General trends in teachers’ professional thinking as reflected by the inquiries of student and practising teachers
Edgar Krull
University of Tartu
E-mail:
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland 22-25 September 1999
Abstract
Since 1996, a research project has been underway in Estonia to explore the quality of teacher pre-service education programs by a survey of newly qualified teachers (teaching experience between one and five years) and graduating teacher education students. A sample of 60 teachers (replying from 215 addressees) and 143 teacher education students were surveyed. Both groups were surveyed with identical questionnaires designed to study reflections of respondents related to the quality of their education courses and understanding of different educational phenomena with a purpose of studying changes in their pedagogical thinking. A comparative analysis of the results revealed significant differences in the professional thinking of these two groups in the readiness of co-operation with colleagues, in the perception of pupils’ characteristics and problems of teaching, and in the attitudes towards pupils.
Introduction
A research project titled “An experimental system for the development of teacher education programs through the follow-up evaluation of graduates” was started at the Departments of Education and Special Education, University of Tartu, in 1996. The main purpose of the project was to increase the quality of feedback information on teacher education programs. As one way of achieving this objective two inquiries were carried out: one of the beginning teachers who have graduated from the University of Tartu and the other one of student teachers who were completing the one year postgraduate teacher education courses. For this purpose two questionnaires were compiled involving identical multiple-choice items[1] on attitudes towards teacher profession, on the quality of teacher education courses and of personal teaching skills, on professional beliefs, conceptions, and preferences; and, finally, on the evaluation of in-service training opportunities. A representative sample from 800 persons, who had graduated from the University of Tartu for the last five years with teacher diploma, was selected. From these two hundred potential respondents, all over Estonia, only 60 returned filled in questionnaires. The return rate of filled in questionnaires by the student teachers was higher as 43 persons or 78 % of potential respondents replied in 1996. Later on, in 1997 and 1998 two more inquiries of student teachers were conducted. In these cases the return rate of questionnaires was even higher, and in sum replies from 143 student teachers were collected. The main results of student and practising teachers’ inquiries carried out in 1996 as well as a detailed comparative study of these results have been published in other articles (Krull, 1997, 1998a, and 1998b). As a result of this work we got a quite interesting and useful set of data on student and practising teachers’ attitudes towards teacher profession, on their pedagogical knowledge and attitudes, and on the quality of teacher education courses at the University of Tartu. Also, the data collected from these inquiries provided us with an opportunity, that was not planned initially, to compare student and practising teachers’ replies reflecting their understanding of pedagogical phenomena and ways of thinking about them, as the questionnaires included identical items. Our comparative analysis of student and practising teachers replies confirmed many ideas, thus far based only on the intuition of educators, that the student teachers’ understanding of pedagogical problems is simplistic and naive in comparison with that of experienced teachers. These kind of differences were discovered in student and practising teachers’ understanding of pupils characteristics, of instructional and educational approaches, and of teacher’s role and work, in general.Insofar as people base their decisions on reflections and constructions of phenomena surrounding them it is obvious that student and practising teachers’ understanding of pedagogical phenomena is an important factor determining their instructional and educational decisions. Thomas Good has noticed that “… teachers ability to reflect on data and experience to plan new events is an important characteristic of adaptive potential for decision making and growth.” And he goes on: “…a teacher who has a good motivational system, average management skills as reflected in observed behaviour, but good plans for change might be rated more highly than a teacher who manages reasonably well but has no plans for improvement” (1996, p 642). Therefore, student and practising teachers’ ways of thinking about pedagogical phenomena can be considered as an important indicator of their professional competence. A reliable imagination, what kind of understanding of pedagogical phenomena and events we can expect from student teachers and teachers with different school experience makes easier to establish requirements or standards for the licensure of graduating initial teacher education students and for the certification of practising teachers.
Our comparative analysis of differences in student and practising teachers’ pedagogical thinking lead us to a conclusion that changes in teachers' professional development (from student teachers to teachers with few years of experience) take place at least in three aspects. These aspects or dimensions are readiness for co-operation and communication with colleagues, understanding of student characteristics and principles of classroom instruction and management, and attitudes towards students. In my following presentation I will report changes in these aspects as reflected by our inquiries, to try to analyse what is the meaning of these changes for teachers’ work, and to draw on them some conclusions for the development of initial teacher education programs.
Readiness for co-operation and communication with colleagues
Main differences in this dimension of teachers’ professional thinking clearly appeared in student and practising teachers’ preferences for different possibilities of in-service training. When 33.3 percent of teachers found that the observation and later analysis of colleagues’ lessons is the most effective way for improving their practical pedagogical competence, only 21,7 percent of student teachers agreed with this statement. Similarly, the same attitude appeared in replies to a question asking about solving discipline problems: 16.7 percent of teachers and only 7 percent (according to the results of inquiry in 1996) of student teachers thought that their first reaction would be to consult their colleagues working with the same pupils.
The underestimation of the educative value of observing other teachers’ lessons and reluctance to consult colleagues on discipline problems are certainly caused by student teachers communication difficulties with colleagues but, also, by their inability of learning from colleagues’ experience. There is a probability that the both difficulties stem from the lack of good relationship with colleagues that cannot be fully developed during a short period of school practice. Nevertheless, the main reason for underestimation value of mutual classroom visits and the reluctance for consulting colleagues on discipline problems is student teachers’ lack of skills for relating their theoretical knowledge, taught in teacher education courses with practice. It is not rare that the student teachers are unable to recognise practical situations were their theoretical knowledge could be applied. Student teachers fail to understand very often that their experienced colleagues are using the same methods and approaches that they were taught in theoretical courses, but in more general terms. This means that teacher educators should create more favourable conditions for the professional development of beginning teachers. When teaching pedagogical subjects they should pay more attention to the analysis of practical situations and solutions used by experienced teachers, and pointing to their relationship with theoretical models. Also, it is extremely important that lessons and other activities of experienced teachers observed by student teachers will be carefully analysed in the light of theoretical concepts taught in teacher education courses.
Understanding of students’ characteristics and principles of classroom management
The most striking differences in student and practising teachers’ understanding of pupil characteristics were uncovered in the perception of learning motivation and abilities. It appeared that student teachers tended to confuse these notions but the majority of teachers discriminated between them. If a strong and statistically significant correlation r = 0.60 (p< 0.05) was found between student teachers’ perceptions of their pupils’ leaning motivation and capabilities, then the same indices for teachers was only 0.28 (and statistically insignificant). This means that the majority of teachers do not consider pupils with a high learning motivation as having unconditionally high abilities and pupils with low motivation as low in abilities.
However, a more advanced analysis confirmed that the identification of these concepts, i.e. taking for granted that highly motivated pupils are capable learners, and vice versa, pupils with low learning motivation are incapable for learning, depends on the subject taught. It was discovered that the teachers of mathematics were more disposed, to identify pupils’ learning motivation and capabilities than other teachers of academic subjects. The corresponding correlation index was 0.46 for the mathematics teachers. On the contrary, no relationship (r = 0) was found between the perception of the pupil learning motivation and abilities for teachers of physical education. Though in the both cases the numbers of respondents were very small (correspondingly 11 mathematics teachers and only 5 teachers of physical education), the deviations of these correlation coefficients from the general indices of teachers are impressive, and this fact calls for further studies of this phenomenon. If teachers’ understanding of relationship between pupils motivations and capabilities really depends on the subject taught this should be taken into consideration in teacher education programs in order to reduce negative biases in the behaviour of teachers of certain subjects. Our study also revealed a lot of other differences in student and practising teachers’ understanding of instructional and educational problems as well as in general concepts of teaching. An analysis of student and practising teachers’ assessment of their mastery of thirty instructional skills listed in the questionnaires showed that student teachers tended to give relatively higher ratings to the mastery of seemingly simple professional skills like using of subject tests and correcting misspellings of pupils. On the other hand, the practising teachers gave higher ratings to the mastery of more advanced professional skills like appointing exceptional pupils to the consultation with experts, working with parents, and individualisation of instruction. Quite significant differences were also uncovered in student and practising teachers’ preferences for instructional methods. The most important difference was discovered in the perception of traditional instructional methods (based on the student replies in 1996). About 40 percent of student teachers answered that during the school practice they taught in a conventional way as they saw their own teachers teaching. Instead, only 20 percent of practising teachers accepted this statement. At the same time three times more of teachers than student teachers (correspondingly 28 and 9,5 percent) stated that they use extensively methods for the individualisation of instruction.
Many differences in teacher and student teacher broader educational notions and beliefs were relatively well uncovered by questions asking respondents to identify themselves with one of four model teachers. The respondents were also asked to point to the model which coincides the least with their teaching style and to point to the model teacher who might be the most successful in promoting student thinking and understanding. As it can be seen in the Table 1 about 18 % of teachers and 12 % of student teachers identified themselves with a model teacher strongly supporting application of discovery learning methods, and about 32 percent of teachers as well as student teachers found that this teaching style coincided least with their teaching style.
A bigger and statistically significant (p<0.05) difference was discovered in teachers’ and student teachers’ ratings of this teaching style potential in promoting student thinking and understanding.
Remarkable differences exist also in teachers’ and student teachers’ ratings of Sander’s (relying on student discussion in his teaching) instructional potential. Though the difference in percents is statistically significant only in the case of identification with Sander’s teaching style, a stronger sympathy of student teachers for this model teacher is easy to perceive in all figures. Nevertheless, the most startling thing, reflected so clearly in the table, is the respondents’ perception of the potential of traditional instruction. If about 18 percent of teachers identified themselves with Rein then only 7 percent student teachers felt the same way according to data of our first inquiry of student teachers in 1996. This figure reached 10 percent on the basis of joint data drawn from all three consecutive inquiries. In comparison with other model teachers the teachers as well as student teachers found this teaching style as the less successful in promoting student thinking and understanding. A general conclusion can be made that, in comparison with teachers from one to five years of teaching experience, the student teachers at the moment of graduation from teacher education courses tend to overestimate the potential of teaching through student discussions and undervalue the potential of conventional instruction.
Table 1. Identification with model teachers
Choices in percentages
Abbreviated descriptions of teacher models / Coincides best with my conception of teacher role / Coincides least with my conception of teacher role / Is most successful in promoting student thinking and understandingTeachers / Student teachers / Teachers / Student teachers / Teachers / Student teachers
( a ) Mari: “A teacher functions mainly as a facilitator who provides students with opportunities for discovery learning or for constructing concepts and ideas.” / 18,3 / 11,9 / 31,6 / 32,7 / 21,7 / 9,1
( b ) Saime: “A teacher should lead students to figure things out by asking pointed questions.” / 38,3 / 29,4 / 8,3 / 8,4 / 15,0 / 18,9
( c ) Sander: “A teacher should emphasize student discussions in his classes. Students should talk about concepts and ideas together, explore different meanings and evaluate the quality of their own reasoning.” / 18,3 / 33,6 / 23,3 / 15,4 / 50,0 / 58,7
( d ) Rein: “Student will not learn much unless the teacher goes over the material in a detailed and structured way. Teacher’s job is to explain, to show how to solve problems, and to give to students practice doing them.” / 18,3 / 10,5 / 30,0 / 35,7 / 6,7 / 6,7
Attitudes towards pupils
Differences in student and practising teachers’ attitudes towards pupils were reflected in several replies to the questionnaire items. For example, though student and practising teachers perceived pupil school progress as a major criterion for the evaluation of their work, they understood by the school success different things. If practising teachers meant by this notion mainly pupils’ skills for independent learning and communication, and pupils’ progress in their subjects then the student teachers meant by it overwhelmingly the development of pupils’ self-reliance and self-dignity (see Table 2). There was almost twice more of student teachers than of beginning teachers (correspondingly 32 and 17 percents) who thought that the best criterion for the evaluation their work was development of pupils’ self-confidence and self-dignity. This difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). There is high probability that the last fact reflects student teachers’ uncritical learner-centeredness, often so exalted and inculcated by many educational courses, which usually tends to decrease with an enlarging teaching experience.
Table 2. Student and practising teachers perception of criteria for teacher evaluation
The most important criterion for teacher evaluation is … / Teachers / Student teachers(1) pupils’ progress in a subject taught / 28,3 / 23,1
(2) development of pupils’ self-confidence and self-dignity / 16,7 / 32,2
(3) pupils’ progress in acquisition of learning and communication skills / 31,7 / 25,2
The teachers as well as the student teachers were also asked to select from a list of alternatives a skill (see Table 3) that they consider the most important for helping youngsters. As it can be seen the teachers gave the highest priority to the development of competence in problem solving and critical thinking. Instead, the
Table 3. Preferences in professional skills
Percentage of choicesSkills in development of … / Teachers / Student
Teachers
(1)competence in problem solving and critical thinking / 43,3 / 28,7
(2)good feelings in pupils about themselves and of confidence in their abilities / 31,7 / 58,7
(3) understanding and respect for each other / 15,0 / 8,4
student teachers gave the highest priority to the development of good feelings in pupils about themselves and of confidence in their abilities. The percentage of students teachers’ preferences for this alternative is nearly twice higher than the teachers’ percentage of choices, and the difference between these indexes is statistically significant (p<0.01).
Quite significant differences were discovered in teachers’ and student teachers’ educational thinking on the basis of their hypothetical reactions to the students’ unconventional or original answers to teachers’ questions or to their problem solving in an unconventional way. The respondents had to choose between four options (see Table4). It appeared that the differences in reactions depended on the circumstances, too. So, nearly 45 percent of student teachers and 38 of teachers would praise pupils first. The teachers would react less impulsively, and almost 12 percent of them would think of an example where the answer does not apply or the solution will not work. The corresponding percentage of student teachers was twice lower. In a long run almost 27 percent of teachers and only 15 percent of student teachers would react this way (in the both cases the differences are statistically significant, p<0.05). The biggest difference in teachers’ and student teachers’ preferences of reaction was found in the forth option which suggests teachers to ask students to explain the basis for their answer or solution of a problem. There were about 57 percent of student teachers and only 37 percent of teachers who would react this way. This difference is also statistically significant (p<0.05). All differences in the preferred hypothetical reactions to the students originality point to the fact that teachers are typically more reserved and cautious when praising students for unconventional and original answers or for original problem solutions.
Table 4.Reacting to students unconventional and original answers
First actions / Long run reactionsOptions of reaction / Teachers / Student
teachers / Teachers / Student
teachers
I would …
( a ) praise students for their originality / 38,3 / 44,8 / 13,3 / 9,1
( b ) try to think of examples where the answer does not apply or the solution will not work. If there is none, I would accept their answer or solution / 11,7 / 5,6 / 26,7 / 15,4
( c ) praise them, but try to convince them that conventional answers and solutions are usually more efficient and reliable. / 0 / 2,8 / 13,3 / 11,9
( d ) ask them to explain the basis for their answer or how they figured the problem out. / 41,7 / 42,0 / 36,7 / 56,6
All these examples point to the student teachers’ higher learner-centeredness, what is, as a matter of fact, very valuable. Nevertheless, there is a danger that the student teachers’ pedagogical thinking as drawn from their replies to our questionnaires is often declarative in its character, and does not reflect their real behaviour in the classroom. Actually, their teaching and classroom management behaviour is far from being fully developed. This impose on teacher education a serious task of making these positive trends in student teachers’ pedagogical awareness and classroom behaviour permanent so that they are not swept out by difficulties that beginning teachers survive in their adaptation period to the school realities. It is well known that with increasing experience teachers tend to become more conservative.