The Impact of Teaching Preparation Practices on Self‐Efficacy Toward Teaching

Abstract

Coursework in teaching, fieldwork, and supervised teaching experiences were examined as predictors of counselor education doctoral students’ (N = 149) self‐efficacy toward teaching. Results revealed that all 3 variables related significantly to self‐efficacy toward teaching. Results suggested that students’ satisfaction with supervision of teaching was particularly important in strengthening self‐efficacy.

Counselor Education Doctoral Students' Lived Experiences With Supervision of Teaching

“…as well as pinpoint areas for growth" (Waalkes et al, 2018, p. 77). Overall, SupT (a) strengthens counselor education doctoral students' confidence and competence in teaching (Orr et al, 2008), (b) predicts self-efficacy in teaching (Suddeath et al, 2020), (c) encourages students' and junior faculty members' teacher identity development (Waalkes et al, 2018), (d) facilitates teaching skill development (Hall & Hulse-Killacky, 2010;Orr et al, 2008), and (d) increases confidence to teach independently (Hunt & Weber Gilmore, 2011).…”

“…Scholars have acknowledged that SupT is an effective teaching preparation method but that it varies within and across counselor education programs (Suddeath et al, 2020). Existing studies have revealed that SupT is provided during curricular experiences, such as teaching internships and coursework in college teaching (Hunt & Weber Gilmore, 2011;Waalkes et al, 2018), and during cocurricular experiences, such as additional coteaching opportunities (Baltrinic et al, 2016) or serving as an instructor of record (Barrio Minton & Price, 2015).…”

“…A recent study examining the relationship between counselor education doctoral students' teaching preparation practices and self-efficacy toward teaching found that approximately 75% of participants reported that their programs required supervision of their teaching, although 87% received some form of supervision (Suddeath et al, 2020). This suggests the presence of both formal and informal SupT opportunities.…”

“…This suggests the presence of both formal and informal SupT opportunities. In Suddeath et al (2020), 51% of 149 participants received supervision weekly, 12.8% biweekly, 8.1% monthly, 12.1% by appointment only, and 16.1% received little to no supervision. Participants in that study also indicated the average duration of their SupT sessions.…”

“…Despite the variability in frequency and structure of SupT, research consistently supports the effectiveness and importance of this preparation practice (ACES Teaching Initiative Taskforce, 2016;Baltrinic et al, 2016;Hall & Hulse-Killacky, 2010;Orr et al, 2008;Suddeath et al, 2020). In fact, in a study of coteaching experiences, participants reported that the support, guidance, and feedback within supervision was the most important factor in helping them learn how to teach (Baltrinic et al, 2016).…”