Bridging the Gap Between Initial Teacher Training and Teacher Induction

This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 06 October 2014, At: 19:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Teaching:International research andpedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Bridging the Gap Between InitialTeacher Training and TeacherInductionCor P. KoetsierPublished online: 03 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Cor P. Koetsier (1995) Bridging the Gap Between Initial TeacherTraining and Teacher Induction, Journal of Education for Teaching: International researchand pedagogy, 21:3, 333-346

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607479550038545

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607479550038545

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1995

Bridging the Gap Between InitialTeacher Training and TeacherInductionCOR P. KOETSIER & J. THEO WUBBELSIVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.127 3508 TC, Utrecht,

The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Literature on professional development indicates that beginning teachers experi-

ence a kind of `reality shock’ in their ® rst professional year. This paper reports an

investigation aimed at bridging this gap by introducing aspects of reality shock into the

practicum component of an initial teacher education programme. A new student-teaching

element, `The Individual and Independent Final Teaching Period (IFTP)’ was developed. In

this IFTP the student teachers act on their own for three months, supervised by means of

`long-arm’ supervision (involving no classroom observation). The characteristics of the IFTP

that contribute to the creation of realistic working situation within a teacher training

programme that at the same time help to create a fruitful and guided learning situation are

described. Actual short-term learning outcomes perceived by the student teachers and their

supervisors are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Some 30 or 40 years ago, teaching within secondary education in The Netherlands was

learnt mainly by plunging in. In the opinion of many educators this trial-and-error strategy

produced insuf® ciently competent teachers. For this reason, teacher education programmes

were developed including student teaching periods in an actual working situation (cf.

Applegate, 1987), while at the same time monitoring the learning process. In general, these

initial teacher training programmes aimed at the development of teachers’ starting

competencies, assuming that later on in their career in-service activities would stimulate

their professional development. This institutionalization introduced a new problematic

phenomenon. Having completed their teacher training, beginning teachers experienced a

`reality shock’ in their ® rst year, when faced with the demands of teaching practice and

with the gap between their ideals and the reality of everyday school life. Teacher education

was accused of failing to prepare student teachers for the reality of the teaching profession

(MuÈ ller-Fohrbrod t et al. 1978; Veenman, 1984). The problem of the reality shock led to

many publications related to teachers’ professional development (e.g. Zahorik, 1986;

Burden, 1990) and to mentoring beginning teachers (see Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Part of

333

0260-7476/95/030333-13 1995 Journal of Education for Teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

334 C. P. Koetsier & J. Th. Wubbels

FIG. 1. Continuum of the process of teacher professional development. (A) Vonk, 1993; (1) Initial training;

(2) Induction; (3) Self-directed professional development. (B) The IFTP-arrangement (shaded) connecting

the initial training with the induction period.

the growing body of know ledge concerns (tentative) phases in the process of teachers’

professional development after initial training (e.g. Huberman, 1993). Models of this

developmental process have in common a period of induction. In this context we de® ne

teacher induction according to Vonk (1993) as the transition from student teacher to

self-directed professional. It concerns the threshold phase in the induction period (career

entry: surviva l and discovery) and the phase of growing into the profession (1±3 to 6/7

years) (see Fig. 1A).

One way of tackling the problem of the reality shock, is to emphasize mentoring of

beginning teachers (Kerry & Shelton Mayes, 1995). Various European countries also

renewed their interest in a greater involvement of practitioners in the education and

training of teachers (Council of Europe , 1987). As a consequence, the balance of control

and in¯ uence in the relation between training institutions and schools is changing in many

countries (Townshend, 1994). In fact, the changes mentioned above deal with the

following question: What context is best for learning to teach? There is as yet no

consensus on the answer to this question (Woolfolk, 1989; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990).

However, carefully supervised student teaching appears to be one of the best contexts for

acquiring beginning teacher competencies (Koetsier et al. 1992) and we suggest the issue

of mentoring novice teachers in schools needs urgent attention in view of the trend in

several European countries to replace initial teacher education by training on the job.

In this article, we report on a research project aimed at reducing reality shock. The

discrepancy between the comparatively secure student teaching periods within teacher

training programmes and the actual teaching profession has led several authors to

hypothesize that the practical component in teacher education programmes is not realistic

enough, and consequently results in reality shock during their ® rst professional year (e.g.

CreÂton et al., 1989). Several authors have proposed a gradual increase in conditions such

as insecurity, complexity , independence, job responsibility, and work pressure (the so-

called `gradual immersion theory’ ), designed to make the entire student teaching period an

enriching learning environment (cf. Cronin, 1983; Waxman & Walberg, 1986).

Another approach is to bring forward aspects of reality shock by introducing them

into the teacher training programme (see Fig. 1B). In this approach student teachers can

be carefully supervised by cooperating teachers and university staff at a time when they

are trying to cope with the problem . We investigated this possible solution to reality shock,

because in many Dutch schools there is no formalised mentor-proteÂgeÂ model in the

professional development of the beginning teachers as the organizing principle.

In order to ensure that aspects of reality shock actually do occur within the teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Initial Teacher Training and Induction 335

training programme, a part of the practical component of the programme must be so

arranged that it closely resembles the working situation of the beginning teacher. This part

of the practical component should thus be characterized by insecurity, complexity, a need

for independent and responsible action, and a substantial work load. It will be clear that

the student teacher’ s tasks should be situated between two poles of a continuum: on the

one hand, the `creation of realistic measure of work pressure’ , and on the other hand, the

`stimulation of learning’ . If the pressure implicit in these tasks is either too high or not

high enough, this will interfere with the student teachers’ learning experiences.

In order to investigate the possibility of developing a student teaching period that both

creates an effective learning situation, and introduces reality shock into the practical

component of a teacher training programme, we piloted a new student teaching element,

the so-called Individual and Independent Final Teaching Period (IFTP). This pilot study

was repeatedly carried out within the context of the one-year university teacher education

programme (1680 hours), with a practical component of 840 hours, preparing teachers for

higher-level secondary education. This programme is a post-degree curriculum in which

the pedagogica l training takes place after successful completion of the academic studies in

a particular subject (e.g. MA). It follows a two month undergraduate course intended for

orientation on the teaching profession, and has a practical component of four weeks.

The ® rst part of the practical component in the postgraduate one-year programme is

a Triad Student Teaching Period. This 14 week period is a relatively protected teaching

period with three students working together as a group, closely supervised by a co-operat-

ing teacher and a university supervisor. School and campus work alternate. At the end of

this teaching period, the student teachers are assessed to determine their suitability for

admission to the IFTP.

The Triad Student Teaching Period is followed by a Reorientation Period lasting ten

weeks. Re¯ ection on the ® rst school experiences is central to this phase. What educational

path has been followed until now? What does this mean for the rest of the programme?

As a follow -up to the practice experience, the prospective teachers study aspects of topics

further supervised by university staff to deepen their insights . They study the theoretical

notions of a number of issues by tutorials, in-depth workshops and private study. A

standard part of this phase is designing and carrying out one major project or practice-ori-

ented piece of research.

The Individual and Independent Final Teaching Period is a continuous fourteen week

student teaching period, taking place in the last part of the one-year postgraduate teacher

training programme. The student teacher, introduced to the pupils as a quali® ed teacher,

functions as a regular teacher, under normal constraints and pressures, teaching all lessons

in a particular subject of a number of classes. The classes chosen number altogether 10±12

periods a week, a 40% weekly teaching load. In addition to preparing and giving lessons,

student teachers also take part in departmental and school activities. They are supervised

by cooperating teachers and university staff by means of `long-arm’ supervision, in the

sense that these persons do not actually attend the student teacher’ s lessons. The

co-operating teacher is responsible for supervising the quality of the work, while

the university supervisor monitors the process of professional development. Halfway

through the IFTP, there is an interim evaluation of the professional student teacher’ s

functioning. The IFTP concludes with an evaluation session, and a ® nal assessment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


The IFTP arrangement bridges the student teachers’ transition from initial training to

their ® rst professional year. It differs for example from recent arrangements in the United

Kingdom , namely, teacher training programmes in which consortia of schools train student

teachers. In those arrangements schools may contract with higher education institutes to

provide part of a school-centred initia l teacher training. Some schemes are likely to be

wholly school-ba sed, with no higher education institution involvement at all (cf. Depart-

ment for Education, 1992, 1993; Department for Education News, 1993; Townshend,

1994). Our method with a long student teaching component, however, were part of a

programme with other theoretical and practical components and a shared responsibility of

teacher training institute and the schools. We think that a drastic reduction of the in¯ uence

of teacher education institutes on teacher training programmes (especially the practical

component), may lead to an overemphasis on conform ing to existing school practice at the

cost of introducing new educational developments and theoretical insights . Thus, highly

regarded new developments and views in teaching practice could be ignored, and

prevailing teaching practice reinforced. Views on how to improve that practice could thus

go unnoticed.

Our pilot studies date back to 1986 and 1987. Nowadays the IFTP is implemented in

all postgraduate teacher education programmes of Dutch universities. We also see forms

of independent ® nal student teaching periods in the practical components of institutes for

higher vocational education preparing primary school teachers and school teachers for

lower-level secondary education.

METHOD

This article deals with the following three questions: `Which characteristics of the IFTP do

participants consider important?’ `Which aspects of these characteristics contribute to the

creation of realistic working situation, and which help to create a fruitful learning

situation?’ `How do participants assess student teachers’ learning outcomes? In particular,

in what respects have the student teachers learnt more or different things than during the

preceding Triad Student Teaching Period?’

Two subsequent pilot studies in six schools were carried out, during which data were

collected on the programme itself, the experiences and satisfaction of participants and

supervisors, and the practical theories of the teacher educators. For this purpose , an

extended interview was held with all those involved in the IFTP experiments (student

teachers, co-operating teachers, university staff, and headmasters: 24 respondents in all);

participatory observation took place during on-campus supervisory conferences (about 70

hours) and progress sessions with co-operating teachers (about 12 hours); ® nally docu-

ments were analyzed.

Within the framework of the study, several strategies were used during the collection

and processing of the data, in order to ensure argumentative reliability and communicative

validity (IJzendoorn & Miedema, 1986). These included various forms of triangula tion,

replication, peer debrie ® ng, member checks, back coupling, and cross checks, with the aid

of procedures developed by a number of authors (including, for example, Bruyn, 1966;

Guba, 1981; Spradley, 1979, 1980; Hycner, 1985). The scope of this article does not allow

for a detailed description of the explorative developmental research project. The strategies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


used in the collection and processing of data and the results of the IFTP project have been

extensively reported in Koetsier (1991).

CONTEXT

The study was carried out by a group of educators whose point of departure was a

distinctive philosophy of teacher education and training. That philosophy, which deter-

mined the perspective from which data were collected, is summarized below.

The programme is aimed at multiple goals. Two of these are especially important,

namely, stimulating re¯ ection by student teachers (`re¯ ection as a tool for self-directed

professional development’ ), and promoting the independence of student teachers (cf.

Korthagen, 1985; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1989). The university supervisors assisted the student

teachers in acquiring general professional and technical teacher competence, as well as in

developing a personal style of teaching (cf. Hoy & Woolfolk , 1989; Glickman & Bey,

1990).

The university staff employ an educational strategy described as `the explora tion of

actions in practical teaching situations’ Ð `teachers as inquirers’ (cf. Stones, 1992). The

exploration principle entails the following activities: formulating learning questions,

dealing with teaching problems concerned with teaching (including one’ s own teaching);

orientation towards, and preparation for, professional practice; drawing up plans of action;

undertaking concrete action within the professional teaching situation; collecting data

related to those learning questions or problems, and re¯ ecting on the information collected,

in isolation or in relation to one or more of the theories encountered on campus. The

process of exploration also includes practice in actual teaching with the help of feedback,

and a study of relevant theories.

The university supervisors analyze questions and problems in interaction, keeping in

mind the systems perspective on communication (cf. Watzlawick et al. 1967; Wubbels et

al., 1988). The systems approach is an attempt to understand the functioning of a

communication system on the basis of a circular exchange of information between

individuals in open systems. In the educational context, for example, the conduct of the

teacher is not seen as an individual phenomenon, but rather as a product of the permanent,

simultaneous interaction between the members of the open-system class.

RESPONDENTS’ EVALUATIONS

All respondents felt that the IFTP teaching period closely resembled the working situation

of a beginning teacher. This is con® rmed by Wijga et al. (1989). According to the

respondents, during the IFTP the student teacher is confronted with the problems normally

faced by beginning teachers. The respondents agree that reality shock was indeed

introduced into the pre-service teacher training programme. In their opinion , an IFTP can

greatly help to reduce the reality shock, or to spread it out over the ® rst year as a

professional teacher, taking advantage of the guidance available. (`It’ s better to go through

two small reality shocks, than one major one that you can barely cope with.’ )

All respondents stated that the schools adopted a positive attitude towards the IFTP.

They consider this kind of student teaching period a valuable start for prospective teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


(`It makes sense to have a student teacher function independently in the classroom while

still a trainee. That way, there is professional help available when needed.’ )

The respondents unanimously agreed that an IFTP should display certain characteris-

tics if it is to be worthwhile. We counted seven aspects and will examine these with the

aid of the criteria of `realism’ and `learning’ described in the introduction.

Procedure for Admission

Admission to the IFTP

The respondents said they consider necessary the use of entry requirements for the IFTP.

Such explic it criteria give the school a certain guarantee of quality , which can prevent

problems arising during the IFTP. The decision to admit a student teacher to the IFTP

should form part of the of® cial procedure for the assessment of the student teachers

functioning at the end of the Triad Period. The of® cial entry requirements are as follows.

In the judgment of the co-operating teacher and the university supervisor the student

teacher (a) possesses suf® cient teaching and communicative skills, and (b) is able to

satisfactorily analyze his or her own lessons and functioning. The respondents felt that

most student teachers should be able to meet these two condition s, given their active

participation in the Triad Period. The procedure sees to it that the IFTP is not so dif® cult

that the student teacher is unable to learn from it because of the insecurity, complexity,

independence, responsibility and work load connected to an IFTP.

Brouwer (1989) did a longitud inal study on the development of teaching competen-

cies during university teacher education programmes only including a Triad Student

Teaching Period, and during the ® rst year as a teacher. He states that student teachers after

doing their teacher training programme with a Triad Period displayed a considerable

capacity for self-evaluation and self-monitoring (essential condition s for so-called `growth

competence’ ). This conclusion, combined with the data from our research project, justi® es

the hypothe sis that having followed a programme that includes a Triad Period, the majority

of student teachers are suf® ciently competent for both functioning and continued growth

during the independent IFTP.

Admission to the IFTP School

According to the respondents, the admission of student teachers to the IFTP school is the

responsibility of the school itself, and not of the teacher training institute. They hold the

view that the student teacher must explicitly apply for an IFTP place at a particular school.

An appropriate procedure would be for the teacher training institute to assign student

teachers to schools; each school would then interview the student teacher in order to

establish his or her suitability, after which the student teacher would be given the informal

status of a quali® ed teacher.

We believe that the obligation to apply for an IFTP place in a school re¯ ects the

reality of both schools and teachers. At the same time, the application procedure does not

involve competition with other candidates, which would make it less insecure. While in

this sense the procedure is not an entirely true re¯ ection of reality and `reality pressure’ ,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


it is in any case one which the student teachers have not yet experienced during their

teacher training course.

Start at the Beginning of the School Year

The respondents hold the view that it is best if the IFTP starts directly at the beginning of

the new school year, instead of at the beginning of the second term. An IFTP at the

beginning of the school year is more favourable to the learning process, as the student

teacher will start that learning process with classes newly formed. This makes it easier to

keep the process going. By `process’ we mean such things as creating and maintaining a

code of conduct, and introducing the subject to a class. The respondents also feel that in

such an IFTP student teachers have a better chance of gradually adapting to the culture of

the school and the need to function independently . Thus they will not immediately

experience the pressure of test papers and the like. Taking over lessons at the beginning

of the second term is considered more dif® cult; to prove their point, respondents refer to

the problems of substitute teachers. In a second-term IFTP, for example, the student

teachers would have to adapt to the code of conduct of their co-operating teacher (who

would undoubtedly give fairly strong guidance in that respect), instead of creating a code

of conduct by themselves.

Extension Over One Reporting Period

In the view of the respondents, the IFTP should extend over one reporting period. In this

way the student teacher can establish a relationship with a number of classes, initiating and

maintaining a particular learning process and creating a learning climate. The student

teachers will be confronted with the long-term effects of their own actions (`Beginner’ s

mistakes are rubbed into them’ ). Some of these effects will take the form of disciplinary

problems. Participating in the activities of the department and the school organisation are

continuous and realistic, instead of incidental. Moreover, the student teachers must make

clear that they are able to bear responsibility during department and reporting sessions and

conduc ting interviews with parents to account for his or her actions as a teacher.

In our view (a) the confrontation with the longer-term effects of one’ s functioning not

only in one lesson but over a period of months; (b) the initiation and the rounding-off of

a learning period on the part of the pupils by means of a report grade; (c) the

institutionalized participation in departmental and school activities; and (d) answering to

third parties for one’ s own actions as a teacher, are all true re¯ ections of the working

situation of the teacher. On the other hand, the duration of one reporting period guarantees

the student teacher a certain degree of protection.

IFTP in a Different School from the Triad Student Teaching Period

The respondents feel that in the interests of student teacher learning the IFTP should take

place at a school different from the one in the Triad Period. In a different school context

the student teacher is confronted with new ideas and a new way of doing things, and this

provides the opportunity for a wide variety of new experiences. If the IFTP were to take

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


place at the same school as the Triad Period, the student teacher might simply continue to

operate within the same patterns of thought and conduct characterising the cooperating

teacher, the department, and the school. Moreover, a switch to another school means that

the student teacher does not have to bear the burden of his or her results during the Triad

Period.

We believe that it is also realistic for the IFTP to take place elsewhere, as in their

careers Dutch teachers often have to change schools, especially when just starting out. The

fact that student teachers do not carry with them the burden of their past performances

during the Triad Student Teaching Period guarantees a certain measure of protection and

serves to promote learning. The opportunity which this provide s for new learning

experiences in a different working situation is a positive contribu tion to the learning

process.

Introduction as a Quali® ed Teacher

The respondents all agreed that during the IFTP the student teacher should have the status

of a quali® ed teacher. This means that the student teachers must not only be introduced as

such, they must function and be treated as quali® ed teachers. In the view of the

respondents, the fact that the student teachers have the teacher status represents an

essential new step in their training. They indicate that the attitude of a class towards a

student teacher introduced as a quali® ed teacher differs from that encountered during the

Triad Student Teaching Period (`Pupils treat you not like someone who still has a lot to

learn, but as someone who’ s expected to be capable.’ ) During the IFTP the student

teachers must plan, organise, execute and evaluate their teaching in a highly independent

manner, on the basis of agreements within the department. This means that the student

teachers must make a great many more decisions than during the Triad Period, and deal

with the consequences of the fact that they are now functioning independently as a teacher.

Unlike the Triad Period, the IFTP requires the student teachers to operate on their own in

the classroom. This means that they have no one to fall back on during the lessons, and

must ® nd solutions for various problems of a practical nature, as well as the problems

ofÐ or caused byÐ the pupils. Moreover, the corrective in¯ uence of the cooperating

teacher is absent, and in the IFTP disciplinary problems are far more likely to occur than

during the Triad Period.

The fact that the student teachers are introduced as quali® ed teachers and are expected

to independently plan, organise, execute and evaluate all their teaching for that subject in

a number of different classes, taking into account the in¯ uences of organizational aspects

at class level is, in our opinion , an attempt to make the IFTP realistic re¯ ection of the work

situation of a beginning teacher. On the other hand, there are certain aspects serving to

make the situation for the student teacher less insecure, namely, the absence of pressures

connected with legal status or ® nancial aspects, and the fact that the student teacher bears

no responsibility for policy or decisions on pupil promotion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


Realistic Work Load

The respondents felt that the workload during the IFTP should be realistic one. In their

view this entails preparing and giving the lessons, participating in departmental and school

activities (department, teacher, and report meetings, excursions, contact with other begin-

ning teachers, etc.), exploration of the supervisory network of the school, keeping a

logbook , plus the progress sessions and supervision. The number of lessonsÐ 10±12 a

weekÐ was considered just right. Care must be taken to see that student teachers are able

to devote the necessary time to their own learning and that there is suf® cient time left for

structural counselling by co-operating teachers and university supervisors. In the view of

the respondents the student teachers should spend about 4±6 hours a week in progress

sessions with the co-operating teacher and every two weeks some hours to general

supervision in small groups on campus (e.g. about three hours in groups of three student

teachers) focusing on professional development, in particular the development of a

personal teaching style and a re¯ ective professional attitude. Moreover, university staff

should organize sessions for the whole cohort group (about every two weeks), intended for

the exchange of ® eld experiences, ideas and teaching aids, and discussing teaching

problems. All these recommendations are implemented in the current IVLOS teacher

education programme.

Supervision Without Attending Lessons

The respondents considered undesirable the attendance by the co-operating teacher of

lessons during the IFTP, as this would interfere with the aim of `learning to function

independently as a teacher’ . The student teacher must be placed in the same position as a

beginning teacher. Attendance at lessons should be permitted only in exceptiona l cases, for

instance, when the progress sessions do not provide the co-operating teacher with enough

information about the functioning of the student teacher. This can be the case even when

there are no particular problems. With a view to the position of the student teacher, such

attendance of lessons can best be adapted to current school practice in consultation with

the co-operating teacher. It could be done by a deputy headmaster or department head

whose normal duties include attending the classes of beginning teachers. According to the

respondents, actual attendance could be replaced by such technical aids as cassette

recorders, videos, or a simple version of the one-way screen.

We believe that, given the complexity of the tasks and the workload, an IFTP without

supervision would be too insecure for the student teachers and would leave them with too

little time for planned learning. Distance supervision, as a structural part of the IFTP, also

ensures that the student teachers can step back and look at their teaching experiences, and

this will have a favourable in¯ uence on their learning. Although there are many schools

providing little or no supervision for their beginning teachers, others have made distance

supervision a structural part of their school practice. Thus this type of supervision does to

some extent re¯ ect reality, while greatly enhancing the learning process of the student

teacher during the IFTP.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE I. Domains of learning outcomes of student teachers

Ð Mid-term planning and organizing lesson sequences in line with departmental decisions

Ð Overseeing several classroom situations at the same time, while making sure that the teaching/learning

process is kept going

Ð Planning the investment of time (e.g. preparation, departmental and school activities, and leisure activities)

Ð Handling work pressure and social pressure

Ð Fostering a relationship based on mutual trust with several classes or individual pupils

Ð Starting up a learning process in several classes, and maintaining the momentum of that process

Ð Differentiating within class groups, recognizing the particular characteristics or problems of individual

pupils

Ð Cooperating with teachers inside and outside the department

Ð Functioning within an actual school context, for instance, by taking account of speci® c aspects of school

organisation and school policy, the various administrators and their responsibilities within the school, and

implicit and explicit opinions and loyalties within the school culture

Ð Gaining more insight into the complexity of the teaching profession

Ð Gaining more insight into, and experience of, the daily routine of teaching, including such things as

improvising

Ð Accounting for one’ s own actions as a teacher to third parties, e.g. during meetings of the department,

reporting meetings and conducting interviews with parents

Ð Developing strategies for analyzing and solving problems

LEARNING OUTCOMES

In this section we list and comment on learning outcomes of the IFTP mentioned by the

respondents. They are all related to the dimension `realistic working situation within the

practical component of an initial teacher education programme’ . Learning outcomes

perceived by the student teachers and their supervisors immediately after the IFTP are

summarized in Table I. Data on long term effects are not available. To make these long

term effects visible, longitud inal follow up research is needed.

It is remarkable, in the light of the learning experiences mentioned by the respon-

dents, that the development of technical teaching competencies seems to be slower than

during the Triad Student Teaching Period. The respondents also stated that the develop-

ment of technical teaching competencies plays a more important role in the Triad Period

than during the IFTP. This assessment is in accordance with the conclusion of Brouwer

(1989) with respect to the teacher training programme of Utrecht University. He found that

in general during the Triad Student Teaching Period student teachers acquire a technical

teaching competence, clearly evident in the early stages of their professional career (it

should be remembered that at the time of Brouwer’ s project, the teacher training

programme in Utrecht University did not yet include an IFTP). According to his ® ndings,

the pedagogical competencies appeared to develop more slowly, while the slowest

development was observed with regard to the competencies necessary for assessing pupil

learning achievements.

In our view, the development of technical teaching competencies proceeds more

slowly during the IFTP as a result of the necessity to function independently in a more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


complex situation, with greater work pressure, more responsibility , and possible disci-

plinary problems. Our opinion is supported by Brouwer’ s (989) conclusion on beginning

teachers, namely that factors in the working context put a great deal of pressure on their

emerging competence; in the situation he studied, these starting competencies consisted

mainly of technical teaching competencies. This pressure also made itself felt when it

came to revising one’ s teaching style.

If we combine our ® ndings on the learning effects mentioned above with the

Brouwer’ s (1989) conclusions, we may hypothesize that by having an IFTP follow a Triad

Period, the starting competency of student teachers is broadened in the direction of

domains other than that of technical teaching competencies. In other words, the IFTP can

contribute to a starting competence having a greater relevance to the daily reality of novice

teachers.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The IFTP experiments provide answers to the three research questions put forward in the

introduction. With respect to the third question (learning effects), the answers are tentative.

The IFTP is seen as a bridge between the traditiona l Triad Student Teaching Period and

the period of independent teaching at the start of the professional career. In this new

student teaching element the student teacher operates independently in a situation closely

approximating that of the beginning teacher. At the same time, however, the student

teacher bene® ts from professional supervision, serving to bridge the gap between an ideal

teaching situation and real teaching practice. The respondents considered the characteristic

aspects of the IFTP described above important because they create a balance between two

contrary demands: `realism’ and `learning’ .

It is interesting to compare these conclusions with those of Brouwer (1989) , who

studied the teacher training programme at Utrecht University before the introduc tion of the

IFTP in combination with the effects of the ® rst professional year. He concluded that

adding of an IFTP element after a Triad Period element to the teacher education

programme of Utrecht University was an appropriate and valid option, where the aim was

to make more gradual the transition from a pre-service teacher training programme to the

actual profession.

The outcomes are based on experiences in six different school contexts, so that in this

respect they may not be seen as highly context-speci® c. They are, however, context-

speci® c for quite another reason, namely, the fact that the university staff forming the

research group looked at things from a particular perspective, based on a clearly-de ® ned

teacher training philosophy (see the section `context’ ). Had the research project been

conduc ted by a research group adhering to another teacher training philosophy, the

outcomes would in all probability have been different.

Further we acknowledge that although careful validation procedures were employed

during the collecting and processing of the data, the outcomes apply to a fairly small

number of individuals. The possibility for generalization on the basis of these results is

therefore quite limited. In addition, a certain novelty (Hawthorn effect) may have made

itself felt, while the motiva tion of those participating may have resulted in more-than-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


normal care being taken in the design and execution of the procedures. Our conclusions

must therefore be seen as well-grounded hypotheses rather than as ® rm assertions.

It should be repeated that with respect to the learning effects in the student teachers’

behaviour, our research project provided us with indications of short term effects only. In

this respect our research was primarily exploratory, and made use of interviews based on

semi-structured questionnaires. These are not considered the best possible instruments for

a systematic identi® cation of the learning effects in question. For an accurate identi ® cation

of the learning effects of the IFTP in comparison to those of the Triad Period, the use of

more precise instruments and the application of some kind of longitud inal design would

be essential. Such a project would have to start with an attempt to formulate a de® nition

of the concept `professional teaching competence’ , followed by the development of a

proper set of instruments for measuring the actual performance of a student teacher in this

respect.

The IFTP pilots carried out thus far will make it possible to conduct more controlled

experiments, in which the characteristic aspects identi® ed in this article can be manipu-

lated. Some of these are work pressure (a larger or smaller number of periods a week),

co-operating teachers’ attendance or non-attendance at the student teachers’ lessons, and

status (quali® ed teacher vs. student teacher). Regardless of the results of such experiments,

the IFTP represents a real improvement within one particular section of the university

teacher education programme. This is one point on which all participants agree, whether

headmasters, co-operating teachers, university supervisors or student teachers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to thank our colleague L. C. Don for his helpful comments on the translation of

this article into English.

REFERENCES

APPLEGATE, J.H. (1987) Early ® eld experiences: three viewpoints, in: M. HABERMAN & J. M. BACKUS

(Eds) Advances in Teacher Education, Vol. 3 (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).

BROUWER, C.N. (1989) GeõÈ ntegreerde lerarenopleiding, principes en effekten (Integrative teacher edu-

cation, principles and effects), PhD thesis, Utrecht University.

BRUYN, S.T. (1966) The Human Perspective in Sociology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).

BURDEN, P.J. (1990) Teacher development, in: W. HOUSTON, M. HABERMAN & J. SIKULA (Eds) Handbook

of Research on Teacher Education (New York, Macmillan).

Council of Europe (1987) Documents of the Fifteenth Session of the Standing Conference of Ministers

of Education, Helsinki 1986 (Strasbourgh, Council of Europe).

CREÂTON, H.A., WUBBELS, TH. & HOOYMAYERS, H.P. (1989) Escaleted disorderly situations in the

classroom and the improvement of these situations, Teaching & Teacher Education, 5, pp. 205±215.

CRONIN, J.M. (1983) State regulation of teacher preparation, in: L. S. SHULMAN & G. SYKES (Eds)

Handbook of Teaching and Policy (New York, Longman).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1992) The Reform of Initial Teacher Training (London, HMSO).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1993) Second round of the school-centred initial teacher training scheme

(SCITT) 29 September (London, HMSO).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION NEWS (1993) Blatch announces secondround of school-centred teaching

programme (291/93), 29 September (London, HMSO).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


GLICKMAN, C.D. & BEY, T.M. (1990) Supervision, in: W. HOUSTON, M. HABERMAN & J. SIKULA (Eds)

Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York, Macmillan).

GUBA, E.G. (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries, Educational

Communication and Technology Journal, 29, pp. 75±91.

GUYTON, E. & MCINTYRE, D.J. (1990) Student teaching and school experiences, in: W. HOUSTON, M.

HABERMAN & J. SIKULA (Eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, pp. 514±534 (New

York, Macmillan).

HOY, W.K. & WOOLFOLK , A.E. (1989) Supervising student teachers, in: A. E. WOOLFOLK (Ed.) Research

Perspectives on the Graduate Preparation of Teachers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).

HUBERMAN, M. (1993) Steps toward a developmental model of teaching career, in: L. KREMER-HAYON, J.

H. C. VONK & R. FESSLER (Eds) Teacher Professional Development: a multiple perspective approach

(Amsterdam, Swets & Zeitlinger).

HYCNER, R.H. (1985) Some guidelines for phenomenological analysis of interview data, Human Studies,

8, pp. 279±303.

IJZENDOORN, M.H. & M IEDEMA, S. (1986) De kwaliteit van kwalitatief onderzoek, Pedagogische StudieÈ n,

63, pp. 498±505.

KERRY, T. & SHELTON MAYES, A. (1995) Issues on Mentoring (London, Routledge).

KOETSIER, C.P. (1991) Een brug tussen opleiding en praktijk (Bridging the gap between teacher education

and teacher practice), PhD thesis, Utrecht University.

KOETSIER, C.P., WUBBELS, TH . & DRIEL, C. VAN (1992) An investigation into careful supervision of

student teaching, in: J. H. C. VONK, J. H. G. I. GIESBERS, J. J. PETERS & TH. WUBBELS (Eds) New

Prospects for Teacher Education in Europe II: conference proceedings (Utrecht, WCC).

KORTHAGEN, F.A.J. (1985) Re¯ ective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands,

Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), pp. 11±15.

MUÈ LLER-FOHRBRODT, G., CLOETTA, B. & DANN, H.D. (1978) Der Praxisschock bei jungen Lehrern.

FormenÐ UrsachenÐ Folgerungen. Eine zusammenfassende Bewertung der theoretischen und em-

pirischen Erkentnisse (Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta).

SPRADLEY, J.P. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

SPRADLEY, J.P. (1980) Participant Observation (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

STONES, E. (1992) Quality Teaching. A sample of cases (London, Routledge).

TOWNSHEND, J. (1994) Developments in school-based initial teacher training, European Journal of

Teacher Education, 17, pp. 49±51.

VEENMAN , S.A.M. (1984) Perceived problems of beginning teachers, Review of Educational Research, 54,

pp. 143±178.

VONK, J.H.C. (1993) Mentoring beginning teachers: mentor knowledge and skills, Mentoring, 1(1),

pp. 31±41.

WAXMAN, H.C. & WALBERG, H.J. (1986) Effects of early ® eld experiences, in: J. D. RATHS & L. G. KATZ

(Eds) Advances in Teacher Education, Vol. 2 (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).

WATZLAWICK , P., BEAVIN, J.H. & JACKSON , D.D.(1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication (New

York, Norton).

WOOLFOLK, A.E. (1989) Graduate preparation of teachers: the debate and beyond, in: A. E. WOOLFOLK

(Ed.) Research Perspectives on the Graduate Preparation of Teachers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,

Prentice Hall).

WUBBELS, TH., CREÂTON, H.A. & HOLVAST, A. (1988) Undesirable classroom situations: a system com-

munication perspective, Interchange, 19, pp. 25±40.

W IJGA, M., BANNINK, P., HARDERWIJK , J., PEEK, G., CREÂTON, H. & VEDDER, J. (1989) De individuele

eindstage (The independent ® nal teaching period) (Utrecht, PDI, Universiteit Utrecht/FEO, HMN).

ZAHORIK , J.A. (1986) Acquiring teaching skills, Journal of Teacher Education, 37, pp. 21±25.

ZEICHNER, K.M. & GORE, J.M. (1990) Teacher socialization, in: W. HOUSTON, M. HABERMAN & J. SIKULA

(Eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York, Macmillan).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

19:

29 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014