EVALUATING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER EDUCATION QUALITY
Vol. 129 No. 6B (2020), Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 129 No. 6B (2020)

EVALUATING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER EDUCATION QUALITY

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v129i6B.5886
Published 2020-10-26
Chau Hong Phuoc Nguyen
Texas Tech University; Phu Xuan University
Aaron Samuel Zimmerman
Texas Tech University
PDF

Keywords

teacher performance satisfaction
content knowledge
pedagogical content knowledge
student teaching

Abstract

It is critical for teacher educators and scholars of teacher education to think carefully about the conceptual framework that they use to evaluate teacher education programs. Without a strong conceptual framework, it may be difficult for teacher educators to evaluate whether or not they are operating within a strong program. Thus, we frame this article as an opportunity to present one particular pre-existing framework in the research literature that can be used to conceptualize teacher education quality. We then present some evidence that supports and challenges this framework. In other words, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the conceptual framework for teacher education quality proposed by Hsieh, Law, Shy, Wang, Hsieh, and Tang (2011). In our attempt to create a supplementary evaluation of this conceptual framework, we test a statistical model using a different large international database – Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 (OECD, 2014). Specifically, we examine the effects of preparedness for content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and field-based practice on teachers’ later performance satisfaction using multiple linear regression analysis. Our findings suggest that teachers who are more prepared for PCK and classroom practice (through field/clinical experience) during their teacher education program tend to be more satisfied with their teaching performance. However, our findings also suggest that becoming prepared in one’s CK during teacher preparation does not, according to the respondents, have a significant impact on their satisfaction with their teaching performance. Findings of this study have implications for practice and future research.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v129i6B.5886
PDF

References

  1. Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
  2. Ball, D. (2008, September 18). The work of teaching and the challenges for teacher education [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyPk8PocVL4.
  3. Ball, D., Grossman, P., & Farr, S. (2011, June 2). Does teacher education have a future [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aszgC0fR9I8.
  4. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
  5. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249–305.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150–170). New York, NY: Longman.
  8. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
  9. Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55–63.
  10. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  11. Fletcher, S., & Luft, J. (2011). Early career secondary science teachers: A longitudinal study of beliefs in relation to field experiences. Science Teacher Education, 95, 1124–1146.
  12. Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J. M., & Theobald, R. (2017). Does the match matter? Exploring whether student teaching experiences affect teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 54(2), 325–359.
  13. Grossman, P., Ronfeldt, M., & Cohen, J. J. (2012). The power of setting: The role of field experience in learning to teach. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol 3. Application to learning and teaching (pp. 311–334). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-000.
  14. Hsieh, F. J., Law, C. K., Shy, H. Y., Wang, T. Y., Hsieh, C. J., & Tang, S. J. (2011). Mathematics teacher education quality in TEDS-M: Globalizing the views of future teachers and teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 172–187.
  15. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.
  16. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
  17. Lucas, C. J. (1999). Teacher education in America: Reform agendas for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Menter, I. (2015, January 5). The importance of educational research in teacher education [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Fcney4qsU.
  19. Mertler, C. A., & Reinhart, R. V. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge.
  20. Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 795–833.
  21. Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service teachers’ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 278–289.
  22. Nguyen, C. H. P., & Zimmerman, A. S. (2019). Modeling teacher self-efficacy as a function of peer observation, administrative feedback, job satisfaction, and work enjoyment. Hue University Journal of Science: Social Sciences and Humanities, 128(6B), 71–83.
  23. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/talis-2013-results.htm
  24. Rondeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106.
  25. Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. (2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1–46.
  26. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
  27. Urdan, T. C. (2017). Statistics in plain English. New York, NY: Routledge.
  28. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richerl, A. E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.
  29. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university- based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99.