





































Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 3, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Natalie K. Ferand, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech University, 330 Sterrett Dr., Suite 201, Blacksburg, VA 24061, 

nferand@vt.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764  

2. Bradley M. Coleman, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 445 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, 

b.coleman@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747  

Note – check the last published article to get starting page number) 

3. J. C. Bunch, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

bunchj@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349  

 

14 

 

Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Motivation, Independence, 
and Supervision Preferences: An Exploratory Study  

 
N. Ferand1, B. Coleman2, J. Bunch3 

 

 

  

Abstract 

The student teaching experience is one of the most impactful capstone experiences for the 

preparation of preservice teachers. The supervisor, either a cooperating teacher or university 

supervisor, plays a critically important role in the student teaching experience. The purpose of this 

study was to explore preservice teachers' perceived motivation and independence throughout their 

student teaching experience. It is recommended that early in the student teaching experience, a 

directive supervision style should be utilized. Then, as motivation starts to decline in the middle of 

the student teaching experience, the focus of supervision should shift to providing moral support 

and encouraging commitment to the profession of teaching. Recommendations for future research 

include replication of this study with future cohorts of student teachers across multiple institutions 

so data trends can be analyzed longitudinally. Additionally, it is recommended that future iterations 

of this study should administer a post-then version of the quantitative plotting instrument to control 

response shift bias. 

Keywords 

Mixed methods, internship, support, supervision, university supervisor 

mailto:nferand@vt.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-1764
mailto:b.coleman@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747
mailto:bunchj@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   15 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
The student teaching experience is one of the most impactful capstone experiences for the 
preparation of preservice teachers (Coleman et al., 2021; Miller & Wilson, 2010). The supervisor 
(i.e. the cooperating teacher or university faculty supervisor) plays a critically important role in 
the student teaching experience (Roberts, 2006). The relationship between the supervisor and 
student teacher has been ranked as one of the most critical components of the student 
teaching experience (Clark et al., 2015; Harlin et al., 2002; Kasperbauer & Roberts, 2007; Young 
& Edwards, 2006). The vicarious experiences and modeling provided are essential elements for 
student teachers to build stronger self-efficacy to perform instructional tasks (Clark et al., 
2015). However, supervising a student teacher can be a challenging role. The supervisor must 
step into a passive mentorship role in which they analyze teaching behaviors, evaluate student 
learning, prompt reflection, foster problem-solving skills, and provide formative, constructive 
feedback to the student teacher (Henry & Weber, 2010; Roberts, 2006). 
 
Furthermore, supervision of student teachers is not a one size fits all approach. Determining the 
best approach for supervision depends on the individual development of the student teacher 
and their desires for a style of supervision (Henry & Weber, 2010; Glickman, 1995). Such 
development is posited to occur in phases throughout the student teaching experience (Henry 
& Weber, 2010; Sorensen et al., 2018). Further, for supervision to be effective, teachers are to 
be included in the developmental process (Danielson, 1996). Understanding the student 
teaching experience, and preservice teachers' perceived phases of development, could help to 
improve the preparation of cooperating teachers and lead to more impactful student teaching 
experiences. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework  
 
Henry's (1995) paradigm for supervision of student teachers was the conceptual frame utilized 
for this study. Henry (1995) proposed that the supervision style utilized during the student 
teaching internship should be unique depending on the supervised person. The style to be 
utilized can be determined based on analyzing a student teacher's level of commitment and 
abstraction (Henry, 1995; Henry & Weber, 2010). Henry (1995) expounds on Glickman's (1990) 
description of supervision styles by offering a four-quadrant model specifically for supervision 
of student teachers based on different combinations of abstraction and commitment (see Table 
1). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   16 
 

 
Table 1 
 
Henry’s (1995) Modified Four Quadrants Model for Supervising Student Teachers 

  
Motivation & 
Independence 

Characteristics 
Supervision Style 
Recommended 

Quadrant 1 Low motivation, 
low independence 

Difficulty identifying & responding to 
problems; unimaginative teaching; 
low amounts of preparation 
 

Directive control with 
specific instructions and 
expectations 

Quadrant 2 High motivation, 
low independence 

Eager to teach, but lacks a sense of 
direction; will devote time and energy 
but without a sense of purpose; may 
have ideas but lack ability to bring 
ideas to fruition 
 

Directive information 
with choices presented 
by supervisor 

Quadrant 3 Low motivation, 
high independence 

Highly intelligent, but is not dedicated 
to teaching as a profession; low or 
absent levels of progress towards 
effective teaching 

A collaborative style 
where supervisor and 
teacher negotiate ideas 
and solutions with both 
parties agreeing on 
course of action 
 

Quadrant 4 High motivation, 
high independence 

High intellectual capacity; aware of 
teaching strategies and methods; will 
try things that involve risk; likely to 
take advantage of every opportunity 
during the student teaching 
experience 

Indirect approach with 
focus on creativity and 
reflection; Mostly need 
support and 
encouragement 

 
Supervisors should make efforts to classify student teachers through several avenues such as 
student portfolios, previous academic performance, written statements by the preservice 
teacher, one-to-one conversations, as well as observations (Henry & Weber, 2010). It is 
expected that the quadrant the student teacher is classified within will change over the course 
of the student teaching internship. However, the ultimate goal for supervision is for all 
preservice teachers to be in quadrant four, high abstraction and high commitment, the end of 
the student teaching experience (Henry, 1995). While Henry (1995) proposed examining 
developmental levels of commitment and abstraction, these words were operationalized for 
the purpose of this study. Commitment was operationalized as motivation based on the 
descriptions of effort put forth towards their internship experience by preservice teachers and 
their desire to continue with teaching as a profession (Henry & Weber, 2010). Abstraction, or a 
preservice teacher's conceptual ability to problem solve or plan creative lessons (Henry & 
Weber, 2010), was operationalized as independence.  
 
The four quadrants presented by Glickman (1990), Henry (1995), and Henry and Weber (2010) 
were to be utilized by the supervisor, based only on the supervisor's perceptions of the student 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   17 
 

teacher's level of development. However, the student teacher's perceptions of their 
development and their desires for a specific style of supervision are imperative to a positive 
supervision relationship (Henry & Weber, 2010; Glickman, 1995). Structured time for student 
teachers to self-reflect in a non-evaluative environment has been shown to benefit their growth 
during the student teaching experience (Snead & Freidberg, 2019). Understanding preservice 
teachers' perceptions of their development and any impact on supervision could lead to a more 
positive student teaching experience as it is almost impossible for any supervisor to know 
precisely what has happened while student teachers are in the school (Wilkens et al., 2015). 
 

Purpose  
 
The purpose of this study was to explore preservice teachers' perceived motivation and 
independence over the course of their student teaching experience. The following questions 
guided the research: 
1. What are preservice teachers' perceived developmental classifications? 
2. What are preservice teachers' perceived levels of motivation and independence? 
3. What were the experiences and support preservice teachers received during their student 

teaching experience? 
4. To what extent do preservice teachers’ perceived levels of motivation and independence 

align with their described desires for supervision style by cooperating teachers and 
university supervisors? 

 

Methods  
 
A convergent mixed-methods design was used for this study (QUAN + QUAL). This design was 
chosen because we collected both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously during the 
research process. Even though data were collected simultaneously, we analyzed the 
quantitative and qualitative data separately, then compared the results to determine 
congruency and discrepancy (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Researchers' biases potentially 
influence the interpretation of data (Patton, 2002). When the data were collected, two of the 
researchers were graduate students and teaching assistants for the course in which the data 
were collected. One researcher was the instructor of record for the course where the data were 
collected and the teacher education coordinator. All three researchers were university 
supervisors for the cohort of preservice teachers during the time in which the data were 
collected. The researchers attempted to limit their biases by using bracketing (Creswell, 2013; 
Tufford & Newman, 2010). Specifically, the researchers met bi-weekly to discuss and reflect 
upon data collection and analysis procedures (Tufford & Newman, 2010). 
 
This study's population consisted of all preservice teachers (N = 7) enrolled in the student 
teaching experience during the spring semester of 2021. Eighty-six percent of the participating 
preservice teachers were white, mostly female (86%; n = 6), and had a mean age of 21 years. 
Data were collected using a questionnaire via Qualtrics in four intervals during the student 
teaching experience. Data collection intervals were spaced every four weeks for the entirety of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   18 
 

the 16-week student teaching experience and are noted as observations one through four. A 
total of 28 questionnaires were collected for a census completion rate of 100%. 
 
The questionnaire used in this study was a researcher developed instrument based off of 
Henry’s (1995) paradigm for supervision. Face and content validity were established through a 
panel of three faculty and one doctoral graduate student in agricultural education at a land 
grant university. The panel was considered experts based on their experiences in secondary and 
post-secondary teaching and learning and research design. Several comments were 
recommended by the reviewers and implemented. Comments included adjustments to 
instructions for clarity, grammatical errors, writing style, and word choice to ensure content 
validity. 
 
The instrument consisted of two sections. In the first section, students were presented with a 
four-quadrant graph. They were asked to plot their perceived level of development across their 
student teaching semester at four different periods. The Qualtrics "heat map" function was 
utilized to collect this data. The X-axis of the displayed graph represented motivation, with the 
Y-axis being independence. 
 
The first section of the instrument also included four additional open-ended questions. Two 
questions asked the student teachers to reflect on the thoughts, feelings, and specific 
experiences that led them to plot their point such as providing specific examples or experiences 
that led them to select the plot point they did and what support they needed from their 
supervisor. Qualitative questions one and two related to preservice teachers' motivation, while 
questions three and four associated with independence. The second section of the instrument 
consisted of eight items to collect personal and professional data. 
 

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, 
frequencies, and percentages). Additionally, data from the points were plotted using the 
Microsoft Excel graphing function. Qualitative data were analyzed deductively by the three 
researchers for congruent and discrepant statements according to their plotted perceived 
motivation and independence levels. Considerations by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were used to 
establish trustworthiness of the qualitative analysis. Specific practices included multiple 
researcher and mixed methods triangulation (Creswell, 2013; Denzin, 2012), bracketing to 
reduce bias (Tufford & Newman, 2010), reflexive discussions by the research team, and 
achieving inter-coder agreement among the researchers (Ary et al., 2009). Following the 
analysis of the qualitative data, both sources of data were re-analyzed in comparison (Creswell 
& Creswell, 2018). 
 

Limitations 
 
This study’s population consisted of students from a single cohort of an agriscience teacher 
preparation program. Therefore, the findings of this study are not generalizable beyond the 
population. Further, the authors recognize the exploratory nature of the study due to this being 
the first time the instrument was utilized. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   19 
 

Findings  
 
Figure 1 illustrates preservice teachers’ developmental classifications across the four 
observation dates. During observation 1, the majority of the preservice teachers’ plot points 
classified them as a Quadrant 2 student teacher. Preservice teacher three was classified as a 
Quadrant 4 student teacher, while preservice teacher two was classified as a Quadrant 3 
student teacher. The majority of the preservice teachers’ plot points classified them as a 
Quadrant 4 student teacher during observation 2, while preservice teacher seven was classified 
as a Quadrant 2 student teacher. During observation 3, the majority of the preservice teachers’ 
plot points classified them as a Quadrant 4 student teacher. Preservice teacher six was 
classified as a Quadrant 3 student teacher. Finally, during observation 4, all preservice teachers’ 
plot points classified them as a Quadrant 4 student teacher. 
 
Figure 1 
 
Preservice Teachers’ Developmental Classifications 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   20 
 

Figure 2 displays preservice teachers’ perceived mean levels of motivation and independence 
across the observation periods. We observed that the mean perceived motivation level at 
observation one (Jan 12th) was 4.71 (SD = 3.04) and slightly declined by observation two (Feb 
17th; M  = 4.57, SD = 1.99). At the third observation on March 24th, the preservice teachers’ 
motivation level had a noticeable decline (M = 2.57, SD = 3.10), and then sharply increased by 
observation four (Apr 26th; M  = 6.43, SD = 2.07). Related to preservice teachers’ independence, 
the mean level at observation one was –1.29 (SD = 4.23), and sharply increased across the next 
three observations with the largest increase being from observation one to observation two (M 
= 3.29, SD = 3.09), a difference of 4.58 points. 
 
Figure 2 
 
Preservice Teachers Perceived Mean Levels of Motivation Across Observations 

 
 
Table 2 displays quotes describing the student teacher’s perceived motivation. Congruent 
statements aligned with Henry’s (1995) characteristics for the student teachers’ self-
determined plot point. Incongruent statements did not align with the characteristics provided 
for the corresponding quadrant. Table 2 also displays quotes describing the student teacher’s 
perceived independence. Congruent statements aligned with Henry’s (1995) characteristics for 
the student teachers’ self-determined plot point. Incongruent statements did not align with the 
characteristics provided for the corresponding quadrant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   21 
 

Table 2 
 
Comparing Preservice Teachers’ Descriptions of Motivation and Independence with Their Self-
Designated Quadrant 

Quadrant 
Placement 

Motivation Independence 

Congruent Discrepant Congruent Discrepant 

Observation One 

Q2 (n = 5) 

I feel prepared for this 
internship but I know 

that things are going to 
be different than my 

other experiences 
within a program and 
classroom. My biggest 
reservation is the fact 

that I have not had 
experience with the vet 
assisting curriculum but 

yet I have to teach it. 
(Participant 5) 

 
I am excited for this 
opportunity but not 
really sure what I am 
doing, so I think I will 

need a lot of help. 
(Participant 1) 

I don't want to let 
someone down. I also 
can be shy and easily 

intimidated and I don't 
want my students to get 

the best of me.  
(Participant 9) 

 
I have visited with my 
teacher twice, and she 
is giving me A LOT of 
freedom on what to 

teach. I have also 
always been a very 

confident public 
speaker. (Participant 6) 

I think I would need 
lesson ideas for topics 
I'm not comfortable 
with and assistance 
answering student 
questions in these 

topics. (Participant 7) 
 

I mostly need resources 
and ideas for how to 

teach the content, and 
then feedback on how 

lessons went. 
(Participant 1) 

 
I need a lot of help with 

structure in the 
beginning..  

(Participant 9) 
 

I will need support 
through guidance 

because I know that I 
can be hard on myself, 

but I also want to 
improve so I will need 

the corrections just in a 
way that gives me 
specific ways to be 
better next time. 

(Participant 5) 

Feedback! I love 
learning from my 

mistakes. (Participant 6) 

Q3 (n = 1) 

I am having trouble 
thinking of iterative 
ways to teach this 
anatomy and the 
functions of the 

different muscle groups. 
(Participant 2)  

I am negative one on 
the motivation scale 
because I am feeling 

anxious to start student 
teaching which is 

causing more stress in 
my life. I chose a one for 
independence because I 
feel that I do not have 

adequate teaching 
resources to be 

successful. 
(Participant 2) 

More resources - I am 
sure {cooperating 

teacher} would be more 
than happy to help! 

(Participant 2) 
 

A chance to run plans 

by my supervisor and 

additional teaching 

resources. 

(Participant 2) 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   22 
 

Quadrant 
Placement 

Motivation Independence 

Congruent Discrepant Congruent Discrepant 

Q4 (n = 1) 

I am super motivated to 
start my internship! I 

get along with my 
cooperating teacher 

very well and she has 
helped continue to 
motivate me…I just 

hope that my university 
supervisor is there for 
me to bounce ideas off 
of and ask advice too. 

(Participant 3)  

I am not prepared to 
take over Horticulture I 

am very much the 
animal science aspect of 

agriculture education. 
However, {Cooperating 
teaching} has assured 

me that if I get stuck or 
need help she will be 
more than willing to 
guide and jump in to 
help. (Participant 3) 

 The biggest thing is 
resources for 
supplemental 

materials… I hope that 
{cooperating teacher} is 

willing to share the 
years of materials she 

has from her 
experience. … I put a 6 
for independence just 
based on her classes 

that I will be taking over 
and I am still learning 
myself. (Participant 3) 

Observation Two 

Q4 (n = 6) 

I am really motivated to 
get better at teaching 

and engaging with 
students (Participant 1) 

 
I was really challenged 
when my cooperating 

teacher requested that I 
teach the estrous cycle 
in livestock because I 
know very little about 

that topic, so I felt very 
dependent on others to 
help me figure out how 
to teach that. But that 
further motivated me 
because I want to be 

able to figure that stuff 
out on my own. 
(Participant 1) 

 
I feel extremely 

independent and I really 
like teaching… I am 

motivated to keep doing 
better and getting 

better!! (Participant 9) 

The students attitudes 
towards learning 
mainly. It can be 

discouraging if you do 
not properly engage 
them. (Participant 6) 
Student disrespect and 

disruptions. Finding 
fun and engaging 

lessons and activities. 
Working with students 

SAE programs and 
getting involved with 

the FFA. (Participant 2) 
 

..it seems that no 
matter how much I put 
in lately, a lot or not, I 

don't really see much in 
return (in the form of 

student 
involvement/interest) 

so it is really 
disheartening…it is still 

discouraging when 
nothing I do really gets 

them excited.. 
(Participant 5) 

Advice on presenting 
information, directions, 

and lectures. 
(Participant 2) 

 
I think the advice and 

personal experiences of 
what worked for her is 

very helpful...new ideas 
of how to improve and 

make my life easier. 
(Participant 9) 

 
She has been so helpful, 
but she has found this 
year to be really hard 
too. We are learning 
together on the best 

ways to approach 
different situations. 

(Participant 5) 

I don't really think I 
need more resources or 

anything, I really just 
need to find ways to 
motivate myself even 

when the students 
make it hard. 
(Participant 5) 

 
I think I need some 

more ideas for lessons .. 
instead of {my 

cooperating teacher] 
saying “we need to 

teach animal nutrition,” 
{I want them to} say 
what exactly the kids 

need to know. 
(Participant 9) 

 
Resources and more 
ideas about how he 

wants specific lessons 
taught would be a great 
help… more structured 

guidance in looking 
ahead at how the 
current topic will 

connect to the next 
topic. (Participant 1) 

 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   23 
 

Quadrant 
Placement 

Motivation Independence 

Congruent Discrepant Congruent Discrepant 

Q2 (n = 1) 

I feel motivated to teach 
but sometimes it can be 
hard when I know the 

students aren't 
dedicated and I hear 
crickets when I teach. 

On the other hand, I like 
to collaborate with 

{cooperating teacher} 
on lesson ideas which 

helps me when creating 
ideas (Participant 7) 

Students are great they 
just don't want to work 

bell to bell which is 
understandable 

considering the way the 
world is right now. So 
the must challenging 
aspect would be the 

participation on 
classwork and in 

discussions.  
(Participant 7) 

My co-op is very 
supportive when I am 

teaching. She will jump 
in when kids ask a 

question, I don't know 
which helps me not look 
lost. She also helps me 
create lesson ideas and 

gives me realistic 
feedback. (Participant 7) 

{University supervisor} 
is great. He has helped 

me realize that I am 
overthinking things and 
to not stress myself out 

on the little things. 
(Participant 7) 

Observation Three 

Q4 (n = 6) 

I feel like this point is 
where I am at because 

at this point in my 
internship, I am almost 

completely 
independent…I would 
say I am about a 4 in 
motivation because I 

enjoy it and I am 
motivated to be the 

best I can be 
(Participant 5) 

 
I am very independent 
with my teaching and 
lesson planning, but I 

second guess my 
lessons and just need 
that reassurance from 

time to time. 
(Participant 7) 

 
I believe that I am even 
more motivated than I 

was before I started my 
student teaching. I am 

motivated to be finished 
and have MY OWN 

classroom. I feel 
completely independent 
on the teaching aspect 

of things...  
(Participant 9) 

 
  

I am feeling little 
motivation, I find myself 

extremely exhausted 
and a little beat down 

from the critiques I 
receive from my 

cooperating teacher. 
(Participant 2) 

 
Although I am feeling a 
lot more comfortable 

with my students, I am 
starting to count down 
the days until its over 

because I am tired. 
(Participant 7) 

 
I get to the point that I 
am going all of the time 

and constantly doing 
something, that when 

it's time to wind down, I 
end up just stressing 
over everything that I 

still need to get done so 
I feel like I never have a 

break to recuperate. 
(Participant 5) 

My [cooperating 
teacher] is very 

helpful…she gives me a 
lot of freedom to do 

whatever in the 
classroom as a learning 
tool of trial and error. 

(Participant 7) 
 

I feel prepared and 
supported. I think I am 
just excited to see how 
the last few weeks will 

go. (Participant 5) 
 

The biggest support 
from my university 

supervisor was advice 
and guidance. 
(Participant 3) 

 

 

I would like more lesson 
planning ideas from my 
university supervisor for 

when I am stuck. 
(Participant 9) 

 
I think more support 

from my co-op teacher 
could be guidance in 
aspects that are not 
specifically teaching. 

(Participant 9) 
 

I would like more 
support in terms of 

feedback after lessons 
and ideas for teaching 

certain topics of 
information. 

(Participant 1) 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   24 
 

Quadrant 
Placement 

Motivation Independence 

Congruent Discrepant Congruent Discrepant 

Q3 (n = 1) 

Well the kids look 
forward to seeing me 

now and I have fixed up 
the shade house and the 

greenhouse.  
(Participant 6) 

 
Pretty good but also 

pretty sad that I will be 
losing everything I have 
worked at pretty soon. 

(Participant 6)  

 
Information on steps 

after internship 
(Participant 6) 

More information on 
how to give the class 
back (Participant 6) 

 

 

 

Observation Four 

Q4 (n = 7) 

I am so ready to start 
my own program and do 

my own thing! I am 
going in early this 

summer to set up my 
classroom!!! 

(Participant 9) 
 

As I ended the 
internship, I am more 
motivated to have my 

own classroom and 
begin my own journey 

with ag education. 
(Participant 7) 

 
I feel like I grew a lot in 

my internship in 
leadership, teaching 

methods, and 
confidence as a teacher. 

(Participant 5) 

I have been very 
independent during my 

teaching internship. I 
have been lacking 

motivation especially 
towards the end. 

(Participant 2) 
 

I am highly motivated 
due to finishing my 

internship successfully 
and moving towards 
graduation, but I feel 

like I would still need a 
lot of help in my own 

classroom. (Participant 
1) 

Advice and mentoring 
(Participant 6) 

Just a colleague and 
someone I could go to 

for advice or inspiration. 
(Participant 9) 

 
{My cooperating 
teacher} gave me 

freedom and flexibility 
in the classroom. She 

also had the same 
mindset as I did. She 
hated lectures and 
focused more on 

student discovery, so I 
never was afraid of 
what she would say 
about my lessons. 

(Participant 7) 
 

Someone who I can go 
to for advice or 

inspiration.  
(Participant 9) 

Resources, classroom 
management, and ideas 

for professional 
development 
(Participant 2) 

 
Information for larger 
teaching techniques 

(Participant 6) 
 

Resources on classroom 
management 
(Participant 2) 

Note. Q = Quadrant 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
According to Glickman (1995), university supervisors can classify student teachers into four 
quadrants based on specific characteristics. Based on the teachers ' developmental 
classification, detailed recommendations on supervising student teachers are then provided 
(Glickman, 1995). However, levels of independence and motivation can vary widely within the 
quadrants, as seen in the mean levels displayed in Figure 6. Most of the student teachers 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   25 
 

plotted themselves in Quadrant 2 on the first observation (see Figure 2). According to Henry 
(1995), teachers in quadrant two have high motivation and low independence. These teachers 
are eager to teach but lack a sense of direction. Quadrant 2 teachers prefer a direct supervision 
style, with choices provided by their supervisor. Two student teachers were not in quadrant 
two quantitatively; however, their qualitative responses aligned with Quadrant 2 characteristics 
of high motivation and low independence. When student teachers were asked to describe their 
perceptions about their internship at this observation point, they were excited but desired 
resources and specific lesson ideas. Incongruently, student teachers reported an abundance of 
autonomy over their classroom and lesson topics. They also discussed the feeling of 
intimidation as they began their internship (see Table 2). 
 
At the second and third observations, the majority of student teachers plotted themselves in 
Quadrant 4 (see Figure 2). All student teachers aligned themselves in Quadrant 4 for the last 
observation. According to Henry (1995), Quadrant 4 teachers have high levels of motivation and 
independence. These teachers know teaching strategies and methods and are willing to try new 
teaching approaches. Quadrant 4 teachers should be supervised indirectly, including 
encouraging them to be creative, prompting self-reflection, and providing moral support 
(Henry, 1995). While a majority of student teachers were quantitatively in Quadrant 4 on 
observation two, their qualitative responses do not align with the characteristics of Quadrant 4. 
This could be due to a lack of motivation, as indicated by their qualitative responses. For 
example, many student teachers continued to request resources, lesson ideas, and materials 
instead of seeking these resources independently (see Table 2). 
 
On the other hand, during observation 3, both the quantitative scores and the qualitative 
responses align with Quadrant 4. Student teachers shared a need for moral support, advice, 
and feelings of being stressed and tired (see Table 2). Therefore, it is recommended that early 
in the student teaching experience, a directive supervision style should be utilized by providing 
choices, resources, and lesson ideas, in addition to focusing on support and encouragement 
congruent with Quadrant 4. Then, as motivation starts to decline in the middle of the student 
teaching experience, the focus of supervision should shift to providing moral support and 
encouraging commitment to the profession of teaching. As the student teaching experience 
approaches the third quarter, those who are responsible for supervising student teachers (i.e., 
cooperating teachers, university supervisors, etc.) might consider providing more moral support 
than targeted performance feedback originally recommended by Henry and Weber (2010) and 
Roberts (2006). 
 
Recommendations for future research include replication of this study with future cohorts of 
student teachers across multiple institutions so data trends can be analyzed longitudinally. 
Additionally, it is recommended that future iterations of this study should administer a post-
then-pre version of the quantitative plotting instrument to control response shift bias. 
However, qualitative data could still be collected throughout the student teaching experience 
to provide a real-time description of students' perceptions about their experiences. Lastly, the 
authors recommend following up with the cohort from this study during their first year of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   26 
 

teaching to compare their results from student teaching to their in-service experiences and 
perspectives. 
 

Acknowledgements  
 
Fees for publication were generously covered by the Virginia Tech Open Access Subvention 
Fund. The three authors equally contributed to conceptualizing the study, writing the 
manuscript, and collecting and analyzing the data. 
 

References 
 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2009). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). 

Wadsworth Cengage. 
 
Clark, S., Byrnes, D., & Sudweeks, R. (2015). A comparative examination of student teacher and 

intern perceptions of teaching ability at the preservice and inservice stages. Journal of 
Teacher Education, 66(2),170–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114561659 

 
Coleman, B. M., Ferand, N. K., Bunch, J. C., & Israel, G. D. (2021). Examining preservice teachers' 

performance during a 14-week student teaching experience: A longitudinal study. 
Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(3). https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03258  

 
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five 

approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 

methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. 
 
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  
 
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186  
 
Glickman, C. (1990). Supervision of Instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Allyn & 

Bacon.  
 
Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1995). Supervision of instruction: A 

developmental approach (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.  
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114561659
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.03258
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   27 
 

Harlin, J. F., Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (2002). A comparison of student teachers’ 
perceptions of important elements of the student teaching experience before and after 
an 11-week field experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(3), 72–83. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03072 

 
Henry, M. A. (1995). Supervising student teachers: A new paradigm In G.A. Slick (Ed.), Making 

the difference for teachers: The field experience in actual practice. Corwin Press. 
 
Henry, M. A., & Weber, A. (2010). Supervising student teachers: The professional way (7th ed.). 

Rowan & Littlefield Education. 
 
Kasperbauer, H. J., & Roberts, T. G. (2007). Changes in student teacher perceptions of the 

student teacher-cooperating teacher relationship throughout the student teaching 
semester. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(1), 31–41. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01031 

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. 
 
Miller, G., & Wilson, E. B. (2010). Designing field-based and experiential education for 

preservice teachers in agriculture. In R. M. Torres, T. Kitchell, & A. L. Ball (Eds.), 
Preparing and advancing teachers in agricultural education (pp. 131–141). The Ohio 
State University. 

 
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.  
 
Roberts, T. G. (2006). Developing a model of cooperating teacher effectiveness. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 47(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001 
 
Snead, L. O., & Freiberd, H. (2019). Rethinking student teacher feedback: Using self-assessment 

resource with student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 155–68. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117734535 

 
Sorensen, T. J., Lawver, R. G., Hopkins, N., Jensen, B., Dutton, C., & Warnick, B. K., (2018). 

Preservice agriculture teachers’ development during the early phase of student 
teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 105–119. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04105 

 
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 

11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316 
 
Wilkens, C., Ashton, J., Maurer, D. M., & Smith, S. (2015). Some of this is not your fault: 

Imperfect placements, student teachers, and university supervisors. Schools: Studies in 
Education, 12(2), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1086/683222 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03072
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01031
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117734535
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04105
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
https://doi.org/10.1086/683222


Ferand et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195   28 
 

Young, R., & Edwards, M. (2006). A comparison of student teachers' perceptions of important 
elements of the student teaching experience before and after a 12-week field 
experience. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3), 47–57. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03045 

 

© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 

the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.195
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03045

