The Resilient Teacher: Unveiling the Positive Impact of the Collaborative Practicum Model on Novice Teachers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Perceptions of the Role of the Teacher among Preservice Teachers
2.2. Transition from Preservice Teacher to Novice Teacher
2.3. Self-Efficacy in Teaching
2.4. The Role of the Practicum in Teacher Training
- 1.
- The traditional model—in which students are assigned to schools for a practicum of one day (six hours) a week, accompanied by a pedagogical instructor [39].
- 2.
- The collaborative model named “Academy-Class” (similar to the model professional development school [PDS]). The PST undergoes varied intensive experiences with high involvement in school life, while receiving mediation and feedback from the pedagogical instructor and from the mentoring teacher [16,40]. The PST gradually integrates into teaching work, beginning with observing, assisting and one-on-one teaching, up to full co-teaching with a coaching teacher [41]. The collaborative practicum model experience contributes to the improvement in teacher training and to the professional development of the coaching teachers [41,42,43,44].
2.5. Advantages of the Collaborative Practicum Model (PDS and Academy-Class)
3. Methodology
- (A)
- Comparative analysis: there is a difference in research measures (self-efficacy in teaching; socioeconomic security; educational impact on next generation, professional self-realization and academy-field collaboration) between PST in the collaborative practicum model in contrast to PST in the traditional model. This research undertakes a meticulous comparison of various measurable aspects associated with the collaborative practicum model (research group) in contrast to the traditional model (control group), specifically focusing on self-efficacy in teaching and attitudes towards the teaching profession. This comparative analysis is conducted alongside a control group comprised of teachers who have undergone the traditional practicum model.
- (B)
- Exploration of Future Commitment: There is a positive correlation between research measures and remaining in teaching (more than 3 years). This study delves into the influence of the collaborative model on the inclinations of novice teachers regarding their sustained engagement within the education system. It seeks to ascertain whether the collaborative model contributes to a higher likelihood of novice teachers remaining in the teaching profession for an extended period (i.e., beyond three years), or conversely, if it has an impact on their attrition from the profession. This exploration also encompasses individuals who may have already withdrawn from the profession at the time of the study.
- (C)
- Interplay of factors: There is a difference in research measures regarding the intention to remain in teaching between PST in the collaborative practicum model in contrast to PST in the traditional model. By discerning the relationships between these variables, the study aims to provide a holistic understanding of the multifaceted impact of the collaborative model on the attitudes and intentions of novice teachers within the educational landscape.
3.1. Research Population
3.2. Research Method
4. Findings
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Study Contribution
6.2. Research Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ronen, I.; Danial-Saad, A.; Holtzbelt, R. Collaborative and traditional practice-models as perceived by preservice teachers: The potential impact of culture. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2022, 47, 58–75. [Google Scholar]
- Neifeald, E.; Nissim, Y. Co-teaching in the “Academy-Class”: Evaluation of advantages and frequency of practices. Int. Educ. Stud. 2019, 12, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naifeld, E.; Nissim, Y. From Uncertainty to Self-EfficacyPerspectives of Pre-Service Teachers on Their Practical Experience during the «Corona Year». Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2022, 11, 459–472. [Google Scholar]
- Nissim, Y.; Naifeld, E. Co-teaching in the Academy-Class program: From theory to practical experience. J. Educ. Learn. 2018, 7, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zach, S.; Strommer, M. Academy-class teacher preparation program: Physical education student teachers’ perceptions of the advantages and difficulties. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Sci. 2018, 11, 487–509. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Karlberg, M.; Bezzina, C. The professional development needs of beginning and experienced teachers in four municipalities in Sweden. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2022, 48, 624–641. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, K. Preservice teachers’ well-remembered events and the acquisition of event-structured knowledge. J. Curric. Stud. 1994, 26, 235–252. [Google Scholar]
- Katzin, O. The factors influencing the choice of enrolling an excellent students’ teaching program—A Case study. Dapim 2008, 28, 57–83. [Google Scholar]
- Berger, N.; Mackenzie, E.; Holmes, K. Positive attitudes towards mathematics and science are mutually beneficial for student achievement: A latent profile analysis of TIMSS 2015. Aust. Educ. Res. 2020, 47, 409–444. [Google Scholar]
- Kee, B.; Aye, S. A Study of the Attitude of Pre-Service Teachers in Education Colleges towards Their Teaching Profession. Ph.D. Dissertation, MERAL Portal, 2020. Available online: https://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=A+STUDY+OF+THE+ATTITUDE+OF+PRE-SERVICE+TEACHERS+IN+EDUCATION+COLLEGES+TOWARDS+THEIR+TEACHING+PROFESSIO&hl=en (accessed on 25 October 2023).
- Mendelsohn, N. How do students who train to teach mathematics in an elementary school perceive their professional image? In The Mathematics Teacher: Characteristics of Training, Knowledge, Teaching and Personality of Elementary School Mathematics Teachers; Petkin, D., Gazit, A., Eds.; Moft Institute: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2013; pp. 293–321. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Korthagen, F.A. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2004, 20, 77–97. [Google Scholar]
- McKenna KScholtes, A.-A.; Fleming, J.; Gilbert, J. The journey through an undergraduate occupational therapy course: Does it change students’ attitudes, perceptions and career plans? Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2001, 48, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasser-Abu Al-Hija, F.; Reichenberg, R.; Fresko, B. The Internship Process: Internship. Final Report; Ministry of Education: Jerusalem, Israel, 2006. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, S.P.; Gilbert, L.S.; Martin, E.P. The first years of teaching: Disparities in perceptions of support. Action Teach. Educ. 2007, 28, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maskit, D.; Mevarech, Z. A different way is also possible: Teacher training based on the PDS partnership-collegial model. Dapim 2013, 56, 15–34. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Fantilli, R.D.; McDougall, D.E. A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the first years. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 814–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulvik, M.; Smith, K.; Helleve, I. Novice in secondary school–the coin has two sides. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 835–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasson, I.; Kalir, D.; Malkinson, N. The Role of Pedagogical Practices in Novice Teachers’ Work. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 9, 457–469. [Google Scholar]
- Arbiv-Elyashiv, R.; Zimmerman, V. Why do teachers leave teaching? Am. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 2, 420–429. [Google Scholar]
- Wideen, M.F. Teacher education at the crossroads. In Changing Times in Teacher Education; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2013; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Caspersen, J.; Raaen, F.D. Novice teachers and how they cope. Teach. Teach. 2014, 20, 189–211. [Google Scholar]
- Central Bureau of Statistics. Teaching Workforces in the Education System [Press Release]. 31 March 2020. (In Hebrew). Available online: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2020/095/06_20_095b.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2023).
- Barni, D.; Danioni, F.; Benevene, P. Teachers’ self-efficacy: The role of personal values and motivations for teaching. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1986, 4, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarzer, R.; Hallum, S. Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 152–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 1059–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, J.; Kass, E. The Teacher’s Sense of Self-Worth: The Concept and Its Measurement; Henrietta Szold Institute: Jerusalem, Israel, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Gündoğmuş, H.D. Self-efficacy of teacher candidates for teaching first reading and writing. Educ. Res. Rev. 2018, 13, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Türkoglu, M.E.; Cansoy, R.; Parlar, H. Examining relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 5, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tümkaya, G.S.; Miller, S. The perceptions of pre- and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy regarding inclusive practices: A systematised review. Ilkogr. Online 2020, 19, 1061–1077. [Google Scholar]
- Yogev, E.; Zuzovsky, R. Magnifying the Glass: Pedagogical Training under Inspection; HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv, Israel; Mofet Institute: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2011. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Beck, C. Teacher Effectiveness, Teacher Self-Efficacy and Student Achievement. Ph.D. Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Orland-Barak, L.; Wang, J. Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 72, 0022487119894230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L.; Burns, D.; Campbell, C.; Goodwin, A.L.; Hammerness, K.; Low, E.; McIntyre, A.; Sato, M.; Zeichner, K. Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality around the World; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hollins, E.R.; Warner, C.K. Evaluating the Clinical Component of Teacher Preparation Programs (Report). National Academy of Education Committee on Evaluating and Improving Teacher Preparation Programs. 2021. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED619004.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2023).
- Mok, S.Y.; Staub, F.C. Does coaching, mentoring, and supervision matter for pre-service teachers’ planning skills and clarity of instruction? A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 107, 103484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, G.; Iglesia, P.M.; Wang, K. Examining Chinese and Spanish preservice teachers’ practicum teaching experiences: A transformative learning perspective. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilayan, S.; Daniel-Saad, A. Transition from the traditional model of practical experience to a cooperative model—Slogan or the need of the hour? J. Theory Res. Educ. 2013, 56, 35–59. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Ariav, T. Practical experience in teacher training: “Rerouting”. Mofet Inst. J. 2014, 53, 13–19. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Education Think-Tank. The Academy-Class Program—Partnership for Enhancing Teaching: Policy Summary Report; Ministry of Education Think-Tank: Jerusalem, Israel, 2014. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Ran, A. Field-Anchored Teacher Residency Programs: Review of Chosen Models; Inter-Collegial Information Center, Mofet Institute: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2018. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Sperling, D. Attrition of Teachers Worldwide: Data Review; Mofet Institute: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2015. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Naifeld, E.; Nissim, Y. From a Triangular to a Pentagonal Model in Teachers Training Practicum. J. Educ. Learn. 2020, 9, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitford, E.V.; Barnett, B.E. The professional development school approach to teacher education: Identification of a model. In Conference Proceedings: The Future of Education, 6th ed.; Pixel International Conferences: Florence, Italy, 2016; pp. 457–460. [Google Scholar]
- Makdosi, O. From Academia to the Classroom: Examining the Training Model and Induction Patterns among Teachers in Three Educational Sectors; Mofet Institute: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2018. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Aran, T.; Zaretsky, R. The Academy-Class program for the cultivation of self-efficacy in teaching: A comparative study. Michlol 2017, 32, 121–132. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, G.; Gully, S.M.; Eden, D. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ. Res. Methods 2001, 4, 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katzir, Y.; Sagi, R.; Gilat, Y. Choosing the teaching profession: Types of decision makers and the context their attitudes towards the teaching. Dapim J. Stud. Res. Educ. 2004, 38, 10–29. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. SSRN Electron. J. 2016, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayllón, S.; Alsina, Á.; Colomer, J. Teachers’ involvement and students’ self-efficacy: Keys to achievement in higher education. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granziera, H.; Perera, H.N. Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 58, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bachrach, D.G.; Rapp, T.L.; Rapp, A.A.; Ogilvie, J. “Too much” self-efficacy? Understanding the curvilinear consequences of between-person self-efficacy through a moderated-mediation model of perceived proximity and employee effort. Group Organ. Manag. 2022, 10596011211070098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
N | % | Min | Max | M | SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 21.0 | 60.0 | 30.16 | 7.85 | ||
Gender | ||||||
Female | 365 | 83.7 | ||||
Male | 71 | 16.3 | ||||
Assigned a teaching position | ||||||
Yes | 69.8 | 70.6 | ||||
No | 29.1 | 29.4 | ||||
Intention to work in teaching | ||||||
Less than 3 years | 71 | 16.2 | ||||
More than three years | 366 | 83.8 | ||||
Participation in the academy-class collaborative practicum | ||||||
Yes | 309 | 70.9 | ||||
No | 127 | 29.1 |
Integration into Teaching | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model of Practicum | Integration into Teaching | Did Not Integrate | Total | |
Traditional practicum | N | 88 | 38 | 126 |
% | 69.8% | 30.2% | 100.0% | |
Collaborative practicum | N | 219 | 90 | 309 |
% | 70.9% | 29.1% | 100.0% | |
Total | N | 307 | 128 | 435 |
% | 70.6% | 29.4% | 100.0% |
Intention To Remain in Teaching | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Practicum Model | More than 3 Years | Less than 3 Years | Total | |
Traditional model | N | 113 | 14 | 127 |
% | 89.0% | 11.0% | 100.0% | |
Collaborative model | N | 252 | 57 | 309 |
% | 81.6% | 18.4% | 100.0% | |
Total | N | 365 | 71 | 436 |
% | 83.7% | 16.3% | 100.0% |
Traditional Model (N = 127) | Collaborative Model (N = 309) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measure | M | SD | M | SD | T |
Sense of efficacy in teaching | 4.3 | 0.65 | 4.4 | 0.7 | 1.39 |
Socio-economic security | 3.52 | 1.06 | 3.77 | 1 | 2.37 * |
Educational impact on the next generation | 4.6 | 0.59 | 4.66 | 0.55 | 1 |
Professional self-realization | 4.16 | 0.76 | 4.38 | 0.69 | 2.91 ** |
Academy-field collaboration | 2.79 | 1.36 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 4.36 ** |
Less than 3 Years (N = 71) | More than 3 Years (N = 366) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | M | SD | M | SD | T |
Sense of efficacy in teaching | 4.13 | 1.00 | 4.42 | 0.59 | 2.32 * |
Socio-economic security | 3.63 | 1.24 | 3.72 | 0.98 | 0.56 |
Educational impact on the next generation | 4.47 | 0.80 | 4.67 | 0.50 | 2.03 * |
Professional self-realization | 4.11 | 0.97 | 4.36 | 0.65 | 2.10 * |
Academy-field collaboration | 3.25 | 1.35 | 3.21 | 1.34 | 0.19 |
Less than 3 Years Traditional Model (N = 14) | More than 3 Years Traditional Model (N = 113) | Less than 3 Years Collaborative Model (N = 57) | More than 3 Years Collaborative Model (N = 252) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | F |
Sense of efficacy in teaching | 4.07 | 1.01 | 4.33 | 0.59 | 4.15 | 1.01 | 4.46 | 0.59 | 4.50 ** |
Socio-economic security | 4.64 | 0.56 | 4.59 | 0.6 | 4.43 | 0.84 | 4.71 | 0.45 | 4.15 ** |
Educational impact on next generation | 3.96 | 1.09 | 4.19 | 0.71 | 4.14 | 0.95 | 4.43 | 0.61 | 5.92 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nissim, Y.; Danial-Saad, A. The Resilient Teacher: Unveiling the Positive Impact of the Collaborative Practicum Model on Novice Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111162
Nissim Y, Danial-Saad A. The Resilient Teacher: Unveiling the Positive Impact of the Collaborative Practicum Model on Novice Teachers. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(11):1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111162
Chicago/Turabian StyleNissim, Yonit, and Alexandra Danial-Saad. 2023. "The Resilient Teacher: Unveiling the Positive Impact of the Collaborative Practicum Model on Novice Teachers" Education Sciences 13, no. 11: 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111162