Learning Patterns Of Future Teachers In Relation To Their Study Form

Professional development concepts: theory versus practical experience

Contemporary professional development concepts hardly ever take into account that each pedagogue is a unique individual and that different circumstances can have a significant effect on development. They do not take into account the fact that many teachers can experience their professional development differently. They depict what is normal and desirable under normal circumstances. The stage-by-stage models created are thus often criticised, mainly because they insufficiently address the fact that a pedagogue’s professional development can also include various pitfalls, many times even regression, and that not every teacher will make it all the way to the expert stage. As an example, we can mention qualified foreign language teachers, where not every linguist is a good teacher - a didactic and a methodologist. According to Besedová, an important feature of a foreign language teacher is to facilitate the natural acquisition of a foreign language in authentic situations (Besedová, 2017). Yet in many countries these models have led to the creation of standards with regard to teachers’ professional development and the assessment of the quality of teachers’ work (Tomková, 2012).

However, Píšová (2011) mentions that the transition from stage-by-stage models to a more flexible view of teachers’ professional development is typical for today. Processes within the framework of which development takes place are perceived as gradual and evolutionary, not exactly defined as in the case of stage-by-stage models. As an example, we can use the Shulman & Shulman model, which shows us that pedagogues do not develop equally in all model components. This means that there can be a certain inequality in achieving expertness. “It represents an attempt to deal with teachers’ individual differences, based on which one can identify the main areas that characterise an accomplished teacher, i.e. an expert teacher, on an individual analytical level, on a community analytical level, and on an educational policy level” (Píšová, 2011, p. 88). Thomas R. Guskey has created and published his Model of Teacher Change in which he very much emphasises the role of the teacher’s classroom practice, the learning outcomes of students during the teacher’s professional development, and also changes related to the teacher’s professional beliefs and attitudes. His model connects questions such as “How do pedagogues learn to teach?” with “How do teachers become teachers and how do they progress towards expertness?” (Píšová, 2011, p. 89).

A teacher’s professional preparation comprises two components: theoretical and practical. The educational systems in various countries and institutions differ from each other both in the ratio of these two components as well as in their duration. Currently, the trend is to use the so-called reflected model of preparation which contains a significant share of practical skills that are then reflected upon and analysed with mentors and colleagues. This reflection and sharing should lead to new perception and understanding and to changes within the framework of one’s own practice (Korthagen, 2011). A classic example of this model is the Dutch dual pregraduate programme for pedagogues, which includes all of the aforementioned elements. In parallel, future teachers are taught theoretical subjects and undergo a longer-term practicum. During this time, they have access to mentoring and other methods of support while they learn by practice.

Contemporary research has shown that making the transition into a teacher is a gradual process which is accompanied not only by external actions, but also by the teacher’s set of beliefs and attitudes, which significantly affect his/her behaviour. And these characteristics are the source of behavioural differences in future teachers in learning situations. Qualitative differences in how student teachers learn to teach are often related to what extent they deal with this combination of theory and practice (Hagger et al., 2008; Buitink 2009, as cited in Endedijk, Donche, & Oosterheert, 2014). Oosterheert, Vermunt, and Denessen (2002) investigated the learning methods used by future teachers during their professional preparation and found several qualitatively different patterns. An inactive/survival oriented pattern characterises teachers who maintain their own area of experience and are hardly able to report on their own self-regulation. In a reproduction oriented pattern, one prefers familiar methods of problem-solving. Then there are two meaning-oriented patterns. In a dependent meaning oriented pattern, one strives to perfect one’s own performance, for which one needs external feedback; in an independent meaning oriented pattern, one self-regulates one’s learning more and strives mainly for active construction of knowledge (see Table 01 ).

With the awareness of the existence of differences in the learning methods used by future teachers during their practical experience, it is also appropriate to consider different methods of support and pedagogical intervention. Individuality in learning from practical experience is also related to the reflected and personalised model of practical experience, whose main proponent is Korthagen. In the majority of pedagogical institutions in the Czech Republic, students have the theoretical and practical components of their pregraduate preparation in parallel, but the interconnection of both components is only now being developed. We can also encounter a group of future teachers who are being educated in a different way, namely pedagogues at secondary vocational schools who first gain professional tertiary education and only then attend individual pedagogical/psychological subjects and practical experience. The majority of future teachers in this group already teach, but without systematic support and reflection on their practical experience. The aforementioned groups of future pedagogues are in a learning environment in which systematic support in the form of reflection has not yet been fully developed, which can result in restricted use of sources from both components of professional preparation and in more significant occurrence of uncertainties and doubts about the qualities of these future teachers (Juklová, 2016).

Research cohort

The survey was conducted at the University of Hradec Králové’s Faculty of Education. A specific sample of students was selected for the survey; they had already completed their bachelor’s studies and generally had an idea about their future profession and had undergone or were undergoing continuous practical experience. The target group therefore consisted of students in the Faculty’s master’s programme. The questionnaire was given to students in daily and combined study forms. In the daily study form, the students come to school every day for seminars, practicums and lectures, which usually are not mandatory, and they choose their timetable according to their own discretion. On the other hand, the combined study form takes place usually once or twice every two weeks, on Friday or Saturday. This form is a combination of distance learning and daily study, where the timetable is firmly set and divided into block units. During this form of study, many students are already teaching under the supervision of more experienced teachers.

For quicker dissemination of the questionnaire among the respondents, there were two versions: a printed one and an online one. At first, only the online version was used, but the return rate of the questionnaires was poor, and therefore we decided to contact the respondents in person. One possible explanation for why the return rate was so low is that the questionnaire was longer, and therefore some students stopped before reaching the end or did not start it at all. Overall, 68 students (out of more than 100 contacted) in the daily study form and 133 students in the combined study form participated in the survey. We gradually sent out the questionnaires by e-mail and handed them out from December 2015 to March 2016.

In total, 201 respondents participated in the survey, 66% of whom were daily students and 34% of whom were combined students (see Table 02 ).

Method

Two dimensions from the Inventory Learning to Teach Process (ILTP) were used to compare the learning patterns of two groups of future teachers in different study forms (Oosterheert et al., 2002). The whole questionnaire consists of three dimensions: 1) the concept of learning, 2) the activities of learning and regulation, and 3) the regulation of emotions. In 2015 ILTP was validated on five sets of data using confirmatory factor analysis. Based on the results of these analyzes, a revised version of ILTP, the so-called ILTP-R, was developed and used for the purposes of our research. This version of the questionnaire has only two dimensions: learning and regulatory activities and emotional regulation. For the purposes of this study, the learning-activities dimension was covered by five scales describing the different learning strategies used by future teachers: (A) Proactive, broad use of the mentor; (B) Independent search for conceptual information; (C) Actively relating theory and practice; (D) Developing views/ideas through discussion; and (E) Pupil oriented evaluation criteria. The second questionnaire dimension we used, emotion regulation, consists of two scales. The Avoidance scale expresses the extent to which future teachers actively face inconsistencies occurring during their acquisition of professional experience, while the Preoccupation scale measures the extent to which students admit uncertainty and setbacks in their initial professional experience. The reliability of these scales was different in various studies, but was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha above .60).

Combining the various values on these sub-scales, Oosterheert described four qualitatively different methods based on which future teachers learn from practice, which she later called learning patterns. The individual patterns are described above (see Table 01 ). They differ from each other mainly in their focus on understanding and knowledge reproduction and in the extent of self-regulation and independence during learning (Oosterheert et al., 2002). During her investigation, Oosterheert found that individual types of learning patterns differ from one another within the framework of including partial learning and regulation activities and in how one regulates one’s emotions during the learning process. Independent meaning oriented learning is considered an ideal learning type, which manifests itself mainly through an active effort to develop one’s own approach to teaching and through high self-regulation. Compared to other learning patterns, the degree of preoccupation with negative experience is relatively lower (Oosterheert et al., 2002). The learning patterns were created by combining various dimensions, and their essence is captured in Table 03 below.

With regard to the connection between the aforementioned behaviour patterns in future teachers and the ILTP questionnaire, the inactive/survival oriented learning pattern shows a high avoidance score (F), while other scales have a low score. The reproduction oriented learning pattern has a high score in pro-active, broad use of the mentor (A), developing views/ideas through discussion (D), and preoccupation (G). The dependent meaning oriented learning pattern shows higher results in pro-active, broad use of the mentor (A), independent search for conceptual information (B), developing views/ideas through discussion (D), and preoccupation (G). The independent meaning oriented learning pattern scores high for pro-active, broad use of the mentor (A), independent search for conceptual information (B), actively relating theory and practice (C), developing views/ideas through discussion (D), and pupil oriented evaluation criteria (E).

The questionnaire was used on a Czech cohort by Juklová (2016) who tested its psychometric properties. To characterise future teachers in terms of individual cognitive and emotional strategies, an arithmetic mean and standard deviation were calculated for each scale. To compare these values in terms of study form, a paired two-sample t-test was used.

Learning activities and regulation activities

To what extent do students in daily and combined study forms search for conceptual information? This investigated area had an average score on the five-point scale in both monitored groups, and the difference between both values was negligible. However, students in the combined study form search more independently for theoretical information to improve their knowledge. They also more often try to find answers to their questions regarding instruction by consulting the expert literature. This can be interpreted by the fact that the instruction of students in the combined study form is divided into individual blocks; each block lasts one instruction day and usually contains just one subject. It is unrealistic for the student to acquire all of the subject matter and for the instructor to explain everything in one block. Therefore, compared to students in the daily study form, they must acquire the majority of the theoretical information through self-learning and reading expert literature in their spare time.

How do students in both study forms construct a relationship between acquired theoretical knowledge and practical experience? In terms of relating theory and practice, significantly higher values were found in students in the daily study form. Theory discussed during practical-experience analysis helps daily-form students interpret their instructional experience better. Furthermore, the way they want to teach in the future is mainly a result of the ongoing connection of theoretical knowledge and instructional practice to a higher extent than in combined-form students. The evaluated results can be interpreted in this way: students who already teach do not have time to study, because they are mainly working people who also have to focus on their occupation or family. One can also assume that combined-form students are already victims of “entrenchment”, and everything is related to and drawn from their practical experience.

To what extent do future teachers in various study forms develop their opinions in a discussion? Similarly to the area of searching for conceptual information, the respondents from both groups scored similarly, namely an average value on the Likert-type scale. During their instructional practice, daily and combined students both ask other teachers at their school about how they resolve specific issues in their lessons. They also contact instructors at their school and ask their opinion on new educational features. Last but not least, all respondents develop their own ideas about education in a discussion. The resulting values can be explained in this way: everyone is individually interested in how to solve the various problems encountered during one’s practical experience and in the opinions of one’s more experienced colleagues. In addition, both in the daily and the combined study form, many instructors in faculties of education allow and organise discussions on individual topics so that the students can think better and more deeply about a specific issue and look at the various points of view of their peers.

To what extent do pedagogical students use their pupils’ results or well-being as a criterion for their performance? Of all the evaluated areas, pupil orientation scored the highest. The results of both groups were above a value of 4. Students in the daily study form scored slightly higher. Both groups of respondents said that the satisfaction they got from lesson mainly depended on how good the working atmosphere was in class. Students in both study forms also have a very good feeling from lessons in which pupil participation confirms that the subject matter was correctly transmitted and processed and that the method used by pupils to solve problems shows that the material is being understood. The high values in all respondents can be interpreted this way: each future teacher who learns to teach wants children to be motivated by his/her way of explaining things, to be encouraged to be active, to make an effort, and to desire to somehow participate in the instruction. Each pedagogue is happy when his/her pupils understand the subject matter, are interested in it, and are not bored by the instructional unit.

Emotion regulation

To what extent do student teachers avoid or cope with unpleasant experiences and unsuccessfully taught lessons? The lowest values of all analysed areas were measured in this sphere. The score was around a value of 2 on the Likert-type scale, with the scores of future teachers in the daily study form being a bit lower. The results in this sphere are worrying, because the questionnaire respondents said that they thought little about how they contributed to a lesson’s failure and that they tried to find solutions for the next lesson only minimally. To a large extent, they do not try to determine the cause of the unsuccessful lesson or prepare the next with a particular intensity.

To what extent do future teachers in daily and combined study forms experience longer periods of worry and related negative pedagogical experience? In the emotion regulation section, the values with the greatest difference were in the sphere of preoccupation. However, the scores in both measured groups are around an average scale value. Daily students are a little bit more preoccupied in this regard. It takes them a bit longer to process an unpleasant instructional experience and they tend to be more disconcerted when they lose control over the class during a lesson. Some combined students have been teaching for several years, which can mean that they have already passed the period of “fighting for survival”. On the other hand, daily-form students only rarely have practical experience, which can increase their preoccupation. In addition, they do not have as much experience as their combined-study peers during their practical experience.