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
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
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-
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).
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,
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-
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