10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
A Triadic Learning Community In The Kindergarten
Gabriella Landler-Pardo, Talma Florentin, Katya Rozenberg
Kibbutizm College of Education, Israel
Presenting Author: Landler-Pardo, Gabriella;
Florentin, Talma
Early Childhood Education - the pre-primary education phase - is an essential part of European education policy, as the first years lay the foundation for successful lifelong learning (Eurydice, 2018; Eurydice, 2019). Studies on early childhood teacher education have shown that providing pre-service teachers with opportunities to engage in authentic, real-world teaching experiences, such as teaching in a kindergarten setting, can improve their preparedness for the classroom (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barak, 2019; Hollins, & Warner, 2021). The current study compares three models of training early childhood student teachers and seeks to learn about their contribution to the pre-service teachers' integration into the kindergarten and their readiness for professional autonomy.
In the last decade, the teaching profession is in a process of professionalization that strengthens the formal training of teachers and educators through higher academic studies in the teaching disciplines and the sciences of education and pedagogy alongside practical experience which is designed to link the institution and the field. In other words, the training for teaching consists of imparting academic knowledge to teaching students through various courses and is supported by practical experience that demonstrates what is learned in the academic courses.
However, it seems that pre-service teachers have difficulty bridging the gap between academia and the field and applying the knowledge acquired in teacher training in educational settings. Many of the novice teachers report a sharp transition from the college to the school or kindergarten where they serve as teachers (Sagi and Regev, 2002).
This reality requires alternative structures for teacher education which enhances the partnership and collaboration between the teaching institutions and the schools or kindergartens that provide opportunities for application of theory to practice during which pre-service teachers could voice, explore, and critically examine their beliefs in relation to philosophies and teaching approaches (Di Santo, Timmons & Lenis).
One alternative model is a relatively new program of Academia–Kindergarten (AK) implemented by the Ministry of Education in Israel. The program promotes extending practice in the third year of training in kindergartens and developing a triadic mentoring support system (Ben-Harush & Orland-Barak, 2019). Making the practical experience a central core of this program, enables strong collaboration between the academic mentor (the teacher education college pedagogical instructor), the mentee (the pre-service teacher) and the kindergarten trained teacher throughout the teaching process. By spending more time in the kindergarten as part of the AK program the pre-service teachers are seen as part of the kindergarten teaching staff and are integrated into the day-to-day activities of the kindergarten.
Over the years, the AK basic program evolved, and a new model was developed the "Academia Kindergarten Community" (AKC). This model can be characterized by a learning community that includes both the pre-service teachers who participate in the program, and the kindergarten teachers who are guided by the pedagogical instructor. The AKC model allows pre-service teachers to be exposed to diverse points of view, dilemmas, difficulties, and challenges that arise from the field that are seen as relevant to all members of the community (Moft, 2021). The model encourages joint learning sessions for teachers and students. From this, the current study combines quantitative and qualitative findings
seeks to learn about the contribution of the two experiential models AK and AKC to pre-service teachers and to compare between them and the traditional experiential model in aspects of integration into the kindergarten and the readiness for professional autonomy. In addition, the study seeks to learn about the satisfaction of the teaching staff from their participation in the three models of practical experience: traditional experience, AK and AKC.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe current study combines quantitative and qualitative methods. In accordance with the research goals, the following research questions were formulated according to two target populations: pre-service teachers and the teacher education staff the pedagogical instructors and the kindergarten trained teachers. The research questions intended for the pre-service teachers were:
A) To what extent do you perceive the contribution of the practical experience in the following aspects:
- A sense of belonging
- A feeling of being able to work independently in a kindergarten
- A sense of preparedness and professional autonomy
- Is there a difference in the perception of the contribution of the practical experience in the aspects presented between the three experience models: traditional model, AK model and AKC model?
The questions for the pedagogical instructors were:
2. To what extent do the teaching staff from the two experiential models, AK and the AKC perceive the professional staff's contribution to their training? Is there a difference in the perceptions of the teachers from the two models?
How do the pedagogical instructors and kindergarten teachers maximize the contribution of the AK and the AKC models to the teaching staff who participate in them?
2. How do pedagogical instructors and qualified kindergarten teachers evaluate the relationship developed between them and the teaching staff and how does this relationship contribute to their training?
Quantitative research method:
Third year early childhood education students who undergo their training at leading teacher education college in Israel
Research tool
A self-report questionnaire study was constructed. The questionnaire was built in accordance with the theoretical concepts in professional literature, and based on previous questionnaires...
The qualitative research method:
participants
Pre-service, pedagogical instructors and kindergarten teachers who take part in the traditional experience programs, AK and AKC.
Research tool
Semi-structured interviews with five pedagogical instructors, with six kindergarten teachers (two from each group participating in the AK program and the AKC model) and with six students (two from each group participating in the AK and AKC models).
The Questionnaires and the transcripts of the conversations and in-depth interviews were analyzed using an interpretative framework.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe qualitative and the quantitative findings will be presented at the conference presentation as they are being analyzed at the moment
ReferencesDi Santo, A., Timmons, K. & Lenis, A. (2017). Preservice early childhood educators’ pedagogical beliefs, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 38:3, 223-241, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2017.1347588
Ben-Harush, A. and Orland-Barak, L. (2019), "Triadic mentoring in early childhood teacher education: the role of relational agency", International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2018-0055
Hollins, E. R., & Warner, C. K. (2021). Evaluating the clinical component of teacher preparation programs (report). National Academy of Education Committee on Evaluating and Improving Teacher Preparation Programs.
Clipa, Otilia & Mâţă, Liliana. (2021). European Educational Policies on Teacher Training for Early Childhood Education. DOI: 10.18662/978-1-910129-28-9.ch001
Ronen, I. K., Danial-Saad, A., & Holsblat, R. (2022). Collaborative and Traditional Practice-models as Perceived by Preservice Teachers: The Potential Impact of Culture. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 47(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2022v47n7.4
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Developing a Holistic Pedagogical Design for Supporting Student Teachers' Professional Development
Mirja Tarnanen, Johanna Kainulainen, Teppo Toikka
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Presenting Author: Kainulainen, Johanna;
Toikka, Teppo
Amid diverse megatrends such as increasing challenges to wellbeing, intensifying struggle for democracy and digitalization, teacher education should be able to prepare student teachers to be e adaptive professionals and able to innovate and develop teaching practices both individually and collaboratively and engage in lifelong learning to develop their professional development throughout their career (e.g., Avalos, 2011: Yeigh & Lynch, 2017). Professional development (PD) can be considered as processes of learning, growth and development of teachers' expertise (social and personal skills and content knowledge including subject knowledge and pedagogical, instructional, and classroom management skills) leading to changes in their practice to support their pupils' learning (Avalos, 2011). However, teacher education studies have shown that pre-service and in-service teacher education should be modified to promote teachers' career-long professional development more systematically and proactively (Korthagen, 2016). In this study, we explore the professional development of teacher students when studying in a research-based learning unit called MyPeda (abbreviation: Multiprofessional collaboration and pedagogical expertise). For this experimental research-based learning unit, a pedagogical design was developed to support teacher students' professional development holistically and an innovative way.
Theoretically, the pedagogical design of MyPeda is based on a multidimensional construct classroom climate which draws from several prominent theoretical models and empirical findings and leans on three basic classroom components associated with teacher-student interactions: instructional support, socioemotional support, and classroom organization and management (Wang et al., 2020). Instructional support focuses on features of instruction that provide quality feedback, use techniques to enhance critical thinking and communicate high academic expectations for students (Hamre et al., 2007). Socioemotional support refers to classroom characteristics that support the emotional wellbeing of students and where the teacher's warmth and interaction with students creates safety, and the teacher gets to know students' interests and emotions (Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Quin, 2017). Classroom organization and management denotes the practices teachers use to establish daily classroom routines, including consistently reinforcing classroom rules, supporting students' autonomy and providing positive behavior supports (Klieme et al., 2009). These three concepts form a triangle in the pedagogical design, the sides of which are connected through three concepts: school culture, teacher collaboration and home-school cooperation. Teachers' development is a process that requires individual and collective emotional and cognitive involvement to change teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning and raise awareness of policies and practices affecting a school's culture (e.g., Guskey 2002; Avalos, 2011). As a whole, in schools that have a strong culture, teachers are motivated and engaged when working with students. It has been emphasized that the development of teachers' collaboration should focus on teachers' joint work and how it develops teachers' teaching (e.g., Hargreaves & O'Connor, 2017). Thus, we examine teacher collaboration in promoting collaboration between student teachers and in-service teachers to improve their teaching and teamwork (e.g., Vangrieken et al. 2015).Previous research has shown that teacher education programmes need to prepare students more adequately to interact and engage with parents (e.g., Epstein 2018). In general, teacher students do not see themselves as well-prepared for family-school partnerships even though collaboration between teachers and families can influence pupils' social development, academic achievements, and sense of wellbeing (e.g., Willemse et al. 2018). All these components above are associated with student-centered and effective pedagogy.
In this study, we approach teacher students’ professional development in the context of learning unit MyPeda with the following two research questions:
RQ1: What do teacher students consider meaningful when reflecting on their professional development during the learning unit?
RQ2: What kinds of tensions and opportunities characterize the learning unit in terms of professional development?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data was collected in the context of an experimental research-based holistic learning unit MyPeda as part of the master's studies in special education teacher training and in primary teacher training. The learning unit lasted eight weeks. It consisted of an intensive learning period at university, independent and group learning tasks, and a training period in school where teacher students (N=18) were working together in multi-professional teams. Teams can be called multi-professional because, in Finland, primary teacher students and special education teacher students study in separate master's programmes and have different eligibility criteria in Finnish educational legislation. Research data consists of teacher students' self-reflections and self-assessments during the learning process in the study unit and group interview data, and group reflections collected at the end of the learning unit. This presentation focuses on teacher students' reflections on their professional development across data. The data was analyzed using qualitative data-driven and theory-informed content analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhen reflecting on their professional development during the MyPeda learning unit, teacher students considered that it is important to learn to view teaching and pedagogy from various perspectives or holistically, which they believe was supported by the learning unit. Teacher students also considered working in multi-professional teams and co-teaching meaningful in terms of their professional development. The preliminary findings also indicate the importance of getting to know the partner school, its teachers and student groups as teacher students discussed their engagement in the school community and collaboration with in-service teachers from the perspective of professional development. The adequacy of the time devoted to activities, such as observation in the student group, and practices of guidance and, even closer theory and practice bridging did not support learning in an ideal way according to participants. The intensive learning period was described to be meaningful, as the teaching focused comprehensively on the themes of the learning unit. However, continuous examination and linking of these themes to teacher students’ experiences at the school would have required more guided activities. On the other hand, teacher students experienced more time to deepen and reflect on pedagogical solutions than in other courses, and the ways of learning were also considered motivating. In reflections, the realization of growing responsibility was raised as an indicator of professionalism. The data will be analysed in more detail during spring 2023. In this presentation, we will discuss further how the experimental research-based learning unit MyPeda responded to the critical need for teacher training to holistically bridge theory and practice and how it can provide practices for teacher training to meet future challenges.
ReferencesAvalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 10–20.
Epstein, J.L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching 44(3), 397–406.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor M. T. (2017). Cultures of professional collaboration: their origins and opponents. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 74–85.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms. New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.
Korthagen, F.A.J., & Evelein, F. (2016). Relations between student teachers’ basic needs fulfillment and their teaching behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 234–244.
Pianta, R. C., and Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345–387.
Wang, M.-T., Degol, J. L., Amemiyaa, J., Parra, A., and Guo, J. (2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57.
Vaismoradi M, Jones J, Turunen H, and Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 6(5), 100–110.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E.m & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
Willemse, T.M., Thompson, I., Vanderlinde, R., & Mutton, T. (2018). Family-school partnerships: a challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching 44(3), 252–257.
Yeigh, T., & Lynch, D. (2017). Reforming Initial Teacher Education: A Call for Innovation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(12).
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Dialogic Acts During Peer Feedback - Opposition in Degree Projects in Teacher Education
Rimma Nyman1, Galina Nilsson2
1University of Gothenburg; 2University West
Presenting Author: Nyman, Rimma
Introduction How can teacher students refine their peer feedback strategies for purposeful opposition when discussing final degree projects? This ongoing study explores the contribution of peer feedback in relation to degree project in teacher education. The aim is to explore the role of the dialogues during a preservice teachers’ seminar was observed during participation in opposition. A sample of 210 minutes recorded data was analysed qualitatively. The preliminary results showed that peer feedback during oral opposition is predominantly monological, evaluative in nature, with no room for the respondent to participate in a dialogue. However, there were some dialogic acts and constructively oriented comments during the opposition which we present in this paper and consider in our ongoing analysis.
Previous research and theoretical concepts Peer feedback is an important part of the learning process in a teacher education programs. Oral opposition on final degree projects is a key element of the evaluation cycle, and as such this type of examination provides an opportunity for peer feedback. However, little is known about what happens during these oral opposition sessions during the dialogues between students. Even though a vast body of research exists in the area has highlighted production process in relation to degree projects, like supervising (Jansson et al., 2019), students’ or experiences, (Råde, 2019) or assessment of quality of these projects (Stolpe et al., 2021). To gain insight into this specific type of peer feedback, we conducted an observation study to analyze the dialogical features of peer feedback during oral opposition sessions on final degree projects in Swedish teacher education. In this paper we present our preliminary analysis and several findings as well as their implications for teaching practice in teacher education.
Theory
The theoretical point of departure for this study is the dialogical tradition within the sociocultural perspective on learning (Bakhtin, 1981). Some principles of student peer feedback in Nordic teacher education (Ellengard et.al., 2022) point toward dialogue being a productive way of learning through feedback. One way to constitute productive communication is by using dialogical feedback and dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981; Heron & Reason, 1997). The basis of dialogism is that the language we chose for communication contributes to meaning (Franke & Kullberg, 2010). This is particularly interesting in relation to giving feedback. When the opposition of final degree projects was previously studied in the Swedish context (Franke & Kullberg, 2010), the results showed that the opposition can have a monological or dialogical character. Also, it showed that each of the participants set the tone for his or her own opposition. This raises the question of what dialogic acts (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2004) are made by the students during opposition as a form of peer feedback and how can they be further developed in order to be useful in degree project process. In this study, by applying the two dichotomic orientations of peer feedback during oral oppositions, monological and dialogical (Franke & Kullberg, 2010) we analyse peer feedback with a focus on dialogic acts made by teacher students.
Aim and question
Considering that students spend one eighth of higher education on doing degree project work, there is a gap of knowledge and research results regarding what kind of knowledge student teachers chose to develop in their theses. Therefore, the aim of this study is to mitigate this gap by identifying dialogical features of peer feedback in final degree projects in primary teacher education. The research question is: Which dialogic acts can be identified in the feedback during the opposition of degree projects in teacher education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodologically, in order to investigate the dialogical features of peer feedback during oral opposition on final degree projects in teacher education, an observation study was conducted. The data were collected through audio and video recordings of six final degree project oral oppositions, involving 4 teacher education students. The data were analyzed using dialogical analysis, a method developed by Heron & Reason (1997). First, we analyse the content of video recording from 4 opposition seminars (210 minutes) observations of oppositions of final degree projects in two different teacher education programs for primary teacher education. The sessions are selected to mirror high quality opposition, which received the minimum of grade Pass. The data collection takes place at a faculty in Sweden, where teacher education programs are predominant. The 4 participants come from three different contexts of teacher education programs where the data was collected are for students who mostly have a high school degree when they enter the program (GLP), for teachers who have been in-service for many years but lack teachers’ licence (VAL) and for foreign teacher who wish to validate their teacher degree (ULV). Each opposition concerns a project consisting of a 20–40 pages written thesis, composed in line with structure and style of an academic text in educational science. Data was audio recorded via zoom, with permission of all participants and following the ethical recommendations of Swedish council (2017). Considering data analysis, a deductive content analysis (Prior, 2020) of student communication was conducted, based on categorisation of the utterances made by the students during the opposition into monological or dialogical features.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPeer feedback including dialogic acts included acts such as:
- Questions for the respondent
- Taking turns in a balanced way
- Challenge the respondent to rethink his or her choices in the project
In the empirical data, we can see how Opponent 3 chose a dialogic way to open the session.
Opponent 3: The aim and questions of this projects, how come you chose them?
Respondent 3: Well, I thought this is how it is meant to be done.
Opponent 3: How do you mean?
Respondent 3: Well… You see here… eehm the aim is broad, “to identify how teachers percoekt texbooks in mathematics”
Opponent 3: Really?
Respondent 3: Yes. And the questions are supposed to… Narrow it out. Or am I wrong?
Opponent 3: No I do no think you are wrong, I just want to make you think.
Respondent 3: Thank you, yes, now when I think about it… I have… But I have five research question to narrow down…
Opponent 3: Narrow? By five questions?
Respondent 3: Yes! Or… Maybe question 1 and 2 are… the are similar, is that what you where meaning?
Opponent 3: In my opinion, there are to many questions to possible answer in a thesis like this. How do you answer question 4, for example? Let’s look at the results section and… (Seminar 3, 05:10)
This, ans similar examples will be analysed and discussed during our presentation.
ReferencesAlrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education. Academic Publishers.
Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin, C. Emerson & M. Holquist. University of Texas Press.
Ellegaard, M., Niss, M., Fogh, C.L., Christensen, F.V., Bruun, J., Nyman, R., Friis Johansen, B. (2022). Unfolding principles for student peer feedback: a comparative analysis of examples across higher education contexts. Högre Utbildning, 12 (2),
https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v12.2680
Franke, A., & Kullberg, B. (2010). Opposition som lärande. [Opposition as learning]. University of Gothenburg: Institution for pedagogy and didactics.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300302
Jansson, M., Carle, J., Gunnarsson, A., & Ekbrand, H. (2019). How experience affects assessment – a longitudinal study of assessment of university students’ essays. Studies in Higher Education 44(4), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1398227
Prior, L. (2020). Content analysis. In Leavy, P. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition, 1-34.
Råde, A. (2019). Professional formation and the final thesis in European teacher education: a fusion of academic and professional orientation. Education Inquiry 10(3), 226–242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1514910
Stolpe, K., Björklund, L., Lundström, M., & Åström, M., (2021). Different profiles for the assessment of student theses in teacher education. Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00692-w
|
