Student-teachers at Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) have reported different experiences with Teaching Practice supervision, with some awaiting visits while others say their supervisors have visited and provided useful feedback. The development raises questions about the timing, coverage and nature of supervision following the introduction of a twelve thousand Naira (₦12,000) Teaching Practice fee, which the Great Ife Students’ Union said includes a fee intended to cover the logistics required for effective supervision.
In a memo signed by its Vice President, Iyanuoluwa Falade, the Students’ Union stated that the payment comprises five thousand naira (₦5,000) for the Teaching Practice logbook and seven thousand naira (₦7,000) as the Teaching Practice fee.
However, interviews conducted by a correspondence of InFocus News Agency revealed diverse student experiences and understanding of the payment.
Oluwabukola, a student of the Institute of Education who is currently observing her teaching practice in Adenle, Osogbo, stated that her assigned supervisor had not visited since the commencement of the exercise. She confirmed that supervision was mentioned when the payment was explained but said she had not contacted her supervisor at the time of the interview. Although she said the situation had not affected her personally because she was coming from her parents’ home, she expressed a desire for the relevant authorities to visit and assess her teaching saying: ‘They should come and check up on me.’
Similarly, Titilayo, who is undertaking her teaching practice at Atakunmosa High School, Osu, reported that her supervisor had yet to visit her school. She said she had contacted the relevant person and was told that the supervisor would come.
Isaac Chimaobi from the Arts and Social Science Education Department also reported that his assigned supervisor had not visited his school. According to him, the ₦12,000 payment was meant for the logbook and other logistics. Isaac added that he had not experienced any direct effect from the absence of supervision.
Another student teacher, Oluwaphilus Gbadero of the Art and Social Science Education Department said he had spent four weeks on teaching practice without receiving a supervisory visit. He disclosed that he had contacted the relevant authorities and was advised to reach out to the supervisor responsible for his subject.
Despite the delay, Gbadero said he was not particularly concerned, expressing confidence that he would be supervised before the exercise ended. ‘I don’t think I’m concerned. I know I’ll be supervised before the exercise ends’, he disclosed.
Seun, observing his teaching practice in Modakeke, reported receiving only one supervisory visit. He expressed concerns that some student-teachers might not receive supervision before the exercise concludes. He mentioned that ‘supervision arrangements have not been meeting students’ expectations because most students might not get supervised before the end of teaching practice.’
This concern reflects the doubts some participants have over the uncertainty of supervisory visits of every student-teacher within the remaining weeks..
In another account, Elizabeth from the Art and Social Science Education Department mentioned that ‘supervisor already came but the only thing they checked was the attendance list.’
According to Elizabeth, the visiting supervisor explained that another supervisor responsible for English Education would come separately. She said the students were still awaiting the subject-specific visit, with only two weeks till the end of the exercise.
Her account raises a distinction between visits intended to verify attendance and those expected to assess teaching and provide subject-specific feedback.
On the other hand, some student-teachers reported receiving consistent supervisory visits.
Owolabi Goodness Blessing, who is undertaking the exercise in Osogbo, admitted supervisors had visited her school twice, with the most recent visit recorded as October 9, 2026. She described the experience positively, saying she learnt new ideas and teaching strategies from the supervisors.
A student from the Department of Science and Technology Education (STE), whose teaching-practice school is at Phase 2, Ile Ife also reported receiving three supervisory visits, the last occurring during the fourth week of the exercise.
Beyond the frequency of supervisory visits, a student identified by the alias Demmy raised concerns about the preparation of Part Two students for their first Teaching Practice exercise.
Demmy reported receiving two supervisory visits but argued that students needed better preparation, particularly regarding how to write their lesson plan properly. The student also questioned the transparency of the grading process, expressing concern that student-teachers might not be sufficiently assured of the fairness of their assessments. Demmy further added that changes to the originally stated number of students permitted in a school had affected some participants, forcing them to choose schools farther from their residences.
The student called for clearer and more consistent information from the Teaching Practice Committee, improved orientation on logbook writing, and a grading process that students can trust.
Meanwhile, a STE student identified the logbook as the understood purpose of the ₦12,000 payment, a position also expressed by Owolabi Goodness Blessing. Titilayo, however, said the payment was for the lesson note.
These accounts differ from the breakdown provided in the Students’ Union memo, which lists the logbook cost separately from the Teaching Practice fee intended to cover welfare and supervision logistics. The differing accounts highlight the need for clear communication about the purpose and breakdown of the payment. However, the interviews do not establish the reason for the discrepancies in students’ understanding of the fee.
While accounts gathered by a correspondent of InFocus News Agency indicate that some students are awaiting supervisory visits, others have received visits and described them as beneficial. The accounts suggest varying experiences with supervision rather than a uniform absence of supervisory visits.