- Email: [email protected]
Priorities and program effectiveness in teacher education: A study of the perceptions of teachers in training and their tutors
Teachrng & Teacher Educarion, Printed in Great Britain
Vol. 3. No. 3, pp. 19S204,
0742~51W87 Pergamon
1987
PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS IN TEACHER EDUCATION: A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND THEIR TUTORS
E. H. NEWTON University
$3.00+0.00 Journals Ltd
IN
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
of The West Indies,
St. Michael,
Barbados
Abstract-The study solicited opinions of teachers and faculty on University of the West Indies teacher education courses about importance of teaching skills and program effectiveness. Interpersonal, curriculum and evaluative skills were found to be the most important. The high importance of interpersonal skills applied only to interactions with students. Interactions with other teachers and parents was consistently lowest in importance. Other low priorities were managerial and methodological skills. Few significant teacher faculty differences were found. In general program effectiveness showed strong positive correlation with order of importance of skills, contrasting with the tendency to negative correlations in the literature reviewed. High involvement of faculty in classroom activity is considered a possible factor influencing these results.
The effectiveness of university-based teacher education programs has been a major concern of much of the literature on teacher education. Gargiulo and Pigge (1982), commenting on 10 years of research across various programs, note that the literature is “replete with criticisms of the apparent lack of effectiveness of teacher education institutions.” Their own study found university training to be more effective in less needed areas than in high needed areas. This is a more optimistic finding than the reported general pattern, but still suggests some differences between the emphases of university courses and classroom needs as perceived by teachers. At least two possible reasons can be advanced for such dissonance. The above study did note a definite tendency for high need competencies to be perceived as being developed more through work experience than through university training. It may well be that some skills are better developed through such experience, and that the element of work experience in university training is too limited and artificial. It is also possible that university faculty could have a different set of priorities from those of the teachers. Difference in priorities might be related to differences in familiarity with classroom realities, or simply 193
to the different roles performed by faculty and teachers. The present study investigated priorities and effectiveness in teacher education programs at the University of the West Indies. The major issues researched were: 1. What teaching skills are selected as the most important by teachers and faculty? 2. Are there any significant differences in the skill priorities of (a) teachers and faculty and (b) various teacher subgroups? 3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the programs in developing their teaching ability? 4. How do perceptions of effectiveness compare with perceptions ofimportance? The programs under study differ in some respects from traditional preservice programs. They are one-year, postgraduate programs, providing initial formal training for teachers who are already employed in secondary schools. The teachers maintain full responsibility for an only slightly reduced number of classes and attend university during vacations as well as one day per week, while schools are in session. The programs are therefore inservice, rather than preservice, in their mode of opera-
E. H. NEWTON
194
and W. E. BRATHWATTE
tion. It may be noted (Table 1) that many of the teachers already had considerable teaching experience.
Table 2 Faculty
Teaching
Expericvzcc
(N = 20)
No. of years
Type of experience Table
I
Teachers
Demographic
Data (N = 82)_
sex
Teaching
experience
(years)
Male Female No response Total
26 5s
WI 5-Y l&l4
31 20
Over 13 No response Age runge taught
School
type
Experience Experience
as school teachers in Faculty of Education
(L-4
5-9
lo+
1 7
8 5
10 8
I 82
14 7
Total
1 82
Under 11 II-13 13-16 Over I6 No response Total
5 26 40 10 1 82
l-10 1 l-20 21-30 3140 Over 40 No response Total
2 7 30 36 6 1 82
Grammar-traditional Junior secondary Senior secondary Others No response Total
37 7 18 13 7 82
There is also considerable experience of classroom teaching and teacher education in the faculty, as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, faculty continue to have much direct contact with the realities of the classroom as they are fully responsible both for the teaching of universitybased courses, and for the supervision of teachers on teaching practice. They are also heavily involved in the development of curricula for the schools, in research, and in the development of syllabuses for the regional public examinations. The question of priorities has been considered an important one for teacher education programs (Thomas & Kay, 1974) since a large number of objectives can be identified and it is
unlikely that any program can deal adequately with all of them. The question is doubly important for the inservice programs under study, given the constraints on the time available for study, and the possibility that some skills and abilities may already have been developed through work experience. A study of these programs by Drayton, Gift, and Sahoy (1980) had in fact recommended continuing diagnosis of the needs of trainees to inform the program content and emphases. A thorough investigation of priorities would need to consider a whole spectrum of possible factors from which these priorities might be selected, and a range of persons whose views might be solicited. Thomas and Kay (1974) see the need to draw upon the accumulated wisdom of the teaching profession as a whole, relevant research and theory from the social sciences, and a knowledge of the demands of particular curricula. The faculty and teachers involved in this study clearly do not exhaust the range of persons who might be consulted. However, they do seem to be in a position to satisfy the Thomas and Kay criteria, given their background and experience adverted to earlier. An analysis of teaching by Borich and Fenton (1977) provides a useful conceptual base for thinking about factors involved in teacher effectiveness. They note that teaching involves certain teacher behaviours, a range of competenties, and a variety of variables affecting the teaching-learning process. Skills and knowledge consititute only the competencies. All postulated factors are considered to be essentially hypothetical, and would need to be shown by actual research to correlate with pupil performance. Research has in fact found low but significant correlations between a large number of teacher behaviours and pupil performance (Soar, 1977; Byrne, 1983). These
Program
Effectiveness
findings, however, need to be treated with caution, given some limitations in the validity of tests and research procedures, and the known and potential influence of a number of variables (Berliner, 1977; Coker, 1985). Haigh and Katterns (1984) assess three decades of research linking teacher behaviour and pupil achievement as inconclusive, but note that it has identified “significant conditions that increase the probability of learning.” They conclude that the effective teacher is able to draw on a repertoire of teaching competencies, but that effectiveness is also a matter of sensitivity to cues in the teaching-learning situation and flexibility in the use of strategies. Some degree of competency development would seem to be a desirable precondition for sensitivity and flexibility in the use of strategies. It would therefore be an important task of teacher education to seek to develop those competencies which are most needed. The present study focuses on competencies, chosen to reflect the goals of the programs under study as well as knowledge and skills of generally agreed potential value. The skills do in fact involve some of the judgement, sensitivity, and flexibility considered important by previous researchers. The literature on teaching competencies reveals a diversity of classifications, but also many common elements. The diversity is perhaps inevitable, given that most competency statements represent overlapping rather than discrete entities. In the interests of comparability, this study has, as far as possible, adopted competency statements used in previous studies. It draws most heavily on the stated objectives of the West Indian programs, the instruments and findings of a previous study of these programs (Drayton et al., 1980), and a study by Ratsoy, McEwen, and Caldwell (1979). The last study involved considerable theoretical and empirical research. In arriving at a manageable list of competenties, some compromise between comprehensiveness and specificity was necessary, but the emphasis was on comprehensiveness. The resulting items are probably applicable to a variety of teacher education programs. They do not reflect differences in the way the behaviours involved would be implemented by different teachers in different schools.
in Teacher
195
Education
Method Data were collected by self-report questionnaire sent to all the relevant teachers (165) and faculty (33) on three campuses of the University of West Indies in June 1985, towards the end of the academic year. There were 102 usable returns from 82 teachers (50%) and 20 faculty (61%). The major consideration influencing timing was that the experiences of the training year would be as complete and as recent as possible. A disadvantage inherent in this timing is that information about expectations before the start of the program would have had to be recalled after a long period of time, and could have been affected by experiences on the program. Information on priorities and effectiveness was sought through open-ended as well as fixedresponse items. Open-ended items solicited: teacher expectations of the programs prior to entry the extent to which expectations were realized important teaching skills other than those in the fixed response items major negative impressions of the programs suggestions for improvement. The fixed-response items presented the respondents with lists of knowledge areas and skills, and solicited their views on the effectiveness of university preparation in improving their understanding and skill. For effectiveness, Likert-type rating scales were used. Information on priorities was solicited by requesting respondents to select five skills which they would consider most important to their teaching, and five which were least important. This information was used for comparisons of effectiveness with importance. The competencies used involve four knowledge and 24 skill statements. The skill areas were: Curriculum
-
Evaluative
-
Interpersonal
-
planning and organizing subject-matter and learning experiences diagnosing student needs, assessing teaching and learning interacting and relating with students and nonstudents
E. H. NEWTON
196
Managerial
-
Methodological
-
The knowledge
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
organizing and controlling students and the physical learning environment instructing, questioning. using resources.
areas involved
understanding
of: the nature and purpose of education pupil characteristics and socioeconomic factors which influence learning curriculum planning. For assessing skill it was possible to use a rating scale of importance or require the respondents to select some skills as more important than others. The rating scale approach would seem on logical grounds to be less satisfactory since it does not actually require the respondents to discriminate between skills, and the usual rating scale of five points would permit little discrimination across 24 skills. On the other hand, forced selection could induce some respondents to make discriminations when in fact they saw none. However, the route of forced selection still seemed preferable, since a respondent who saw no difference in importance could refuse to respond. The problem was studied empirically by Thomas and Kay (1974). They compared two data-collecting instruments and found that a rating scale produced a bunching of skills in the high importance part of the scale. While this established that most skills were considered important, it did not sufficiently highlight differences in importance. A paired comparison instrument was found more useful in this respect. However, it also illustrated that while both instruments produced the same results for most important and least important, they varied in the competencies of intermediate importance. These results suggest that only large differences in importance may be valid, and underscore the need for some statistical test of significance: There is little point in emphasizing differences, if there is a high probability that these differences could have arisen by chance. The present study adopted the approach of Ratsoy et al. (1979), which requires selection but minimizes the number of discriminations required. Respondents were required to select five skills which they would consider most im-
portant to their teaching, and the five least important. The analysis of results suggested that there would have been little point in forcing further discrimination since a few respondents declined making choices or selected fewer than five skills, citing as reasons overlap between skills or their judgement that all were important. Analysis was based on frequency of selection of each skill as one of the five most important, for faculty, teachers overall, and teacher subgroups. Rank order of frequency was taken as the order of importance. and the five most important skills were regarded as the high priority skills for each group. Where differences occurred between groups, priorities were combined to produce a list of skills encompassing all groups. The five least important skills overall were determined not from the lowest fequencies for most important but rather from the highest frequencies for least important. It was anticipated that the lowest frequencies would be small and unreliable, especially for faculty, where the number of respondents (20) was smaller than the number of skills (24). For open-ended items, the responses were categorized and the frequencies of these categories tabulated. Responses with frequencies of less than five have been omitted from the tables, but not necessarily from the discussion. We have exercised our own judgement about the probable significance of some infrequent responses. For items with rating scales, the frequencies of the various scale points were computed, and means and standard deviations quoted as summaries of these data. Comparisons with other studies were based on rank order, since actual frequencies were seldom given in these. Within this study, however, inter-group comparisons are described in terms of percentage frequencies - actual frequency as a percentage of the number of respondents in the group. The chi square test was used to determine the significance of inter-group differences. In all cases 2 x 2 contingency tables of actual frequencies were used, rating scales and teacher subgroups being condensed to two categories where necessary. For skill selection items, frequencies of selection and non-selection were used. Chi square values were computed using the Yates correction for 1 degree of freedom
Program
Effectiveness
and the test was considered unsuitable where expected values of less than 5 were encountered.
Analysis Priorities Information about priorities was solicited via open-ended as well as fixed-response items. Respondents were requested to state the expectations they held before entering the programs, and the extent to which these were realized. Responses ranged from the vague notion that “it was good for you” to the anticipation of training in the teaching of specific topics, such as poetry. However, the general trend in responses was to give broad expectations rather than specific competencies. Some improvement in teaching ability was generally anticipated (Table 3)) but only rarely was any specific direction of improvement indicated. Understanding education theory in general, and, more specifically, students and their problems were the major remaining concerns. Most respondents indicated that their expectations were at least satisfactorily realized. Table 3 Teacher Expectations Expectation Improvement in teaching ability Exposure to new and varied teaching strategies Understanding education theory Understanding students and their problems
Number expecting
Number satisfied
34
29
16 14
13 12
9
7
Other infrequent responses were concerned with understanding the local educational system, becoming “more qualified,” and improving self-confidence. The last expectation was most conspicuous in the expressed desire to “become the kind of teacher who could walk into a classroom anywhere and succeed.” The view that teaching ability could be developed by following a set of clear guidelines seemed implicit in many of the responses, notably the expectation that the programs would “de-
in Teacher
Education
197
monstrate that teaching was an exact science.” The low incidence of reference to specific skills is of some significance in considering the validity of these responses. The teachers were unlikely to have forgotten what their major expectations were but responses could have been influenced by experiences during the program, or by the skills specified later in the questionnaire. Both influences might have led to more specific identification of skills than was actually found, and can therefore be regarded as negligible. When all open-ended responses are considered, it would not appear that any skills of major importance to a large proportion of respondents were omitted from the questionnaire. However, there was some support for two further areas of concern - “interaction with administrators” (six responses) and “promotion of student inquiry and creativity” (five responses). No definite conclusions can be drawn as to the level of importance of these concerns. However, the references to inquiry and creativity indicate a recognition by at least some respondents that focusing on the development of general competencies does not adequately cover the demands of all learning objectives. For the skills listed in the questionnaire, Table 4 shows the frequency with which each was selected as most important, and rank order of frequencies. Every skill was selected by at least one respondent, and the majority of skills by five or more respondents. There is therefore considerable variation in the skills regarded as most important. The few skills selected by 50% or more of a group were “motivate students,” by teachers, and “diagnose learner needs,” “plan instruction,“, and “evaluate self,” by faculty. The remaining skills occurring in the five most important for teachers overall and faculty overall are “specify objectives,” “establish rapparticipation,” and “quesport, ” “encourage tion.” These eight high priority skills are curriculum, evaluative, and interpersonal, with only one methodological skill - “question” included. Rank order comparisons show some differences between individual skills, but quite high correlations across all 24 skills. For teacher/faculty comparisons, as well as across the various teacher subgroups listed in Table 1, Spearman’s rho values in the range 0.79-0.92 were ob-
198
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
Table 4 Frequencies and Ranks
of Most Important Skills
Skill
Teachers Freq.
(N = X21 “A> Rank
Freq.
Fact&v (N = 20) ‘% Rank
Curriculum 1. Specify objectives 2. Select content 3. Organize material 4. Plan instruction
30 9 24 30
37 11 29 37
4.5 14 6 4.5
4 I 2 13
20 5 IO 65
IO.5 17.5 I-l.5 2
Evaluative 5. Diagnose learner needs 6. Monitor progress 7. Assess achievement 8. Evaluate resources 9. Evaluate self
32 6 I3 I 22
39 7 16
3 17.5 12.5 23 7.5
IS 3 4 0 IO
7s IS 2t1 0 SO
I 12.5 IO.5 22 3
Interpersonal 10. Establish rapport II. Motivate students 12. Accommodate individual differences 13. Encourage participation 14. Work with others on staff IS. Interact with parents
22 41 16 35 I 3
27 so 20 43
7.5 I IO 2 23 20
7 6 6 6 0 0
35 30 30 30 0 0
5 7 7 7 22 22
Managerial 16. Handle routines 17. Control students 18. Group students 19. Arrange physical
4 20 8 6
24 IO 7
19 9 IS.5 17.5
I 5 I I
S 2s 5 5
17.5 9 17.5 17.5
I4 8 I3 I 2
17 10 16 I 2
II IS.5 12.5 23 21
2 3 8 0 0
IO IS 40 0 0
I4.S 13.5 1 22 32
environment
Methodological 20. Present information 21. Explain 22. Question 23. Summarize 24. Utilize media
tamed. For these comparisons, the teacher subgroups of Table 1 were condensed as follows: Experience Age range taught Class size School type
-under five years/ five years and over -under 14 years/ 14 years and over -up to 30/aver 30 -Grammartraditional/others.
Assessment of differences between teachers and faculty was based not on rank order, but on actual frequencies. Ten of the 24 skills showed frequencies large enough for chi square testing. Significant differences were found in two cases - “plan instruction” (chi square = 4.22, 1 df, p < 0.05) and “diagnose learner needs” (chi square = 6.99, 1 df, p < 0.01). Both were relatively more important for faculty than for teachers.
I 27
1 4 5
Chi square analyses were also attempted for the teacher subgroups. Only three significant differences were found (Table 5). For inexperienced teachers “control students” and “plan instruction” were more important than for their experienced colleagues, who may well, therefore, have already developed some effective strategies in these areas. The greater concern with self-evaluation on the part of grammartraditional schools is more difficult to explain but could be related to greater expectations by society in general of high levels of attainment in these schools. On the whole, it is only for a minority of skills that there is evidence of significant divergence of views about priorities, between teachers and faculty or across teacher subgroups. Most differences in rank order are not, in fact, accompanied by significant differences in frequencies of selection. A review of several North American studies
Program
Effectiveness
in Teacher
199
Education
Table 5 Most Important Skills Showing Significant Differences in Frequencies of Selection by Teacher Subgroups Teacher
Skill Control
students
Plan instruction Self-evaluation
Frequency
subgroup
Inexperienced Experienced Inexperienced Experienced Grammar schools Others
(N=31) [;I:$ (N= 50)
11 6 15 12 14 5
% 35 12 48 24 38 13
Chi square value 5.03* 4.08* 4.80*
* p < 0.05, 1 df. one U.K. study has shown variation in classification of skills and research methodology, but crude rank order comparisons are nevertheless possible. The North American studies (Thomas & Kay, 1974; Ratsoy et al., 1979; Adams, 1982; Gargiulo & Pigge, 1982) tend to show that both teachers and faculty were most strongly concerned with management (controlling students) and interpersonal skills (motivating students). The U.K. study (Fontana, 1972) reported a different result for school-based supervisors -sensitivity to student needs being judged the most important skill area by them. The faculty in the present study agreed with the supervisors in the Fontana study in according highest rank to sensitivity to student needs, while the teachers attached highest importance to motivation, reflecting the general tendency in the North American studies. Across most studies, methodological skills are of moderate to low priority for both teachers and faculty-a finding which seems somewhat at variance with the common practice of designating the more classroom-oriented teacher education courses as “methods” courses. The main difference between this study and the others reviewed lies in the response to “control students.” This is appreciably less important in the present study. However, such a result is consistent with the fact that a large proportion of the West Indian teachers was experienced. For these, controlling students has been found to be significantly less important than for their inexperienced colleagues. The least important skills overall in the present study were derived from the frequencies with which skills were selected as least important. Table 6 shows frequencies and ranks. When both teachers and faculty were considered, the least important of the skills included and
“handle routines, ” “control students,” “group “arrange physical environment,” students,” “utilize media, ” “work with others on staff,” and “interact with parents.” Again, the differences between teachers and faculty were not statistically significant @ < 0.05). The skills were mostly interpersonal (non-student) and managerial, but one methodological skill (“utilize media”) occurred. Ideally the rank order for least important would be the inverse of that for most important, and would yield a Pearson’s rho value of -1. Actual values were -0.78 (teachers) and -0.66 (faculty). While these were significant inverse correlations (p < 0.01, N = 24), their deviations from the ideal were no doubt partly due to the limited reliability of the lower frequencies, especially for teachers. Program Effectiveness Teachers were asked to indicate how well the University had prepared them in each skill area. Responses were coded 1 (very well), 2 (well), 3 (adequately), 4 (poorly), 5 (very poorly). The results in Table 7, ranked in order of mean ratings, indicated at least adequate preparation in most skills. The only skills in which preparation was judged inadequate by a majority of teachers (mean greater than 3), were “interact with parents, ” “work with others on staff,” “handle routines,” and “control students.” These were all among the least important skills. In terms of extremes of perceived effectiveness, this study reflects a pattern similar to that of the study by Drayton et al. (1980). In both the curriculum skills are high in effectiveness, and managerial skills low. However, while Drayton et al. found reason to recommend that the programs place more emphasis on teaching skills
200
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
Table 6 Frequencies and Ranks of Least Important SkilIT Teachers Freq.
%-
tN = 82) ’
Rank
Freq.
2 3 3 1
2 4 4 1
20.5 I7 17 23
0 2 0 0
Evaluative 5. Diagnose learner needs 6. Monitor progress 7. Assess achievement 8. Evaluate resources 9. Evaluate self
I 4 9 13 3
I 1; I6 4
23 13.5 IO.5 9 17
1 0 0 -1
Interpersonal IO. Establish rapport 1 I Motivate students 12. Accommodate individual differences 13. Encourage participation 14. Work with others on staff 1.5. Interact withparents
2 1 7 3 3X 32
2 1 9 3 46 39
20.5 23 12 17 3 4
0 0 0 0
Managerial 16. Handle routines 17. Controlstudents 1X. Group students 19. Arrange physical
55 27 39 25
67 33 4x 30
4 9 3 23 2s
5 11 4 28 30
Skill Curriculum 1. Specify objectives 2. Select content 3. Organize material 4. Plan instruction
Methodological 20. Present information 21. Explain 22. Question 23. Summarize 24. Utilize media
environment
generally, and the use of media in particular, no such conclusions can be drawn here, especially when importance of skills is considered. A comparison of Tables 4 (teachers) and 7 shows that while there were some differences in actual rank order, the general tendency is that the programs were perceived to be most effective for the most important skills and least effective for the least important. The main differences were that the most effective skills were curriculum skills and “question” whereas the most important skills were interpersonal (“motivate students” and “encourage participation”). Comparisons of rank orders of importance and effectiveness for all skills gave a Pearson’s rho value of 0.65. This was a significant positive correlation (p < 0.01, N = 24), and compared favorably with the negative correlations reported in the literature reviewed (e.g., Gargiulo & Pigge, 1982). There was therefore
Facultv (N = 20) Rank
19.5 IO.5 1Y.S 10.5
20 5
13 10.5 19.5 9 I3
I2 16
0 0 0 0 60 80
19.5 lY.5 19.5 19.5 3 I
I 5 2 6.5
I4 6 7 X
70 30 3.5 40
2 7.5 6 S
13.5 10.5 17 8 6.5
2 I 0 6 9
10 5 0 30 4s
10.5 13 19.5 7.S 4
I
0 0
little evidence in this study of the dissonance between university preparation and teacher concerns, which has been cited as a prominent feature of the literature on teacher education. Other items on program effectiveness used a five-point rating scale in which respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with a number of statements (Table 8). The responses were coded 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The programs were perceived to be highly effective in all areas of understanding, and to be generally satisfactory. Problems
In spite of overall satisfaction with the programs, some areas of concern have been noted. The clearest of these was excessive work load. Responses to “the demands of the program were reasonable” gave frequencies of 29
Program
Effectiveness
in Teacher
201
Education
Table 7 Frequencies of Responses to “How Well Did the University Prepare You in Each Skill Area?” Very well 1
Skill Specify objectives Plan instruction Question Encourage participation Evaluate self Organize material Present information Assess achievement Motivate students Select content Summarize Diagnose learner needs Group students Monitor progress Accommodate individual differences Explain Establish rapport Evaluate resources Utilize media Arrange physical learning environment Control students Handle routines Work with others on staff Interact with parents
2
3
4
34 25 24 15 15 18 18 13 14 13 15 14 17 10 10 13 8 11 9
22 24 17 31 26 21 21 26 26 22 14 24 17 20 20 15 19 10 14
7 16 15 15 20 25 22 23 24 19 25 16 19 25 25 23 26 25 22
0
3 5 1 1 0
21 11 11 8 4
26 33 26 22 17
(agree), 7 (not sure), and 45 (disagree), indicating a majority disagreeing. This pattern was echoed in the free response items, where there were a number of references to excessive workload. The problem was best articulated by a female teacher who complained that “to be at
Very poor 5
N
Mean
SD
1 5 4 1 2 2 2 6 5 4 11 8 7 5 8 11 13 11
2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 2 2 1 0 2
65 68 63 65 63 67 65 64 70 60 59 66 65 62 62 61 6.5 59 58
1.68 1.99 2.11 2.12 2.16 2.21 2.22 2.22 2.31 2.32 2.36 2.41 2.46 2.47 2.50 2.52 2.66 2.68 2.71
0.90 0.97 1.11 0.84 0.87 0.93 0.99 0.81 0.89 0.97 1.00 1.05 1.19 0.90 0.97 1.07 0.96 1.02 1.06
7 14 16 20 25
3 6 10 12 16
60 69 64 63 62
2.77 3.07 3.36 3.54 3.85
0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
one’s peak in practical teaching, while presenting papers of high quality and coping with domestic life was too demanding.” Suggestions for reducing the problem included making the programs full-time, and lengthening them to two years.
Table 8 Frequencies of Agreement with Statements About Effects of Program SA 1
A 2
NS 3
DA 4
SDA 5
N
Mean
SD
28
49
4
1
0
82
1.73
0.61
Improved my understanding of the nature and purpose of education
26
52
3
1
0
82
I.74
0.58
Improved my understanding of the socioeconomic factors which influence learning
21
52
3
5
0
81
1.90
0.73
Improved my understanding curriculum planning
of
22
45
9
4
0
80
1.94
0.77
teaching
11
45
11
10
1
78
2.29
2.42
9
42
19
9
2
81
2.42
0.92
Statement Improved my understanding pupil characteristics which influence learning
Motivated
me to continue
of
In general I am satisfied with tne program
202
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
It was considered that, especially in West Indian societies, the demands of domestic life would be greater on females than on males and that the effect of work load on the female teachers might therefore be greater. A breakdown of the responses showed 15 males (58%) agreeing that the demands of the program were reasonable and 11 (42%) disagreeing or not sure. For females the corresponding frequencies were 14 (26%) and 40 (74%). Chi square analysis produced a value of 6.35, which was significant @ < 0.05, df= 1). Work load was therefore significantly less of a problem for male teachers. The only other significant male/female difference in any of the responses to the whole questionnaire was for effectiveness of the program’s developing skill in “handling routines.” Here the females were the more dissatisfied with the programs (chi square = 4.39,~ < 0.05, df= 1). From the remaining infrequently expressed and varying concerns, it was possible to extract a number of common elements. There was some desire for less emphasis on theory and more on practical demonstration and analysis of actual teaching. Lessons for these purposes might be taught by faculty or by the teachers themselves. The implication here is that even the large element of practice in these programs did not in itself maximize the development of teacher ability. It is, in any case, unlikely that more than 10% of this practice would be directly supervised by faculty - a fact which may have prompted one faculty member to recommend intensive performance-based skills training as a means of improving skill development. The use of school-based supervisors would also be of some value here, and is in fact already being explored. However, opportunity to observe and evaluate the performance of others seemed to be as important for some of these teachers as opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their own performance. Some respondents expressed concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the programs. They perceived a hiatus between their expectations of the programs, and the performance of some graduates of previous years. This question was examined by Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981), who reviewed a number of studies and concluded that there was evidence to support more than one explanation. They suggested
that teacher education programs did produce improvements but not as much as was expected and that many apparent gains were illusions. There was also some tendency for teachers to revert to traditional approaches since many improvements encouraged by teacher education demanded effort and therefore had to compete with other demands on the teachers’ time. They also often demanded resources which were not available, or were themselves in conflict with the school norms and bureaucratic pressures. These general conclusions seem applicable to the present study as well. Some of the same views were in fact expressed by respondents. Alverman (1981) assumes with Zeichner and Tabachnick that some gap between theory and practice is inevitable, but contends that this does not negate the value of theory. She cites the opinions of teachers who saw their training as a useful standard against which to judge their subsequent behaviour. Where they departed from training recommendations, they considered whether they were giving in too easily to pressures, and whether the departures were ultimately in the interests of their students.
Summary The study has produced a crude ordering of skill priorities as perceived by teachers in training and their tutors. This did not in itself settle the question of determining priorities since (a) the views of some groups affected (e.g., pupils) were not considered; (b) no direct measuring of strengths and weaknesses of teachers was attempted; (b) there is evidence from previous research that precise rank order details are of limited reliability, and vary with the method of data collection. Nevertheless, the opinions were those of teachers and faculty both with appreciable experience of classroom realities, and therefore in a position to make informed choices. In general, interpersonal (students), curriculum, and evaluative skills were judged the most important, and interpersonal (non-students), managerial, and methodological the least important. Differences in frequencies of
Program
Effectiveness
selection by various subgroups were mostly not significant. For teachers and faculty, the exceptions were that faculty were more concerned with planning instruction and diagnosing students needs than teachers. For teacher subgroups, inexperienced teachers were more concerned with controlling students and planning instruction than their more experienced colleagues, while teachers in grammar-traditional schools were more concerned with self-evaluation than teachers in other schools. The teachers in this study were less concerned with controlling students than those in the North American studies reviewed. These differences may be due to the effect of work experience in promoting ability to cope with some classroom situations, and possibly to greater expectations of high achievement and therefore accountability pressures on the teachers in the traditional schools. Overall the programs were perceived to be at least satisfactory in promoting development of the skills specified, and in meeting the teachers’ pre-program expectations. However, there were some areas of dissatisfaction noted. The main problem was student workload, which was perceived to be excessive by a majority of respondents, especially female teachers. Recommendations involved increasing the time available for study either by lengthening the program or making it full-time. There was no suggestion that the overall amount of work be reduced. Some respondents saw the need for more demonstration lessons by faculty or more opportunity to observe other teachers at work. The indications are that the large amount of practice involved in these inservice programs did not in itself lead to improved performance. It is possible that the involvement of school-based cooperating teachers may be of some assistance in meeting this problem. Teacher perceptions of effectiveness of the programs showed significant positive correlations with their perceptions of skill importance. In broad terms the programs were perceived by a majority of respondents to be unsatisfactory in interpersonal (nonstudents) and managerial skill preparation. They were most highly effective in promoting objective specification, and planning. Questioning, which was not highly ranked in importance by teachers, was high in effectiveness, whereas
in Teacher
203
Education
the most important skill for motivation, teachers, was appreciably lower in rank for effectiveness. Overall the significantly positive correlations of effectiveness with importance contrasts with a tendency towards negative correlations in the literature. Further research would be needed to determine the features of these inservice programs which have contributed to such positive correlations. However, it is likely that the classroom experience of the faculty and their continued contact with schools are important factors. The fact that some significant differences were found suggest that the difference in role between teachers and faculty will lead to some difference in perspective, even in situations where there is heavy involvement of faculty in classroom activity. References Adams, D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and behaviour across time. Journal of Teacher Education, 33,4,4143. Alverman, E. (1981). The possible value of dissonance in student teaching experiences. Journal of Teacher Educalion, 32, 3,24-25. Berliner, C. (1977), Impediments to measuring teacher effectiveness. In G. D. Borich & K. S. Fenton (Eds). The appraisal of teaching: Concepts and process (pp.’ 146 161). New York: Addison-Weslev. Borich, G. D. & Fenton, K. S. (i977). The appraisal of teaching: Concepts and process. New York: AddisonWesley. Byrne, C. J. (1982). The conceptualism of teacher effectiveness and assessment of teachers. Conference of the Committee for Research into Teacher Education, Chichester, U.K., Vol. 7, No. 1. Coker, H. (1985). Consortium for the improvement of teacher evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 2, 12-17. Drayton, K., Gift, E. & Sahoy, P. (1980). Report on Intercampus Moderation of Diploma in Education Programmes, 1978-79, at Cave Hill -.Barbados, Mona Jamaica, and St. Augustine - Trinidad & Tobago. University of the West Indies. Fontana, D. (1972). What do we mean by a good teacher? In G. Chanan (Ed.), Research forum on teacher education, (pp. 72-77). National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, U.K. Gargiulo, R. M. & Pigge, F. L. (1982). Perceived teacher competencies: Need and development. Journal of the Association of Teacher Educators, 4.5-15. Haigh, N. & Katterns, B. (1984). Teacher effectiveness: Problem or goal for teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 35,5, 23-27. Ratsoy, W., McEwen, N. & Caldwell, .I. (1979). Skills of beginning teachers and perceived effectiveness of prepara-
204
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
tion Prograrnmes. Faculty of Education, University of Alberta. Soar, R. S. (1977). An integration of findings from four studies of teacher effectiveness. In G. D. Borich, & K. S. Fenton, (Eds.), The uppraisal of teaching: Concepts andprocess, pp. 146161. New-York: Addison-Wesley. Thomas. A. K.. & Kay, P. M. (1974). Determining
priorities among competencics. In W. R. Houston (Ed.) Exploring competency based evaluation (pi’. 1.55-l 71). University of Houston. Zcichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (lY81). Arc the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 3. 7-11.
Vol. 3. No. 3, pp. 19S204,
0742~51W87 Pergamon
1987
PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS IN TEACHER EDUCATION: A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND THEIR TUTORS
E. H. NEWTON University
$3.00+0.00 Journals Ltd
IN
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
of The West Indies,
St. Michael,
Barbados
Abstract-The study solicited opinions of teachers and faculty on University of the West Indies teacher education courses about importance of teaching skills and program effectiveness. Interpersonal, curriculum and evaluative skills were found to be the most important. The high importance of interpersonal skills applied only to interactions with students. Interactions with other teachers and parents was consistently lowest in importance. Other low priorities were managerial and methodological skills. Few significant teacher faculty differences were found. In general program effectiveness showed strong positive correlation with order of importance of skills, contrasting with the tendency to negative correlations in the literature reviewed. High involvement of faculty in classroom activity is considered a possible factor influencing these results.
The effectiveness of university-based teacher education programs has been a major concern of much of the literature on teacher education. Gargiulo and Pigge (1982), commenting on 10 years of research across various programs, note that the literature is “replete with criticisms of the apparent lack of effectiveness of teacher education institutions.” Their own study found university training to be more effective in less needed areas than in high needed areas. This is a more optimistic finding than the reported general pattern, but still suggests some differences between the emphases of university courses and classroom needs as perceived by teachers. At least two possible reasons can be advanced for such dissonance. The above study did note a definite tendency for high need competencies to be perceived as being developed more through work experience than through university training. It may well be that some skills are better developed through such experience, and that the element of work experience in university training is too limited and artificial. It is also possible that university faculty could have a different set of priorities from those of the teachers. Difference in priorities might be related to differences in familiarity with classroom realities, or simply 193
to the different roles performed by faculty and teachers. The present study investigated priorities and effectiveness in teacher education programs at the University of the West Indies. The major issues researched were: 1. What teaching skills are selected as the most important by teachers and faculty? 2. Are there any significant differences in the skill priorities of (a) teachers and faculty and (b) various teacher subgroups? 3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the programs in developing their teaching ability? 4. How do perceptions of effectiveness compare with perceptions ofimportance? The programs under study differ in some respects from traditional preservice programs. They are one-year, postgraduate programs, providing initial formal training for teachers who are already employed in secondary schools. The teachers maintain full responsibility for an only slightly reduced number of classes and attend university during vacations as well as one day per week, while schools are in session. The programs are therefore inservice, rather than preservice, in their mode of opera-
E. H. NEWTON
194
and W. E. BRATHWATTE
tion. It may be noted (Table 1) that many of the teachers already had considerable teaching experience.
Table 2 Faculty
Teaching
Expericvzcc
(N = 20)
No. of years
Type of experience Table
I
Teachers
Demographic
Data (N = 82)_
sex
Teaching
experience
(years)
Male Female No response Total
26 5s
WI 5-Y l&l4
31 20
Over 13 No response Age runge taught
School
type
Experience Experience
as school teachers in Faculty of Education
(L-4
5-9
lo+
1 7
8 5
10 8
I 82
14 7
Total
1 82
Under 11 II-13 13-16 Over I6 No response Total
5 26 40 10 1 82
l-10 1 l-20 21-30 3140 Over 40 No response Total
2 7 30 36 6 1 82
Grammar-traditional Junior secondary Senior secondary Others No response Total
37 7 18 13 7 82
There is also considerable experience of classroom teaching and teacher education in the faculty, as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, faculty continue to have much direct contact with the realities of the classroom as they are fully responsible both for the teaching of universitybased courses, and for the supervision of teachers on teaching practice. They are also heavily involved in the development of curricula for the schools, in research, and in the development of syllabuses for the regional public examinations. The question of priorities has been considered an important one for teacher education programs (Thomas & Kay, 1974) since a large number of objectives can be identified and it is
unlikely that any program can deal adequately with all of them. The question is doubly important for the inservice programs under study, given the constraints on the time available for study, and the possibility that some skills and abilities may already have been developed through work experience. A study of these programs by Drayton, Gift, and Sahoy (1980) had in fact recommended continuing diagnosis of the needs of trainees to inform the program content and emphases. A thorough investigation of priorities would need to consider a whole spectrum of possible factors from which these priorities might be selected, and a range of persons whose views might be solicited. Thomas and Kay (1974) see the need to draw upon the accumulated wisdom of the teaching profession as a whole, relevant research and theory from the social sciences, and a knowledge of the demands of particular curricula. The faculty and teachers involved in this study clearly do not exhaust the range of persons who might be consulted. However, they do seem to be in a position to satisfy the Thomas and Kay criteria, given their background and experience adverted to earlier. An analysis of teaching by Borich and Fenton (1977) provides a useful conceptual base for thinking about factors involved in teacher effectiveness. They note that teaching involves certain teacher behaviours, a range of competenties, and a variety of variables affecting the teaching-learning process. Skills and knowledge consititute only the competencies. All postulated factors are considered to be essentially hypothetical, and would need to be shown by actual research to correlate with pupil performance. Research has in fact found low but significant correlations between a large number of teacher behaviours and pupil performance (Soar, 1977; Byrne, 1983). These
Program
Effectiveness
findings, however, need to be treated with caution, given some limitations in the validity of tests and research procedures, and the known and potential influence of a number of variables (Berliner, 1977; Coker, 1985). Haigh and Katterns (1984) assess three decades of research linking teacher behaviour and pupil achievement as inconclusive, but note that it has identified “significant conditions that increase the probability of learning.” They conclude that the effective teacher is able to draw on a repertoire of teaching competencies, but that effectiveness is also a matter of sensitivity to cues in the teaching-learning situation and flexibility in the use of strategies. Some degree of competency development would seem to be a desirable precondition for sensitivity and flexibility in the use of strategies. It would therefore be an important task of teacher education to seek to develop those competencies which are most needed. The present study focuses on competencies, chosen to reflect the goals of the programs under study as well as knowledge and skills of generally agreed potential value. The skills do in fact involve some of the judgement, sensitivity, and flexibility considered important by previous researchers. The literature on teaching competencies reveals a diversity of classifications, but also many common elements. The diversity is perhaps inevitable, given that most competency statements represent overlapping rather than discrete entities. In the interests of comparability, this study has, as far as possible, adopted competency statements used in previous studies. It draws most heavily on the stated objectives of the West Indian programs, the instruments and findings of a previous study of these programs (Drayton et al., 1980), and a study by Ratsoy, McEwen, and Caldwell (1979). The last study involved considerable theoretical and empirical research. In arriving at a manageable list of competenties, some compromise between comprehensiveness and specificity was necessary, but the emphasis was on comprehensiveness. The resulting items are probably applicable to a variety of teacher education programs. They do not reflect differences in the way the behaviours involved would be implemented by different teachers in different schools.
in Teacher
195
Education
Method Data were collected by self-report questionnaire sent to all the relevant teachers (165) and faculty (33) on three campuses of the University of West Indies in June 1985, towards the end of the academic year. There were 102 usable returns from 82 teachers (50%) and 20 faculty (61%). The major consideration influencing timing was that the experiences of the training year would be as complete and as recent as possible. A disadvantage inherent in this timing is that information about expectations before the start of the program would have had to be recalled after a long period of time, and could have been affected by experiences on the program. Information on priorities and effectiveness was sought through open-ended as well as fixedresponse items. Open-ended items solicited: teacher expectations of the programs prior to entry the extent to which expectations were realized important teaching skills other than those in the fixed response items major negative impressions of the programs suggestions for improvement. The fixed-response items presented the respondents with lists of knowledge areas and skills, and solicited their views on the effectiveness of university preparation in improving their understanding and skill. For effectiveness, Likert-type rating scales were used. Information on priorities was solicited by requesting respondents to select five skills which they would consider most important to their teaching, and five which were least important. This information was used for comparisons of effectiveness with importance. The competencies used involve four knowledge and 24 skill statements. The skill areas were: Curriculum
-
Evaluative
-
Interpersonal
-
planning and organizing subject-matter and learning experiences diagnosing student needs, assessing teaching and learning interacting and relating with students and nonstudents
E. H. NEWTON
196
Managerial
-
Methodological
-
The knowledge
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
organizing and controlling students and the physical learning environment instructing, questioning. using resources.
areas involved
understanding
of: the nature and purpose of education pupil characteristics and socioeconomic factors which influence learning curriculum planning. For assessing skill it was possible to use a rating scale of importance or require the respondents to select some skills as more important than others. The rating scale approach would seem on logical grounds to be less satisfactory since it does not actually require the respondents to discriminate between skills, and the usual rating scale of five points would permit little discrimination across 24 skills. On the other hand, forced selection could induce some respondents to make discriminations when in fact they saw none. However, the route of forced selection still seemed preferable, since a respondent who saw no difference in importance could refuse to respond. The problem was studied empirically by Thomas and Kay (1974). They compared two data-collecting instruments and found that a rating scale produced a bunching of skills in the high importance part of the scale. While this established that most skills were considered important, it did not sufficiently highlight differences in importance. A paired comparison instrument was found more useful in this respect. However, it also illustrated that while both instruments produced the same results for most important and least important, they varied in the competencies of intermediate importance. These results suggest that only large differences in importance may be valid, and underscore the need for some statistical test of significance: There is little point in emphasizing differences, if there is a high probability that these differences could have arisen by chance. The present study adopted the approach of Ratsoy et al. (1979), which requires selection but minimizes the number of discriminations required. Respondents were required to select five skills which they would consider most im-
portant to their teaching, and the five least important. The analysis of results suggested that there would have been little point in forcing further discrimination since a few respondents declined making choices or selected fewer than five skills, citing as reasons overlap between skills or their judgement that all were important. Analysis was based on frequency of selection of each skill as one of the five most important, for faculty, teachers overall, and teacher subgroups. Rank order of frequency was taken as the order of importance. and the five most important skills were regarded as the high priority skills for each group. Where differences occurred between groups, priorities were combined to produce a list of skills encompassing all groups. The five least important skills overall were determined not from the lowest fequencies for most important but rather from the highest frequencies for least important. It was anticipated that the lowest frequencies would be small and unreliable, especially for faculty, where the number of respondents (20) was smaller than the number of skills (24). For open-ended items, the responses were categorized and the frequencies of these categories tabulated. Responses with frequencies of less than five have been omitted from the tables, but not necessarily from the discussion. We have exercised our own judgement about the probable significance of some infrequent responses. For items with rating scales, the frequencies of the various scale points were computed, and means and standard deviations quoted as summaries of these data. Comparisons with other studies were based on rank order, since actual frequencies were seldom given in these. Within this study, however, inter-group comparisons are described in terms of percentage frequencies - actual frequency as a percentage of the number of respondents in the group. The chi square test was used to determine the significance of inter-group differences. In all cases 2 x 2 contingency tables of actual frequencies were used, rating scales and teacher subgroups being condensed to two categories where necessary. For skill selection items, frequencies of selection and non-selection were used. Chi square values were computed using the Yates correction for 1 degree of freedom
Program
Effectiveness
and the test was considered unsuitable where expected values of less than 5 were encountered.
Analysis Priorities Information about priorities was solicited via open-ended as well as fixed-response items. Respondents were requested to state the expectations they held before entering the programs, and the extent to which these were realized. Responses ranged from the vague notion that “it was good for you” to the anticipation of training in the teaching of specific topics, such as poetry. However, the general trend in responses was to give broad expectations rather than specific competencies. Some improvement in teaching ability was generally anticipated (Table 3)) but only rarely was any specific direction of improvement indicated. Understanding education theory in general, and, more specifically, students and their problems were the major remaining concerns. Most respondents indicated that their expectations were at least satisfactorily realized. Table 3 Teacher Expectations Expectation Improvement in teaching ability Exposure to new and varied teaching strategies Understanding education theory Understanding students and their problems
Number expecting
Number satisfied
34
29
16 14
13 12
9
7
Other infrequent responses were concerned with understanding the local educational system, becoming “more qualified,” and improving self-confidence. The last expectation was most conspicuous in the expressed desire to “become the kind of teacher who could walk into a classroom anywhere and succeed.” The view that teaching ability could be developed by following a set of clear guidelines seemed implicit in many of the responses, notably the expectation that the programs would “de-
in Teacher
Education
197
monstrate that teaching was an exact science.” The low incidence of reference to specific skills is of some significance in considering the validity of these responses. The teachers were unlikely to have forgotten what their major expectations were but responses could have been influenced by experiences during the program, or by the skills specified later in the questionnaire. Both influences might have led to more specific identification of skills than was actually found, and can therefore be regarded as negligible. When all open-ended responses are considered, it would not appear that any skills of major importance to a large proportion of respondents were omitted from the questionnaire. However, there was some support for two further areas of concern - “interaction with administrators” (six responses) and “promotion of student inquiry and creativity” (five responses). No definite conclusions can be drawn as to the level of importance of these concerns. However, the references to inquiry and creativity indicate a recognition by at least some respondents that focusing on the development of general competencies does not adequately cover the demands of all learning objectives. For the skills listed in the questionnaire, Table 4 shows the frequency with which each was selected as most important, and rank order of frequencies. Every skill was selected by at least one respondent, and the majority of skills by five or more respondents. There is therefore considerable variation in the skills regarded as most important. The few skills selected by 50% or more of a group were “motivate students,” by teachers, and “diagnose learner needs,” “plan instruction,“, and “evaluate self,” by faculty. The remaining skills occurring in the five most important for teachers overall and faculty overall are “specify objectives,” “establish rapparticipation,” and “quesport, ” “encourage tion.” These eight high priority skills are curriculum, evaluative, and interpersonal, with only one methodological skill - “question” included. Rank order comparisons show some differences between individual skills, but quite high correlations across all 24 skills. For teacher/faculty comparisons, as well as across the various teacher subgroups listed in Table 1, Spearman’s rho values in the range 0.79-0.92 were ob-
198
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
Table 4 Frequencies and Ranks
of Most Important Skills
Skill
Teachers Freq.
(N = X21 “A> Rank
Freq.
Fact&v (N = 20) ‘% Rank
Curriculum 1. Specify objectives 2. Select content 3. Organize material 4. Plan instruction
30 9 24 30
37 11 29 37
4.5 14 6 4.5
4 I 2 13
20 5 IO 65
IO.5 17.5 I-l.5 2
Evaluative 5. Diagnose learner needs 6. Monitor progress 7. Assess achievement 8. Evaluate resources 9. Evaluate self
32 6 I3 I 22
39 7 16
3 17.5 12.5 23 7.5
IS 3 4 0 IO
7s IS 2t1 0 SO
I 12.5 IO.5 22 3
Interpersonal 10. Establish rapport II. Motivate students 12. Accommodate individual differences 13. Encourage participation 14. Work with others on staff IS. Interact with parents
22 41 16 35 I 3
27 so 20 43
7.5 I IO 2 23 20
7 6 6 6 0 0
35 30 30 30 0 0
5 7 7 7 22 22
Managerial 16. Handle routines 17. Control students 18. Group students 19. Arrange physical
4 20 8 6
24 IO 7
19 9 IS.5 17.5
I 5 I I
S 2s 5 5
17.5 9 17.5 17.5
I4 8 I3 I 2
17 10 16 I 2
II IS.5 12.5 23 21
2 3 8 0 0
IO IS 40 0 0
I4.S 13.5 1 22 32
environment
Methodological 20. Present information 21. Explain 22. Question 23. Summarize 24. Utilize media
tamed. For these comparisons, the teacher subgroups of Table 1 were condensed as follows: Experience Age range taught Class size School type
-under five years/ five years and over -under 14 years/ 14 years and over -up to 30/aver 30 -Grammartraditional/others.
Assessment of differences between teachers and faculty was based not on rank order, but on actual frequencies. Ten of the 24 skills showed frequencies large enough for chi square testing. Significant differences were found in two cases - “plan instruction” (chi square = 4.22, 1 df, p < 0.05) and “diagnose learner needs” (chi square = 6.99, 1 df, p < 0.01). Both were relatively more important for faculty than for teachers.
I 27
1 4 5
Chi square analyses were also attempted for the teacher subgroups. Only three significant differences were found (Table 5). For inexperienced teachers “control students” and “plan instruction” were more important than for their experienced colleagues, who may well, therefore, have already developed some effective strategies in these areas. The greater concern with self-evaluation on the part of grammartraditional schools is more difficult to explain but could be related to greater expectations by society in general of high levels of attainment in these schools. On the whole, it is only for a minority of skills that there is evidence of significant divergence of views about priorities, between teachers and faculty or across teacher subgroups. Most differences in rank order are not, in fact, accompanied by significant differences in frequencies of selection. A review of several North American studies
Program
Effectiveness
in Teacher
199
Education
Table 5 Most Important Skills Showing Significant Differences in Frequencies of Selection by Teacher Subgroups Teacher
Skill Control
students
Plan instruction Self-evaluation
Frequency
subgroup
Inexperienced Experienced Inexperienced Experienced Grammar schools Others
(N=31) [;I:$ (N= 50)
11 6 15 12 14 5
% 35 12 48 24 38 13
Chi square value 5.03* 4.08* 4.80*
* p < 0.05, 1 df. one U.K. study has shown variation in classification of skills and research methodology, but crude rank order comparisons are nevertheless possible. The North American studies (Thomas & Kay, 1974; Ratsoy et al., 1979; Adams, 1982; Gargiulo & Pigge, 1982) tend to show that both teachers and faculty were most strongly concerned with management (controlling students) and interpersonal skills (motivating students). The U.K. study (Fontana, 1972) reported a different result for school-based supervisors -sensitivity to student needs being judged the most important skill area by them. The faculty in the present study agreed with the supervisors in the Fontana study in according highest rank to sensitivity to student needs, while the teachers attached highest importance to motivation, reflecting the general tendency in the North American studies. Across most studies, methodological skills are of moderate to low priority for both teachers and faculty-a finding which seems somewhat at variance with the common practice of designating the more classroom-oriented teacher education courses as “methods” courses. The main difference between this study and the others reviewed lies in the response to “control students.” This is appreciably less important in the present study. However, such a result is consistent with the fact that a large proportion of the West Indian teachers was experienced. For these, controlling students has been found to be significantly less important than for their inexperienced colleagues. The least important skills overall in the present study were derived from the frequencies with which skills were selected as least important. Table 6 shows frequencies and ranks. When both teachers and faculty were considered, the least important of the skills included and
“handle routines, ” “control students,” “group “arrange physical environment,” students,” “utilize media, ” “work with others on staff,” and “interact with parents.” Again, the differences between teachers and faculty were not statistically significant @ < 0.05). The skills were mostly interpersonal (non-student) and managerial, but one methodological skill (“utilize media”) occurred. Ideally the rank order for least important would be the inverse of that for most important, and would yield a Pearson’s rho value of -1. Actual values were -0.78 (teachers) and -0.66 (faculty). While these were significant inverse correlations (p < 0.01, N = 24), their deviations from the ideal were no doubt partly due to the limited reliability of the lower frequencies, especially for teachers. Program Effectiveness Teachers were asked to indicate how well the University had prepared them in each skill area. Responses were coded 1 (very well), 2 (well), 3 (adequately), 4 (poorly), 5 (very poorly). The results in Table 7, ranked in order of mean ratings, indicated at least adequate preparation in most skills. The only skills in which preparation was judged inadequate by a majority of teachers (mean greater than 3), were “interact with parents, ” “work with others on staff,” “handle routines,” and “control students.” These were all among the least important skills. In terms of extremes of perceived effectiveness, this study reflects a pattern similar to that of the study by Drayton et al. (1980). In both the curriculum skills are high in effectiveness, and managerial skills low. However, while Drayton et al. found reason to recommend that the programs place more emphasis on teaching skills
200
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
Table 6 Frequencies and Ranks of Least Important SkilIT Teachers Freq.
%-
tN = 82) ’
Rank
Freq.
2 3 3 1
2 4 4 1
20.5 I7 17 23
0 2 0 0
Evaluative 5. Diagnose learner needs 6. Monitor progress 7. Assess achievement 8. Evaluate resources 9. Evaluate self
I 4 9 13 3
I 1; I6 4
23 13.5 IO.5 9 17
1 0 0 -1
Interpersonal IO. Establish rapport 1 I Motivate students 12. Accommodate individual differences 13. Encourage participation 14. Work with others on staff 1.5. Interact withparents
2 1 7 3 3X 32
2 1 9 3 46 39
20.5 23 12 17 3 4
0 0 0 0
Managerial 16. Handle routines 17. Controlstudents 1X. Group students 19. Arrange physical
55 27 39 25
67 33 4x 30
4 9 3 23 2s
5 11 4 28 30
Skill Curriculum 1. Specify objectives 2. Select content 3. Organize material 4. Plan instruction
Methodological 20. Present information 21. Explain 22. Question 23. Summarize 24. Utilize media
environment
generally, and the use of media in particular, no such conclusions can be drawn here, especially when importance of skills is considered. A comparison of Tables 4 (teachers) and 7 shows that while there were some differences in actual rank order, the general tendency is that the programs were perceived to be most effective for the most important skills and least effective for the least important. The main differences were that the most effective skills were curriculum skills and “question” whereas the most important skills were interpersonal (“motivate students” and “encourage participation”). Comparisons of rank orders of importance and effectiveness for all skills gave a Pearson’s rho value of 0.65. This was a significant positive correlation (p < 0.01, N = 24), and compared favorably with the negative correlations reported in the literature reviewed (e.g., Gargiulo & Pigge, 1982). There was therefore
Facultv (N = 20) Rank
19.5 IO.5 1Y.S 10.5
20 5
13 10.5 19.5 9 I3
I2 16
0 0 0 0 60 80
19.5 lY.5 19.5 19.5 3 I
I 5 2 6.5
I4 6 7 X
70 30 3.5 40
2 7.5 6 S
13.5 10.5 17 8 6.5
2 I 0 6 9
10 5 0 30 4s
10.5 13 19.5 7.S 4
I
0 0
little evidence in this study of the dissonance between university preparation and teacher concerns, which has been cited as a prominent feature of the literature on teacher education. Other items on program effectiveness used a five-point rating scale in which respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with a number of statements (Table 8). The responses were coded 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The programs were perceived to be highly effective in all areas of understanding, and to be generally satisfactory. Problems
In spite of overall satisfaction with the programs, some areas of concern have been noted. The clearest of these was excessive work load. Responses to “the demands of the program were reasonable” gave frequencies of 29
Program
Effectiveness
in Teacher
201
Education
Table 7 Frequencies of Responses to “How Well Did the University Prepare You in Each Skill Area?” Very well 1
Skill Specify objectives Plan instruction Question Encourage participation Evaluate self Organize material Present information Assess achievement Motivate students Select content Summarize Diagnose learner needs Group students Monitor progress Accommodate individual differences Explain Establish rapport Evaluate resources Utilize media Arrange physical learning environment Control students Handle routines Work with others on staff Interact with parents
2
3
4
34 25 24 15 15 18 18 13 14 13 15 14 17 10 10 13 8 11 9
22 24 17 31 26 21 21 26 26 22 14 24 17 20 20 15 19 10 14
7 16 15 15 20 25 22 23 24 19 25 16 19 25 25 23 26 25 22
0
3 5 1 1 0
21 11 11 8 4
26 33 26 22 17
(agree), 7 (not sure), and 45 (disagree), indicating a majority disagreeing. This pattern was echoed in the free response items, where there were a number of references to excessive workload. The problem was best articulated by a female teacher who complained that “to be at
Very poor 5
N
Mean
SD
1 5 4 1 2 2 2 6 5 4 11 8 7 5 8 11 13 11
2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 2 2 1 0 2
65 68 63 65 63 67 65 64 70 60 59 66 65 62 62 61 6.5 59 58
1.68 1.99 2.11 2.12 2.16 2.21 2.22 2.22 2.31 2.32 2.36 2.41 2.46 2.47 2.50 2.52 2.66 2.68 2.71
0.90 0.97 1.11 0.84 0.87 0.93 0.99 0.81 0.89 0.97 1.00 1.05 1.19 0.90 0.97 1.07 0.96 1.02 1.06
7 14 16 20 25
3 6 10 12 16
60 69 64 63 62
2.77 3.07 3.36 3.54 3.85
0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
one’s peak in practical teaching, while presenting papers of high quality and coping with domestic life was too demanding.” Suggestions for reducing the problem included making the programs full-time, and lengthening them to two years.
Table 8 Frequencies of Agreement with Statements About Effects of Program SA 1
A 2
NS 3
DA 4
SDA 5
N
Mean
SD
28
49
4
1
0
82
1.73
0.61
Improved my understanding of the nature and purpose of education
26
52
3
1
0
82
I.74
0.58
Improved my understanding of the socioeconomic factors which influence learning
21
52
3
5
0
81
1.90
0.73
Improved my understanding curriculum planning
of
22
45
9
4
0
80
1.94
0.77
teaching
11
45
11
10
1
78
2.29
2.42
9
42
19
9
2
81
2.42
0.92
Statement Improved my understanding pupil characteristics which influence learning
Motivated
me to continue
of
In general I am satisfied with tne program
202
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
It was considered that, especially in West Indian societies, the demands of domestic life would be greater on females than on males and that the effect of work load on the female teachers might therefore be greater. A breakdown of the responses showed 15 males (58%) agreeing that the demands of the program were reasonable and 11 (42%) disagreeing or not sure. For females the corresponding frequencies were 14 (26%) and 40 (74%). Chi square analysis produced a value of 6.35, which was significant @ < 0.05, df= 1). Work load was therefore significantly less of a problem for male teachers. The only other significant male/female difference in any of the responses to the whole questionnaire was for effectiveness of the program’s developing skill in “handling routines.” Here the females were the more dissatisfied with the programs (chi square = 4.39,~ < 0.05, df= 1). From the remaining infrequently expressed and varying concerns, it was possible to extract a number of common elements. There was some desire for less emphasis on theory and more on practical demonstration and analysis of actual teaching. Lessons for these purposes might be taught by faculty or by the teachers themselves. The implication here is that even the large element of practice in these programs did not in itself maximize the development of teacher ability. It is, in any case, unlikely that more than 10% of this practice would be directly supervised by faculty - a fact which may have prompted one faculty member to recommend intensive performance-based skills training as a means of improving skill development. The use of school-based supervisors would also be of some value here, and is in fact already being explored. However, opportunity to observe and evaluate the performance of others seemed to be as important for some of these teachers as opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their own performance. Some respondents expressed concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the programs. They perceived a hiatus between their expectations of the programs, and the performance of some graduates of previous years. This question was examined by Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981), who reviewed a number of studies and concluded that there was evidence to support more than one explanation. They suggested
that teacher education programs did produce improvements but not as much as was expected and that many apparent gains were illusions. There was also some tendency for teachers to revert to traditional approaches since many improvements encouraged by teacher education demanded effort and therefore had to compete with other demands on the teachers’ time. They also often demanded resources which were not available, or were themselves in conflict with the school norms and bureaucratic pressures. These general conclusions seem applicable to the present study as well. Some of the same views were in fact expressed by respondents. Alverman (1981) assumes with Zeichner and Tabachnick that some gap between theory and practice is inevitable, but contends that this does not negate the value of theory. She cites the opinions of teachers who saw their training as a useful standard against which to judge their subsequent behaviour. Where they departed from training recommendations, they considered whether they were giving in too easily to pressures, and whether the departures were ultimately in the interests of their students.
Summary The study has produced a crude ordering of skill priorities as perceived by teachers in training and their tutors. This did not in itself settle the question of determining priorities since (a) the views of some groups affected (e.g., pupils) were not considered; (b) no direct measuring of strengths and weaknesses of teachers was attempted; (b) there is evidence from previous research that precise rank order details are of limited reliability, and vary with the method of data collection. Nevertheless, the opinions were those of teachers and faculty both with appreciable experience of classroom realities, and therefore in a position to make informed choices. In general, interpersonal (students), curriculum, and evaluative skills were judged the most important, and interpersonal (non-students), managerial, and methodological the least important. Differences in frequencies of
Program
Effectiveness
selection by various subgroups were mostly not significant. For teachers and faculty, the exceptions were that faculty were more concerned with planning instruction and diagnosing students needs than teachers. For teacher subgroups, inexperienced teachers were more concerned with controlling students and planning instruction than their more experienced colleagues, while teachers in grammar-traditional schools were more concerned with self-evaluation than teachers in other schools. The teachers in this study were less concerned with controlling students than those in the North American studies reviewed. These differences may be due to the effect of work experience in promoting ability to cope with some classroom situations, and possibly to greater expectations of high achievement and therefore accountability pressures on the teachers in the traditional schools. Overall the programs were perceived to be at least satisfactory in promoting development of the skills specified, and in meeting the teachers’ pre-program expectations. However, there were some areas of dissatisfaction noted. The main problem was student workload, which was perceived to be excessive by a majority of respondents, especially female teachers. Recommendations involved increasing the time available for study either by lengthening the program or making it full-time. There was no suggestion that the overall amount of work be reduced. Some respondents saw the need for more demonstration lessons by faculty or more opportunity to observe other teachers at work. The indications are that the large amount of practice involved in these inservice programs did not in itself lead to improved performance. It is possible that the involvement of school-based cooperating teachers may be of some assistance in meeting this problem. Teacher perceptions of effectiveness of the programs showed significant positive correlations with their perceptions of skill importance. In broad terms the programs were perceived by a majority of respondents to be unsatisfactory in interpersonal (nonstudents) and managerial skill preparation. They were most highly effective in promoting objective specification, and planning. Questioning, which was not highly ranked in importance by teachers, was high in effectiveness, whereas
in Teacher
203
Education
the most important skill for motivation, teachers, was appreciably lower in rank for effectiveness. Overall the significantly positive correlations of effectiveness with importance contrasts with a tendency towards negative correlations in the literature. Further research would be needed to determine the features of these inservice programs which have contributed to such positive correlations. However, it is likely that the classroom experience of the faculty and their continued contact with schools are important factors. The fact that some significant differences were found suggest that the difference in role between teachers and faculty will lead to some difference in perspective, even in situations where there is heavy involvement of faculty in classroom activity. References Adams, D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and behaviour across time. Journal of Teacher Education, 33,4,4143. Alverman, E. (1981). The possible value of dissonance in student teaching experiences. Journal of Teacher Educalion, 32, 3,24-25. Berliner, C. (1977), Impediments to measuring teacher effectiveness. In G. D. Borich & K. S. Fenton (Eds). The appraisal of teaching: Concepts and process (pp.’ 146 161). New York: Addison-Weslev. Borich, G. D. & Fenton, K. S. (i977). The appraisal of teaching: Concepts and process. New York: AddisonWesley. Byrne, C. J. (1982). The conceptualism of teacher effectiveness and assessment of teachers. Conference of the Committee for Research into Teacher Education, Chichester, U.K., Vol. 7, No. 1. Coker, H. (1985). Consortium for the improvement of teacher evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 2, 12-17. Drayton, K., Gift, E. & Sahoy, P. (1980). Report on Intercampus Moderation of Diploma in Education Programmes, 1978-79, at Cave Hill -.Barbados, Mona Jamaica, and St. Augustine - Trinidad & Tobago. University of the West Indies. Fontana, D. (1972). What do we mean by a good teacher? In G. Chanan (Ed.), Research forum on teacher education, (pp. 72-77). National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, U.K. Gargiulo, R. M. & Pigge, F. L. (1982). Perceived teacher competencies: Need and development. Journal of the Association of Teacher Educators, 4.5-15. Haigh, N. & Katterns, B. (1984). Teacher effectiveness: Problem or goal for teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 35,5, 23-27. Ratsoy, W., McEwen, N. & Caldwell, .I. (1979). Skills of beginning teachers and perceived effectiveness of prepara-
204
E. H. NEWTON
and W. E. BRATHWAITE
tion Prograrnmes. Faculty of Education, University of Alberta. Soar, R. S. (1977). An integration of findings from four studies of teacher effectiveness. In G. D. Borich, & K. S. Fenton, (Eds.), The uppraisal of teaching: Concepts andprocess, pp. 146161. New-York: Addison-Wesley. Thomas. A. K.. & Kay, P. M. (1974). Determining
priorities among competencics. In W. R. Houston (Ed.) Exploring competency based evaluation (pi’. 1.55-l 71). University of Houston. Zcichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (lY81). Arc the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 3. 7-11.