10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Impact of Practicum in Assessment Conceptions and Practices of Pre-service Teachers'
Daniel García-Pérez1, Rodrigo Pardo2, Ernesto Panadero3
1Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; 3Dublin City University
Presenting Author: García-Pérez, Daniel
This study is informed by the theoretical knowledge about formative assessment, teacher assessment literacy and teacher assessment conceptions, and it focuses on the conceptions and practices of assessment held by pre-service teachers and how the experience of the supervised practicum can influence it. An article with the study is currently under review by an international journal. In the next paragraphs we summarize and explain the main ideas of our framework and the purposes of the study.
It is well-known that assessment is one of the main strategies teachers use to facilitate learning, to certify student achievement, and to develop students' capacity to evaluate their future learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2006). Empirical studies in the area suggests that many novice and pre-service teachers do not have a wide knowledge about assessment, and they do not feel confident to do it effectively (Maclellan, 2004; Volante & Fazio, 2007).
For this reason, we wanted to analyze the influence of initial teaching education in the development of what researchers defined as assessment literacy (DeLuca et al., 2016), i.e., proposals for conceptualizing the essential theoretical knowledge about assessment and the consideration of factors that influence how teachers implement assessment. Specifically, we considered the influence of the supervised practicum, which we understand as the ‘teaching practice’ period when student teachers go to schools to implement theoretical learning about teaching. This is a decisive period because pre-service teachers have access to the teaching professional culture, via a set of experiences and knowledge inherent to the profession, including conceptions and assessment practices (Brito, 2020).
A few previous investigations have studied the impact of the practicum on conceptions of assessment. For instance, Xu and He (2019) and Prastikawati et al. (2022) reported an important change in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pre-service teachers due to the practicum, with an improvement in the knowledge about the assessment purposes (summative and formative). However, there is still much room for improvement and a need to further analyze the effects of this period in assessment literacy, considering different educational stages, disciplines, and educational systems.
Therefore, the purpose of our study is to analyze the impact of a supervised practicum on the assessment conceptions and practices of pre-service Physical Education (PE) teachers. The assessment conceptions we used were defined according to Brown (2008): a) assessment improves teaching and learning; b) assessment makes students accountable for learning; c) assessment demonstrates the quality and accountability of schools and teachers; d) assessment should be rejected because it negatively affects teachers, students, curriculum, and teaching. We chose PE for our study due to its great pedagogical importance in Spain in the last decade in relation to assessment studies, especially focused on formative assessment (López-Pastor et al., 2020), and the fact that the other studies had focused in EFL.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research design was a qualitative study based in interviewing and task analysis. 18 prospective teachers participated in the study. They were students in the master’s degree in Teacher Education for Secondary School, PE specialty, at a public university in Madrid during the academic year 2020-2021.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants before and after the internship. The interviews ranged from 25 to 35 minutes. At the end of the internship, participants carried out a written individual assignment in which they had to design the assessment of a teaching unit, that could be implemented during the practicum period. The participants were selected by purposeful sampling (Coolican, 2014). They did not get any reward from their participation in the study, although the assessment task was assessed and graded, and it had a weight of 10% in the participants’ Practicum final grade (all students had to perform this activity whether they participated in the study or not).
Interview transcripts and written assignments were coded following a mixed coding process, using descriptive and analytic codes (Bazeley, 2013). Then, we performed a conceptual analysis using matrices. Data analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. To ensure the quality of the analytical process, we used a form of collaborative coding, in which the 1st and the 2nd author, from different disciplines, coded and discussed the data, while the 3rd author worked as an auditor in different stages, in order to improve the accountability of the data analysis (Akkerman et al., 2008).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRegarding the results, participants had very high expectations for the practicum period, but during this period their experiences with assessment was heterogeneous. Half of participants had a full experience assessing (design and implementation), while others only graded and there were even two participants that did not contribute substantially to assessment.
Considering the general evolution of the participants during the process, a relevant result is that no participant improved or changed their discourse, conceptions, and practices towards a more formative view of assessment after the practicum. All the participants that emphasized the formative role of assessment at the end of the practicum had previously discussed or mentioned these ideas in the pre-practicum interview. Nevertheless, it is significant that there were two participants whose ideas on formative assessment were reduced after the practicum.
About their assessment conceptions, participants held ideas connected with three kinds of assessment conceptions according to Brown’s proposal (2008) –improvement, school and student-accountability– and no participant mentioned ideas associated to the irrelevance category. Concerning their task, the assessment tools that were widely used were rubrics and checklists. They did not frequently used shared assessment strategies (self- and peer-assessment…) and our analysis of the rubrics found that they did not exploit their formative potential.
One of the main conclusions of the study is that assessment is a key aspect for pre-service teachers and the practicum provides them with a great opportunity to see how it works in real settings, but they recognized it is one of the most complex elements of teaching (Hortigüela Alcalá et al., 2021). Participants acknowledged their experience is still limited and their approach to formative assessment was mainly theoretical, so in many cases they did not yet feel confident to implement it (DeLuca et al., 2019). We analyze the implications of these results and propose some recommendations for teacher education.
ReferencesAkkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2008). Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11135-006-9044-4
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Practical strategies. Sage.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
Brito, A. E. (2020). Formação inicial de professores e o estágio supervisionado: experiência formadora? Revista Praxis Educacional, 16(43), 158-174. https://doi.org/10.22481/rpe.v16i43.7666
Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Conceptions of assessment. Understanding that assessment means to teachers and students. Nova Science Publishers.
Coolican, Hugh. (2014). Research methods and statistics in psychology (6th ed.). Psychology Press.
DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., MacGregor, S., & Rasooli, A. (2019). Toward a Differential and Situated View of Assessment Literacy: Studying Teachers’ Responses to Classroom Assessment Scenarios. Frontiers in Education, 4, 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2019.00094/BIBTEX
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: a review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11092-015-9233-6/TABLES/6
Hortigüela Alcalá, D., González-Villora, S., & Hernando-Garijo, A. (2021). Do we really assess learning in physical education? Teachers’ perceptions at different educational stages. Retos, 42, 643-654.
Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial knowledge states about assessment: novice teachers’ conceptualisations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2004.04.008
Prastikawati, E. F., Mujiyanto, J., Saleh, M., & WuliFitriati, S. (2022). Pre-service EFL teachers' conceptions of assessment during their teaching practicum. KnE Social Sciences, 7(19), 615-626. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i19.12480
Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring Teacher Candidates’ Assessment Literacy: Implications for Teacher Education Reform and Professional Development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749–770.
Xu, Y., & He, L. (2019). How pre-service teachers' conceptions of assessment change over practicum: Implications for teacher assessment literacy. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00145
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Collaboration and Joint Responsibilities for the Practicum Studies in Initial Teacher Education
Gørill Warvik Vedeler1, Gunn Gallavara2, Jorun Sandsmark3, Lars Strande Syrrist4
1Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway; 2Union of Education Norway; 3The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS); 4The Association for Student Teachers
Presenting Author: Gallavara, Gunn;
Sandsmark, Jorun
This project delves into and examines the shared responsibilities of higher education institutions and kindergartens/schools (K-12) as they collaboratively oversee the quality of students' practicum studies, a fundamental component of initial teacher education (ITE) (Munthe, Ruud, & Malmo, 2020). These ITE programs are mandated to uphold rigorous academic standards, ensuring a comprehensive and coherent integration of subjects, subject didactics, pedagogy, and practicum placements (Lund, Jakhelln, & Rindal, 2015). While the specifics of students' practicum studies (K-12 placements, duration, learning content, progress line, etc.) may vary among different ITE programs, there is a common expectation that practicum placements in all programs should be supervised, diverse, and subject to assessment. The practicum dimension in teacher education is intricately woven into a symbiotic relationship with the practicum sector, encompassing kindergartens and schools.
Since the 1960-ies, on behalf of the workforce, Norway has had institutionalized cooperation between employer organizations (here: for municipalities and county authorities), employee organizations (here: for the teaching profession), and the Government. Together, these three entities engage in discussions on political matters and provide advice on general economic and societal issues. However, to develop high-quality, research-based teacher education programs that are pertinent to the profession, it is imperative to expand this formal "tripartite cooperation" to include other stakeholders beyond its current scope. It becomes crucial to involve additional parties that hold a vested interest in teacher education, such as universities and university colleges functioning as teacher education institutions, along with the teacher students themselves. In an era marked by uncertainty, which also impacts the teaching profession, a collaborative effort that encompasses a broader spectrum of stakeholders can safeguard both the collective memory and future prospects for the development of robust and appealing teacher education programs.
In this study, to address these issues, we aim to address the following research question: How do the two sectors, namely higher education and K-12 schooling, collaborate and jointly shoulder the responsibility for educating the teaching profession in Norway?
To delve into our findings, we rely on a dual-layered theoretical framework. The initial perspective within this framework is grounded in the theory of practice architectures, as articulated by Kemmis et al. (2014). This theory offers a comprehensive framework for analysing the intricate interplay of elements within the context of students' practicum studies in initial teacher education. It provides a lens through which educators in both sectors can better understand, interpret, and improve the teaching and learning experiences within these critical stages of educating new teachers.
The second perspective in our theoretical framework aims to support what is referred to in the literature on practicum studies as "the third space." In this "third space," students undergoing training, the teachers in the kindergarten/school serving as the students' practice mentors, and subject teachers from the university/college responsible for practice supervision come together (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006). The work of teacher educators (both practice mentors and subject teachers) in "the third space" revolves around facilitating participatory and exploratory learning processes for students, practice mentors, and subject teachers. This requires all participants to move across professional, academic, and personal boundaries, engaging in negotiation and renegotiation of understandings associated with the role and tasks of the teaching profession (Williams, 2014).
The distribution of responsibilities and collaboration in practical training within teacher education is intended to create conditions for the emergence of effective teacher education and professional development in such an exploratory communal learning process.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe Norwegian Government has instituted a "National Forum for Initial Teacher Education and Professional Development," comprising representatives from all pertinent stakeholders. In 2021, the forum decided to investigate collaboration concerning the practicum studies of teacher students between Initial Teacher Education (ITE) institutions and the practicum arenas.
Tasked with scrutinizing a proposed framework for the allocation of responsibilities and collaboration regarding students' practicum studies in ITE programs in Norway, the four authors/presenters represent pivotal entities in this collaborative venture. Syrrist represents the students' union, Gallavara represents the teaching professions union, Sandsmark represents the school owner's organization, and Vedeler represents the teacher education institutions. Over an 18-month period, we engaged in regular meetings, delving into an extensive conversation to explore the subject under investigation.
We undertook a systematic document analysis encompassing national legal directives and the operational documents of teacher education institutions. We have incorporated a diverse range of national and local governance and operational documents that regulate and set expectations for collaboration in practicum training. Failure to align these documents can create ambiguities regarding the frameworks governing the collaboration between teacher education institutions and kindergartens/schools, leading to considerable variation in the practicum training offerings provided to teacher students. While this diversity can be beneficial, contributing to a range of competencies, it may also result in uneven quality in practicum training and teacher education.
With help from Universities Norway – Teacher Education administration we collected working documents from eight ITE institutions. Considerable variation exists in the nature of these working documents across ITE institutions and within the field of practice. In essence, both the legal mandates and these more informal documents collectively shape the framework guiding the implementation of students' practicum studies and placements. The aim of this document analysis was to deconstruct the included documents, examining hidden hierarchies, dominance, oppositions, inconsistencies, and contradictions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In this study, a qualitative approach is employed in treating the documents. The intention has been to identify the connections of these documents to the phenomenon under investigation (Blaikie, 2010).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe outcomes have been presented in a report to the Government (Gallavara, Sandsmark, Syrrist, & Vedeler, 2023). In this ECER presentation, these findings will be examined in the context of the theory of practice architecture. The study sheds light on the semantic space, revealing and discussing the conflicting influences arising from variations in the content of the documents analysed. Additionally, within the semantic space, we articulate a shared conceptualization of how to describe and comprehend the foundations for shared responsibilities. In terms of the physical space, our approach encompasses tools such as formal agreements at two distinct levels. Within the social space, the study uncovers three types of responsibilities – organizational, professional, and administrative – spanning both sectors. We will also illuminate the roles and positions of students in these collaborative endeavours.
ReferencesBlaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research . The logic of anticipation: Polity Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and reserach design. Choosing among five approaches: SAGE Publications.
Gallavara, G., Sandsmark, J., Syrrist, L. S., & Vedeler, G. W. (2023). Forslag til rammer for ansvarsdeling og samarbeid om praksisopplæring i lærerutdanningene. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/277e4321131c4b6abd03f7fe7ffa14d0/2023.05.01_rapport-fra-arbeidsgruppe_praksisopplaringen-i-lu-002.pdf
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education: Springer Science & Business Media.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and teacher education, 22(8), 1020-1041.
Lund, A., Jakhelln, R. & Rindal, U. (2015). Fremragende lærerutdanning - hva er det, og hvordan kan vi få det? In Rindal, Lund og Jakhelln (ed.): Veier til fremragende lærerutdanning. Universitetsforlaget.
Munthe, E., Ruud, E., & Malmo, K.-A. S. (2020). Praksisopplæring i lærerutdanninger i Norge; en forskningsoversikt. Kunnskapssenteret for utdanning, KSU, 1, 2020.
Williams, J. (2014). Teacher educator professional learning in the third space: Implications for identity and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 315-326.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Classroom Management During Student Teachers’ Early Field Placement: From Coursework to Practice
George Olympiou
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Olympiou, George
Field-placement programs are expected to offer multiple opportunities to student teachers (STs) to enable lessons learnt in university-based coursework to teaching practices in the field (Moyer and Husman 2006; Tigchelaar and Korthagen, 2004). Early field placement experiences provide STs with a first (teaching) experience on developing generic aspects of teaching, including classroom management (CM) practices (Anderson, Barksdale, and Hite, 2005). One of STs’ main concerns during practice is CM (Ma and Cavanagh, 2018; O’Neill and Stephenson, 2012). STs during their first teaching efforts, ebb and flow between theory and practice, often guided by their attitudes and beliefs on what they consider as an effective practice to gain classroom’s control (Caner and Tertemiz, 2015).
Several CM models are discussed in the literature (e. g. the Assertive Discipline Model, the Withitness and Group Management Model, the Choice Theory Model, see Balli, 2011), from which several aspects are introduced during early field coursework. CM is often related with developing procedures and routines to maximize the use of teaching time and dealing with pupils’ misbehavior (Meister and Melnick, 2003). In handling commonly occurring CM situations, the development of procedures/routines might offer STs a place to begin in developing heuristics and associated procedures for responding to (less) predictable situations during teaching (see Brophy, 1988). At the same time, various studies show that time management in the context of CM is one of the greatest concerns for beginning teachers since they lack experience in calculating/addressing the amount of time needed for each activity during enactment (see Kyriakides, Christoforidou, Panayiotou and Creemers 2017; Moore 2003). However, only a few studies investigated STs’ use of teaching time (Cakmak 2008).
During early field placement, traditional modes of CM need to give their place to more enhanced-supportive engagement of STs and pupils in their first (and subsequent) interaction. Hence, the use of strict rules or formalized CM “contracts” as STs’ first or last resort during practice, might contradict the idea of a blended mode of CM models according to STs’ and pupils’ needs. The development of a procedure as a routine as it is discussed in coursework and implemented during practice (i.e. discussion/agreement with pupils, rehearsal and encouragement, see Wong and Wong, 2018) could be used as a paradigm of blending CM models offering STs with a place to begin their CM efforts. To this end, we acknowledge that STs’ engagement and limited presence in schools, makes the establishment of procedures/routines a very difficult endeavor (Brophy, 1988).
Blending particular CM models is defined as selecting different aspects of teaching from each model related with practices that enhance CM not neglecting pupils’ needs. In this context, every step of the teaching procedure (i.e. assertive discipline model) is developed carefully within the classroom with pupils’ interaction (i.e. withitness group management model), considering the different needs of pupils’ which are interlinked with the general needs of the classroom (choice theory model) (see Balli 2011). In this study, we explore STs’ experimentation on CM using a video-setting (see Zhang et al. 2011) during early field placement after a coursework section based on blending particular aspects of CM models. Hence, we particularly focus on the aspects of developing procedures/routines and the management of time, implementing a video-setting to support STs’ reflection during/after practice. In this context, we ask:
i) How do STs experiment and reflect on developing classroom and time management procedures/routines in a video setting during early field placement?
ii) What challenges do STs face when enacting classroom and time management procedures/routines during early field placement?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipants and Setting
Four STs studying to become generalist elementary schoolteachers in a four-year public university education program [country blinded] were enrolled in this study and are herein given the pseudonyms Vicky, Anna, Selia and Vaso. The sample varied in terms of content-area specialization and was selected out of a total of eight volunteers, who were enrolled in an early field placement coursework. The coursework was structured based on a blended combination of three classroom management models, namely the updated Assertive Discipline Model, the Withitness and Group Management Model and the Choice Theory Model (Balli, 2011). Developing procedures/routines and aspects concerning the management of time were explicitly addressed considering STs’ first teaching efforts.
Data sources
For each ST the corpus of data included: four videotaped lessons (Mathematics or Language arts), four lesson plans; post-lesson and final written reflections. In addition, STs would form pairs in order to particularly reflect on selected video excerpts related with the development of procedures and routines on classroom and time management. In each lesson, particular video segments were selected based on STs’ needs regarding the aforementioned aspects of CM and two reflection notes were written, one preceding and one following the reflection of each ST’s pear on each segment. Two more round of reflections followed, namely: a) a final reflection regarding STs’ CM after the two-round reflections, STs interactions and the video observation of each lesson and b) a final reflection at the end of the field placement program concerning STs’ experiences and general reflections on the video-setting procedure, the reflection cycle followed and the field placement program in general.
Data analysis
The data analysis involved all STs’ reflections, lesson plans and video-taped lessons. Firstly, particular video-taped lesson segments in which the aspects of developing procedures and routines on classroom and time management were identified, whereas challenges observed or self-reported by the STs and their reflection upon those segments were analyzed. Based on these data, we then developed detailed analytic memos for each ST (Patton, 2002). Approximately, twenty five percent of the data were coded, analyzed and then discussed with an independent researcher. These memos provided the basis for a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009) during which STs’ experimentation on developing procedures/routines on classroom and time management is analyzed below.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe data analysis showed that STs made an explicit effort of developing classroom and time management procedures/routines on which they reflected during their first teaching efforts. STs experienced that, developing procedures (in order to become routines) was not only feasible during early field placement but could be helpful in solving CM problems (e.g. getting the classroom attention). Such findings highlight the importance of providing STs with the tools needed (video-setting and blending CM models during coursework) in order to manage their classrooms, challenging the established assumption that STs cannot develop procedures/routines during early field placement.
Significant challenges also emerged. The need for consistency, reinforcement and reinstatement of the procedures/routines’ steps as well as providing positive feedback to pupils after the implementation of a procedure were considered as fundamental aspects of managing classroom as a group during coursework. STs’ differentiated and often inconsistent enactment of the coursework’s methodology (i.e. applying an interactive approach of teaching a procedure while combining aspects of CM models), as well as the pervasiveness of the traditional assertive discipline model were evident throughout STs’ efforts. In addition, the inconsistency regarding the time allocated between planning and enactment was noticed from all STs after reflecting on the video-taped lessons and was attributed to several reasons (e.g. applying time consuming procedures during teaching like noting all the pupils’ answers on the board).
More research is needed on how STs experiment with a blended mode of CM models in a more systematic way, during the final phase of field placement in which they are placed in schools as teachers and not as visitors. Moreover, since STs may follow different learning paths we need to unpack several other aspects of CM models during early field coursework in order to customize further the support needed during their teaching practice.
ReferencesAnderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., and Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice teachers' observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. Teacher education quarterly, 32(4), 97-117.
Balli, S. J. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ episodic memories of classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.004
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and teacher education, 4(1), 1-18.
Caner, H. A., and Tertemiz, N. I. (2015). Beliefs, attitudes and classroom management: A study on prospective teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.098
Cakmak, M. (2008). Concerns about Teaching Process: Student Teachers' Perspective. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 57-77.
Kyriakides, L., Christoforidou, M., Panayiotou, A., and Creemers, B. P. M. (2017). The impact of a three-year teacher professional development course on quality of teaching: Strengths and limitations of the dynamic approach. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 465-486.
Ma, K., and Cavanagh, M. S. (2018). Classroom ready?: Pre-service teachers' self-efficacy for their first professional experience placement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(7), 134-151.
Meister, D. G., and Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher study: Beginning teachers' concerns. Action in teacher education, 24(4), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2003.10463283
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of teacher education, 54(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710223865
Moyer, P. S., and Husman, J. (2006). Integrating coursework and field placements: The impact on preservice elementary mathematics teachers' connections to teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 37-56.
O’Neill, S., and Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and teacher education, 28(8), 1131-1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tigchelaar, A., and Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching experiences: implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights into teacher behaviour. Teaching and teacher Education, 20(7), 665-679.
Wong, H. K., and Wong, R. T. (2018). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
|
