Journal of Learning and Educational Policy (JLEP) ISSN 2799-1121 · Vol. 3, No. 01 (2023) · pp. 68-77
Research Paper

Effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees

Dr. Sangita Roy1
  1. 1 Lecturer, Bibhuti Bhusan Govt. P.T.T.I, India
  2. * Corresponding author: Dr. Sangita Roy, chutkisangita@gmail.com
Received28 November 2022
Revised4 February 2023
Accepted12 February 2023
Published27 March 2023
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.55529/jlep.32.14.24
LicenceCC BY 4.0
PDFDownload PDF

Abstract

Background: An internship is actually an important part of the Bachelor of Education, (B.Ed.) programme, and it basically readies aspiring teachers for the profession while also honing their professional competencies. According to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulation, 2014, the B.Ed. teaching internship has been set for 16 weeks, and it gives practical exposure, which is intended to build both subject knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge. Objective: The aim is to check how teaching internship affects the growth of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in B.Ed. trainees, then see how that growth differs across various academic streams, and finally to find out the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, if any. Method: For this present work, a Descriptive Survey approach was used. The sample consisted of 90 B.Ed. trainees, chosen randomly from different academic streams, after they finished their teaching internship. Information related to subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge was gathered using suitable tools and then it was processed through statistical methods, which included comparisons across streams and also correlational analysis. Result: The results showed that the B.Ed. trainees experienced noticeable development in both subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge after completing the teaching internship, and this was quite clear. Also, no statistically significant difference came up in how much subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge developed among trainees from different academic streams. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, so improvement in one area seemed to go along with improvement in the other, more or less. Conclusion: The teaching internship really plays a crucial role in enhancing both the subject knowledge and also the teaching know how of B.Ed. trainees, no matter which academic stream they come from. There is a significant positive correlation between the two domains, so it basically shows that content mastery and pedagogical skill are interdependent, for effective teacher preparation. Overall, these results lend support to keeping a structured, adequately-durationed internship programme inside teacher education curricula, because it helps in the holistic professional development of future teachers.

Keywords: Internship, B.Ed. Trainee, Subject Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, Subject Knowledge, Descriptive Survey.

1. INTRODUCTION

The internship has been borrowed from medical education which implies the word of hospital experience where the medical doctors are required to have field work experience under guidance of doctors. Therefore, teaching internship to be the main part of readiness of teaching profession. Internship includes teaching practice and gets real filed experience under the supervision of an expert supervisor. According to National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), in 2 years B.Ed. curriculum internship is to be done for 16 weeks. It is most important that the interns integrated and reflect on their teaching experience during and after the school internship [1]. They develop their subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship through teaching.

1.1. Operational Definition of Important Terms

  • Internship: Internship is defined as B.Ed. teaching internship program. NCTE includes the B.Ed. internship for 16 weeks of teaching engagement in a high school.
  • B.Ed. Trainee: In this study trainees are those who are undergoing two-year B.Ed. teacher training program in any B.Ed. teacher education institute approved by the NCTE.
  • Subject Knowledge: Subject knowledge is the systematic understanding of basic principles and the interrelationships between various pieces of information related to a subject.
  • Pedagogical Knowledge: Pedagogy is often described as the act of teaching. The pedagogy adopted by teachers shapes their actions, judgments, and teaching strategies by taking into consideration theories of learning, understandings of students and their needs, and the backgrounds and interests of individual students.
  • Significance of the Study: According to NCTE Regulation 2014, teaching internship included in B.Ed. syllabus for 2nd and 3rd semester. The significant of the internship is to qualitative development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. So, in this study the investigator tries to find out that how effective internship on B.Ed. trainees’ development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.

1.2. Objectives of the Study

  • To find out the effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees in development of subject knowledge stream wise.
  • To find out the effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees in development of pedagogical knowledge stream wise.
  • To find out the relation between development on subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship.

1.3. Hypothesis of the Study

  • Ho1: There is no significant difference between B.Ed. trainees of Social Science and Language in development of subject knowledge during internship.
  • Ho2: There is no significant difference between Science and Language B.Ed. interns in development of subject knowledge during internship.
  • Ho3: There is no significant difference between Science and Social Science B.Ed. interns in development of subject knowledge during internship.
  • Ho4: There is no significant difference between B.Ed. trainees of Social Science and Language in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • Ho5: There is no significant difference between Science and Language B.Ed. interns in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • Ho6: There is no significant difference between Science and Social Science B.Ed. interns in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • H17: There is a significant relation between development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Design of the Study

Descriptive Survey method has been used by the investigator [2]. The present research attempted study conditions of the effect of B.Ed. internship on development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.

2.2. Population and Sample of the Study

The study has proposed to be conducted in South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The population of the study is B.Ed. trainee of the B.Ed. institutions, which are recognizes by NCTE [3]. From South 24 Parganas 3 B.Ed. institutions are selected randomly for collecting samples. From these3 institutions, 90 trainees are selected randomly streams wise (Language, science and Social Science) [4].

Table 1. Description of Sample
Table 1
Figure 1
Figure 1. Bar-Graph of Sample Stream Wise

2.3. Variables of the Study

Researcher worked with mainly two types of variables which are given below in the following tables.

Table 2. Independent & Dependent Variables
Table 2

2.4. Tools

  • Development of Subject Knowledge Scale (DSKS) for B.Ed. trainees which constructed by the investigator.
  • Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Scale (DPKS) for B.Ed. trainees which constructed by the investigator.

2.5. Development of Subject Knowledge Scale (DSKS)

The detailed descriptions of the tool are presented.

2.6. Description

Development of Subject Knowledge Scale (DSKS) for B.Ed. trainees is constructed by the investigator. For constructing the items collect relevant information by reviewing of related literature, teacher education books, journals etc. related to the teaching process.

2.7. Scale Construction

The Scale initially is 10 items instrument designed to measure the characteristic for this scale. Initially 14 items are formed, which is evaluated by 3 experts. Finally, 10 items are selected [5].

2.8. Scoring

The mode of response to each item of the scale is in the form of five-point scale as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree, indicating complete agreement or disagreement with the statement. Score Range is 10-50.

2.9. Reliability

By Cronbach alpha method the reliability of the tool is found to be 0.87.

2.10. Validity

Content validity of the scale was measured by expert rating using the Interrater Model. The content validity is found to be 0.75.

2.11. Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Scale (DPKS)

The detailed descriptions of the tool are presented.

2.12. Description

Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Scale (DPKS) for B.Ed. trainees is constructed by the investigator. For constructing the items collect relevant information by reviewing of related literature, teacher education books, journals etc. related to the teaching process.

2.13. Scale Construction

The Scale initially is 8 items instrument designed to measure the characteristic for this scale. Initially 13 items are formed, which is evaluated by 3 experts. Finally, 8 items are selected [6].

2.14. Scoring

The mode of response to each item of the scale is in the form of five-point scale as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree, indicating complete agreement or disagreement with the statement. Score Range is 8-40.

2.15. Reliability

By Cronbach alpha method the reliability of the tool is found to be 0.77.

2.16. Validity

Content validity of the scale was measured by expert rating using the Interrater Model. The content validity is found to be 0.78.

2.17. Analysis of Data

Data have been analyzed in two parts-

  • In the first part, descriptive analysis done by computing the Mean and SD’s of all the score and inferential statistics ‘t’ test has been done.
  • In the second part, the coefficient of correlation between subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship has been done.

2.18. Analysis and Interpretation of Results

Objective wise analyses have been done.

  • Objective 1: To find out the effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees in development of subject knowledge stream wise.

Mean and SD’s and ‘t’ Test of development of subject knowledge stream wise has been done for B.Ed. interns stream wise.

2.19. Interpretation of Development of Subject Knowledge Scale (DSKS)

Table 3. Mean, SD’s and ‘t’ Test of Subject Knowledge Stream Wise
Table 3

2.20. Interpretations

  • H01: For the result of testing H01, the Table 3 showed that B.Ed. trainees of Social Science mean score (42.9) in development of subject knowledge are less than the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of language (43.2). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of subject knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0. 617.So, ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H01 could not be rejected.
  • H02: For the result of testing H02, the Table 3 showed that B.Ed. trainees of science mean score (44.2) in development of subject knowledge are more than the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of language (43.2). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of subject knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0. 116.So, ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H02 could not be rejected.
  • H03: For the result of testing H03, the Table 3 showed that B.Ed. trainees of science mean score (44.2) in development of subject knowledge are less than the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of Social Science (42.9). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of subject knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0.034. So ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H03 could not be rejected.
  • Objective 2: To find out the effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees in development of pedagogical knowledge stream wise.

2.21. Interpretation of Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Scale (DPKS)

Table 4. Mean, SD’s and ‘t’ Test of Pedagogical Knowledge Stream Wise
Table 4

2.22. Interpretations

  • H04: For the result of testing H04, the Table 4 showed that B.Ed. trainees of Social Science mean score (32.833) in development of pedagogical knowledge are same to the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of language (32.366). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of pedagogical knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0. 474.So, ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H04 could not be rejected.
  • H05: For the result of testing H05, the Table 4 showed that B.Ed. trainees of science mean score (33.1) in development of pedagogical knowledge are less than the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of language (32.366). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of pedagogical knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0. 273.So, ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H05 could not be rejected.
  • H06: For the result of testing H06, the Table 4 showed that B.Ed. trainees of science mean score (33.1) in development of pedagogical knowledge are less than the mean score of B.Ed. trainees of Social Science (32.833). For comparing the mean score of social science and language interns in development of pedagogical knowledge, the calculated at (58) is 0. 681.So, ‘t’ is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence, H06 could not be rejected.
  • Objective 3: To find out the relation between development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • The coefficient of correlation of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship has been done.
Table 5. Pearson Correlation of Subject Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge
Table 5

subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship is found to be 0.547 which is moderate positive in nature. Hence, H17could not be rejected.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The major findings of the study on Effect of Internship on B.Ed. Trainees have been presented below:

3.1. Findings on Effect of Internship of B.Ed. Trainees on Development of Subject Knowledge Stream Wise

From the analysis of data on development of subject knowledge during internship stream wise the following findings have been revealed it presented in the subsequent diagram Figure 2.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Findings on Comparison of Mean Score of Development of Subject Knowledge
  • On testing H01, there is no significant difference found between trainees of social science and language in development of subject knowledge during internship.
  • On testing H02, there is no significant difference found between trainees of science and language in development of subject knowledge during internship.
  • On testing H03, there is no significant difference found between trainees of science and social science in development of subject knowledge during internship.

So, there is not found any significant differences among the B.Ed. trainees with respect to their stream in development of subject knowledge during internship. [7] Also found that there was no significant difference in the attitude of pupil teachers towards internship as a part of B.Ed. curriculum streams wise [8].

3.2. Findings on Effect of Internship of B.Ed. Trainees on Development of Pedagogical Knowledge Stream Wise

From the analysis of data on development of pedagogical knowledge during internship stream wise the following findings have been revealed it presented in the subsequent diagram Figure 3.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Findings on Comparison of Mean Score of Development of Pedagogical Knowledge
  • On testing H04, there is no significant difference found between trainees of social science and language in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • On testing H05, there is no significant difference found between trainees of science and language in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.
  • On testing H06, there is no significant difference found between trainees of science and social science in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship.

So, there is not found any significant differences among the B.Ed. trainees with respect to their stream in development of pedagogical knowledge during internship. The study of [9] found that prospective teacher changes their pedagogical beliefs during internship program.

3.3. Findings on Correlation Between Development Subject Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge

During Internship

Figure 4
Figure 4. Findings on Correlation

The Correlation Coefficient (r) value between development subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship is 0.547 which indicates positive in nature. So, there is a significant relation found between two variables [10].

4. CONCLUSION

Present study explored the status of two major variables viz. development of subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge during internship with respect of B.Ed. trainees in different stream. So, the result concluded that in B.Ed. curriculum through internship B.Ed. trainees develop their subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge which are very important part of classroom teaching. Result also showed significant positive relation between subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Therefore, from this study, it can be said that in classroom teaching teacher must know how to deal with student through pedagogical knowledge and what to teach through subject knowledge. This understanding and practice will help them to develop proper classroom teaching and communication abilities with students. In this purpose internship which is very systematic programmed has very important role in teacher education system for B.Ed. trainees.

4.1. Further Research Studies

  • Further research can be done on the interns of D.E.Ed. institutions and M.Ed. institutions.
  • Similar studies can be conducted with more samples from all the districts of West Bengal.
  • Different categorical variables such as male & female, government & self-financed, urban & rural institutions etc. can also be taken up.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no specific acknowledgments to make for this research.

Funding Information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or notfor-profit sectors.

Author Contributions Statement

Name of AuthorCMSoVaFoIRDOEViSuPFu
Dr. Sangita Roy✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓

C: Conceptualization; M: Methodology; So: Software; Va: Validation; Fo: Formal analysis; I: Investigation; R: Resources; D: Data curation; O: Writing – original draft; E: Writing – review & editing; Vi: Visualization; Su: Supervision; P: Project administration; Fu: Funding acquisition.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Informed Consent

All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and their voluntary consent was obtained prior to data collection.

Ethical Approval

Not Applicable.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. [1] R. A. Akbar, A study of Practice Teaching of Prospective Secondary School Teachers and Development of a Practice Teaching Model. Rawalpindi, 2002.
  2. [2] T. Adams, B. Koster, and P. D. Brok, 'Student teachers' classroom management during the school internship', Eur. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 727-745, Oct. 2022. doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1860011
  3. [3] J. C. Aggarwal, Teacher and Education in Developing Society. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, 2010.
  4. [4] R. Chowdhury, 'Extended Internship of Two Year B.Ed. Curriculum: Examining Underlying Challenges', Impact factor: RJIF, vol. 5, 2018.
  5. [5] C. V. Good, Methodology of Educational Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1941.
  6. [6] A. Kumar, 'Attitude of pupil Teachers towards Internship as a Part of B.Ed. Curriculum in Relation to Gender, Stream and Academic Qualification', International Journal of Engineering science and Computing, vol. 6, no. 7, 2016.
  7. [7] S. K. Mangal, Statistics in Psychology and Education. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 2007.
  8. [8] S. Saifi, A. S. S. Shah, A. Idrees, and S. Zaman, 'Effect of Reformed Teaching Practicum on Professional Development of B', Prospective Teacher. Bulletin of Education and Research August, vol. 35, pp. 125- 138, Aug. 2013.
  9. [9] P. Singh, Attitudes of B.Ed. Students towards Internship as a. 2013.
  10. [10] Indian journal of applied research. World Wide Journals, 2019.

How to cite: Dr. Sangita Roy (2023). Effect of internship on B.Ed. trainees. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy, 3(01), 68-77. https://doi.org/10.55529/jlep.32.14.24

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Published by HM Publishers.