Factors affecting the quality and effectiveness of student teachers during their practicum experiences: the case of some selected colleges in Oromia, Ethiopia

Abstract

In this study, an attempt was made to investigate the constraints encountered by student teachers during their practicum experiences at some selected colleges in Oromia, Ethiopia. Adopting a convergent mixed research design, a questionnaire was distributed to student teachers, and a semi-structured interview was conducted with supervisors and mentors. The data found from questionnaire were analyzed using a descriptive statistics, inferential statistics and One-Way ANOVA. Besides, the interview results were analyzed using content analysis method. In the findings, factors such as mentors’ lack of continuous follow up and support, interest to share experience, and friendliness were identified. In addition, follow up and support were not continuously provided by supervisors, and there was no coordination between supervisors and mentors. Further, Colleges engage large numbers of candidates to one school, allot many student teachers for one academic supervisor, opportunity given for practice was inadequate and there was lack of necessary facilities in the cooperating schools. Hence, it can be concluded that there were limitations from the side of mentors, supervisors, colleges and cooperating schools on playing their roles in teaching practice. Therefore, based on the findings of the study and the drawn conclusions; mentors and supervisors of the practicum should make continuous follow up and provide immediate feedback for their student teachers. In addition, they should collaborate while evaluating and equipping their student teachers with all necessary things. Besides, colleges should have good rapport with cooperating schools, try to fulfill necessary facilities, and strengthen to make them effectively produce qualified students. They should work on how to mitigate the number of student teachers with the number of supervisors and schools. Finally, cooperating schools should learn from spontaneous limitations and go further to fulfill their needs.

Introduction

It is strongly assumed that all over the world, teachers are considered as the vital, core elements, and the backbone of any educational institution. Therefore, well-trained teachers are highly needed for they are more responsible to stimulate the teaching learning process in the classroom. Haftu et al (2017) states to get students the best in their learning experiences, well-trained school teachers are essential. Therefore, it is in teachers’ preparation programs that student teachers learn what to teach, how to teach, and what methods to use with particular topics, students, and settings to form the subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills that define teaching expertise. Because, the central thrust of reforms in the teachers’ preparation programme is to produce teachers who can perform adequately in the world of work and also meet the present day challenges (Esther & Uchenna, 2021).

In Ethiopia since 1944, when the first teacher education programme had been launched, many teacher education reforms were made to produce qualified and effective teachers. During the government of Emperor Hailesallassie, three phases of teacher education reforms were made. The first phase was (1944/45–1954/55) characterized as the first teacher education policy ever to shape the conduct of teachers’ preparation in Ethiopia. The second phase was (1955/56–1965/66), in this reform the then Ministry of Fine Arts came up with certificate and diploma-level programmes. In addition, the importance of maintaining quality standards apart from expanding educational opportunities was grown. Unlike the preceding two phases, the third phase was (between 1966/67 and 1968/69), and its major achievement was the apparent emphasis shift from quantity to quality of teacher preparation programmes. In general, even though what was accomplished during the reign of Emperor Hailesallassie was considered as an important milestone for Ethiopian teacher education, the various measures taken to support the training programmes had failed to overcome the shortage of qualified teachers. As a result, at times, up to 90% of the school teachers were unqualified (Tesfaye, 2014, p.11).

In the aftermath of the ousting of Emperor Hailesallassie I, the Military Junta proclaimed ‘Zemecha’ Campaign without preparation to overcome the succeeding consequences. In an apparently haphazard move, its MoE recruited high school students to make them teachers. Hiring untrained teachers highly criticized as it was ill-conceived decision that were commonly referred to as ‘Degoma Memheran’ had serious ramifications on the quality of education. Later, because of multi-direction challenges and the alarming situation, the Commission for Higher Education (CHF) conducted a study and the findings revealed that the teacher preparation programmes were entangled with complex sets of problems ranging from inadequacy of courses for professional/pedagogical preparation and practice teaching, to lack of psychological readiness to take up teaching due to forced allocation of students in teacher training colleges (Shoeb, 2013).

Based on the CHF study’s result, subject area teaching methodology and teaching-practice courses were included in the program. However, these reforms did not bear fruit interims of mending the inherent weaknesses of teachers’ preparation. The failure was not totally unexpected because the scope of the CHF study was limited to issues and opinions that policy makers wanted to hear. As such, the recommendations for the subsequent reform did, in fact, marginalize the views and experiences of educators, parents, and teacher associations. Hence, on top of its apparent lack of commitment to deal with the real obstacles that confronted teacher education, the Military government took measures that did a lot of harm to the education system particularly through compromising the quality of teachers’ preparation and the de-professionalizing of teaching (Geberew, 2017; Shoeb, 2013; Tesfaye, 2014).

The new Education and Training Policy 1994 reform took place following the overthrow of the communist regime in 1991. Then, post-communist era teacher education reform was started with a study commissioned by MoE (Tesfaye, 2014). The title identified for the study was ‘The Quality and Effectiveness of Teacher Education System in Ethiopia’. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the state of teacher preparation programmes. The result of that study uncovered lack of content knowledge, lack of pedagogical knowledge, lack of practices, too theoretical and teachers centered, and teachers' competence was below the standard, the graduates were unable to live up to the expectations placed on teachers on the-job, and they were unable to understand the realities inside and outside school environments and the capacity of institutions was described as ‘poor’ to train teachers for the intended purpose (Eyasu et.al, 2017; Tesfaye, 2014).

Therefore, based on the results of the study and the given recommendation, MOE established a task force to produce the national framework called Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) program. Then, after six years implementation, the advent of TESO met with waves of criticism from scholars, teacher educators, and parents like most externally initiated reforms. In addition, the study’s report specifically claimed that the teacher preparation programmes that were undertaking through TESO suffer from serious deficiencies in almost all aspects of teacher training. According to the report, graduates have no sufficient subject-matter knowledge in their respective areas of specialization, lack the required professional knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, and have limited practical teaching skills. These limitations were weakness of the prior TESO program; therefore, no change at all concerning teacher education program. In general, although a policy program called Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) was launched to bring a paradigm shift on teacher education system as a general, and to improve the quality of teachers in particular, the desired results were not obtained (Shoeb, 2013).

As has been seen in Ethiopia teacher education history, there was no time when the issue of quality and effectiveness didn’t rise in the policy reforms. Conversely, it was also clearly stated that there was no time when it was solved. In the concept of ‘quality’ so many characteristics are hardly accurately measurable. According to Bryk et al., (2012) quality and effectiveness are widely conceded as an aspect of effective teaching which can translate into students’ achievement. Hence, in this paper ‘quality and effectiveness’ refer to conceptualized as a constituent of teaching effectiveness which manifests itself in terms of student teachers’ learning.

The context of the study

The current Ethiopia teachers’ preparation curriculum was designed for student teachers to train the theoretical aspects in the colleges and to enjoy its practical part during their practicum experience (OEB, 2011; Hagos, 2013). OEB, (2011) guideline shares the design of national curriculum; so that, teachers’ training program in Oromia regional state comprises of two major components (i.e., theory and practice). The theory part of the training is given in the college and the practical aspects is carried out in the practicum placement schools. Hence, in the implementation of the program, the student teachers are made to observe the school during their practicum I, to work under the supervision of the mentor during practicum II, to assist their mentor during practicum III, and to scale up their subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills during practicum IV. Salviana et al. (2016) put up with teaching practice is designed to help the student teachers get an opportunity for directed and guided participation in major activities in the classroom for the first time. Through participation, student teachers are expected to develop essential competencies and skills which will be needed for their future profession. However, as has been reported by Geberew (2017) and Belachew (2019) although preparing well-equipped, professionally competent and skilled man power were expectations from teaching practice. The reality with graduates’ life does not cop up with expectation. Complementary, other studies, which are carried out in the area suggest that student teachers are not good in skills that could be gained from teaching practice (Tesfa, 2011 Hagos, 2013, Mesfin, 2014, Eskinder, 2015).

In addition, the graduates of these colleges annually join the university, in which the researchers are teaching, to scale up level of their qualification (i.e., from Diploma, to first Degree level). At these times, the researchers able to perceive the low level of the graduates’ competency in pedagogical skills. Besides, researchers hear from other instructors when they blame about graduates’ poor performance. Thus, the graduates of the three colleges were made to write short diction about their past practicum experiences, and the graduates reflected that they attended the program in unsuitable situation. Consequently, based on the recommendation of the above local researchers and intending to know factors, which were reasons for graduates’ ill preparation, the following research question was asked and study was conducted in order to find answer for the particular problematic area.

What factors are negatively affecting the quality and effectiveness of student teachers during their practicum experiences?

Review of related literature

The student teachers’ teaching practice is designed to help the student teachers to get an opportunity of guided participation in major activities in the classroom for the first time (Salviana, et al. 2016). It is aimed that, through engagement student teachers are expected to develop essential competencies and skills which will be needed for their future profession. It provides the first intimate contact with the real world of teaching. Conversely, the student teachers can face various constraints during practicum. A number of studies have been conducted to understand the problems facing student teachers during their teaching practice. Zhengdong’s (2013) for instance noted that the constraints faced by non-native pre service ESL student teachers in an eight-week teaching practicum were pre service teachers’ lack of sense of control in class, and inadequacy in English language competence affect the student teachers’ teaching practice. Other study that was conducted by Goh and Matthew (2011) also identified four different types of constraints such as: classroom management and student discipline related constraints, institutional and personal adjustments related constraints, classroom teaching related constraints and constraints related to students.

Similarly, Ganal et al. (2015) identified the student teachers’ constraints that included personal problems, teaching preparation problems, class participation problems, class management problems, evaluation problems, instructional problems, emotional problems, problems of adjusting to students, problems with adjustment to school, problems arising from over-extended schedules or workloads and problems with guidance. Fayhaa (2016) disclosed the constraints interims of student teachers and supervisors perspectives. Hence, the most serious constraints identified by student teachers were: lack of coordination between cooperating school, school principal and cooperating teachers, while constraints less serious were: educational supervisor and program preparation procedures; whereas, the most serious constraints in practicum according to their importance, as seen by supervisors were: academic preparation, and the possibilities of training, while constraints less serious were: personal, and social relationships.

The other constraints were identified by the study of Nonis and Jernice (2011). The constraints were unhappiness of student-teachers during their practicum due to stresses of being overloaded, being not watched by their supervisors, poor rapport with schools communities, and problems with understanding the needs of their student and that they had a very short time in the schools. Likewise, the Hagos’s study of (2013) uncovered constraints that hampered the implementations of practicum program as lack of appropriate criteria for evaluation, intermittent supervision of the college, lack of cooperativeness among practicum stakeholders, and lack of adequate school facilities. Supplementary, Taylor (2014) identified the constraints as inadequacy of institutions in promoting competencies of student teachers on classroom practices, low levels of English proficiency, lack of reading and basic numeracy pedagogies, and low level of subject knowledge among teachers. In the stated policies teachers’ related constraints, such as poor working conditions, poor teacher morale, high absenteeism, high turnover and attrition that cause instability in schools were identified, and lack of physical resources, on-going violent behavior incidences, poor morale amongst teachers, lack of parental involvement and support and limited funding for school improvement (Maphoto, 2016).

In addition, the study of Merç (2011) listed the constraints as classroom management, being observed by mentors, the students’ profiles, teaching procedures and Paker (2011) added the weak staff relationship, classroom management, pedagogy and evaluation techniques, the way student teachers are assessed, different expectations of mentors and supervisors as well as the poor quality of feedback received from mentors and supervisors. Similarly, Inceçay and Dollar (2012) recognized the constraints as the ineffectiveness of student teachers and its relation to their readiness to manage their classrooms. Furthermore, Du Plessis et al. (2010) claims although schools express willingness to take trainees, they tend to lack mentorship structures for trainee due to, may be, either staff shortage or workloads of their staff. Sentamu-Namubiru (2010) also argued that visits made by supervisors from teacher education institutions tend to be infrequent.

Finally, Long et al., (2012) labeled the constraints as psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical well-being, for student teachers are relatively new to the world of teaching and, hence, are unaware and not fully prepared to confront the complexities involved in this profession (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Likewise, Allport et al., (2015) named constraints as culture shock, which, for student teachers specially, may result from misunderstanding of school communities’ culture, work practices at schools, nature of student–teacher relationships, unfamiliar curriculum, classroom practices, and unaccustomed environment. Therefore, in this study, in light of these empirical studies, it was tried to investigate the constraints that were encountered by student teachers during their practicum experiences in four perspectives.

Research methods

Research design

Research design is necessary for it makes possible the smooth sailing of the various research procedures, thereby creation research as professional as possible, yielding maximum information with a minimum expenditure of effort, time and money. For better, economical and attractive construction of a house, we need a blueprint (Innam, 2016). Therefore, in this study, a descriptive survey research design with concurrent mixed (qualitative and quantitative) approach has been employed with the intention of getting the general picture of practicum courses’ provision in the current teacher training program. The utilized design was preferred for its purpose of merging and analyzing the research problem comprehensively (Creswell, 2012, 2014). In this design, following the Innam’s (2016) steps, first the main purpose of the study was clearly discriminated, secondly, methods of data collection (questionnaire, & interview) were discriminated. Thirdly, sample people were selected. Then, both forms of data were collected at the same time and then information was integrated in the interpretation of the overall results. Finally, interviews data were coded as; ST1, ST2…, Men 1, Men 2…, and Sup 1, Sup 2…, and questionnaires’ were tabulated and interpreted. Then, data that was found from both sources were merged and then analyzed.

Participants

The participants of the study were eighty-seven, third year, final semester, liner modal, diploma program student teachers in the department of English language and literature, six supervisors, and eight mentors. They were selected from the three Teachers Training Colleges (i.e., Mettu, Nekemte, and Jimma) and six surrounding elementary schools (i.e., Mettu Bishari, Mettu Set. Gebriel, Nek, Catholic, Burka Jato, Jimma Ginjo and Jimma Himata) primary schools. The student teachers had almost the same background, i.e. they used almost the same L1 (A/Oromo) and learned the same content and methodology courses. Totally, the three colleges’ third year, English major, final semester, liner modal, diploma program students were 135 (i.e., in Mettu TTC 48, in Nekemte TTC, 35 and in Jimma TTC 52, student teachers). Out of these, 87 student teachers (i.e., 30 from Mettu TTC, 27 from Nekemte TTC, and 30 from Jimma TTC) were selected by using simple random sampling technique and all of them were willing to take part in the study. Young (2016) states using simple random sampling technique increases the chance of a representative sample being obtained, and decreases the chance of a sampling error, where the sample does not represent the population as a whole. Besides, supervisors were teacher educators who taught them content and methodology courses, and sent by the colleges to monitor and support their students on practicum courses. For selection of supervisors, quota sampling technique was employed. This technique starts with a sampling frame which is then divided, proportionally, into subgroups, with the proportions being determined by the overall parameters of the group. Accordingly, two from each and six supervisors were selected from three colleges. Besides, by using availability sampling technique seven practicum mentors were interviewed. For interview, two teachers were found only from one school, and only one teacher from each, totally five teachers were mentoring in the rest five cooperating elementary schools. These mentors were full time teachers and well experienced in the elementary schools in which student teachers were assigned and taught their practicum courses.

Data gathering instruments

In this study, closed ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. In relation to closed ended questions, Michael & Jeremy (2016) states that closed ended questions force respondents to choose from a range of predetermined responses are generally easy to code, and statistically analyze. Additionally, Olsen (2012) says close-ended questions are pre-coded to make the work quickly be implemented and provide a set of alternative answers to each item from which the respondent must select at least one. Further, Young (2016) also claims that closed form item facilitates the tabulation of data for analysis and gives a clear and overt range of possible responses and asks people to choose one or more of these. Therefore, closed ended questions were prepared in five-point Likert scales form and respondents were made to select one from the provided alternatives. Accordingly, 90 questionnaires that have fifteen items were prepared for 90 sample of student teachers, and 87 of the respondents filled and replied the questionnaires. The reliability of questionnaires was checked by using Cronbach's Alpha and the result of Cronbach's Alpha = 0.907 that implies “Excellent” in reliability check. Besides, following the Hamed’s (2021) procedure, semi—structured interview was conducted as a second tool to collect individual’s concept and awareness towards the topic of the study. Therefore, 20 min were the time taken for interview with each of the six academic supervisors, and seven practicum mentors to make them discuss their interpretations and describe their concepts towards the interview questions. Interview was made through appointment, based on the preferences of the interviewees. Hence, it helped the researchers to see the consistency of the responses and to get further explanations in addition to what were found from questionnaires.

Data analysis

The data analysis process involved two-analysis structures. Following mixed data analysis methods, both quantitative data and qualitative data were first analyzed separately, compared and interpreted (Creswell, 2014). During analysis process, stat graphics 18 was used to tabulate the quantitative data, descriptive statistics, i.e., mean, SD & inferential statistics, i.e., One-Way ANOVA, Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, Tests of Effects Between-Subjects, and Pair wise Multiple Comparisons or Bonferroni Test were conducted in order to know the differences that may exist between and within the three colleges and the subjects of the study, to check the assumption of Sphericity and to check the difference that may exist between the means respectively. Later, Semi structured—interviews were coded (i.e., St1, St2…, Sup1, Sup2…, & Men1, Men2…etc.), ideas (i.e., mentors related factors, supervisors related factors, student teachers related factors, and institutions (both colleges and cooperating schools) related factors) were grown from that, then ideas were interpreted, and conclusions were drawn using content analysis technique (in which ideas of interviewees are properly stated, the summary of similar ideas is taken and themes are well organized in word form)..

Results

Table 1 reveals that the responses of student teachers on factors affecting the quality and effectiveness of student teachers’ teaching during their practicum experiences. Therefore, factors with their respective categories (i.e., Mentors–related factors, Student teachers related factors, supervisors–related factors and institutions–related factors) were clearly presented and using five point Likert Scale, the factors’ affecting levels were rated. After that, the rates were calculated through descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, mode, media and Standard deviation were obtained.

Table 1 Responses on factors affecting the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences

The items in the table were selected and presented to respondents by using five -point scales i.e., 5 = for not a factor at all, 4 = for slight factor, 3 = for modest factor, 2 = for suggestive factor, and 1 = for very significant factor. Thus, in line with Al-Jaro and Asmawi (2019) the following formula was used to find the arithmetic mean value. Mean = arithmetic average of the scores, if the total mean scores = 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Mean = sum of values divided by number of scores (i.e., 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15, 15 ÷ 5 = 3.) Therefore, based on this concept, the following formula was employed for analysis purpose.$\mathbf{v}=\times -1\div \times =5-1\div 5=4\div 5=0.8$

To find the variation between point scales, we need numbers between five and one. These numbers are four. Then to get the variation between points, we divide four (i.e., between 1and 2, between 2 and 3, between 3 and 4, and between 4 and 5), the sum value number that we got between five and one to the number of scores (5). Therefore, the variation result between each point scale can be 0.8. Accordingly, the mean value 0.8 scales variation was interpreted as 4.20–5.0, for not a factor at all 3.40–4.19, for slight factor 2.60–3.39, for modest factor, 1.80–2.59, for suggestive factor, and 1.0–1.79, for very significant factor.

As has clearly been presented in the above table, on item1, 2, 3 and 4 student teachers were asked to respond on their mentors’ lack of continuous follow up and support provision, lack of interest to share experience, lack of enthusiasm and friendliness, and lack of experience to deal with student teachers respectively. Accordingly, majority, 36.78% with (1.782) mean value for item 1 and 35.63% with (1.862) mean value for item 2 respondents said very significant factor. Besides, 31.03% and 27.59% of the respondents said suggestive constraint respectively. Similarly, majority 34.48%, with (1.305) mean value for item 3 said it was ‘suggestive factor’. Whereas, about 33.33%, with (3.713) mean value respondents said item 4, or mentors’ lack of experience was ‘not factor at all’. As a result, based on the majority respondents’ response it can be said that mentors’ and supervisors’ continuous follow up and support provision mentors' lack of interest to share experience, mentors' lack of enthusiasm and friendliness were very significant factors. However, mentors' lack of experience to deal with student teachers was not as such negatively affecting the student teachers’ teaching during their practicum course.

In the same table item, 5, 6 and 7 respondents were asked to react on student teachers' problem of professional ethics, lack of subject matter, and pedagogical knowledge. Thus, majority 40.23% with (3.759) mean value for item 5, 41.38%, with (3.770) mean value for item 6, and 39.08% with (3.759) mean value for item7 respondents selected slight factor, slight factor and not factor at all respectively. The three mean values mentioned on the above fall between 3.40 and 4.19 that was represented by slight factor. Hence, based on the responses of majority respondents it can be said that the student teachers’ subject matter and pedagogical knowledge; as well as, professional ethics were not serious problem for student teachers’ teaching during their practicum courses.

In the same table item 8 and 9 the respondents’ have been asked in relation to their academic supervisors’ continuous follow up and the supervisors’ coordination with their practicum mentors. Then, for item 8, when the majority 42.53% said very significant factor, 27.59% of the respondents’ response was significantly affecting factor. The mean value of these responses of the respondents = 1.713. Similarly, for item 9, majority (36.78%) and (32.18%) with 1.850 mean value of respondents said very significant and significantly affecting factor respectively. This implies that according to the responses of majority respondents both supervisors’ continuous follow up, and the supervisors’ coordination with student teachers’ practicum mentors were negatively affecting the student teachers’ teaching during their practicum experiences.

Finally, in the same table item 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the respondents have been asked about the engagement of large number of student teachers to one school, transportation problem, allotment of many student teachers for one academic supervisor, inadequate provision of opportunities to practice, lack of necessary facilities in the cooperating schools and lack of clear guideline and orientation in relation to practicum respectively. Therefore, while responding the questions, majority 39.08% of the respondents with mean value of 1.782 said item 10 was very significant factor, 41.38% of the respondents with mean value of 4.0 said item 11 was slight factor, 36.78% of the respondents with mean value of 1.897 said item 12 was very significant factor, 36.78% of the respondents with mean value of 1.874 said item 13 was suggestive factor, 40.23% of the respondents with mean value of 1.989 said item 14 was very significant factor, and 40.23% of the respondents with mean value of 3.793 said item 15 was slight factor. Mean values of 1.782, 1.897, and 1.874 show very significant rate. Therefore, based on the responses of the majority respondents it is possible to say engaging large number of student teachers in one school, assigning of many student teachers for one academic supervisor, and inadequate provision of opportunities to practice were very serious problems. Whereas, the majority respondents’ responses show transportation problem, and lack of provision of clear guideline and orientation were not this much challenging problems for student teachers’ teaching during their practicum courses.

Table 2 implies that the descriptive statistics result reveals the mean, standard deviation, and the possible errors that could exist in the result of standard deviation. In addition, the confidence interval rate that lies between the three colleges and minimum and maximum results were earned. This indicates that the result obtained from two colleges were near to each other; however, the result of Mettu College was relatively different from Nekemte and Jimma.

Table 2 Summery of the descriptive statistics result

In this study, One-way ANOVA test was used to measure the differences that may exist between the three colleges in the level of factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences. In addition, the mean score of ANOVA was used to see if there was difference within the subjects in each college and between colleges. The, result is presented in the table as follow.

F-Statistic

As has been depicted in Table 3, the significance level measured through One Way ANOVA, F (2, 84) = 7.933, p = 0.001 indicates, there was significant difference between and within the three colleges in relation to the factors that negatively affect the student teachers’ teaching during their teaching practice.

Table 3 One-way ANOVA test on factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences

Table 4 shows, comparison was made between the three training colleges and the three possible relationships have been identified. In addition, the mean differences, the standard of possible errors during study were carried out and the analysis was made. Further, the significance level of p-vale was clearly presented. Accordingly, Nekemte TTC and Mettu TTC; as well as, Jimma TTC and Mettu TTC were significantly different from each other, for the result of p value between the colleges were = 0.005, and 0.002 respectively. However, there was no significant different between Nekemte TTC and Jimma TTC because the result of P value between the two colleges = 1.000 which implies more than the significance level of mean difference (0.05).

Table 4 Pair wise multiple comparisons (Bonferroni Test) on factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences

A one way ANOVA was run with three different colleges as independent variable, and number of students as the dependent variable. Results of the ANOVA showed a significant difference between Mettu TTC and Nekemte TTC; as well as, between Jimma TTC and Mettu TTC on their number of students; F(2,84) = 7.933, p = 0.001. Bonferroni Test, or Scheffe post—hoc analysis revealed that Jimma TTC (n = 27, M = 2.09, SD = 1.19) has significantly less students on average than both Mettu TTC (n = 30, M = 2.42, SD = 1.57), and Nekemte TTC (n = 30, M = 2.01, SD = 1.00). Mettu Teachers Training College and Nekemte Teachers Training Colleges are not significantly different from each other.

Table 5 implies that the Tests of Effects Between-Subjects that there was an overall significant difference between the means at the different time points because the result of Tests of Effects between—subjects, p value < 0.05. Therefore, based on this result, it is possible to say there were significant effects between subjects on factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the student teachers’ teaching during their practicum experiences.

Table 5 Tests of effects between-subjects on factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences

As was clearly depicted in Table 6, the result of Mauchly's Test of Sphericity (p value < 0.05) shows that the assumption of Sphericity is rejected in this study because the violation occurred for it was not the case that the variances of the differences between all combinations of the conditions were equal.

Table 6 Mauchly's Test of Sphericity on factors that affect the quality and effectiveness of the candidates’ teaching during practicum experiences

Mentors’ interview result on factors

Interview was made with mentors on some selected issues. Among these issues, the first one was to suggest whether there was continuous follow up and support from their side to their student teachers. Secondly, whether there was coordination between mentors and supervisors. Thirdly, questions were asked to know whether student teachers’ lack of academic background, subject matter and pedagogic knowledge were negatively affecting them during their practice. Fourthly, to know whether the student teachers’ professional ethics was problem for their teaching practice and to check whether many number of student teachers were engaging in to one school and also were being allotted for one academic supervisor. Next, was whether student teachers were anxious during evaluation time or not. Further was, whether they were interested to share experiences to student teachers or not and whether the colleges gave clear guideline and orientation to student teachers. Finally, problem related with transportation, and the relationship student teachers have with school communities rose for mentors and their responses were analyzed as follow.

Men 1, Men 2, Men 3, Men 4, Men 7, and Men 8 have consent on the following issues. When their answers are summarized, continuous follow up and support provision was inadequate, there was no coordination at all between mentors and teacher educators, there are until then problem in relation to academic background in general, and subject matter and teaching methodology in particular. In addition, the number of students assigned to one school and one academic supervisor was conditional (i.e., sometimes increases, other times becomes normal.) Further, transportation and the student teachers’ fear and anxiety during their evaluation were among encountered problems during teaching practice.

When responses of Men 5, Men 6 and Men 8 jointly summarized, they stated as there were some problematic areas. They were: like orientation and clear guideline, peaceful coexistence with others, lack of academic background, subject matter, and methodology knowledge.

In general, based on the interview made with mentors of the six elementary schools, the student teachers’ relationship with school communities was not good. The student teachers’ subject matter and teaching methodology were also not satisfactory and continuous follow up and support student teachers expected was not provided.

Supervisors’ interview result on factors

Interviewee supervisors have been asked to suggest on the factors they perceived during the student teachers’ teaching practice. Thus, the responses of all supervisors agree that on the availability of factors that faced them. Among the factors raised in common; weakness of the student teachers in relation to subject matter and pedagogic competency, problem of continuous follow up and support made for student teachers, mentors’ and supervisors’ coordination problem, engagement of many student teachers to one school and one supervisor. On the other hand, Sup 2, answered differently on student teachers’ ability to change theory in to practice and mentors’ lack of interest to share their experiences. He said that: “Yes, student teachers face problems to change theory in to practice. In addition, lack of time and interest to share experiences were mentors and supervisors’ problems.”

In relation to rapport student teachers had with mentors and supervisors and student teachers’ fear and anxiety, Sup 5, and Sup 6 suggested almost the same idea: … student teachers were not confident enough to talk with their mentors for they were not approaching friendly; therefore, they fear that if they will not be competent in their future teaching profession.

In general, the supervisors’ interview result shows; first, there was problem in relation to lack of continuous follow up and support from the side of both mentors and supervisors. Second, student teachers lack subject matter and pedagogical knowledge. Third, mentors lack interest to share experiences and deal with student teachers. Fourthly, there was lack of coordination between mentors and supervisors. In addition, transportation from place of practice to student teachers’ residence, engaging large number of student teachers in one school and allotting of many student teachers for one academic supervisor were factors that negatively affected the quality and effectiveness of student teachers’ teaching practice.

Discussions

In the student teachers’ questionnaire; mentors’ lack of continuous follow up and support, mentors' lack of interest to share experience, mentors' lack of enthusiasm and friendliness, and mentors' lack of experience to deal with student teachers are about mentors (cooperating teachers). As has been portrayed in the presentation, continuous follow up and support provision were found negatively affecting factors. Besides, the interview result that was obtained from mentors and supervisors was reliable with the result of student teachers’ questionnaire the same as that has been reported in the study conducted by Salviana’s (2016). Likwise, the study made by Hagos (2013) portrays “…continuous follow up and supervision made by mentors to student- teachers was very weak.” (P, 69) … student—teachers were less satisfied with the supports that they got from their respective mentors. (P, 73). In addition, the findings of this study were proximate with the study of Nonis and Jernice (2011). Also, comparable factor has been reported in Kathleen’s (2013) is also consistent with the finding of the current study. For instance, it says “…cooperating teachers lack engagement in student teachers’ learning. This is characteristic of less-effective mentor.” (P.169–170). Auxiliary reports from the study of Candra’s (2017) are unswerving with the result of the current study. The report says “…when teacher said that he could not attend school, he asked three of us as his student—teacher to replace him during his absence. It did not matter for me actually, but after the week of his absence, there were no information about how long we had to do teaching because we told him that our teaching responsibilities were to teach for 10–12 times throughout these three months teaching practicum in the school (P.24)”. This suggestion indicates that there was no efficient follow up by mentors to student teachers. Supplementary, Augustine (2018) also reported in his study the little support provided from mentors as major constraint.

Correspondingly, the mentors’ lack of interest to share experience was found very significant affecting factor. In addition, the supervisors’ interview result indicates that the availability of substantial problem in relation to mentors’ interest to share their experiences to student teachers; however, mentors on their interview snubbed to accept it. Since the result obtained from student teachers’ questionnaire and supervisors’ interview was dependable with each other, the issue that rose in question can be taken as negatively affecting factor. The study conducted by Eskindr (2015) assets the result of the current study. It says that “…there was not stimulation from mentors to obtain and give experience from and to other teachers (p, 61–62)”. In addition, Hagos (2013) found steady result with this study’s result. For instance, it says “…third year practicum student—teachers of Abbi- Addi College of Teachers fail to obtain adequate support from their respective school mentors for their mentors were not ready to share their experiences (p.73)”. Nonis and Jernice (2011) also disclosed as student-teachers were not properly watched by their cooperating teachers due to overload. The same factor has been mentioned as constraint in Taylor (2014) as mentors were with poor working conditions, poor morale, high absenteeism, high turnover and attrition that cause instability in schools and also Merç (2011) mentioned being observed by mentors as constraint. Supplementary, Paker (2011) also said in her study, student teachers receive poor feedback from their practicum mentors.

On the subject of mentors' lack of enthusiasm and friendliness, the mean result depicts that it was suggestive constraint. In addition, the interview result backings the result that was found through questionnaire. As has been disclosed by (Hagos, 2013) there was no mutual understanding among school mentors, student teachers, and college tutors. In addition, Eskindr (2015) said consistently mentors were not collaboratively working with available student teachers and other regular teachers. Moreover, Allport et al., (2015) contends the nature of student–teacher relationships as constraint.

In relation to lack of coordination between mentors and supervisors, the majority of the respondents realized in the current study that it was very significant factor. Therefore, based on the response of the majority respondents, it is possible to say that mentors and supervisors coordination was constraint for student teachers’ teaching during their practicum courses. Parallel data that was germinated through interview from mentors and supervisors also uncovers similar result with questionnaires’. In line with this, Hagos (2013) insists that lack of cooperativeness among practicum stakeholders is major problem that hinder the effectiveness of teaching practice. Similarly, Eskindr (2015) indicates that there was no collaborative work between all stakeholders in the teaching practicum. Auxiliary, Fayhaa (2016) study’s report shows the coordination between practicum mentors and supervisors was major constraint.

The student teachers’ lack of professional ethics, lack of subject matter knowledge, and lack of pedagogical knowledge were issues directly rose in relation to student teachers. Therefore, the student teachers’ response concerning their professional ethics, majority said it was slight factor. Besides, with regard to subject matter knowledge, the majority respondents said it was slight factor. In the same way, the student teachers’ pedagogical knowledge was labeled as slight factor by majority respondents. Thus, based on the responses of the majority it is possible to say student teachers’ related factors were not as such negatively affecting factors during teaching practicum courses.

However, the findings of interview indicates the reverse result. Both mentors and supervisors said the issues rose with student teachers were problems that were observed on the ground. Thus, the finding of the study made by Candra (2017) argues the student teachers’ limited subject matter knowledge was problem to facilitate learning in English. In addition, Aldabbus (2020) also uncovers the reverse result from his previous study. He found that the student teachers have various pronunciation errors, lack of fluency in English, and unclear handwriting which made the students struggle to read or copy what has been written by the teacher. This dictation indicates that there was lack of subject matter knowledge; as a result, student teachers fail to comprehend fully what was offered to them. Moreover, Zhengdong’s (2013) disclosed the result of his study as inadequacy in English language competence negatively affected the student teachers’ teaching practice. Ganal et al. (2015) also referred to student teachers’ weak mastery of the academic content of their subject as a possible is constraint for implementation of practicum.

Regarding lack of pedagogical knowledge, it was rated by majority respondents as slight factor; however, the interview result uncovers it was not good. Other studies’ result also agree with the result of this study, for instance, Aldabbus (2020) reveals his study result that some of the participants were very good at introducing the topic and activating the learners’ prior knowledge using different techniques such as elicitation questions, pictures, and short videos (i.e., pedagogical knowledge). From previous study, Qasi, et al. (2012) also approves with finding of this study saying …the respondents’ planning skills, instructional skills and student assessment skills were gradually improved (p.52). Conversely, the Goh and Matthew’s (2011) study identified the student teachers’ pedagogical knowledge as major problems (i.e., classroom management and student discipline related constraints, institutional and personal adjustments related constraints, classroom teaching related constraints and constraints related to students).

Regarding the student teachers' lack of professional ethics, majority respondents said it was not constraint at all. On the other hand, the result obtained from interview indicates the student teachers were not good in their professional ethics. Hagos’s (2013) study result consistently disclosed need of student teachers to work with and develop positive relationship with supervisors. In addition, Goh and Matthew (2011) also reported that the students’ unprofessional ethics was major impeding factor during teaching practicum courses. Maphoto, (2016) contends in his study that ongoing student teachers’ misbehavior was among identified factors.

As to lack of continuous follow up by supervisors and mentors the response from majority respondents portrays that supervisors’ follow up was very serious problem for student teachers’ teaching during their teaching practice. In addition, the interview result also depicts the same idea with the questionnaire. Aldabbus (2020) reported in their studies’ result that the participants complain about not getting adequate follow up and feedback from their supervisors. (p.5). In addition, Sentamu-Namubiru (2010) also argued that visits made by supervisors from teacher education institutions tend to be infrequent. Naeem (2014) in her research found that her participant student teachers were rarely visited by their practicum supervisor.

On the topic of engaging large number of candidates in one school, the majority respondents said it was very significant affecting factor. In addition, in relation to allotting many students for one academic supervisor, the majority respondents selected very significant factor. Thus, as has clearly been seen from the response of majority respondents, many number student teachers were allotted for one academic supervisor and it was negatively affecting factor for the student teachers’ teaching during their practicum courses. These two ideas were rose on interview and the result obtained from interview shows uniformity with the finding that was obtained from questionnaire. The findings of the study goes corresponding to (Tesfa, 2011, p.62; Hagos, 2013, p.74) studies’ findings. In relation to provision of opportunities to practice, the majority respondents said the opportunities student teachers obtained during practicum was inadequate. The finding obtained from interview has also consent idea with the finding obtained from questionnaire. Thus, it is possible to say it was serious factor for student teachers’ teaching during their practicum courses. Findings of Tesfa’s study copes with result of this study. For instance, it says…time provided for practice was not sufficient; therefore, student teachers were not made to equip all necessary knowledge and skills during their teaching practice (p.58). In addition, the idea disclosed by Aldabbus (2020) also approves the current study’s result. It says that: “student teachers should be given an adequate school based practical experience” (P.104).

Pertaining to lack of necessary facilities in the cooperating schools, the majority respondents said it was very serious factor. The finding obtained from interview also supports the finding of the questionnaire. Therefore, the sum of both quantitative and qualitative data result show us that absence of necessary facilities negatively affected the student teachers’ teaching during their practicum experience. The result was similar with that has been found by Hagos (2013; Tesfa, 2011). In addition, Augustine (2018) disclosed that some of the pre-service teachers claimed that there were no resources at their disposal making teaching very difficult. Tesfaye and Chali (2019) study also reported that there were no sufficient resources from which student teachers equip necessary skills.

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

It has been shown in this study that factors that negatively affected the quality and effectiveness of student teachers’ preparation in the three colleges of Oromia Regional State were identified, presented and discussed in four categories. Firstly, mentors’ related factors such as; lack of continuous follow up and support, lack of interest to share experience, and lack of enthusiasm and friendliness were rated as suggestive factors. Hence, it can be concluded that mentors did not commit what was expected from them. Secondly, factors like lack of subject matter knowledge, lack of pedagogical knowledge, and lack of professional ethics were directly seen in relation to student teachers and the result found from both quantitative and qualitative data reveled that these mentioned issues were slight factors. For that reason, it is possible to conclude, as student teachers’ directive factors were not reason to challenge quality and effectiveness of student teachers’ preparation during their practicum experiences. Thirdly, supervisors’ related factors; such as, lack of continuous follow up and support provision, and lack of coordination between mentors and supervisors were seen as very significant affecting factors. Therefore, the result led to conclude as that supervisors were not efficient on accomplishing their roles. Finally, for factors directly connected with institutions like assigning large number of candidates for one school, allotting of many students for one academic supervisor, providing inadequate opportunities to practice, and falling to provide facilities in the cooperating schools indicated that suggestive constraint. Thus, there were limitations from the side of institutions to contribute what were expected from them. In general, in the findings of the study, all stakeholders were found with weaknesses to accomplish their side roles. For that matter, the following recommendations were suggested.

Recommendations

In the process of producing academically qualified, professionally skilled, and attitudinally committed teachers, the following suggestions will contribute to albeit the constraints identified in the investigation.

• 1. Mentors should be trustful for their profession, update their knowledge by reading different policy guidelines and materials related with their roles and responsibilities, help, and try to be good model for their student teachers to make them competent professionals.

• 2. Mentors should also have good rapport with all stalk holders in the practicum, and work in collaboration with supervisors for the benefit of their student teachers.

• 3. Student teachers should internalize what was learned in theory, read further materials, and try to interpret theory in to practice to do better in their future profession.

• 4. Supervisors should efficiently accomplish their mission, have coordination with all stalk holders in the practicum, and contribute their own side roles in the quality and effectiveness of practice-based experiences.

• 5. Institutions (Colleges) should review in to the number of student teachers allotted for one academic supervisor and engaged to one elementary school, be ready in all facilities related with teaching practice, and have good relationship and communication with schools to which student teachers are sent for practice.

Generally, colleges, mentors, and supervisors should work efficiently to eradicate the constraints that negatively affect teaching practice in particular and teachers’ preparation in general.