| Session | ||
10 SES 06 A: Research on Professional Knowledge & Identity in Teacher Education
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Teacher Education Between Academy and Profession: A Review of Research on Relations Between Teacher Education and Doctoral Education University of Gothenburg, Sweden Presenting Author:The purpose of this paper is to analyze research on doctoral education as a way to capture the intellectual and social organizing of educational disciplines in interaction with teacher education and teacher professionalization. Doctoral education is regarded as a nexus in the formation and evolution of scientific disciplines (Kuhn, 1962) and professionalization. It joins together tradition and renewal of epistemic foundations with the development of competences and capacities to act within academic contexts as well as within a wider range of professional practices (Elmgren et al., 2016). In short, doctoral education can be seen as a mirror of the social and intellectual organization of a discipline (Whitley, 2000). Previous international research has pointed to ongoing systemic transformations within doctoral education in general based on globalized political and societal demands, including expansion, effectivization, and internationalization (e.g., Shin et al, 2018; Yudkewitz, Altbach & de Wit, 2020). Research on disciplinary formation in general point to historically and contextually shaped variations in intellectual fields between countries (Whitley, 2000). Similar patterns have been identified within educational sciences (Hofstetter & Schneuwly, 2002; Whitty & Furlong, 2017), With reference to Kuhn (1962), Keiner (2019) argued that ‘rigor’, ‘discipline’ and the ‘systematic’ could be seen as standardizing and homogenizing forces as well as forces of diversification and fragmentation. Thus, ‘education science’ can hide a range of national differences when translated into English (Gross, Hofbauer & Keiner (2022). However, research on the role of doctoral education as a paradigmatic nexus, central in disciplinary formation seems to be more limited. Furthermore, teacher educations and their connections with higher education institutions differ across the European countries (Whitty & Furlong, 2017). Thus, doctoral educations are also differently constructed. For instance, it can be a research doctorate, it can be professional doctorate specifically aimed to satisfy the needs of teachers and professional groups outside the higher education institutions, and it can be a so-called joint doctorate (e.g., within the Erasmus Mundus Programme) (Kehm, 2020). Given this, doctoral education in the formation of educational sciences and how this is interplaying with the professional education of teachers is the object of study in this research review. In order to deal with this we turn to bibliometric resources and analyses (Garfield, 1979) in order to identify research fronts and intellectual traditions at work in this field of research. We put forwards the following questions: - How is teacher education dealt with in research on doctoral education in educational science(s) and research? - What research interests and intellectual traditions are at work in research om doctoral education and teacher education? - Are there different ways to position educational research to teacher education over time and place? To answer these questions, we turn to the resources of Web of Science with its possibilities and limits. As an analytical tool to identify networks and nodes of research we use VOSviewer (van Eck & Waltman, 2012), We identified more than two thousand publications dealing with research on doctoral education where relation to different professionalization matters were identified. However, matters of paradigmatic aspects were infrequent. Our search identified a small number (n=56) that were combining doctoral education and teacher education. A closer analysis of these articles showed different research interests and intellectual traditions. These preliminary findings is presented and discussed in terms of an interplay between the Academy, the Teaching Profession, and Policymaking. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study is based on bibliometric resources and different ways of relating publications to each other (Garfield, 1979). Data sources were obtained by Web of Science. At the WoS there were (Jan 15, 2024) identified 278 703 publications categorised as educational research presented in 946 sources such as scientific journals. Research on doctoral education was identified by the search string "doctoral educ*" OR "doctoral train*" and resulted in 2059 hits. Out of these 502 had “profession*” as a topic and “paradigm*” in 17 cases. Research on doctoral education combined with teacher education as topics were identified by the search "doctoral educ*" OR "doctoral train*" (Topic) AND “teach* educ*”. This resulted in 56 publications. Data from WoS were transformed into text-files and further analysed in VOSViewer where links between publications are in focus for cluster analysis to explore how the publications are organized by and organising educational research in nets and nodes. Intellectual traditions are identified by co-citation of different references and research fronts by bibliographic coupling between publications. How the research is organized over space is analysed by clustering intellectual traditions and research fronts over countries and regions. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings We identified a set of 2009 research publications, mostly recent and mostly Anglo-Saxon, having doctoral education as a topic. Out of these a limited number (N=181) were combined with an interest in profession as a topic and rather few in matters of scientific paradigms (n=17). Preliminary analyses presented a research field where matters of supervision, academic writing, and student identity and stress were frequent research foci. The studies were related to ongoing transformations such as higher academic demands, or to curricular content, or to changes in doctoral education programmes. A theme identified in this research is the tension between academic and practice-based research. These studies did not address paradigmatic aspects, but tensions identified can be seen as a trace of ‘academic drift’ away from “normal science”. Different research networks were identified – organizing and organized by research links. Here we could note networks with an interest in teacher professionalization – mostly based on an interest in improving teacher education. There seems to be – so far – little of research based on an interest in disciplinary formation and teacher professionalization. References B-M., Lindblad, S. & Wärvik, G-B. (2022). Restructuring doctoral education in Sweden. In M-L. Österlind, P. Denicolo, & B-M. Apelgren (Eds.). Doctoral education as if people matter - critical issues for the future. Brill Publishers. Elmgren, M., Forsberg, E., Lindberg-Sand, Å., & Sonesson, A. (2016). The formation of doctoral education. Report. Lund University, Uppsala University. Keiner, E. (2019). ’Rigour’, ’discipline’ and the ’systemic’: The cultural construction of educational identities? European Educational Research Journal. https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1177/1474904118824935 . Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Princeton University Press: Chicago and London. Garfield, Eugene (1979). Citation indexing. Wiley Gross, B., Hofbauer, S., & Keiner, E. (2022). The “Science of Education”–Different Terms, Concepts, Cultures and Epistemologies? A Contribution to a Social Epistemology. SPES: Rivista di Politica, Educazione e Storia, 15(16), 19-37. Hofstetter, R., & Schneuwly, B. (2002). Institutionalisation of educational sciences and the dynamics of their development. European Educational Research Journal, 1(1), 3-26. Nerad, M. (2014). Developing “fit for purpose” research doctoral graduates. In M. Nerad & B Evans. (Eds.). Globalization and Its Impacts on the Quality of PhD Education. Forces and Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide. Springer. pp. 111-127. Shin, J.C., Kehm,B.M. and Jones, G.A. (Eds.). ( 2018). Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society. Convergence or Divergence in National Approaches. Cham: Springer International Publishing Teichler, U. (2014). Doctoral education and training. A view across countries and disciplines. In. M. de Ibarrola & L.W. Anderson (Eds.). The nurturing of new educational researchers. Sense Publishers. Trowler, P. (2014). Depicting and researching disciplines, Strong and moderate essentialist approaches, Studies in Higher Education, 39 (10), pp. 1720-1731. van Eck, Nees Jan, & Waltman, Ludo (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538 Wittrock, B., Wagner,P. and Whitley, R. (1991). Discourses on society the shaping of the social science disciplines. New York: Springer. 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Expanding Knowledge About Parental Involvement Through Board Game 1University of Debrecen, Hungary; 2MTA-DE-PARTNERS Research Group Presenting Author:The definition of parental involvement has been frequently researched with many different methods (Epstein 2010). In most cases the studies found positive consequences: besides the improvement of the students’ grades there are also many other advantages (Boonk et al. 2018). According to international programs supporting parental involvement, beneficial changes happen not only in schools but in the students’ homes. Participating families reported on the betterment of parent-child relationships and the development in parents’ upbringing techniques (Goodall & Vorhaus 2011). OECD report (2019) highlights the positive effect on the teacher and the school culture. Parental involvement also benefits the school's reputation, its local relations with other institutions and its recognition (Goodall & Vorhaus 2011). Previous research has shown that the intensity of parent-teacher communication is below the expected leveli in Hungary (Bacskai 2020, Pusztai 2020). It is becoming increasingly important that the topic of maintaining contact with parents is also given a higher priority in teacher education. It is also particularly important how lecturers integrate good practice in relation to parental involvement into teacher education, helping to ensure that future teachers have appropriate and comprehensive knowledge. The relevance of the research is underpinned by the fact that parental involvement in schools is widely discussed internationally, but few studies have addressed the issue in Central and Eastern Europe. Our research goal is to examine the mechanisms of successful school practices and to form new processes that can be integrated into teacher training and postgraduate training, enhancing teacher–parent cooperation and strengthening parental upbringing competences. The aim of the research and development work is to improve the activities of teachers and the knowledge of student in teacher education about parental involvement through various workshops and trainings. During our development work, we focus on the use of board games in research. As higher education continues to evolve, incorporating innovative teaching methods such as board games ensures that lecturers are well-equipped to address the multifaceted challenges in the field of education. By merging the exploration of parental participation with interactive and engaging board games, teacher education programs can create a more comprehensive and impactful learning experience, better preparing future educators for the diverse and dynamic realities of the modern educational landscape (Perini et al., 2018). The aim of this paper is to present the theoretical background of the board game we planned, the development and creation process and the opinions of the teachers and students in teacher education who tested the game. Our board game is a serious games, because it is not intended for entertainment. These types of games can change students' behavior and attitudes for educational purposes and promote learning (Abt 1970). Cosimini & Collins (2023) point out that educators and researchers need to investigate the accuracy and methods and the content of educational games. To this end, all elements and mechanisms of the board game we developed are based on theoretical models and national and international research findings. Our board game is a typical cooperative game in which the players either win or lose together. It can be characterized by an advanced level of difficulty, as it requires more game mechanisms and a more serious mental investment. The character cards and scenarios make it a game that can be played multiple times. It can also be considered a symmetrical and thematic game, as the players have a common goal whose linked to strengthen parental involvement. The aim of the board game is for the players to cooperate with each other and solve the challenges in order to maintain contact between family and school during ten rounds, which symbolize a school year. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Each player receives a character card symbolizing school professionals. The characters have four skills (communication, contact, expertise and innovation) that play a role in solving challenges. In addition to their own permanent character, players also receive parent character cards with which they must work together to solve challenges. The theoretical starting point for the parent cards was the typology of Smit et al. (2007), who identified six parent types (the supporter, the absentee, the politician, the career-maker, the tormentor, the super parent). Epstein (2010) specifies parents’ activities at home as assistance in preparing homework and discussing school life and achievements. She highlights six different types of involvement that have a favorable impact on students’ school careers. The game's challenges and possible solutions were developed on the basis of Epstein's six-dimensional model. In addition to the challenges, players must also pay attention to three characteristics of the school in order to achieve the highest possible score on a scale of 1 to 10. The scales are: parental involvement, school performance and prestige. The players have to pay attention to these three characteristics during the game and try to achieve the highest possible score by the end of the tenth round. These three characteristics have also been based on the literature (OECD 2019, Goodall & Vorhaus 2011). The scale values are always marked on the game board. The selected difficulty level determines the starting value of the scales. The starting value of the difficulty level was created on the basis of the Hungarian National Competence Assessment 2019, based on the parental activity and effectiveness indicator: (1) active parental involvement - successful school, (2) active parental involvement - ineffective school, (3) inactive parental involvement - effective school, (4) inactive parental involvement - ineffective school. For solving the challenges, the players get points, which influence the three characteristics of the school. They can also draw quiz cards in each game round. With this type of cards, we wanted to make sure that players get to know the main findings related to parental engagement, which relate to the following topics: parental engagement for students with special educational needs, Roma families, parental volunteering, digital education, sports and arts education. Questionnaire completed by players who participated in the board game test in January 2024 (n=33, 10 teachers, 15 teachers, 8 psychologists). We used 4-point Likert scales, closed-ended and open-ended questions. The game is currently being tested. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Most of the players who took part in the playtest consider the game to be imaginative and effective. 70% of respondents also mentioned concepts and best practices in the questionnaire that they had never heard of before. Some respondents felt the game was too long or too complicated. According to the players, the character cards, the real-life problems and the cooperation are the biggest advantages of the game. The board game is highly recommended for students in teacher educatiom, teachers, and school support staff. The game provides a detailed view on parental involvement, emphasizing its questions and importance, while letting the players widen their knowledge in the topic and about Hungarian and international good practices, too. Using board games as a method for learning about a research topic offers a range of benefits for university students. There are several reasons why incorporating board games into university education can be advantageous. Board games make learning enjoyable and provide a break from traditional lecture-based methods, keeping students actively involved in the learning process. Students actively participate in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking, promoting a deeper understanding of the research topic. This board game simulates real-world scenarios. This allows students to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical context. The board game often require teamwork and communication. Students work together, discuss strategies, and articulate their thoughts, enhancing their collaborative and communicative skills. The board game may requires students to conduct research within the game context. This can strengthen their research skills and encourage a practical application of academic methodologies. In summary, incorporating board games into university education creates a dynamic and effective learning environment that promotes engagement, critical thinking, collaboration, and practical application of knowledge. It transforms the learning experience into an interactive and enjoyable process, contributing to a more well-rounded education for students. References Abt, C.C. (1970). Serious games. The Viking Press. Bacskai, K. (2020). Az iskola és a család kapcsolata. Kapocs, 3(2), 11-20 Cosimini, MJ. & Collins, J. (2023). Card and board game design for medical education: length and complexity considerations. Korean journal of medical education, 35(3), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2023.267 Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J., Ritzen, H. & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001 Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. Goodall, J. & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement. Department for Education. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Student’s Lives. OECD Publishing. Perini, S.; Luglietti, R.; Margoudi, M.; Oliveira, M.; Taisch, M. Learning and Motivational Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL) for Manufacturing Education –The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Game. Comput. Ind. 2018, 102 Pusztai, G. (2020). A reziliens szülővé válást támogató tényezők nyomában. Kapocs, 3(2), 53-66. Smit, F., Driessen, G., Sluiter, R. & Sleegers, P. (2007). Types of parents and school strategies aimed at the creation of effective partnerships. International Journal of Parents in Education, 1(0), 45–52. Watson, G. L., Sanders-Lawson, E. R. & McNeal, L. (2012). Understanding parental involvement in American public education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(19), 41-50. 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Use of Self-regulated Study Strategies Among University Students with Dyslexia During the Corona Pandemic Østfold University College Presenting Author:Proposal information Our aim is to investigate the use of self-regulated study strategies among university students with dyslexia during the corona pandemic 2020-2021. We focus on the student´s´use of self-regulated study strategies in two different study contexts in higher education; traditional campus learning and digital distance learning. Our research question is: To what extent did university students with dyslexia use self-regulated study strategies during the corona pandemic? Theoretical framework More students with dyslexia are enrolled in higher education (O´Byrne et al., 2019). To overcome the challenges, self-regulation and strategic learning are supposed to be required (Andreassen et al., 2017). Research shows that students with dyslexia in higher education are a heterogeneous group in terms of how much they still struggle with basic reading and spelling skills (Andreassen et.al., 2017; Jensen & Andreassen, 2017; Pedersen et al., 2016; Fink, 1998). Research also shows that these students often seem to rely on certain compensational key strategies of visual, auditory, and social kind (Andreassen et.al., 2017; Jensen & Andreassen, 2017). A small range og study strategies among students might indicate that study strategies are not well known, or that the students have had few opportunities to experience study strategies in different study contexts in higher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology We use a mixed method approach (Creswell, 2014). A questionnaire, recording students’ strategy use in the two study environments, traditional campus learning and digital distance learning. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the strategy use, we conduct semi-structured interviews with four of the informants. Two informants with a low extent of study strategies and two informants with a large extent of study strategies. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings Preliminary findings from the questionnaire data (n = 25) indicate that the university students apply less learning strategies in a digital environment compared with the traditional campus learning environment. Four participants were identified applying a small extent of study strategies while six were identified using a large extent of study strategies. Regarding the follow up interview, our hypothesis based on the qualitative data, are that use of self-regulated study strategies is a question of "less is more". Meaning that a range of few key strategies seem to be more important and beneficial to use than employing a lot of different study strategies. References References Andreassen, R., Jensen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2017). Investigating self-regulated study strategies among postsecondary students with and without dyslexia: A diary method study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(9), 1891-1916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9758-9 Fink, R. P. (1998). Literacy development in successful men and women with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 311–336. doi:10.1007/s11881-998-0014-5. Jensen, M. S. & Andreassen, R. (2017). Studiestrategier hos første års bachelorstudenter med dysleksi. Norsk tidsskrift for logopedi 2017: Volum 63.(4) s.12-24. Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teachers’ knowledge of language and reading: A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. O’Byrne C., Jagoe C., Lawler M. (2019). Experiences of dyslexia and the transition to university: A casestudy of five students at different stages of study. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2019;38:1035–1048. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1602595. Pedersen, H. F., Fusaroli, R., Lauridsen, L. L., & Parrila, P. (2016). Reading processes of university students with dyslexia: An examination of the relationship between oral reading and reading comprehension. Dyslexia, 22, 305–321. doi:10.1002/dys.1542 Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 239–339. | ||