Teacher Candidates' Perceptions of Opportunities to Develop Core Practices in a Chilean Teacher Education Program

• In Event: 29.048 - Practice What You Teach: International Studies of the Enactment of Practice in Teacher Education

Abstract

Research on the design of teacher education programs argue that most are too theoretical –abstract and focused on beliefs and knowledge- instead of based in the work of teaching (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). The present work describes the results of an instrument developed to gather data on learning opportunities perceived by students (n = 1294) in the context of a redesign process in a Chilean university-based teacher education program. The goal of the redesign was the development of a “practice-based curriculum” building upon theoretical work on coherence (Author, 2006; Authors, 2015), pedagogies of practice (Grossman, et al., 2009; McDonald, et al., 2013) and opportunities to learn core practices (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman, et al., 2009). One major effort of the redesign focused on incorporating core content and practices into subject-matter courses, teaching method courses and field experience seminars.
In this paper, we explore students’ perceptions about their opportunities in the program to gradually approximate specific teaching practices. Building on the questionnaire developed in the [name of research study removed for blind review] (Author & Colleague, 2014; Author and colleagues, this session), this survey incorporates questions about opportunities to enact some specific core practices in our redesigned courses. Versions of the questionnaire were developed for each type of course, for instance, we asked about coherence, and modeling were asked in all courses, and we also asked about representations of practice and rehearsal in teaching methods and clinical practice courses. The survey was administered at the end of each semester in the Elementary Program and its internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha statistic. The different versions show acceptable levels of consistency (range from 0.92 to 0.95).
The analysis of variance shows that students in subject-matter courses perceived significantly less coherence than students in teaching methods and clinical practice courses (F or Welch F; p<.05 for all items). Descriptive analysis show that these students perceive more opportunities to analyze theory about teaching practice (M=3.42; sd=.72) and fewer to see representations of practice through videos (M=2.59; sd=1.11) and transcripts (M=2.30; sd=1.08). Students in practice courses perceived more opportunities to plan for teaching (M=3.85; sd=.42) and fewer to rehearse teaching a lesson or segment (M=2.64; sd=1.14). Regarding field experiences, 44% of students perceived opportunities to explain content to students and 50% to organize and manage small group work. However, 13% reported opportunities to analyze data from assessments and 17% to choose and adapt teaching materials. Students also indicated more opportunities to practice core practices with whole group of students (frequency ranges from 8% to 39% of students; median= 27%) than with one student (frequency ranges from 2% to 30%; median= 8%).
While our data shed light upon opportunities to enact practice in our program, it also examines the use of a shared instrument as a way to establish a baseline for evidence-based decisions. We explore its potential to monitor the transition to a practice-based curriculum considering students’ perceptions.

Authors

• Magdalena Müller, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile

• Pilar Álamos, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile

• Lorena Meckes, Universidad Catolica de Chile

• Anita Sanyal, University of Maryland - College Park

• Pilar Cox Vial, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile