Testing Theoretical Models and Instruments to Describe and to Assess Teachers' Counseling Competence

• In Event: 63.065 - Performance-Based Strategies to Train and Assess Teacher–Parent Conversation Competencies

Abstract

1) Objectives/Background

Counseling is an important aspect of everyday life at schools and a crucial element of teachers’ professional competences (Baumert & Kunter, 2011). Teachers however often feel insufficiently prepared for everyday counseling (e.g. Wild, 2003). This points to the large need of professionalization in this area. Training programs should base on competence models and their efficiency should be tested in intervention studies before they are included in teacher education programs (Kunter & Klusmann, 2010). Our paper contributes to these issues by (1) introducing an empirically tested model of counseling-competence, and (2) describing results from the application of a multi-method assessment approach within an intervention study in primary teacher education at university.

2) Methods/Data Sources

Exploratory factor analyses with Mplus were computed to develop a model of teachers’ counseling-competence. Data from pre-service teachers (N=161) and teachers in service N=176) were collected in Germany and Switzerland using a self-rating questionnaire with 15 items covering counseling-competence. For the analyses data was pooled by country. Thus, competence models for per-service teachers and in service teachers were estimated.

The multi-method approach in assessing counseling-competence was applied in an intervention study in primary teacher education at university in Germany and Switzerland. Within a quasi-experimental design, participants enrolled themselves to three different treatment conditions (EG: counseling-competence training, CG1: communication skills training, CG2: Creating adaptive learning environments. Self-rating questionnaires (15 Items), knowledge tests (11 Items), and situational-judgment tests (3 items) were used to assess counseling-competence in a multi-method fashion. In total, N=117 pre-service teachers participated.

3) Results

Exploratory factor analyses indicate that a three-dimensional model fits the data best as compared to a one factor or a five factor solution in both samples. Additionally, the item factor loadings were quite similar for pre-service and in-service teacher samples, indicating a comparable factor structure with regard to content. Thus, counseling-competence can be described with the same dimensions in different stages of teachers’ professional career. This is a very important precondition for investigating the development of counseling-competence throughout the teacher career.

The applied assessments turned out to differ in their usefulness in capturing differences in competence development. The ANCOVAS did not show statistically significant post-test differences between the EG (counseling training) and the CG1 (communication training) in pre-service teachers’ self-ratings of counseling-competence. Anyhow, significant post-test differences were found comparing EG and CG2 (training in adaptive learning environments) with regard to self-ratings, indicating that participants in the EG had a higher gain in competence. For the knowledge test and the SJT statistically significant post-test differences were found. Again, participants in the EG outperformed participants in the CGs. Thus, the knowledge test and the SJT were more adequate to detect differences between content-similar and content-unsimilar control treatments and the counseling training.

4) Significance

From a practical perspective, the results provide important starting points for further development of counseling-competence trainings and the choice of instruments in assessing teachers’ counseling-competence in the field. Anyhow, further research is needed to learn more about the development of counseling-competence throughout the teacher career.

Authors

• Silke Hertel, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

• Bernhard Schmitz, Institute of Psychology University

• Mara Gerich

• Simone Bruder, German Institute for International Educational Research