A Cross-National Comparison of Graduate-Level Initial Teacher Preparation Programs in Romania and the United States

• In Event: Global and comparative perspectives on teacher education

Proposal

Although the past decade and a half has witnessed a growth in studies that examine teacher education from comparative and international perspectives, the research literature has continued to draw attention to the need for continued comparative research in this area. While a substantial number of international comparative studies of initial licensure teacher education programs at the undergraduate (Bachelor’s or baccalaureate) levels have been conducted, few such comparisons of initial licensure teacher preparation programs at the graduate (Master’s) level exist. Consequently, to fill in this gap, the primary goal of this study was to conduct a cross-national comparative examination of two graduate-level initial licensure teacher preparation programs in Romania and in the United States, both considered research-intensive institutions in their respective countries. The study’s secondary goal is to examine how lessons drawn from this unique comparison of highly specific graduate teacher education programs may inform future revisions of both programs. While not generalizable given their small-scale nature, the two programs may serve as illustrative cases of curricular design in graduate-level teacher education programs offering new comparative insights into the unique motivations and factors that lead to their development in their social and cultural contexts.

Conceptual Framework

This exploratory study adopted the framework developed by Darling-Hammond (2006, 2012) for the evaluation of teacher education programs. Originally conceived for undergraduate teacher education as the site of examination, it formulated criteria for the design of successful and effective teacher education programs. In this study, the researchers adapted and applied the framework specifically to the graduate-level initial licensure programs of the two institutions’ teacher education programs, as these components serve as distinct areas of analysis in this comparative context. This framework was tailored to this study’s comparative approach to the graduate-level programs at both institutions, and consists of the following six components: 1) A coherent program vision outlining a program’s curriculum and associated teaching practice driving it; 2) A conscious blending of theory, disciplinary knowledge, subject-specific pedagogical knowledge and practice, allowing teacher candidates to develop the holistic expertise required of teaching professionals; 3) Carefully crafted field experiences under the supervision of cooperating teachers and university supervisors; 4) A set of standards for quality teaching by which teacher candidates are periodically evaluated from the entry to the exit stages of the program; 5) Faculty use active pedagogy to demonstrate and model teaching strategies; 6) A focus on meeting the needs of a diverse student population via specially designed assignments addressing learner diversity in education courses. This framework allows for systematic and holistic analyses of multiple core elements of teacher education programs. Furthermore, it lends itself to conducting cross-national comparative research by allowing the researcher to contrast equivalent dimensions of teacher preparation, albeit situated in distinct socio-cultural contexts.

Methodology

The study relied on a mixed-methods approach, collecting quantitative data via a survey instrument and qualitative data via follow-up individual email interviews. A content analysis of curriculum documents from both institutions was also conducted. The survey instrument was an adapted version of a 159-item exit survey utilized by the teacher education program at the US institution on its undergraduate teacher candidates upon program completion reflecting the elements of the conceptual framework outlined above.
A content analysis of program documents, such as curriculum plans, accreditation reports, course syllabi, and other related artifacts at both institutions offered the researchers insight into the two programs’ design process to reach beyond the ‘information barriers’ the enacted texts may pose to the researcher.
This study relied on convenience sampling at both sites of investigation. Given the highly specific scope of the research examining two small teacher preparation programs, the target population was narrow and limited to teacher candidates who graduated from the two graduate-level initial licensure teacher preparation programs. Consequently, the sampling frame consisted of 58 teacher candidates the Romanian program, and 78 teacher candidates from the US program.

Implications

Three main implications result from this analysis addressing the research questions guiding this exploratory study. First, although respondents from both institutions considered that their respective programs prepared them adequately for a teaching career, they noted deficiencies that could be considered in the further refinement of the two programs. Consequently, this comparative analysis reveals that fostering classroom management skills, instructional planning, practical teaching experience, a fine balance between theory and practice, and the provision of continuous professional development post-graduation, are common concerns that cut across national educational settings. Second, the two programs reflect the institutional and contextual traditions of their respective national education systems, in that the Romanian program emphasizes to a greater extent theoretical preparation than the US program. In this sense, as the programs evolve, adjustments in each of them could address this discrepancy, even though the US program appears less theory-intensive than its Romanian equivalent. Thus, respondents from both programs noted they expected both programs to create better links between theoretical and practical preparation. Third, as it transitions from the experimental to the permanent stage, the Romanian didactic master’s program could consider developing immersive practical training for more extended periods of time, similar to the clinical practical experience the US graduates undergo in their final semester, a recommendation substantiated by both the curricular analysis and the interest expressed by the Romanian respondents to this end in their narrative comments.

Conclusion

In summary, this comparative analysis revealed convergences and divergences that could be instrumental in further reforming the two programs. Both programs would benefit from closer alignment between their theoretical and practical components, as evidenced by the curricular, statistical and narrative comments analyses in this study. For instance, while their responses are shaped by regional contexts and educational system structures, both the graduates from both institutions expressed a shared desire for professional growth, especially in areas like classroom management and technology integration. Both groups expect a stronger balance between theory and practice, yet they approach this need from slightly different angles, with Romanian graduates emphasizing system-wide reforms, while the US graduates were more focused on individualized practical interventions.

Author

• Florin D Salajan, North Dakota State University