This study investigated the nature of trainers' feedback provision during Practicum IV atrnJimma Teachers College. More specifically, the study explored ways of tminers' feedbackrn. provision, the common type of feedback, the main focuses of the traillers' feedback, tilernadequacy of the trainers' feedback and the extent to which the trainers' feedback provisionrnpractice is in consonance with the objectives of current teacher education program asrnstated in TESO national guideline.rnFor the study, eight English Language trainers/ tutors, sixllj student teachers who werernassigned to teach English Language during Practicum IV and the practicum officerncoordinator were included as sources of data. Twenllj four feedback sessions that therneight trainer/ tutors offered after their first round observation of their trainees' classroomrnwere transcribed and analyzed. For the analysis, outstanding behavioral ca tegories werernidentified by using the thematic analysis of the trainers' feedback transcripts. These arernencouragement, appreciation, criticism, directing, general comment, request for seifreflectionrnand rhetorical questions. The feedback transcripts were analyzed by usingrnutterances as a unit of analysis. The utterances under each categonj were counted andrnput in percentage for the analysis. The focuses of each categon} of feedback were alsornidentified and analyzed. For further consolidation, interviews were held with six tu tors,rnseventeen student teachers and the practicum officer. The observation of twenll} fourrn. ,. student teachers' classes was also made and the observations checklists of the college usedrnby the trainers during supervision were checked. Besides, fifty four student teachersrn. answered the questionnaire used. The data collected was analyzed and discussed bothrnqualitatively and quantitatively.rnThe result of the study reveals that the trainers' feedback was predominantly directive orrnprescriptive Iljpe. The trainers usually criticized, directed and gave judgl'nents on thernstudent teachers' classroom practice. They rarely allowed the student teachers for selfappraisal.rnTIre trainers gave the post observation feedback usually both orally and inrnwritten form . But most of them observed their student teachers only once and did notrnseem to give adequate feedback. The result also shows that most of the student teachersrnwho were assigned to teach English Language have poor command of the language andrninadequate skills of English Lmzguage Teaching metllOdologJ} and classroomrnmanagement. In general, the practice of feedback provision by the target trainer/tutorsrndoesn 't seem to be in consonance with objectives of the current teacher educationrnprogram in our countnj as stated in TESO national guidelines. The recol1l J'nendatiol1srnmade based on the above findings includes, among others, giving training for tile tutors'rnon how to conduct supervision and feedback provision, revising the existing curriculUlJ'/rn. ,Jar English Language teachers training, introducing the practice of peer supervision andrngiving incentives for the tutors during pmcticwn.