13 / 87
12
variables was to mirror the complexity of teaching, but was not used for giving pre-service teachers
feedback on their performance. Two composite variables were included in this study. Planning
included items 1- 3, and
Teaching
was comprised of items 4- 10. Behaviors that comprised the
composite variables can be found in Table 1.
Planning.
For high and medium achieving pre-service teachers entering Block II, Planning
was not a challenge. Both groups scored at a level above 5.0 on a 6.0 scale (high- M=5.41;
SD=0.93: med- M=5.42; SD=1.05). By the end of Block IV, high and medium achievers scored
M=5.89 and M=5.84 respectively. On the other hand, low achieving students began Block II less
skilled in planning than their colleagues (M=4.60; SD =1.14). By the end of their practicum
experiences, low achieving pre-service teachers crossed the 5.0 threshold (M=5.33; SD=. 86). The
low standard deviation suggests general improvement within this group. (See Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Planning (PL) composite scores by achievement level and block.
Planning by Levels by Blocks
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Block II
PL
Block III
Obs 1
PL
Block III
Obs 2
PL
Block IV
Obs I
PL
Block IV
Obs 2
PL
Block IV
Obs 3
PL
High
Medium
Low
Teaching
.
Pre-service teachers entering Block II scored lowest in
Teaching
. This was a
lower area for all students. High achieving pre-service teachers began Block II with scores of
M=5.21; SD 1.17 and completed Block IV with scores of M=5.81; SD=0.53. Low standard
deviation suggests that there was very little variance among the group. Mid-level achievers also
started Block II with the lowest score across all categories (M=5.09; SD=0.76). As mid-level
achievers moved to a new block, their teaching scores regressed (See Figure 3). Despite ebbs and
flows, mid-level achievers finished their practicum experience in Block IV with M=5.82; SD=0.50.
With 6.0 a perfect score, the data reveal that mid-level achievers reached a level of high proficiency.
Low achievers entered Block II with the same scores in Planning and Teaching. Lower achieving
pre-service teachers did not struggle transitioning between Block II and III. However, the change to
Block IV challenged lower achieving pre-service teachers (M=3.69; SD 1.66). This group improved
by the end of the block to nearly reach the threshold of 5.0 (M=4.98; SD=1.05). This higher
standard deviation suggests that some students continued to struggle (See Figure 4).