Okul deneyimi I dersinin amacı, öğretmen yetiştirme sürecinin başında öğretmen adaylarına, öğretmenlik mesleğini tanıtmaktır. Bu süreçte öğretmen adayları ve uygulama öğretim elemanı ile uygulama okulu yönetici, öğretmen ve öğrencileri, işbirliği yapmak zorundadır. Ders sürecinin başarısı, bu kişilerin sorumluluklarını yerine getirmesine bağlıdır. Bu çalışma, işbirliği içerisinde olması gereken kişilere göre öğretmen adaylarının beklentilerini ve beklentilerinin karşılanma düzeylerini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma ile ilgili veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen anket formunun, birinci sınıf öğrencilerine uygulanması ile elde edilmiştir. Anket formu, beklentileri ve karşılanma düzeylerini belirlemek için sürecin başında ve sonunda olmak üzere iki kez uygulanmıştır. Verilerin çözüm ve yorumlanmasında aritmetik ortalama, t testi ve pearson's r değerlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, öğretmen adaylarının uygulama öğretim elemanı ve öğretmeni, uygulama okulu yöneticisi ve öğrencileri ile diğer öğretmen adaylarından beklentilerinin yüksek olmasına karşılık, bu beklentilerinin karşılanma düzeylerinin anlamlı bir farkla düşük olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu anlamlı fark, işbirliği içerisinde olması gereken kişilerin karşılıklı görev ve sorumluluklar hakkındaki bilgi yetersizliklerinden ve etkin bir denetleme mekanizmasının kurulamamasından kaynaklanabilir. Öğretmen adaylarının en çok yardım beklediği kişiler uygulama öğretim elemanları iken, beklentilerinin en düşük olduğu kişiler uygulama okulu öğrencileridir. Öğretmen adaylarının beklentileri en çok kendi arkadaşları tarafından, en az da uygulama okulu öğretmenleri tarafından karşılanmıştır. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarının işbirliği içerisinde olması gereken kişilere göre beklentileri ve beklentilerinin karşılanma düzeyleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur.

This study focuses on an assessment of cooperation process in School Experience I course by students enrolled in pre-service teacher training programs. It is most often argued that students come to pre-service teacher training with high expectations, enthusiasm and ambitions but usually disappointed during the first year of study because of unmet expectations. For this very practical reason, this study attempts do describe students' level of satisfaction with one of the must crucial element of pre-service teacher training, their first experience in school and classroom context as a prospective teacher. Study group consisted of 448 pre-service teacher training students enrolled in Kırşehir Education Faculty. A questionnaire was developed by researchers to collect data. Initially, 45 students were asked to respond to an open ended question. Written responses from this initial stage were categorized and likert-scaled items were produced based on these responses. These items were pre-tested on a random sample of 90 students. The questionnaire in its final form included 39 structured and one open ended question. Data were collected at two points; at the beginning of School Experience I course and at the end of course to describe students expectations and satisfaction of expectations. Findings indicated that students' expectations from school administrators, teachers, faculty members, classmates and students in visited school were significantly higher (p ≤ .000) than satisfaction of their expectations. Students had quite high expectations from all related parties involved in the process, on a five-point likert scale means ranging from 4.41 to 4.71, but there were significant gaps between expectations and satisfaction of expectations. Summary Pre-service teacher training system was restructured in 1998, within the scope of National Education Development Project (NEDP), funded by a loan agreement between World Bank and Turkish Republic. World Bank and Turkish Higher Education Council (YOK) focused on increasing relevance of pre-service teacher training to classroom practices and every day school life (YOK, 1998). Therefore, scope and nature of student school experience course in pre-service education was reorganized to initiate familiarity with teaching profession and school atmosphere in the second term of the study, starting with “School Experience I” course. School Experience I is designed to provide students with an understanding of teaching profession, school and classroom context to improve students' ability to relate their studies during the pre-service teacher training to actual school practices (YOK/World Bank, 1998; Gürbüztürk, 2000). Restructured pre-service teacher training program also offers a mandatory two-term “School Experience II” course during 7th and 8th terms. Scholl Experience II provides students with teaching experiences in the classroom under the supervision of an experienced teacher and a faculty member from their teacher training institution. Objectives of School Experience I course are defined as to provide students with an understanding and experience related to (a) school management, organizational structure and daily routines, (b) teaching as a profession, (c) teacher resources in schools, and (d) teaching-learning activities as well as social and extra-curricular activities in schools through observation and guidance by expert teachers and faculty members in systematic manner (YOK/World Bank, 1998). Experiences of students in schools should lead to establishing better links between learning experiences of pre-service teacher training in education faculties and actual practices and realities of school and classroom settings. An effective implementation of School Experience I course requires a well structured cooperation among related parties such as faculties of education, school administration, teachers and local educational authorities (Çakmak, 2000; Uslu, 2001;Tuzcu, 2002; Dönmez, 2001). Faculties of education and local educational authorities must deal effectively with overall planning and coordination of implementation process. The key concept of School Experience I course is cooperation, suggesting an orchestrated work among teachers, faculty members and students. Quality of students' experiences, to a large extend, depends on quality and nature of this cooperation. Therefore, this study focuses on an assessment of cooperation process in School Experience I course by students enrolled in pre-service teacher training programs. It is most often argued that students come to pre-service teacher training with high expectations, enthusiasm and ambitions but usually disappointed during the first year of study because of unmet expectations. For this very practical reason, this study attempts do describe students' level of satisfaction with one of the must crucial element of pre-service teacher training, their first experience in school and classroom context as a prospective teacher. Method This study was designed assess students' expectations and fulfillment of these expectations in School Experience I course from school administrators, teachers, faculty members, classmates and students in visited school regarding nature of cooperation among these parties. Study group consisted of 448 pre-service teacher training students enrolled in Kırşehir Education Faculty. A self administered questionnaire was designed by researchers to collect data. Initially, 45 students were asked to respond to an open ended question regarding students' expectations from school administrators, teachers, faculty members and other students. Written responses from this initial stage were categorized and likert-scaled items were produced based on these responses. These items were pre-tested on a random sample of 90 students. The questionnaire in its final form included 39 structured and one open ended question. The questionnaire was administered to 448 students at the beginning School Experience I course to collect data about students' expectations from school administrators, teachers, faculty members, classmates and students in visited school. In order to determine the satisfaction level of students' expectations, the questionnaire was reworded and administered to students at the end of the School Experience I course. Data were tabulated to describe students' expectation and satisfaction level of expectation by using mean and standard deviation scores, and mean expectation scores and satisfaction level of expectation score were compared by using t-test. Findings Item by item analysis of data showed that students' expectations school administrators, teachers, faculty members, classmates and students in visited school were significantly higher (p ≤ .000) than satisfaction of their expectations. Summary findings presented in Table 1 indicate that student had quite high expectations from all related parties involved in the process, on a five-point likert scale means ranging from 4.41 to 4.71. However, findings also show significant gaps between expectations and satisfaction of expectations. Students expected experienced teachers to cooperate with them as a democratic leader in observations and activities to facilitate a school experience conducive to build a positive attitude towards teaching profession by providing students with information on professional problems, organization and reporting of observations and activities, relationship with students and school management. Furthermore, students expected to build a professional learning relationship with experienced teacher based on mutual respect and understanding. However, findings indicate that the highest mean difference between expectation and satisfaction of expectation is observed in students assessment of cooperation with experienced teachers (mean difference = 1.23). Students' satisfaction of expectations also significantly differed from expectations by a mean difference of 1.1, in terms of their expectations from the guiding faculty member and school administrator. Students expectations from the guiding faculty member were related providing information about the school experience process, facilitating the process through meetings and informative feedback, facilitating relationships with school administration and helping students to overcome practical problems. School administrators were expected to provide information on operational aspects of schools, to facilitate better conditions for the experience and to show tolerance and understanding. Difference between expectation and satisfaction of expectations from classmates and students in visited schools were significant but relatively lower, compared to differences for other related parties. Students expected their classmates to cooperate with each other in preparing activities and observations, discussing experiences and practical issues. Expectations and satisfaction of expectations differed by .53 mean difference compared to .75 mean difference for students in visited schools. Conclusion Significant gaps between expectations and satisfaction of expectation may be interpreted either as students may have developed unrealistic expectations, or related parties have failed to cooperate with students and each other to facilitate a better experience to satisfy students' expectations. The second interpretation is more likely to be supported by findings as expectations from teachers, faculty members and school administrators were less satisfied compared to other groups. Because, teachers, faculty members and school administrators have primary responsibilities of facilitating and ensuring an effective implementation of School Experience I course. Furthermore, cooperation of classmates and students in visited schools may be facilitated by what teachers, administrators and faculty members do or do not do. Unmet expectations may create a sense of disappointment with pre-service teacher training experience may lead to negative attitudes towards teaching profession. “School and Education Faculty Cooperation” handbook describes policies, procedures, and roles and responsibilities of students, teachers, administrators and faculty members in implementing School Experience I course (YOK / World Bank, 1998). Study findings suggest that students are not provided with information and guidance at a level to meet their expectations from teachers, administrators and faculty members. It is important to note that students' expectations were consistent with policies and procedures described by “School and Education Faculty Cooperation” handbook. Students' expectations seem to be much more homogenous than satisfaction of expectations, as indicated by larger standard deviation scores for satisfaction of expectations. Although a more precise explanation of increase in standard deviation scores require further investigation, it may be due to variations by school conditions, attitudes and behaviors of teachers, faculty members and administrators. Nevertheless, increased variation in satisfaction of expectations, from 1.5 to 7.0 times larger variation compared to variation in expectations, implies variations in implementation either in terms of school settings or behaviors of implementing parties. Therefore, some of students taking School Experience I course may have not been going through an experience conducive to initiating essential positive attitudes and behaviors for teaching as a profession. Analysis of student responses to open-ended question provided further evidence to support these conclusions. Students reported that they did not receive effective and timely guidance and feedback on observations and activities due to lack of arrangements for faculty-student meetings, despite the fact that one our/per week was suppose to be allocated for faculty-student discussions and meetings. Students also noted that this problem may have been due to over loaded work schedule of faculty members. Students were not able to reach experienced teachers outside the classroom to receive information and feedback on observations and expectations.