Creative Education
2012. Vol.3, No.8, 1409-1418
Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38206
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1409
An Innovative Approach to Observational Field Experiences in
Higher Education
Elizabeth Block, Abbie Burt, Tiffany Papa, Leah Peterson, Gregg Stall,
Alyson Theriot
College of Education, Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, US A
Received September 29th, 2012; revised October 2 8th, 2012; accepted November 13th, 2012
Field experiences within teacher education programs are vital aspects of the higher education experience.
The purpose of this article is to examine students’ perceptions of classroom-based field experiences and to
determine the role that technology-based field experiences may play in institutions of higher education.
The survey data indicate that while candidates perceive that classroom-based field experiences are in-
valuable in defining their professional choices, the data also indicated positive candidate perceptions of
technology-based field experiences. Candidate focus group responses indicated that a combination of both
classroom and technology-based field experiences are beneficial to candidates in teacher preparation pro-
grams. The implications of this study indicate that future research must be conducted as to the manner in
which technology-based field experiences may be enriched in higher education.
Keywords: Observations; Technology-Based; Classroom-Based; Field Experiences; Higher Education
Introduction
Field experiences within education programs are imperative
elements in teacher preparation (Kale & Whitehouse, 2011).
Clinical-based exposure provides examples of best practices
while offering various benefits to candidates. With quality field
experiences, candidates are able to apply the knowledge they
have gained from coursework in an actual classroom setting.
Through observations and lesson implementation, candidates
can reflect on their experiences and gain insight into their own
personal teaching styles (Ferber & Nillas, 2010). In “Transfor-
ming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National
Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers,” commissioned by NC-
ATE (2010), the authors describe new techniques to revamp
candidate experiences:
But teaching, like medicine, is a profession of practice, and
prospective teachers must be prepared to become expert practi-
tioners who know how to use the knowledge of their profession
to advance student learning and how to build their professional
knowledge through practice. In order to achieve this we must
place practice at the center of teaching preparation (NCATE,
2010: p. 2)
This experience in the field, also described in the article as
clinical practice, should be thoroughly incorporated within can-
didates’ educational programs. It is impossible to extricate the
pedagogy from practice as they “are woven throughout prepa-
ration, in course work, in laboratory-based experiences, and in
school-embedded practice” (NCATE, 2010: p. 5). It is neces-
sary for candidates aspiring to become teachers to have valu-
able field experiences to observe, acquire, and practice the skills
necessary to become successful. Field experience is an influen-
tial and indispensable part of teacher education preparation.
Although field experiences are important components of tea-
cher education, the manner in which these experiences are exe-
cuted dramatically affects their value and significance. Tradi-
tionally, candidates were sent into the field to conduct all obser-
vations and teaching experiences. While these classroom-based
experiences are invaluable, they place a burden on the institu-
tion of higher education to organize and assign placements for
each candidate in multiple classes. These classroom based-ex-
periences also require that district schools manage the traffic of
candidates on their campuses.
A current trend in streamlining and enhancing field-based
experiences is the integration of technology in teacher prepara-
tion. Technology has a thriving existence within education (Hi-
xon & So, 2009) from pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.
NCATE (2010) addressed the importance of clinical-practice as
well as the integration of technology in its eighth design prince-
ple:
Technology applications foster hi gh-impact preparation: State-
of-the-art technologies should be employed by preparation pro-
grams to promote enhanced productivity, greater efficiencies,
and collaboration through learning communities. Technology
should also be an important tool to share best practices across
partnerships, and to facilitate on-going professional learning (p.
6).
With the boost in educational programs in the United States,
institutions are forced to increase the number of candidate pla-
cements enlarging the assignment area. This entails candidates
and faculty to travel further distances to achieve field experi-
ence requirements which, in return, has major implications on
both time and money spent (Hixon & So, 2009). Additional ap-
prehension arises when trying to make certain candidates gain
experience, not only in the field, but also in diverse classroom
settings. With the appropriate technology integration, these con-
cerns can be properly addressed.
There are advantages to both classroom-based field experi-
ences and technology-enhanced or virtual field experiences. The
inclusion of both types of field experiences improves the oppor-
tunity for candidates to observe various classroom settings, tea-

E. BLOCK ET AL.
ching styles, strategies, and diverse populations. Alternatively,
when candidates are limited to one placement in the field, it
hinders their ability to observe different environments. When
candidates observe or teach in different classrooms, it produces
multiple experiences within the class which may limit class dis-
cussion around a common experience. Candidate participation
in classroom discussions, especially at the freshman and sopho-
more levels, is more challenging when there is not a common
observation environment at the center of the discussion. It is th-
rough this dialogue and reflection of field experiences that can-
didates are able to further their knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions as future educators.
Understanding the needs of society, as well as the needs of
teacher candidates, is essential in designing strong educational
experiences for teacher candidates. Chang (2009) noted that “Un-
derstanding teacher candidates’ concerns is an enormous step to-
wards a strong teacher education program, and addressing these
concerns is the ultimate goal of teacher educators” (p. 24). Ad-
ditional research is required in order to compare the effective-
ness and efficiency of various field experience models and the
disposition of teacher candidates toward those models. The gap
between theory and practice will not diminish instantaneously as
a direct result of field experience participation, and “one should
not assume that all field experiences will actually help bridge
the theory-practice gap that merely requiring more field expe-
rience is necessarily better” (Capraro, Capraro, & Helfedlt,
2010: pp. 131-132). The quality of the field experience environ-
ment and the effectiveness of its contribution to teacher educa-
tion programs should be the focus for future study. Clinical-ba-
sed practice can offer unlimited teacher preparation benefits if
implemented properly within the educational setting.
Since studies have shown that field experiences in the class-
room setting are beneficial to the teacher candidate (Edwards,
1996), many teacher preparation programs have incorporated a
vast number of field experiences (Adcock & Austin, 2002)
within their teacher preparation programs. Some universities or-
ganize these field work/observations by level according to the
activities assigned to the candidate. For example, a Level One
field experience is simply observing a lesson implementation in
the field; a Level Two field experience increases the candidate’s
responsibility by delegating tutoring, interviews, or small group
lesson implementations completed by the candidate; and a Le-
vel Three field experience extends the candidate even more by
having him or her implement a lesson to the entire class. NC-
ATE (2010) stated that clinical practice (Level Two and Level
Three field experiences) is valuable in that it provides the can-
didates with hands-on experiences working with the children
for whom they will be responsible. In reference to this informa-
tion, the committee has decided that the focus of this study will
be on Level One field experiences.
With regard to Level One field experiences as observations,
several issues need to be addressed: the time commitment of
candidates in field observations; the liability issue of on-site
observation visits; the access to diverse candidate populations;
and management of safety in the schools (Adcock & Austin,
2002). Because of these concerns, teacher preparation programs
are currently seeking alternative methods for enhancing and en-
riching classroom-based observation experiences. Educators also
recognize the importance of integrating technology in the high-
essional careers (Adcock & Austin, 2002) making technology-
based observations an ideal fit for Level One field experiences.
At the University of Nebraska, federal grant money was se-
cured for a two-way audio/video conferencing system. This sys-
tem allows for two-dimensional viewing of the school class-
room through a camera that includes picture and sound. The
professor has remote camera controls that allow for tracking of
the classroom throughout the lesson. The remote video obser-
vation can be taped, which gives the university classes flexibil-
ity for viewing during class time or at a later date, as well as ac-
commodating children’s classroom schedules. In this study, uni-
versity candidates observed on-site during the first part of the
semester. Later in the semester, observations were completed us-
ing the two-way conferencing system from the university class-
room. In an interview process, the candidates were asked to
compare their remote and their on-site experiences. The univer-
sity candidates felt their experiences via technology were more
beneficial than the on-site experience (Adcock & Austin, 2002).
This type of blended method using classroom based and
technology based field experiences has attractive qualities for
both candidates and faculty. Unfortunately, innovation in tech-
nology can be seen as a weakness in many higher education in-
stitutions due to budgetary challenges. With a transforming can-
didate population, it is a practical and opportune time to imple-
ment changes with regard to field experiences. With new tech-
nological advancements, there are multiple ways to improve cur-
rent methodologies and provide a higher quality of field expe-
riences for teacher candidates. Kale & Whitehouse (2011) sta-
ted that due to the transforming candidate population, “there is
a need to design and examine the effectiveness of video cases
that foster pre-service teachers’ problem-solving skills” (p. 4360).
In the past, teacher candidates have been limited to their prac-
tice, particularly field experiences, because of inadequate op-
portunities. With careful consideration of both classroom-based
and technology enhanced field experiences, these candidates
can become well-versed in a multitude of scenarios before en-
tering a particular field. Kale and Whitehouse (2011) found that
video analyses and technology enhanced observations can sig-
nificantly increase pre-service teachers’ understanding of class-
room events. With the changing needs of the candidate popula-
tion in mind, a balance of traditional and technological obser-
vational opportunities can be developed as an effective environ-
mental design for the preparation of future educators. “Such
video cases may have the potential to foster problem-solving
skills,” (p. 4360) as Kale and Whitehouse (2011) explained and
then added, “especially when future teachers are directed to iden-
tify issues and generate possible teaching strategies arising from
their analysis of the video case” (p. 4360). Technology-enhanced
field experiences in combination with the traditional classroom
setting are vital for teacher candidate success.
As with the implementation of any new process, there are bar-
riers to overcome. One option for Level One field experiences
is video conferencing. This method presents the challenge of
obtaining and installing equipment. The video conferencing
equipment requires access through the school’s internet firewall.
School technicians must make the necessary arrangements, which
can be time-consuming and burdensome if the school’s techni-
cal support staff is not fully knowledgeable about firewalls. Ad-
ditionally, the internet access must be powerful enough to en-
sure a stable connection that will prevent pauses in transmission.
Audio problems can also limit observations and interactions.
Lastly, both the school staff, as well as the university faculty,
must be trained in the proper usage of such equipment which,
once again, is costly and time-consuming (Lehman & Razzouk,
2002).
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
1410

E. BLOCK ET AL.
A cutting edge methodology in teaching via video confer-
encing is the virtual teaching experience (Vavasseur, 2012). In
a virtual teaching experience, candidates prepare a lesson that
involves interactive songs, books, stories, puppet shows, or other
age appropriate activities. The candidates record themselves tea-
ching the lesson using strategies that are often seen on chil-
dren’s television programming. For example, the candidate may
ask the students if they can identify a shape illustrated in a book.
The candidate then pauses for several seconds while s/he pre-
tends to listen to the students’ responses. This wait time tech-
nique is often seen in shows such as “Blue’s Clues” and “Ses-
ame Street.” Once the lesson is recorded, it is uploaded to You-
Tube and broadcasted to participating classrooms at a pre-deter-
mined time or at the teacher’s convenience. This form of virtual
teaching allows candidates to prepare a lesson that is creative
and well developed without the challenges of transportation as
the lesson can be shared with hundreds of participating schools.
This experience is ideal for candidates who are at the beginning
of their programs as they are not challenged by classroom ma-
nagement issues. This form of “teaching” could not exist in iso-
lation of traditional implemented lessons in the classroom. Can-
didates must obtain practice teaching a lesson while contending
with classroom management, real-time responses from students,
unplanned digressions from the lesson plan and interpersonal
differences. Virtual teaching allows for multiple modes of les-
son implementation, but it is necessary to combine these tech-
nology-based experiences with classroom-based experiences to
develop the “whole” teacher.
Another method for technology-based field experiences is
creating a digital library of teaching experience videos. This li-
brary allows faculty to review multiple teaching vignettes and
select examples that best illustrate the content being taught.
These videos, however, must be created, edited for content, up-
loaded, and/or secured from a reputable source. In addition, it is
necessary to obtain parental consent for all of the students who
are visible in the video. This is a labor intensive process which
involves a faculty member who is well versed in the learning
objectives for each video field experience. The end result,
however, has its rewards. As Hixon and So (2009) explained,
“Technology may be a viable option to increase access to qual-
ity classrooms embodying types of pedagogical practices con-
sistent with educational reform, and to encourage preservice
teachers to explore new ideas in a safe environment” (p. 301).
Although there is extensive preparation on the front end of im-
plementing technology enhanced observations, there seems to
be a significant payoff for candidates, faculty, and cooperating
school districts that employ these future educators (Hixon & So,
2009).
Based on the need to preserve the integrity of field experi-
ences while remaining current with technological trends in the
field, the authors began examining the delivery of Level One
field experiences in January, 2011. The College of Education at
Nicholls State University had a well-developed field experience
process by which candidates were placed in Level One, Two,
and Three field experiences by a field experience coordinator.
Care was taken to ensure that candidates observed and taught at
various schools in order to guarantee diversity in experiences
and in student populations. At the time that the authors first met
to discuss field experiences, professors implemented field ex-
periences based on the goals and standards of accrediting agen-
cies, national organizations and the objectives of the course.
Most professors implemented traditional Level One field ex-
periences in their coursework where candidates observed in
traditional classrooms. Many professors were using videos or
other technology-based observations to supplement classroom-
based observations. Some professors utilized technology-based
observations in lieu of classroom-based observations. There was
no policy in place dictating the manner in which observations
were to be conducted. The authors decided that it was impera-
tive to obtain feedback from candidates and faculty on their
perceptions of classroom-based and technology-based observa-
tions. It was decided that surveys and focus groups would be
the most effective means of gathering data on perceptions of
field experience observations.
Methodology
In designing the survey, the authors included questions re-
lated to the process of obtaining field experiences in addition to
the candidates’ perceptions on classroom-based versus tech-
nology-based field experiences. The complete survey is inclu-
ded in Appendix A. The survey was designed on a Likert scale
with five measures: 1) Strongly Agree, 2) Agree, 3) Neutral, 4)
Disagree, 5) Strongly Disagree. The first two questions of the
survey established demographic information on the candidates
(major and classification). Questions three through thirteen were
included to determine candidates’ perceptions of obtaining field
experiences via the field experience coordinator or independ-
ently. Questions fourteen through nineteen were included to de-
termine candidates’ perceptions on classroom-based experiences
in relation to professional choice s, classroom ma nagement skills,
lesson implementation, the teacher/student relationship, feel-
ings about becoming a teacher, and the view of teaching as a
profession. Questions twenty-one through twenty-seven were
based on the above italicized domains but in relation to candi-
dates’ perceptions on technology-based experiences.
The survey was administered in selected courses that repre-
sented freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior level candidates.
The courses in which candidates were surveyed included ED-
UC 250 (Introduction to Elementary and Secondary Education),
EDUC 312 (Planning for Teaching in Multicultural Classrooms),
FCED 335 (Birth to Five: Movement and Music), EDUC 365
(The Teaching of Reading and Language Arts in the Elemen-
tary School), EDUC 402 (Reading Instruction in the Elemen-
tary School), and FCED 435 (Management of Birth to Five Pro-
grams). All of these courses are housed in the Teacher Educa-
tion Department in the College of Education. The surveys were
distributed by the course instructors in the first week of April,
2011.
In addition to survey data, the authors wished to obtain more
in-depth feedback on field experiences by holding four focus
groups. The following courses were selected for the focus
groups as they represented each level of classification within
the college: EDUC 250, EDUC 365, and FCED 435. Education
250 is the first class in which candidates enroll upon passing
Praxis I and being admitted into the College. Education 365 and
FCED 435 are junior and senior level courses that include can-
didates with experiences in both classroom and technology-
based observations. These focus groups were held in the second
and third weeks of April, 2011, and they were each conducted
by two of the authors who were not the instructors of the course.
Rather than asking for volunteers from the class to participate
in the focus group, the facilitators randomly selected fourteen
candidates from each class and invited these candidates to meet
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1411

E. BLOCK ET AL.
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
1412
in another classroom. The focus groups were recorded with a
digital recorder to allow for later transcription of the data and
also to relieve the facilitators of note taking during the focus
groups. The authors developed four over-arching questions with
sub-questions that related to classroom-based and technology-
based observations. The questions are included in Appendix B.
The same questions were asked in each focus group, and the
candidates were given ample time to contribute in an open and
casual environment. At the outset of the focus groups, the can-
didates were encouraged to give candid responses and were as-
sured that the information would remain anonymous.
With three focus groups established for candidate percep-
tions of field experiences, the authors felt that it was important
to conduct a focus group on faculty perceptions of field experi-
ences. The four faculty members conducting the research were
not included in the faculty population. Of the twelve remaining
faculty members, six were selected by a random drawing. These
six individuals were e-mailed by the Assessment Coordinator
and invited to participate in the focus group in late April, 2011.
All six faculty members were present at the focus group. The
focus group was facilitated by the Assessment Coordinator and
a Graduate Assistant in order to encourage honest feedback.
The facilitators asked five over-arching questions developed by
the authors that closely paralleled those asked of candidates.
The questions are included in Appendix C. The participants
were ensured of their anonymity and the focus group was digi-
tally recorded for later transcription.
Results
Surveys were completed by 97 candidates, and data was
analyzed in May, 2011. Table 1 illustrates the percentages of
candidates who responded to each subscale on the Likert scale.
Questions pertaining to the logistics of obtaining field experi-
ences were removed. The remaining questions relate to candi-
dates’ perceptions of classroom-based and technology-based
observations.
Survey questions measured students’ agreement on the im-
pact of classroom-based field experiences and technology-based
field experiences on the following areas: professional choices,
future classroom management skills, future lesson implementa-
tion, view of the teacher/student relationship, feelings about be-
coming a teacher, and teaching as a profession. Student respon-
ses were condensed into three categories of agreement: strongly
agree/agree; neutral; and disagree/strongly disagree .
The authors hypothesized that student survey responses wo ul d
reflect that classroom-based experiences had a much greater im-
pact on professional development than technology-based exper i-
ences. Table 1 compares student responses on survey questions
concerning classroom experiences and those concerning tech-
nology experiences. Although more than 85% of student re-
sponses indicate that classroom-based experiences affected them
in all areas, at least 80% of student responses showed that tech-
nology-based experiences also had an impact in all areas except
for professional choices (74% of responses).
A paired samples t test was conducted to compare student
responses on classroom experience questions and technology
experience questions. A numeric value, one through five, was
assigned to each subscale of the Likert scale. Responses marked
as Strongly Agree were given a one, and responses marked as
Strongly Disagree were given a five. The analysis revealed a
significant difference between the means of student responses
for classroom (M = 13.26, SD = 4.02) and for technology (M =
19.11, SD = 5.77) experiences; t(124) = –10.73, p < .001 (see
Table 2). These results suggest that there is a difference be-
tween the two types of field experiences. More specifically,
classroom experiences had a greater impact on students than
technology experiences.
In transcribing the candidate focus groups, several themes
emerged to the authors (see Table 3). The authors grouped feed-
back into the following emerging themes: Real World Experi-
ences, Professional Growth, and Convenience. Responses clas-
sified under Real World Experiences related positively to class-
room-based field experiences in that candidates stated that sit-
Table 1.
Educational field experience survey results.
April 2011
Impact on Professional Choices Classroom Based Technology Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 63.9% 35.0%
Neutral 27.8% 39.2%
Disagree and Strongly Disa gr ee 8.3% 25.7%
Impact on Future Classroom Management Skills Classroom Based Technolog y Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 73.2% 50.5%
Neutral 19.6% 33.0%
Disagree and Strongly Disa gr ee 7.2% 16.5%
Impact on My Future Lesson Implementation Classroom Based Technology Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 50.5% 58.7%
Neutral 37.1% 33.0%
Disagree and Strongly Disa gr ee 12.4% 8.3%
Impact on V i ew of the Teacher/Student Relationship Classroom Based Tec hn olo gy Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 73.2% 44.4%
Neutral 17.5% 38.1%
Disagree and Strongly Disa gr ee 9.2% 17.5%
Impact on Feelings about Becoming a Teacher Classroom Based Technology Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 60.8% 38.1%
Neutral 25.8% 42.3%
Disagree a nd Strongly Disagree 13.4% 19.6%
Impact on V i ew of Teac hi ng as a Profession Classroom Based Technology Based
Strongly Agree and Agree 66.0% 48.4%
Neutral 24.7% 37.1%
Disagree and Strongly Disa gr ee 9.3% 14.4%

E. BLOCK ET AL.
Table 2.
T-test comparing students’ perceptions of classroom and technology-based field experie n ces.
Student Rati ng Means for Classroom and Technology Experi ences
Experience Type
Classroom Technology t df
Rating of Imp act 13.26 19.11 –10.73* 124
(4.02) (5.77)
Note: * = p < .01. Standard D eviations appear in parentheses below means.
ting in the actual classroom and absorbing the context of the
school was an important learning experience. The majority of
the responses relating positively to classroom-based observa-
tions were classified as Real World Experiences. In one focus
group, a candidate stated that she feels she learned more from
observing teachers interact with students, parents, colleagues,
and administration before and after the actual lessons. Class-
room-based field experiences immerse candidates in the context
of the schools and classrooms and help to shape future knowl-
edge, skills, and dispositions. While the authors found positive
comments related to Real World Experiences in classroom-
based field experiences, they found that technology-based field
experiences were lacking in these Real World Experiences.
Candidates stated that in most technology-based field experi-
ences, the camera was filming the lesson itself which did not
allow for observation of classroom or school contextual factors.
The second theme that emerged from the focus groups was
that of Professional Growth. Interacting with teachers and other
individuals at each school helped candidates grow in knowl-
edge, skills, dispositions and making decisions about future em-
ployment. While Professional Growth was an emergent posi-
tive theme under classroom-based field experiences, it also
emerged as a negative theme in this domain. Candidates indi-
cated that quantity of observations assigned did not equal qual-
ity. In other words, the candidates felt that observing in multi-
ple classrooms over their educational careers was not always
the best use of time. While they indicated that observations were
invaluable and very important to their development as a profes-
sional, they reache d a threshold where observations became re-
dundant and too costly in terms of transportation and time. Fo-
cus group participants indicated that technology-based observa-
tions provided uniform field experiences to the entire class
which enriched classroom discussion and subsequent learning
due to these shared experiences. The authors categorized these
responses under Professional Growth since the candidates in-
dicated that the uniformity of the experience allowed for deeper
discussion of specific topics, whereas most professors did not
create class discourse on classroom-based experiences since
each candidate had such disparate observations. The theme of
Professional Growth was also applied to technology-based field
experiences as candidates cited that this format helped them
feel more comfortable in using technology in their future class-
rooms. Candidates did indicate that a lack of assignment struc-
ture for some technology-based field experiences hindered their
growth. For this reason, Professional Growth was listed as a
negative theme for technology-based field experiences.
The third theme that emerged from the candidate-based field
experiences was that of Convenience. Convenience was cited as
a negative theme in classroom-based field experiences and as
both a positive and negative theme in technology-based field
experiences. The time allocated to obtaining classroom-based
placements in multiple courses during one semester was consis-
tently cited by candidates as a negative aspect of classroom-
based field experiences. Many candidates at Nicholls State Uni-
versity must assume numerous roles including that of employee,
family caretaker, and student. For this reason, classroom-based
field experiences impose a financial burden with regard to leave
time from work as well as gas mileage. The focus group candi-
dates indicated that the technology-based observations allowed
non-traditional or working candidates to maintain their sched-
ules at work and at the university as most of these technology-
based observations could be accessed and completed at one’s
discretion. While the general response to using technology for
observations was positive amongst the focus group participants,
they expressed frustration over time wasted when the technol-
ogy failed. For example, some candidates cited problems with
observations during which they observed a classroom via video
conferencing. There were multiple occasions when the camera
in the K-12 classroom was aimed at a wall so that students were
not even visible. Other times, the teacher in the classroom strug-
gled to connect with the professor at the university so that the
lesson could be remotely transmitted. For these reasons, Con-
venience was both positively and negatively cited as a theme in
technology-based field experiences.
The faculty focus group was less illustrative of the positive
and negative themes associated with field experiences; rather,
faculty members’ responses indicated an appreciation for class-
room-based observations and an eagerness to learn more meth-
ods for conducting technol ogy-based ob servations. Faculty mem-
bers indicated that with the vast growth in technology, most
young candidates respond better to assignments that involve
some technological component. Faculty members shared that it
is often overwhelming to stay on the cusp of advances in tech-
nology so it feels “safer” to continue using traditional assign-
ments. These individuals did express a desire to integrate new
technology in coursework and a willingness to attend trainings
to facilitate that process.
Future Implications
The authors approached this research as a preliminary step in
gathering information on Level One field experiences in the
College of Education. They cast a wide net in gathering data on
candidates’ and faculty members’ perspectives on classroom-
based and technology-based field experiences including both a
survey and focus groups. The authors entered the data collec-
tion process with the assumption that candidates and faculty
would be more strongly in favor of classroom-based observa-
tions than technology-based observations. The survey data sup-
ported this assumption in that candidates did rate classroom-
based field experiences higher than technology-based field ex-
periences, yet the survey data indicate a favorable perception of
technology-based field experiences as well. The focus group re-
sponses were indicative of a favorable perception toward tech-
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1413

E. BLOCK ET AL.
Table 3.
Major themes extracted from student focus groups.
Positive Themes for
Classroom Based
Field Experiences
Negative Themes for
Classroom Based
Field Experiences
Candidate F o cus
Groups
“Real” World Experiences
- Observe context of classroom
- Observe all students includ i ng those not participating in lesson
- Obtain a “fee l ” for the schools’ climate s
- Observe how teacher handles disturbances in schedule
- First-hand exposure to the “real” experiences of teaching
Professional Growth
- Personal access to teachers’ insights or feelings
- Professional insight into de sirable schools for future employment
Convenience
- Travel inc u rs extra time and money on a st udent budget
- Obtaining leave time from jo b s to complete field experiences
- Placeme nt process is time consuming when teachers do not
return phone calls or e-mails
- Changes in classroom schedule may prevent can di d ates from
observing necessary lessons
Professional Growth
- Large number of observation hours required across many
courses lends itself to redundancy
Positive Themes for
Technology Based
Field Experiences
Negative Themes for
Technology Based
Field Experiences
Candidate F o cus
Groups
Convenience
- Convenient
- Cost effective
- Lack of scheduling issues with teachers
- Lack of plac ement issues with schools
- Limited distractions a s v ideos are edite d
Professional Growth
- Uniform lessons allow focus on specific concepts
- Allows for observation of many classes across age
- Feel prepare d to use technology in classrooms
Convenience
- Glitches in te chnology absorb candidates’ time
- Live-fee ds o ft en fail as teachers do not have camera focused
on children
- Unable to access technology f r om home computer
Professional Growth
- Lack of structured assignments/question s relating to vide os
“Real” World Experiences
- Videos or live-feed were too short or limited in scope to get a
“feel” for the rest of the classroom
nology-based field experiences. Candidates in the se focus groups
were quick to elaborate on the positive and negative aspects of
both types of field experiences but were very supportive of
“growing” the technology-based field experiences into stronger
and more enriching experiences. The convenience and the com-
mon experience of the technology observations were positively
cited by candidates while the frustration involved in technology
that failed was cited as the greatest limitation of this format.
Candidates in the focus groups suggested that the technology-
based observations would be more effective with equipment
that always works properly, a structured assignment completed
in conjunction with viewing the observation, and dialogue in
class during which the professor and candidates share their
thoughts on the teaching vignette. Candidates stated that view-
ing a video in which a teacher presented a lesson was not a
helpful learning tool in the absence of guidance from the pro-
fessor. Candidates want the formal “set-up” for the observation,
questions to answer while viewing the observation, and a whole
group discussion during which time the professor indicates key
concepts in the video. It would be useful for future research in
this area to include a more structured approach to technology-
based field experiences in which professors imbedded both te-
chnology and classroom-based field experiences in course as-
signments and class di scussion to further the professional g ro wt h
of candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Limitations
Confounding variables were identified during the study that
could have created possible vulnerabilities to validity threats.
From the candidate focus groups, the authors realized certain
subjects had been exposed to technology-based experiences
more than others. Even though the authors surveyed and ran-
domly interviewed a broad sample of candidates (in terms of
major and classification) the candidates’ previous experiences
with technology-based observations were not readily articulated
since the manner of implementation varied across courses and
professors. The lack of familiarity with this type of field ex-
perience may have had an effect on the survey results as well as
the focus group responses also known as the “history effect.”
Since implementation of technology-based field experiences
was not closely monitored in relation to which candidates or
classes had the most or least amount of experience with these
non-traditional observations, and no guidelines are in place for
the method with which technology-based field experiences are
delivered, the authors feel that future research must be con-
ducted to determine the efficacy of structured technology-based
observations that involve the aforementioned format (Context,
Observation, Questions, and Discussion). Using the same peda-
gogy across courses will allow for true comparison of candi-
dates’ perceptions of these experiences, and ultimately a meas-
urement in growth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions as
professional educators.
In addition to the “history effect”, another possible variable
was acknowledged in relation to changes to the variable. Al-
though the surveyed subjects and focus groups that held discus-
sion were treated by the authors without intended bias or per-
suasion, a possibility of subject threat still existed. Candidates
were certainly aware of others’ perceptions of field experience
whether it be fellow classmates, faculty, or staff. As Jackson
(2012) explained, “Many subjects try to be ‘good subjects’,
meaning that they try to determine what the researcher wants
and to adjust their behavior accordingly” (p. 235). Although the
authors left personal opinions out of the discussion and re-
sponses remained anonymous, a possibility remains that indi-
rect actions by the candidates affected some of the results. Bas-
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
1414

E. BLOCK ET AL.
ing findings on self-reported measures through a survey is con-
venient but opens the findings up to questions of authentication.
Finally, the survey used in this study was not subjected to ex-
tensive testing for optimal objectivity. However, the addition of
focus groups did increase validity and evidence to support the
findings.
Recommendations for future study include more closely mo-
nitoring current and past implementation of technology-based
observation and how it impacts candidates’ perceptions related
to traditional observations. Using a survey that has been tested
for any biasness or subjectivity is also suggested. The research
conducted by the authors is thoroughly contextualized and is
meant to contribute mostly to evolving theory within teacher
education.
Conclusion
Through this process, the authors found that the surveyed
candidates valued both experience s. In other words, they enjoyed
having video-based observations because they could watch the
same scenario as their classmates and discuss accordingly. They
also appreciated the convenience of the technology-based ob-
servation. Additionally, they benefited from the classroom-
based experiences because they were immersed in the class-
room context where they gained perspective on all angles of
teaching. While the focus group data demonstrate an unexpec-
ted positive perception of technology-based field experiences,
the candidates still cited the positive outcomes of traditional
classroom-based field experiences. Ultimately, the authors found
that university candidates desire a combination of both experi-
ences throughout their educational careers. In future studies, it
is important for these authors to determine the manner in which
institutions of higher education can best incorporate both forms
of field experiences in order to meet the needs of the candidates,
remain on the cutting edge of technology, and best serve the
students in the K-12 school systems in an efficient and cost-
effective manner.
REFERENCES
Adcock, P., & Austin, W. (2002). Alternative classroom observation
through two-way audio/video conferencing systems. Proceedings of
13th Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education In-
ternational Conference, Nashville, 18-23 March 2002.
Capraro, M. M., Capraro, M. R., & Helfeldt, J. (2010). Do differing
types of field experiences make a difference in teacher candidates’
perceived level of competence? URL (last check 24 September 2012).
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ872653.pdf
Chang, S. H. (2009). Concerns of teacher candidates in an early field
experience. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 2 2 , 19-25.
Edwards, J. (1996). A dose of reality for future teachers. Educational
Leadership, 54, 56-57.
Ferber, T., & Nillas, L. A. (2010). Through the eyes of student teachers:
Successes and challenges in field teaching experiences. National
Teacher Education Journal, 3, 61-86.
Hixon, E., & So, H. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for
preservice teacher training. Educational Technology & Society, 12,
294-304.
Jackson, S. L. (2012). Research methods and statistics: A critical thin-
king approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Ce ng age Learning.
Kale, U., & Whitehouse, P. (2011). Pre-service teacher learning: Peda-
gogical content knowledge in video-based problem-solving. In M.
Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp.
4360-4367). Che s a pe a ke , VA: AACE.
Razzouk, R., & Lehman, J. (2002). Video conferencing as a tool to link
colleges of education with K-12 schools: A P3T3 project initiative.
In D. Willis et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp.
2424-2425). Che s a pe a ke , VA: AACE.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Trans-
forming teacher education through clinical practice: A national
strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington: NCATE Publica-
tions.
Vavasseur, C. (2012). Teach me how to tech: Video conferencing in the
classroom. Eugene: Vis i o n s Technology in Education.
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1415

E. BLOCK ET AL.
Appendix A
Thank you for participating in this survey on field expe-
riences in the Department of Teac her Education at Nicholls
State University. Please answer each question by bubbling
in the corresponding letter of your choice on the scantron
sheet.
Demographic Information
1) What is your decl are d major?
a) B-5/Early Interventionist Education (BFED)
b) PreK-3rd grade
c) 1 - 5 Elementary Education
d) 4 - 8 Middle School
e) Secondary Education (math, English, science, social stud-
ies, FACS, music, art, busine ss)
2) What is your classification?
a) Freshman
b) Sophomore
c) Junior
d) Senior
Section I of this survey includes questions about the pro-
cess of obtaining field experiences. Think back to the last
class in which the field experience coordinator (i.e. Alyson
Theriot) placed you for your field experiences. Answer the
following questions about your expe r ienc e s:
3) Have you taken an education course that required you to
see the field experience coordinator (i.e. Alyson Theriot) for
Field Placements? (If yes, please answer questions 4 - 6. If no,
please skip to question 7)
a) Yes
b) No
4) I found the field placement process (completing required
paperwork, receiving placement, visiting school(s) to drop off
paperwork, communication with teacher(s), completion of as-
signment) to be complicated.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
5) After I dropped off the required paperwork at my assigned
school(s), I was contacted by the teacher in a timely manner,
ensuring completion of the assignment by the due date.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
6) The process of acquiring my field placement through the
field experience coordinator (i.e. Alyson Theriot) influenced
my overall experience in the field.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
Think about the courses in which you are currently en-
rolled that require you to find your own field placements.
Answer the following questions about your experiences:
7) Are you taking an Education course in Spring, 2011 in
which you are required to seek out your own field placements?
(If yes, please answer questions 8-10. If no, please skip to ques-
tion 11).
a) Yes
b) No
8) I found the current field placement process (finding my
own placement and turning in the required paperwork to the
field experience coordinator and/or my instructor) to be com-
plicated.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
9) After finding a placement for my field experience(s) I
communicated with my teacher in a timely manner, ensuring
completion of the assignment by the due date.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
10) The process of acquiring my own field placement influ-
enced my overall experience in the field.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
Section II of this survey includes questions about the For-
mat of Field Experiences. Think back to the courses in which
you completed Level I Observations. Answer the following
questions about your experiences:
11) I have found classroom based observations (observing in
a classroom in the field) to be a valuable learning experience in
my education courses.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
12) Transportation (access to and/or cost) for classroom ba-
sed observations is a hardship.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
13) I believe that the ideal number of observation hours is
_______ per course.
a) Zero (0) observation hours
b) 1 - 3 observation hours
c) 4 - 6 observation hours
d) 7 - 10 observation hours
e) More than 10 observation hours
14) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
professional choices (age, grade level, population that I wish to
teach).
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
15) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
1416

E. BLOCK ET AL.
future classroom management skills.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
16) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
future lesson implementation.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
17) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
view of the teacher/student relationship.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
18) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
feelings about becoming a teacher.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
19) Classroom based observations significantly impact my
view of teaching as a profession.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
Think about the courses in which you are currently enrolled,
or have taken in the past, that require you to complete technol-
ogy based observations (digital observations on Blackboard,
video observations in class, virtual field experiences via a live
feed, etc). Answer the following questions about your experi-
ences:
20) Have you taken, or are presently enrolled in an Educa-
tion course that requires you to complete technology based ob-
servation(s) (digital observations on Blackboard, video obser-
vations in class, virtual field experiences via a live feed, etc)?
(If yes, please answer questions 21 - 27. If no, please skip to
question 28).
a) Yes
b) No
21) I have found technology based observations to be a va-
luable learning experience in my education courses .
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
22) Technology based observations significantly impact my
professional choices (age, grade level, population that I wish to
teach).
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
23) Technology based observations significantly impact my
future classroom management skills.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
24) Technology based observations significantly impact my
future lesson implementation.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
25) Technology based observations significantly impact my
view of the teacher/student relationship.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
26) Technology based observations significantly impact my
feelings about becoming a teacher.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
27) Technology based observations significantly impact my
view of teaching as a profession.
a) Strongly Agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly Disagree
28) If given a choice of observation format in my education
classes, I would choose the following:
a) Classroom based observations ONLY (in the field)
b) Technology based observation ONLY (digital observa-
tions on Blackboard, video observations in class, virtual field
experiences via a live feed, etc)
c) A combination of classroom and technology based obser-
vations
Appendix B
Focus Group Questions on Level I Field Experiences
- Introductions.
- Purpose of focus group is to gather candidates’ opinions on
level I field experiences (observations) in teacher education
courses.
- Process is informal and names will not be attached to re-
sponses.
- All responses are anonymous.
- Recording the discussion for a record of comments.
1) We would first like to ask you for some feedback or input
on Classroom Based observations in the schools.
a) What do you all see as the advantages of classroom based
observations?
b) What do you see as the disadvantages of classroom based
observations?
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 1417

E. BLOCK ET AL.
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
1418
2) We would like to ask you for some feedback on technol-
ogy based observations. Examples of technology based obser-
vations include: classroom observations via a live feed, digital
observations on BB, video observations in class.
a) What type of technology based observations have you ex-
perienced and what do you see as the advantages of those ob-
servations?
b) Wha t do y ou se e a s th e disa dva nta ges of te ch nolo gy base d
observations?
3) We would like to ask for feedback on your ideas for im-
proving the observation learning experience.
a) How do you think classroom based observations could be
improved?
i) Probe candidates if they only focus on logistics and not
learning/outcomes.
b) How do you think technology based observations can be
improved?
i) Probe candidates if they focus on logistics and not learn-
ing/outcomes.
4) After completing observations, some professors require a
summary, reflection, or discussion in class.
a) We would like your input on how classroom based obser-
vations were used or integrated into your college course.
b) Tell us how technology based observations were used or
integrated into your class by your professor.
Appendix C
Faculty Focus Group Questions on Level I Field Experi-
ences
- Introductions
- Purpose of focus group is to gather faculty opinions on
level I field experiences.
- Process is informal and names will not be attached to re-
sponses.
- All responses are anonymous
- Recording the discussion for a record of comments
1) We would first like to ask you for your feedback on
Classroom Based observations in the schools.
a) What do you think are advantages of classroom based ob-
servations?
b) What do you see as the disadvantages of classroom based
observations?
2) We would like to ask you for some feedback on technol-
ogy based observations.
a) What type of technology based observations have you
used in your classes?
b) What do you think are the advantages of those observa-
tions?
c) Where do you see technology based observations going in
the future?
d) Wha t do y ou se e a s th e disa dva nta ges of te ch nolo gy base d
observations?
e) What are the barriers to using technology based observa-
tions?
3) We would like to ask for feedback on your ideas for im-
proving technology based observations/field experiences.
a) How do you think technology based observations can be
improved?
4) After completing observations, some professors require a
summary, reflection, or discussion in class.
a) How do you integrate classroom based observations in
your courses?
b) How do you integrate technology based observations in
your courses?
5) Do you think the Level I Field Experiences should involve
classroom based observations only, technology based observa-
tions only, or a “combination of both?”