at schools in
supervising the English language teaching in general and
the teaching of grammar in particular, the outcome of
their interactions with the student teachers, and the way
the student teachers perceive and understand what the
supervisors are doing.
Thus the aim of this study is to investigate the views
and perceptions of both the level four student teachers
who are taking Practicum 4 and their supervisors who
supervise them during Practicum 4 at schools.
Aims of the study
The main aims of this study were as follows:
1. To investigate the perceptions of the student
teachers about the effectiveness of their supervisors in
developing their skills of teaching grammar during
practicum at schools.
2. To illustrate the perceptions of EFL supervisors
about the effectiveness of their role in developing the
teaching of grammar among their student teachers during
practicum at schools.
3. To explore the dis/agreements between those
who supervise and those who are supervised during
practicum at schools.
4. To explore the student teachers’ perceptions
about the effectiveness of their training program in
preparing them to teach grammar.
Research questions
The following research questions were generated to
guide the inquiry:
1. What are the student teachers' perceptions about
their supervisors’ role and practices in developing their
teaching skills of grammar during practicum?
2. How do practicum supervisors describe their role
and practices in developing their student teachers’ skills
of teaching grammar?
3. When compared, do differences exist between
the views and attitudes of Omani student teachers and
their Practicum Supervisors?
4. How do student teachers rate their teacher
training program in preparing them to teach grammar?
Study limitations
The scope of the study reported here is limited in terms of

the following aspects. It is based on the perceptions of
the participants as expressed in response to the 40 items
of the questionnaire distributed on six domains (Table 2).
Furthermore, the population of this study is limited to
the Fourth Grade student teachers in the Department of
English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences at
Sohar University in the Sultanate of Oman and their
supervisors during the academic year 2010/2011. The
subjects were not chosen randomly, and therefore,
caution should be taken in making generalizations from
the results to other contexts.
METHOD
Participants
The subjects of this study were ninety two student
teachers. They were fourth-year student teachers
enrolled at the B Ed (English Education) program at the
University of Sohar in the Sultanate of Oman in the
academic year 2010 to 2011. They had just finished the
one-year two semester block teaching practice at
selected Omani secondary schools. Their ages were
between twenty two and thirty, all female student
teachers. Their supervisors were forty-seven cooperating
female teachers from fourteen cooperating schools in Al-
Batinah region in the Sultanate of Oman. The supervisors
ranged in age from twenty five to forty two years. Thirty
eight supervisors (80.9%) had the bachelor degree in
Education (B.Ed.), four (8.6%) had a Two-Year’s Diploma
in English and five (10.6%) the M.A. degree in English
language teaching.
Survey questionnaire
The data for this study were collected by means of a
closed ended questionnaire. The researcher adapted the
survey questionnaire depending on the relative research
studies and relevant literature with specific reference to
Hudson (2003); Hudson et al. (2005); Hudson (2007);
Hudson and Millwater (2008). These studies developed
and used the Mentoring for Effective Primary Science
Teaching (MEPST) instrument. This MEPST consists of
thirty-four statements which are organized into five
Domains, namely: Personal Attributes, System
Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and
Feedback. It provides information about how the student
teachers feel about their supervisors’ practices for
enhancing their pedagogical development in mathematics
and science.
This instrument was modified as to elicit the
perceptions, attitudes and views regarding the
supervisors’ practices and supervisory behaviors in
developing their student teachers’ skills of teaching
Al-Mekhlafi and Naji 010
English in general and more specifically the teaching of
grammar during practicum at schools from the point of
view of EFL student teachers and the supervisors
themselves.
Therefore, the survey questionnaire was adapted to be
used in the teaching of grammar by omitting any hint to
the basic stage in the teaching of science and amending
it in accordance with the requirements of the present
study. For example, the MEPST introductory statement
“During my final field experience (i.e.,
internship/practicum) in primary science teaching my
mentor…” was changed to “During Practicum Three, I felt
my supervisor…” Moreover, the word ‘science’ was
changed to ‘grammar’ throughout the questionnaire.
To address the questions related to the subjects’
attitudes and views about the teaching of grammar now
and in the future, the researcher added Part One of the
questionnaire which contained items to obtain information
regarding personal background such as age, gender, and
proficiency in English. Furthermore, six items (Items: 1-6)
were added to elicit respondents' self-perceptions and
attitudes towards the teaching of grammar as well as the
rating of their teacher training program in preparing them
to teach grammar.
The emergent copy of the questionnaire developed for
the purpose of the present study was out of forty items
distributed on the following six domains.
Data analysis
After the collection of the questionnaires, the responses
were computer-coded using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) Program. Data were first
analyzed to yield descriptive statistics, including
frequencies and percentages on the subjects’
characteristics such as age and gender. The t-test as well
as means and standard deviations were used for
comparative purposes. The significance level in this
survey was set at P<0.05.
RESULTS
Participants’ english proficiency and teaching
experience
The student teachers were asked to rate their own overall
proficiency in English. The examination of data collected
through survey questionnaires permitted a description of
the student teachers’ self perceptions of their own
English proficiency. Table 3 presents the distribution of
the student teachers according to their proficiency in
English.
With regard to the student teachers’ proficiency in
English, Table 3 shows that eight student teachers (8.25
011 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.

Table 2. Distribution of questionnaire items on the six domains of the scale, the number of items and samples.

Domains Number of items Sample Item

Grammar Teaching
6 I want to teach grammar.
Self-Perception
Personal Attributes 6 was supportive of me for teaching grammar.
Modelling 7 modelled the teaching of grammar
Pedagogical Knowledge 11 guided me with grammar lesson preparation.
discussed evaluation of my teaching of
Feedback 6
grammar

Table 3. Student Teachers’ proficiency in english.

Proficiency No of Student Teachers Percentage

Excellent 8 8.25 %
Above Average 52 53.61 %
Average 35 36.08 %
Below Average 2 2.06 %
Poor 0 0%

%) rated themselves as having excellent proficiency in
English, fifty two (53.61 %) rated themselves as having
“Above Average”, thirty five student teachers (36.08 %)
had an “Average” proficiency and the remaining two (2.06
%) had “Below Average”.
Unlike the student teachers, the Omani supervisors
were asked to indicate their own years of experience as
teachers /supervisors. Table 4 below presents their own
responses. It presents the distribution of the supervisors
according to their teaching experience.
With regard to the number of years they spent in teaching
English, Table 4 shows that eighteen Practicum
Supervisors (38.3%) had 1 to 5 years’ experience in
teaching English, fifteen (31.9%) had between 6 to 10
years, four Supervisors (8.6%) had between 11 to
15years and the remaining ten (21.3%) had between 16
to 25 years.
The ability of student teachers to teach grammar
ability of the student teachers to teach grammar almost
“Above Average”.
Student teachers’ attitudes towards grammar
teaching
The Omani student teachers were asked to describe their
own attitudes towards grammar teaching while their
supervisors were asked to describe most of the student
teachers’ attitudes towards grammar teaching using the
following three point–type scale: (1) negative, (2) neutral
and (3) positive. Their responses are shown in Table 6.
The results presented in Table 6 indicate that the
student teachers rated their own attitudes towards
grammar teaching with a mean of 2.55 out of 3 (85%)
whereas the supervisors rated the student teachers’
attitude towards grammar teaching with a mean of 2.41
(80.335).

The student teachers were asked to rate their own ability
of teaching grammar while their supervisors were asked
to rate the ability of teaching grammar of most of their
student teachers using the following five point Likert –
type scale: (1) poor, (2) below average, (3) average, (4)
above average and (5) excellent. Table 5 presents their
responses.
Table 5 indicates that student teachers and their
supervisors appeared to share similar opinions about the
student teachers’ ability to teach grammar. The mean of
the student teachers was 3.92 (78.4%) compared to 3.62
(72.4%) of the supervisors. This implies that both the
student teachers and their supervisors have rated the
Participants rate the teaching training program in
preparing them to teach grammar
The examination of data collected through the survey
questionnaires permitted a description of how the student
teachers and their supervisors rate the student teachers’
training program in preparing the student teachers to
teach grammar at schools. The means and the
percentages of the student teachers and the supervisors
are given in Table 7.
The table shows how the Omani EFL student teachers
and their supervisors rate the teacher training program at
Sohar University in preparing them to teach grammar.
 Al-Mekhlafi and Naji 012

Table 4. The Supervisors’ teaching experience.

Experience Group (Years) No of C Teachers Percentage

1–5 18 38.3 %
6 – 10 15 31.8 %
11 – 15 4 8.6 %
16 – 25 10 21.3 %
Total 47 100 %

Table 5. The Ability of student teachers to teach grammar.

Student Ts Supervisors
Survey Item
Mean % Mean %
Rate your own/students’ ability of teaching grammar 3.92 78.4 3.62 72.4

Table 6. Student Teachers’ attitudes towards grammar teaching.

Survey Item Students Supervisors

Mean % Mean %
Describe your own/ Students’ attitude towards grammar teaching 2.55 85 2.41 80.33

Table 7. Student Teachers’ attitudes towards grammar teaching.

Student Teachers Supervisors

Survey Item N= 92 N= 47
Mean % Mean %
My teacher training program has trained me /ST well to teach G. 3.82 76.4 4.26 85.2

The bulk of the EFL student teachers (76.4%) with a
mean of (3.82) agree that their teacher training program
has trained them well to teach grammar. Similarly, the
majority of the EFL supervisors (85.2%) with a mean of
(4.26) agree that the teacher training program has trained
the student teachers well to teach grammar.
Comparison of student teachers’ and supervisors’
views about the practices of supervisors in
developing their grammar teaching during practicum
Both the student teachers and the supervisors were
asked to express their own perceptions and views about
the supervisors’ practices in developing the student
teachers’ grammar teaching during Practicum at schools
using the following five point Likert-type scale: (1)
strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) undecided, (4) agree
and (5) strongly agree. Then their responses to the 40
statements of the questionnaire were grouped into five
domains, namely: Grammar Teaching Self-Perception
Scale (GTSPS), Personal Attributes (PA), Modelling (M),
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and Feedback (F). Table 8
presents the Means, Standard deviations and t-test
results of the student teachers and their supervisors on
the five subscales.
Referring to Table 8, the responses of the student
teachers to the questionnaire expressed as a mean score
to the thirty six statements that were grouped into five
domains. The Personal Attribute (PA) subscale came first
with a mean of (3.91) out of (5), while the Modelling (M)
subscale came last with a mean of (3.64). However, the
responses of the supervisors were analyzed and the
highest rating was given to Modelling with a mean of
(4.82) and the lowest rating was given to Grammar
Teaching Self-perception Scale with a mean of (3.88).
The mean scores of the student teachers and the
supervisors were compared using a t- test. This analysis
resulted in a t- score of (2.551) (P< 0.222). This means
that the difference between the two samples was not
statistically significant at P < 0.05. The results clearly
demonstrate that the supervisors scored higher on all the
five domains of supervising grammar teaching than
student teachers.
Furthermore, the supervisors’ scores on Modeling and
Pedagogical knowledge were statistically significant while
013 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.

Table 8. Mean, Standard Deviation and independent samples t-tests results for the
student teachers and their supervisors’ samples on the five subscales.

Subscale Subjects N Mean ST. deviation t Sig.(2-tailed)

Students 92 3.77 0.415
GTSPS 1.482 0.148
Supervisors 47 3.88 0.349
Students 92 3.91 1.038
PA 0.952 0.898
Supervisors 47 4.05 0.523
Students 92 3.64 0.489
M 5.375 0.000
Supervisors 47 4.82 0.441
Students 92 3.67 0.598
PK 3.047 0.003
Supervisors 47 4.00 0.518
Students 92 3.74 0.616
F 1.898 0.060
Supervisors 47 3.97 0.624
Students 92 3.75 0.631
Total 2.551 0.222
Supervisors 47 4.14 0.491
Key: GTSPS = Grammar Teaching Self-Perception Scale, PA = Personal Attributes,
M = Modelling, PK = Pedagogical knowledge, F = Feedback

their results on the other three domains, namely:
Grammar teaching self-perception scale, Personal
attributes and Feedback were not statistically significant.
What follows is an analysis of the student teachers’ and
their supervisors’ perceptions about the practices and
behaviors associated with each subscale.
Grammar Teaching Self-Perception Scale (GTSPS)
The calculation of the means and standard deviations.of
the six statements relating to the student teachers’ and
their supervisors’ views and self-perceptions on the
teaching of English grammar were calculated. The
statements, and the participants’ responses, are shown in
Table 8. They are reorganized to reflect how strongly the
student teachers felt about each statement, in a
descending order. The responses of the supervisors are
given after each statement for comparative purposes.
Table 9 shows that the average mean of the student
teachers on the teaching of grammar was 3.87 (77.4 %)
while the average mean of the supervisors was 4.18
(83.6%). This implies that both the student teachers and
their supervisors “Strongly agree” that “All teachers
should be able to teach grammar”.
As the results of independent-samples t-tests indicated,
student teachers and their supervisors did not differ from
each other at a statistically significant level with regard to
the grammar teaching self-perception.
Personal Attributes (PA)
Both the sample of the student teachers and the sample
of the practicum supervisors have almost similar scores
on the six statements of the Personal attributes domain.
The student teachers had an average mean score of 3.95
(78.9%). This compares to 4.05 (81.03%) in the sample
of the supervisors. Table 10 shows student teachers’
responses to the six statements of the questionnaire
expressed as means out of five-Likert scale.
Table 10 shows the personal attributes of the practicum
supervisors practices in improving the student teachers’
grammar teaching. It also shows that about 88.8% of the
Omani student teachers “agreed” and “strongly agreed”
that their supervisors made them feel more confident as
grammar teachers with a mean of (4.44). This compares
to 83% (4.15) in the sample of the EFL supervisors.
Similarly, 74.2% of the student teachers agreed that their
supervisors assisted them to reflect on improving
grammar teaching practices, while 79.6% of the
supervisors affirm this fact.
Modelling (M)
Table 11 presents the means and descending order of
the seven items of the student teachers’ perceptions
about the behaviors and practices of their supervisors in
regard with Modelling the teaching of grammar. Student
teachers’ responses are compared with the original
responses of practicum supervisors. The scores
represent means and percentages for each statement.
The table indicates the Omani student teachers’
perceptions and views about their EFL practicum
supervisors’ practices in Modeling the teaching of English
grammar. About 75.8.8% of the EFL student teachers
“agreed” and “strongly agreed” that their practicum
supervisors used grammar rules from the current English
Syllabus with a mean of (3.79). This compares to 82.2%
with a mean of 4.11 in the sample of the supervisors. The
Table also shows that the statement which states that the
supervisors demonstrated how to develop a good rapport
with students while teaching grammar came last with a
mean of 3.52 (70.4%) students teachers agree with the
statement. This compares to 3.98 (79.6%) in the sample
 Al-Mekhlafi and Naji 014

Table 9. Means, Percentages and the Statements of the GTSPS.

Grammar Teaching Self-Perception Scale Student Teachers N= 92 Supervisors N= 47

N
Mean %* Mean %*
All teachers should be able to teach
1 4.59 91.8 4.70 94
grammar
The teaching of grammar is necessary for
2 4.48 89.6 4.68 93.6
developing SS’ language.
3 I want to teach grammar. 4.09 81.8 3.96 79.2
I plan to use grammar lessons regularly in
4 3.69 73.8 4.23 84.6
my classes when I teach
Teachers in my field do not have to teach
5 2.52 50.4 3.34 66.8
grammar
Average 3.87 77.4 4.18 83.6
* % = Rank-order percentage of participants who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with each statement of the
grammar teaching self-perception scale

Table 10. Means, percentages and the statements of the personal attributes subscale.

Student Teachers Supervisors

N Personal Attributes N = 92 N = 47
Mean % Mean %
1 Made me feel more confident as a grammar teacher 4.44 88.8 4.15 83
2 Listened to me attentively on teaching G. matters 4.04 80.8 4.04 80.7
3 Was comfortable talking with me about teaching G. 3.90 78 4.02 80.3
4 Instilled positive attitude in me for Teaching G. 3.83 76.6 4.06 81.2
5 Was supportive of me for teaching grammar 3.75 75 4.06 81.2
6 Assisted me to reflect on improving G. Teaching practices 3.71 74.2 3.98 79.6
Average 3.95 78.9 4.05 81.03

Table 11. Means, percentages and the statements of the modeling subscale.

Supervisors
Student Teachers N=92
N Modelling N=47
Mean % Mean %
1 Used grammar rules from the current English Syllabus 3.79 75.8 4.11 82.2
2 Modeled effective classroom management when teaching G. 3.69 73.8 4.19 83.8
3 Modelled the teaching of grammar 3.65 73 4.02 80.4
4 Displayed enthusiasm when Modelling the teaching of G. 3.58 71.6 3.94 78.8
5 Was effective in Modelling the teaching of G. 3.54 70.8 3.83 76.6
6 Had demonstrated well-designed G. activities for the SS 3.52 70.4 3.91 78.2
7 Demonstrated how to develop a good rapport with SS while teaching G. 3.52 70.4 3.98 79.6
Average 3.61 72.26 3.99 79.94

of the supervisors. significantly more than the student teachers perceived

As the results of independent-samples t-tests indicated,
student teachers and their EFL supervisors differed from
each other at a statistically significant level with regard to
the Modelling of grammar teaching. The EFL supervisors’
perceptions on Modelling the teaching of grammar (3.99)
were significantly higher than the means of Omani
student teachers (3.61) (t = 5.375; P = 0.00) (Table 8).
This indicates that the EFL supervisors perceived
themselves to often model the teaching of grammar
that their supervisors model the teaching of grammar.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
Table 12 shows the means, percentages and descending
order of the eleven statements related to the domain of
Pedagogical Knowledge for supervising the teaching of
English grammar.
015 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.

Table 12. Means, percentages and descending order of the items of the supervisors’ pedagogical knowledge for grammar
teaching.

Supervisors
Student Teachers N=92
N Pedagogical Knowledge N=47
Mean % Mean %
1 Developed my strategies for teaching grammar 3.90 78 4.15 83
2 Gave me new viewpoints on teaching G. 3.90 78 4.23 84.6
3 Discussed with me the knowledge I needed for teaching G. 3.77 75.4 3.91 78.2
4 Discussed with me questioning skills for effective G teaching 3.75 75 4.06 81.2
5 Discussed with me the aims of teaching G. 3.71 74.2 3.96 79.2
6 Showed me how to assess the students’ learning of G. 3.60 72 4.23 84.6
7 Assisted me with implementing G. teaching strategies 3.58 71.6 3.89 77.8
8 Assisted me with classroom management strategies for teaching G 3.58 71.6 3.98 79.6
9 Gave me clear guidance for planning to teach G. 3.54 70.8 4.09 81.8
10 Guided me with grammar lesson preparation 3.38 67.6 4.04 80.8
11 Assisted me to timetable my grammar lessons 3.33 66.6 3.47 69.4
Average 3.64 72.8 4.00 80

Table 13. Means, percentages and descending order of the items of the feedback subscale.

Supervisors
Student Teachers N=92
N Feedback N=47
Mean % Mean %
1 Provided oral feedback on my teaching of G. 4.00 80 4.21 84.2
2 Observed me teach G. before providing feedback 3.75 75 4.13 82.6
3 Discussed evaluation of my teaching of G. 3.75 75 4.19 83.8
4 Clearly articulated what I needed to do to improve the teaching of G. 3.71 74.2 4.02 80.4
5 Provided written feedback on my teaching of grammar 3.56 71.2 3.77 75.4
6 Reviewed my G. lesson plans before teaching G. 3.31 66.2 3.51 70.2
Average 3.68 73.6 3.97 79.43

The table shows that the means of the items associated
with the pedagogical knowledge domain for supervising
the teaching of grammar ranged between (3.90) and
(3.33) in the case of the student teachers’ sample. This
compares to (4.23) and (3.47) in the sample of the EFL
supervisors. The highest rating of the student teachers
was given to the statement: The supervisor developed
my strategies for teaching grammar, while the lowest
rating of the student teachers and the supervisors as well
was given to the statement: My supervisor assisted me to
timetable my grammar lessons. The Table also shows
that the average mean of the student teachers was 3.64
(72.8%) compared to 4.00 (80%) for the EFL supervisors.
Feedback (F)
The Omani student teachers and their EFL supervisors
were asked to respond to six statements relating to the
supervisors’ feedback in supervising the student teachers
to teach EFL grammar. The statements, and the
participants’ responses, are shown in Table 13 in a
descending order.
The EFL supervisors reported that they provided the
student teachers oral feedback on their teaching of
grammar and the student teachers confirmed this fact.
The average mean of the subscale of Feedback was 3.68
in the case of the student teachers compared to 3.97 in
the case of EFL supervisors.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The first aim of this study was to understand the
perceptions of the student teachers about the
effectiveness of their supervisors in developing their skills
of teaching grammar during the practicum at schools.
The results of this study seem to prove that Omani EFL
student teachers’ views and perceptions in regard to the
effectiveness of their supervisors in developing their
grammar teaching strategies during the practicum were in
line with that of their supervisors.
In other words, the student teachers felt that their
practicum supervisors fulfilled their roles during the
practicum. The student teachers also reported that they
obtained oral and written feedback frequently from their

supervisors. A close examination of Table 8 reveals that
Omani EFL student teachers ranked the subscales of the
supervisory behaviours and practices of their supervisors
in the Omani context to be in the following order starting
from the highest to the lowest.
 Personal attributes
 Grammar teaching self-perception
 Feedback
 Pedagogical knowledge
 Modelling
The results of this study demonstrate that the Omani
student teachers scored lower on all the five domains of
supervising grammar teaching during the practicum than
the supervisors. However, their scores on Grammar
teaching self-perception scale, Personal attributes and
Feedback were not statistically significant. Their scores
on Modeling and Pedagogical knowledge were
statistically significant.
The second aim of the study was to illustrate the
perceptions of EFL supervisors about the effectiveness of
their role in developing the teaching of grammar among
their student teachers during practicum at schools. The
EFL supervisors ranked the subscales of their own
supervisory behaviours and practices in developing the
student teachers grammar teaching during the practicum
at schools to be in the following order starting from the
highest to the lowest.
 Modelling
 Personal attributes
 Pedagogical knowledge
 Feedback
 Grammar teaching self-perception
The results of this study demonstrate that the Omani EFL
supervisors scored higher on all the five domains of
supervising grammar teaching during the practicum than
the student teachers. The study accessed information
whether the EFL supervisors fulfill their supervisory roles
during the practicum at schools. Both the student
teachers and their supervisors were in consistence with
this fact. The student teachers’ being consistent with their
supervisors’ doubles the reliability of the results and
eliminates any concerns about whether the supervisors
who supervise the student teachers fulfill their roles
during the practicum at schools.
The last aim of the study was to explore the student
teachers’ perceptions about the effectiveness of their
training program at Sohar University in preparing them to
teach grammar. The results of the study show that the
student teachers and their supervisors were in consistent
that the student teachers’ training program prepared
them well to teach the English in general and to teach
grammar in particular.
Al-Mekhlafi and Naji 016
In conclusion, the findings of the present study suggest
some future research directions. It would be a good idea
to survey a larger sample of student teachers and their
supervisors and to expand the scope of the study to other
universities in the Sultanate of Oman or in the Gulf
region. Furthermore, future studies should include other
possible factors that might affect the final results such as
gender, age and nationality.
REFERENCES
Al-Mekhlafi Mohammad. (2012). Self-Perceptions and
Practices of a Group of Omani Cooperating Teachers
for Supervising EFL Student Teachers’ Grammar
Teaching during Practicum. Arab World English J.,
3(4): 160-178.
Al-Sohbani, Yehia. (2012). Prospective EFL Teachers’
Perceptions of the Teaching Practice Experience at
AUST. Arab World English J., 3(4): 195-213.
Beck C, Kosnik C (2000). Associate Teachers in Pre-
Service Education: Clarifying and Enhancing their Role.
J. Edu. for Teaching, 26(3): 207-224.
Beck C, Kosnik C (2002). Professor and the Practicum-
Involvement of University Faculty in Pre- service
Practicum Supervision. J. Teacher Edu., 53(1): 6-19.
Ben-Peretz M (2000).When Teaching Changes, Can
Teacher Education Be Far Behind. Prospects, 30(2):
215-224.
Bullough R, Gitlin A (1995). Becoming a Student of
Teaching: Methodologies for Exploring Self and School
Context. New York: Garland.
Casey B, Howson P (1993). Educating Pre-service
Students Based on a Problem Centered Approach to
Teaching. J. Teacher Edu., 44(5): 361-369.
Gujjar A, Ramzan M, Bajwa M (2011). An Evaluation of
Teaching Practice: Practicum. Pakistan J. Commerce
and Soc. Sci., 5(2): 302-318.
Hudson P (2003). Mentoring and Modelling Primary
Science Teaching Practices. The Electronic J. Sci.
Edu., 7(1). Retrieved 18 September, 2010, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html.
Hudson P (2004a). Subject-specific Mentoring for
Developing Primary Teaching Practices. International J.
Practical Experiences in Professional Edu., 8(2): 18-28.
Hudson, P. (2004b). Toward Identifying Pedagogical
Knowledge for Mentoring in Primary
Science Teaching. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 13(2), 215-225.
Hudson P (2007). Examining Mentors’ Practices for
Enhancing Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical
Development in Mathematics and Science. Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(2): 201–217.
Hudson P, Skamp K, Brooks L (2005). Development of
an Instrument: Mentoring for Effective Primary Science
Teaching. Sci. Edu., 89(4): 657-674.
017 Wudpecker J. Edu. Res.
Koç EM (2008). An Investigation of Cooperating
Teachers’ Roles as Mentors during the Teaching
Practicum at Distance B.A. Program in ELT at Anadolu
University Open Education Faculty. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University, Turkey.
Mohanraj S (2004). Practicum in Teacher Training,
Unpublished paper, Taiz University, Yemen.
Ramsden P (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher
Education. London: Routledge.
Richards Jack C (1989). Beyond Training: Approaches to
Teacher Education in Language Teaching. Paper
presented on Second Language Teacher Education,
Macquarie University, Sydney. Retrieved 19/1/2013,
from:
http://www.markandrews.edublogs.org/files/2010/05/trai
ning-v-development-11pdf.
Richards Jack C, Farrell Thomas S (2005). Professional
Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for
Teacher Learning. In Richards, Jack C. (Ed.),
Professional Development for Language Teacher, (pp.
1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts TG (2005). Developing a Model of Cooperating
Teacher Effectiveness. Proceedings of the 2005
National Research Conference of the American
Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE).
Roberts TG, Dyer JE (2004). Student Teacher
Perceptions of the Characteristics of Effective
Cooperating Teachers: A Delphi Study. Proceedings of
the Southern Agricultural Education Research
Conference (SAERC)
Rorrison Doreen, Barbutiu, Mannikko (2012). Practicum
as Participatory and Empowering Practice. Paper
presented for ECER 2012 Conference. Retrieved 1/1/
2013,
from:http://www.eeraecer.de/index.php?id=421&Action
=showContributionDetail&conferenceUid=6&contributio
nUid=16702&cHash=545d6aec4f2098488cd9dcdbdfd3
233.
View publication stats
Shulman L (1987). Knowledge and Teaching:
Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Edu.Rev.,
57(1): 1-22.
Smith K (2010). Assessing the Practicum in Teacher
Education – Do we Want Candidates and Mentors to
Agree? Studies in Edu. Evaluation, 36(1): 36-41.
Smith K, Lev-Ari L (2005). The Place of the Practicum in
Pre-service Teacher Education: The Voice of the
Students. Asia-Pacific J. Teacher Edu., 33(3): 289-302.
Sinclair C (1997). Redefining the Role of the University
Lecturer in School-based Teacher Education. Asia-
Pacific J. Teacher Edu., 25(3): 309-324.
Sohar University. (2010). Course Profile of Practicum
One. Sohar University, Oman.
Taneja RP (2000). Encyclopedia of Comparative
Education,4. Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Tillema HH (2007). Authenticity in Knowledge Productive
Learning of Teams. In E. Munthe and M. Zellermayer
(Eds.), Teachers Learning in Communities,
International Perspectives (pp. 27-45). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Tuli Fekede, File Gemechis. (2009). Practicum
Experience in Teacher Education. Ethiopian J. Edu.
and Sci., 5(1): 107 -116.
Whitford BL, Metcalf-Turner P (1999). Of Promises and
Unresolved Puzzles: Reforming Teacher Education
with Professional Development Schools. In G. Griffin
(Ed.), The Education of Teachers: 98th NSSE
Yearbook, Part I (pp. 257-278). Chicago: National
Society for the Study of Education.