Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 07 December 2014, At: 16:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
Classroom management in a Dutchteacher education program: a realisticapproachJan van Tartwijk a , Ietje Veldman b & Nico Verloop ba Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences , Utrecht University ,The Netherlandsb ICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching , TheNetherlandsPublished online: 09 May 2011.
To cite this article: Jan van Tartwijk , Ietje Veldman & Nico Verloop (2011) Classroom managementin a Dutch teacher education program: a realistic approach, Teaching Education, 22:2, 169-184,DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2011.567847
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.567847
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 warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teaching EducationVol. 22, No. 2, June 2011, 169–184
ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/10476210.2011.567847http://www.informaworld.com
Classroom management in a Dutch teacher education program: a realistic approach
Jan van Tartwijka*, Ietje Veldmanb and Nico Verloopb
aFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; bICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, The Netherlands
Taylor and FrancisCTED_A_567847.sgm(Final version received 19 April 2010)10.1080/10476210.2011.567847Teaching Education1047-6210 (print)/1470-1286 (online)Article2011Taylor & Francis222000000June [email protected]
Teachers can profit from a solid knowledge base that can function as a frame ofreference to help them organize their thinking. However, theoretical knowledge iseasily ‘washed out’ during the first confrontations with practice. For this reason,several Dutch university-based teacher education programs use a realisticapproach to teacher education. In realistic teacher education, the integration oftheory and practice is promoted by combining learning at the university and theschool from the very start of the program, by tailoring the program to theindividual students’ needs, and by cooperation between university-based teachereducators and supervisors in the schools. In the university-based part of theprogram, students’ concerns are taken as the starting point for teaching and theoryis introduced as a means to enrich students’ reflections on their experiences intheir classrooms and schools. Because creating a positive, orderly workingatmosphere in the classroom is the first concern of many students and beginningteachers, this is one of the first topics that is addressed. In this paper, we describethe teacher education program of the Leiden University Graduate School ofTeaching, which has recently made a shift towards a realistic approach to teachereducation, and how classroom management is taught in this program. Evaluationdata are presented showing the success of this approach.
Keywords: teacher education; classroom management; realistic approach;interpersonal perspective
Introduction
A knowledge base for teaching
Bransford, Darling-Hammond and LePage (2005) write that the goal of the pre-service preparation of teachers is to provide prospective teachers with the core ideasand a broad understanding of teaching and learning that are necessary as a base fortheir later development. They emphasize that teachers need to develop into ‘adaptiveexperts’, who are prepared for effective lifelong learning that allows them continu-ously to add to their knowledge and skills. According to these authors, beginningteachers need to have command of critical ideas and skills, and the capacity to reflecton and keep learning from their experiences as a teacher so that it continuallyimproves. They suggest that teachers can accelerate their learning throughout theircareer, if they have frameworks available that can help them organize their knowledge
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
170 J. van Tartwijk et al.
and their thinking. To help students develop such frameworks, teacher educationneeds a knowledge base of teaching. Verloop, van Driel and Meijer (2001) define aknowledge base of teaching as ‘all profession-related insights that are potentially rele-vant to the teacher’s activities’ (p. 443). These insights can pertain to formal theory,i.e., knowledge that is usually generated by university-based researchers, and toshared elements of teachers’ practical knowledge. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999)refer to the former as knowledge-for-practice and the latter as knowledge-in-practice.Practical knowledge consists of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about their ownteaching practice. It is developed through an integrative process rooted in teachers’own classroom practice and it guides teacher behaviour in the classroom (Connolly &Clandinin, 1995; Meijer, 1999). According to Verloop et al. (2001), an exchangebetween theoretical principles, on the one hand, and teacher expertise, on the other, isnecessary for refinement of this knowledge base of teaching.
Realistic teacher education
Although a knowledge base of teaching is of major importance for the quality of teachereducation, just identifying and describing this knowledge is, of course, not enough.Korthagen and his colleagues (Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels,2001) write that the desire to use as much of the available knowledge as possible hasled to a conception of teacher education as a system in which university-based expertsteach this knowledge to students. In the best case, these teacher educators also try topromote the transfer of this knowledge to the classroom, by skills training or by assign-ments to be carried out during field experiences.
However, literature summarized by Brouwer and Korthagen (2005) indicates thateducational notions developed during pre-service teacher education can easily be‘washed out’ (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981) in field experiences. This washing outmay occur when students are overwhelmed when they are confronted with practice forthe first time. Very often in these situations, they go through a process that is moreone of survival than of learning from experience. They may turn to their more experi-enced colleagues, who seem to cope with the teaching task with much less effort, asrole models. As a consequence, they will adopt the strategies these teachers seem touse or to popular ‘myths’ about teaching, e.g. don’t smile until Christmas, rather thanmaking their own choices informed by theory. This process often referred to as ‘prac-tice shock’ or ‘transition shock’ (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Koetsier & Wubbels,1995; Veenman, 1984).
To prevent the washing out of educational theory as a consequence of the prac-tice shock, new teacher education programs have been developed. In the Nether-lands, pioneering work in this field was done by teacher educators and researchers atUtrecht University (Koetsier, 1991; Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995; Korthagen et al.,2001). The idea behind the design of these programmes was to bring aspects of thereality shock into the teacher education program. In this way, students can be care-fully supervised at the time when they are trying to cope with the practice shock byboth teacher educators and supervising teachers at the schools. To ensure that thepractice shock actually takes place in the program, a part of the program must bearranged in such a way that it resembles the working situation of the beginningteacher. This part of the practical component of the teacher education programshould be characterized by ‘insecurity, complexity, a need for independent andresponsible action, and a substantial workload’ (Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995, p. 335).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 171
The role of teacher educators and supervising teachers in these programs is to createa safe learning environment for the students in which they can become aware of theirlearning needs, find useful learning experiences, and reflect on their experiences(Korthagen et al., 2001). They can provide theory at the right moments, i.e., whenthe student has a need for it to better understand and analyze his or her own experi-ences. In line with Korthagen et al., we will refer to teacher education programs thatare designed according to the ideas described above as realistic teacher educationprograms.
Classroom management in realistic teacher education
In 1984, Veenman reviewed the literature on beginning teachers’ concerns. Heconcluded that classroom discipline was the first concern of most beginning teachersin secondary education. Today, research findings consistently show that beginningteachers still regard student discipline as their most serious challenge (Evertson &Weinstein, 2006a; LePage et al., 2005). This implies that the first learning need ofstudents who have no earlier teaching experience usually is how to create and main-tain a positive and orderly working atmosphere in their classrooms. Therefore, thisshould be a prominent topic to be addressed in realistic teacher education whenstudents start teaching for the first time.
As discussed above, teachers need to have frameworks available that can helpthem organize their knowledge and thinking about this topic. The recent publicationof the Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporaryissues (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006b) has brought together an impressive theoreticalfoundation for a knowledge base of classroom management that can help build such aframework. Two themes that Evertson and Weinstein (2006a) distinguish in contem-porary research on classroom management are very important for helping student andbeginning teachers create and maintain a positive and orderly working atmosphere intheir classrooms. The first theme is the importance of positive teacher–child relation-ships for effective classroom management. They refer to the chapter by Pianta in thehandbook (Pianta, 2006), who writes that a focus on relationships rather than discretebehaviours, or interpreting such behaviour in the light of their meaning for relation-ships, is an important conceptual advance in the classroom management literature, andmay be particularly important for teacher education. The importance of positiveteacher–student relationships was underpinned by a review of Cornelius-White(2007), who reports a substantial correlation between positive teacher–student rela-tionships and positive student outcomes.
A related theme in classroom management literature that Evertson and Weinsteinidentify, is that classroom management strategies relying on punishment and externalrewards may negatively influence teacher–student relationships. Still, correcting disrup-tive student behaviour is sometimes necessary (van Tartwijk, den Brok, Veldman, &Wubbels, 2009). Woolfolk-Hoy and Weinstein (2006) summarize research findingsshowing that, in general, teachers seem to prefer neutral or positive/supportive inter-ventions over negative/punitive actions, but control-oriented strategies, such as remind-ers of rules of behavior, threats to punish, and actual punishment, are seen as appropriatefor hostile, aggressive, disruptive, and defiant students. Brown (2003) studied teachers’knowledge about classroom management in the specific context of urban schools inthe US. He interviewed 13 primary and secondary ‘effective’ urban teachers fromseveral cities across the US. These teachers emphasized the importance of developing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
172 J. van Tartwijk et al.
a caring relationship with their students, but they also see the need of enforcing rulesand behavioral policies.
Aim of this paper
Our aim in this paper is to describe the role that a knowledge base about classroommanagement can play in a realistic teacher education program as outlined above. Todo this, we will describe the curriculum of the teacher education program of theLeiden University Graduate School of Teaching that changed in 2004 from anapproach in which theory was provided in separate courses, to a realistic approachaiming at better connecting theory and practice. In particular, we demonstrate howtwo of the key themes identified by Weinstein and Evertson, i.e., the focus uponstudent–teacher relationships and upon the use of positive reinforcement (and anunderstanding of the consequences of relying heavily upon punishment or externalreward), take central stage in this program’s curriculum with regard to classroommanagement. We will provide evaluation data underpinning the success of thisinnovation.
The program
The teacher education program of Leiden University’s Graduate School of Teachingprepares students with appropriate master degrees in the subject they will teach, forteaching in secondary education. Tailor-made courses are possible for people who bytraining (for example, non-graduate, middle school teachers), or through their workexperience, already have some of the competences needed for a career in teaching.Students who graduate are masters of science/arts in teaching the subject. Theprogram takes a year full-time. It can be followed as a one-year course or as part of atwo-year course. The program starts either in September or February.
After an introduction at the university in the first week of the program in whichstudents are prepared for their first teaching experiences, students start teachingfrom the second week. During the rest of the program, they will continue to teach inschools for about half of their time. Most students (at the moment about 60%) arepaid by the schools for teaching. The others (about 40%) work as apprentices. Allstudents are supervised in the school by an experienced subject-teacher who isspecially trained for the task. A teacher educator, who is based at the university,visits them at their schools at least twice a year and observes a number of theirlessons during the course.
The other half of their time, the students take classes at the university. Classes andmeetings are all scheduled on one day of the week (Monday), to prevent problemswith the schools’ timetables. The remaining day-and-a-half is reserved for the prepa-ration for tutorials and meetings and the carrying out of various assignments. Allstudents begin with the same program, but rapid differentiation of content and tempois possible, depending on the student’s level and development.
Until 2003, theory was presented in separate courses in the university-based partof the program. Just like lessons on a school day, many courses were scheduled nextto each other, meaning that students attended several meetings on the day they cameto the university. For classroom management, skills training was also part of thesecourses. Students’ knowledge and skills for that specific subject were assessed at theend of each course.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 173
Because students indicated they felt ill-prepared, in 2004 a shift was made towardsa realistic approach. The aim was to better match the program with the concerns andlearning needs of the students. Underneath we will describe the changes that weremade, in particular focusing on aspects that are relevant for classroom management.
Teacher roles
The criteria for certification were no longer structured according to the subjects thatwere previously addressed in the various courses, but were formulated as six teacherroles that students should be able to fulfil. One of these roles is ‘classroom manager’.Four other roles are ‘subject teacher’, ‘expert in adolescent psychology’, ‘specialist/educational researcher’, and ‘member of the school organization’. The sixth role isthat of ‘professional’. In this role, the students are asked to reflect on experiences androutines. They are expected to use the theory that is provided in the program todevelop an understanding of their experiences.
Rubrics (Goodrich Andrade, 2005) are available describing competence in each ofthese roles at four levels: insufficient, sufficient, satisfactory, and excellent. An exam-ple of a rubric is depicted in Table 1. In developing the features of the competencesand the levels within them, we drew upon research that would help us articulate whatwas important for teachers to demonstrate for each role. When developing the rubricfor classroom manager, for instance, we built on the work of Nijveldt (Nijveldt,Beijaard, Brekelmans, Verloop, & Wubbels, 2005) for distinguishing between variouspartial competences that are necessary to be able to successfully fulfil this role, andthe work of Brekelmans and her colleagues who investigated the development of theteacher communication style in the interaction with students throughout a career(Brekelmans, Holvast, & van Tartwijk, 1992; Brekelmans, Wubbels, & van Tartwijk,2005) – and related this to student outcomes (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Levy, 1993;den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004). In the teacher education program, therubrics are used for various purposes from helping students diagnose and plan theirdevelopment; to structuring and focusing feedback; and, finally, for formative andsummative assessment.
The order in which the roles are dealt with in the program is determined by theconcerns that most students have (i.e., Fuller & Bown, 1975). Because classroommanagement is the first concern of most student and beginning teachers (Veenman,1984), this role is one of the first roles that is attended to in the program.
Partnership with schools
The teacher education program aims at close collaboration with a limited number ofpartner schools. In 2003–2004 agreements were made with these partner schoolsabout how the students will be supervised at the school, what kind of opportunitiesthey will have to teach, and about the number of hours they are supposed to teach. Atevery partner school, a specially trained teacher is available who supervises all thestudents that work in that partner school. Each student is also supervised by a teacherteaching the same subject. All students teach a number of lessons a week but not morethan 12. Furthermore, students participate in school-related activities, such as sportingevents and trips. They also attend teacher meetings.
In particular in times of teacher shortages, such a collaboration with a teachereducation institute is beneficial for schools, because they get an influx of new highly
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
174 J. van Tartwijk et al.
Tabl
e 1.
Rub
ric
for
the
role
of
clas
sroo
m m
anag
er.
Insu
ffic
ient
Suf
fici
ent
Sat
isfa
ctor
yE
xcel
lent
Pro
vidi
ng
guid
ance
and
st
ruct
ure
Ver
y of
ten
the
teac
her
is n
ot
succ
essf
ul i
n pr
ovid
ing
suff
icie
nt g
uida
nce
and
stru
ctur
e.
The
tea
cher
can
pro
vide
su
ffic
ient
gui
danc
e an
d st
ruct
ure.
How
ever
, the
te
ache
r so
met
imes
fai
ls
to d
o so
.
The
tea
cher
can
pro
vide
su
ffic
ient
gui
danc
e an
d st
ruct
ure,
but
so
met
imes
it
does
tak
e so
me
effo
rt.
Pro
vidi
ng g
uida
nce
and
stru
ctur
e is
eas
y fo
r th
e te
ache
r an
d co
mes
acr
oss
natu
rall
y.
Pro
vidi
ng a
nd
enfo
rcin
g ru
les
Alt
houg
h th
e ru
les
abou
t wha
t is
and
wha
t is
n’t
acce
ptab
le i
n th
e cl
assr
oom
are
em
phas
ized
, th
e te
ache
r is
oft
en h
esit
ant
whe
n co
rrec
ting
stu
dent
s is
ne
cess
ary.
Som
etim
es
corr
ecti
ons
com
e ou
t of
the
bl
ue a
nd a
re o
verd
one.
The
tea
cher
is
clea
r ab
out
wha
t is
and
wha
t is
n’t
acce
ptab
le i
n th
e cl
assr
oom
. The
tea
cher
co
rrec
ts s
tude
nts
whe
n ne
cess
ary,
alt
houg
h so
met
imes
in
a he
sita
nt
man
ner.
The
teac
her
is c
lear
abo
ut
wha
t is
and
wha
t is
n’t
acce
ptab
le i
n th
e cl
assr
oom
. The
teac
her
corr
ects
stu
dent
s w
hen
nece
ssar
y w
itho
ut
over
doin
g it
.
It is
obv
ious
for
eve
ryon
e w
hat i
s an
d w
hat i
sn’t
acc
epta
ble
in th
e cl
assr
oom
. The
tea
cher
doe
s co
rrec
t st
uden
ts w
hen
nece
ssar
y. C
orre
ctio
ns a
re w
ell
tim
ed a
nd b
alan
ced.
The
se
corr
ecti
ons
are
hard
ly n
otic
ed
by t
he o
ther
stu
dent
s.H
elpi
ng a
nd
unde
rsta
ndin
g st
uden
ts
The
tea
cher
is
ofte
n te
nse
whe
n de
alin
g w
ith
stud
ents
.T
he t
each
er c
omm
unic
ates
in
a fr
iend
ly m
anne
r wit
h th
e st
uden
ts a
nd t
ries
to
help
and
und
erst
and
them
.
The
tea
cher
sho
ws
care
fo
r an
d in
tere
st i
n th
e st
uden
ts. H
e no
tice
s pr
oble
ms
and
take
s ap
prop
riat
e ac
tion
.
The
tea
cher
sho
ws
care
for
and
in
tere
st i
n th
e st
uden
ts. H
e no
tice
s pr
oble
ms
in a
n ea
rly
stag
e an
d ta
kes
appr
opri
ate
acti
on.
Giv
e/pr
ovid
e fr
eedo
mT
he s
tude
nts
can
deci
de
them
selv
es w
hat
they
do.
The
tea
cher
is
open
for
su
gges
tion
s.T
he t
each
er t
akes
the
w
ishe
s an
d ne
eds
of th
e st
uden
ts i
nto
cons
ider
atio
n.
The
tea
cher
tak
es t
he w
ishe
s an
d ne
eds
of t
he s
tude
nts
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
and
give
s th
em
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty t
o w
ork
as
they
pro
pose
.W
orki
ng c
lim
ate
In t
his
teac
her’
s cl
assr
oom
the
w
orki
ng c
lim
ate
is n
ot
posi
tive
. The
atm
osph
ere
is
ofte
n ca
ntan
kero
us. I
n ge
nera
l th
e le
sson
s pr
ocee
d in
a m
essy
w
ay.
In t
his
teac
her’
s cl
assr
oom
th
e w
orki
ng c
lim
ate
is
safe
. It
ofte
n ta
kes
a w
hile
bef
ore
the
stud
ents
ar
e co
ncen
trat
ed o
n th
e le
sson
. The
less
ons
are
a bi
t m
essy
som
etim
es.
In t
his
teac
her’
s cl
assr
oom
the
wor
king
cl
imat
e is
saf
e. I
n ge
nera
l, th
e le
sson
s pa
ss o
ff i
n a
wel
l-st
ruct
ured
way
.
In t
his
teac
her’
s cl
assr
oom
the
w
orki
ng c
lim
ate
is s
afe.
In
gene
ral,
the
less
ons
pass
off
in
a w
ell
stru
ctur
ed w
ay a
nd t
he
stud
ents
are
con
cent
rate
d on
th
eir
wor
k, w
hich
doe
s no
t im
ply
that
ther
e is
no
room
for
an
ythi
ng e
lse.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 175
qualified teachers (all students have a master’s degree) with a ‘fresh’ approach toeducation and teaching. For the university this collaboration is also valuable becauseat the partner schools an infrastructure for supervising the students is available. Unfor-tunately, also due to the growing teacher shortages in the Netherlands, students can beoffered paid jobs by schools that are not always involved in some kind of university–school partnership. Very often in those cases, a trained supervising teacher is notavailable and students teach more than the 12 hours that is considered sufficient togain experience within the teacher education program. For many students teachingmore hours can be very stressful and it very often results in delays in study progressor quitting plans to become a teacher altogether.
Mentor groups
At the university, students come together with the same mentor group of about 25fellow students regularly during the entire year. This group is chaired by two teachereducators. For each student, one of these teacher educators is their personal supervi-sor. At the start of the program, the group comes together each week. After about halfthe program, the frequency of the meetings declines (to once every two or threeweeks). Groups consist of students with the same level of experience and preferablywho are teaching at the same schools. Students usually teach various subjects, so thegroups are often interdisciplinary.
The aim of the meetings in the mentor group is for students to share their experi-ences at the placement school and develop an understanding of these experiences. Thelatter is achieved, amongst others, by connecting these experiences to the theory thatis provided in plenary lectures, course syllabi, and literature that students are asked toread. The use of models is an important tool to help students connect the theory totheir experiences (Janssen, De Hullu, & Tigelaar, 2009). Models can be used as a‘theoretical language’ that helps students talk about their experiences. For the role ofthe classroom manager, this is the model for interpersonal teacher behaviour(Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, & van Tartwijk, 2006) that we will introduce in thenext section.
In the sessions in the mentor group, the focus is on learning from positive experiencesand developing rules of thumbs to guide future actions (for more information aboutthis focus on positive experiences, see Janssen, De Hullu, & Tigelaar, 2008). Parts ofthe session in the mentor group are devoted to a more in-depth discussion of the theoryand discussing the results of specific assignments. For the role of the classroom manager,this might for instance be the analysis of a video-clip selected from one of the student’slessons. For the role of expert in adolescent psychology, this might be an analysis ofdata about the social relationships among the pupils in one of the student’s classes. Fordiscussing some of these assignments, the teacher educators are assisted by an expertfor that specific role, if they lack that specific expertise themselves.
The only training at the university which occurs in a different setting than thementor group is the training that is aimed at preparing students for the role of subject-teacher. This training is provided in two subsequent courses that are taught by special-ized teacher educators. Here the focus is on developing the students’ pedagogicalcontent knowledge, that is: knowledge of representations of subject matter and under-standing of specific learning difficulties and student conceptions (Van Driel, Verloop,& De Vos, 1998; see also Shulman, 1986). In this course too, teacher educators try tomake the connection with students’ experiences in the classroom and theories (also)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
176 J. van Tartwijk et al.
used to help them better understand these experiences. Recently, students are asked tofocus on subject teaching in their ‘specialization’ assignment (comparable with theirmaster thesis). This research assignment is assessed using the rubric for the role ofspecialist/educational researcher. Previously this assignment was focused in doingeducational research in general.
Three ‘performance interviews’
During the year, students have at least three individual meetings with their supervisingteacher educator. Sometimes the supervising teacher at school joins this meeting. Tofacilitate this, sometimes meetings are at the school. If that is not possible, the super-vising teacher provides a written report about the student’s teaching.
The individual meetings are introduced to the students using the analogy of anannual performance interview that most employees, including teachers, have withtheir bosses in the Netherlands (cf. van Tartwijk, van Rijswijk, Tuithof, & Driessen,2008). Just as they would for such an annual performance interview, student teachersprepare for this meeting by writing a report of what they have done and achieved,explicitly referring to learning points that were identified earlier and laid out in apersonal development plan.
This preparation takes the form of an electronic portfolio. In this portfolio studentsdo not only describe, for instance, the context in which they teach and their teachingphilosophy, but they are also asked to reflect on their successes, weak points, anddevelopment (cf. Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007). Studentsshould illustrate this systematically with material such as video clips, lesson plans,tests, questionnaires administered among the pupils, and evaluations by supervisingteachers at the school. These materials are collected throughout the period that isdiscussed. Furthermore, a so-called ‘rich case’ is included in the portfolio which thestudent prepares for the second and third interview. This rich case contains a detaileddescription of one lesson. In the description, the students reflect on that lesson fromthe perspective of each of the roles that have been addressed in the program. All kindof materials are gathered about that specific lesson, such as the lesson plan and teach-ing materials, video-clips, test, and evaluations by the pupils and school-based super-vising teachers. Hyperlinks are used to illustrate the reflections with these materials.Some materials that teacher educators suggest student-teachers include in the rich caseto illustrate classroom management issues are, for example, the results of the Ques-tionnaire on Teacher Interaction (Wubbels et al., 2006), a questionnaire that is used togather data about the students’ perceptions of the teacher interpersonal style (that wedescribe in the next section), video-clips, and a supervising teacher’s report of thelesson.
Classroom management: an interpersonal perspective
In the program, an interpersonal perspective on teacher-students communication is usedas a theoretical frame of reference for helpings students develop in the role of classroommanager (Wubbels et al., 2006). This perspective has been developed in a 30-yeartradition of studies on teacher–student communication in secondary education.
Below, we describe this interpersonal perspective. Subsequently we will describehow classroom management issues that touch upon this interpersonal perspective, inparticular, are addressed during the program.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 177
An interpersonal perspective on teacher–student communication
In the interpersonal perspective, teaching is described and analyzed in terms of therelationship between students and teacher. Within this perspective, a systemsapproach to communication is a suitable theoretical frame of reference for betterunderstanding these relationships (cf. Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Thestarting point in this approach is the notion that students and teacher form a socialsystem in which their behaviors mutually influence each other.
In the systems approach to communication three levels of communication aredistinguished. The lowest level consists of one single unit of behavior, the messagelevel. The assumption is that all behavior always communicates relationshipmessages. Relationship messages can be described with two dimensions: a control andan affiliation dimension. Although these two dimensions have occasionally beengiven other names, they have generally been accepted as universal descriptors ofhuman interaction (Kiesler, 1983). The dimensions can be represented in a two dimen-sional co-ordinate system (see Figure 1), which implies that interpersonal messagescan be plotted as a point in this co-ordinate system.Figure 1. Two dimensional coordinate system for mapping the interpersonal significance of teacher behaviour. Arrows indicate which behaviour indicates which reaction.
Figure 1. Two dimensional coordinate system for mapping the interpersonal significance ofteacher behaviour. Arrows indicate which behaviour indicates which reaction.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
178 J. van Tartwijk et al.
A series of exchanged interpersonal messages is called an interaction, the secondcommunicative level. An example of an interaction occurs when the teacher asks aspecific student a question and the student responds to the teacher. Here the conceptof complementarity is important. Tracey (1994) describes complementarity as theextent to which behaviours of people interacting fit with each other in prescribedways. In Figure 1, the arrows indicate how interpersonal messages ‘fit’. An exampleis that teacher behaviour that is perceived by the students as uncertain or dissatisfied,i.e., combines a submissive and opposition message, fits with disruptive studentbehaviour that combines dominant (i.e., the student has the initiative) and oppositionmessages. When the teacher takes the lead in a self-confident and friendly way (i.e.,communicates dominant-cooperation messages), for instance by asking a content-related question and praising the student for a correct answer, students will probablybehave in a positive, complying way. In this line of reasoning, it is important to correctundesired student behaviour (an opposition-dominant message), but in a way that thechance of provoking a negative reaction is as small as possible. Teachers do this byimmediate but low intensity corrections (e.g., just having a slightly prolonged look atstudents who just started chatting) and by combining it with a positive relationshipmessage (van Tartwijk et al., 2009).
After a while, the exchange of interpersonal messages becomes cyclic, and actionand reaction (or cause and effect) are hard to distinguish. At this point then recurrentpatterns can be identified in the exchange of messages. This level can be regarded asthe pattern or relationship level of communication: the third level. Research byWubbels and his colleagues (Wubbels et al., 2006) has shown that patterns in teacher–student communication are important for the character of the working climate in theclassroom (Créton & Wubbels, 1984), and that these patterns are hard to change(Wubbels, Créton, & Holvast, 1988). Furthermore, relations have been establishedbetween teacher–student relationships and students’ cognitive learning outcomes andmotivation (den Brok et al., 2004). Brekelmans and her colleagues compared the char-acter of the teacher–student relationship at various stages of the teaching career(Brekelmans et al., 2005). They found that, in general, teacher influence increaseswith experience, but found no significant relations between teacher–student affiliationand experience.
The perceptions of students of patterns in their teacher’s behaviour, which areindicative of the teacher–student relationship, can be mapped using the Model forInterpersonal Teacher Behaviour (Créton & Wubbels, 1984; Wubbels et al., 2006)which is depicted in Figure 2. This model builds on the control and affiliation dimen-sions that were already presented in Figure 1. The two dimensions underlie eight typesof teacher behaviour that are labelled DC, CD, etc., according to their position in theco-ordinate system (much like the directions in a compass). For example, leadershipbehaviour and helping/friendly behaviour are both characterized by dominance andcooperation. However in leadership behaviour, the dominance aspect prevails over thecooperation aspect whereas in helping/friendly behaviour cooperation prevails overdominance.Figure 2. Model for interpersonal teacher behaviour and profile of the average best Dutch teacher according to pupils in secondary education (based on QTI data).The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) was developed to gather dataabout students’ perceptions of patterns in their teacher’s behaviour. Teachers can alsocomplete the QTI for how they anticipate their students would answer the questions(which is referred to as teachers’ self-perceptions). The QTI consists of eight scalesthat correspond to the sectors in the Model for Interpersonal Teacher behaviour. It wasoriginally developed in the Netherlands, and a 64-item American version was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 179
constructed in 1988 (Wubbels & Levy, 1991). Examples of items are ‘This teacher issomeone we can depend on’ and ‘This teacher is strict’. Graphic representations of theeight scale scores (‘interpersonal profiles’) can be used to report on the teacher–student relationship (see Figure 2 for an example).
Addressing classroom management in the teacher education program: how and when
The first time substantial attention is paid to the role of the classroom in the program,is on the third day of the starting week. Here, in the morning, an hour-and-a-halflecture is delivered. The primary goal of this lecture is to familiarize the students withthe ‘language’ of the Model of Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour to be able to discussteaching from an interpersonal perspective. In the lecture, first, students are invited towatch video-clips of teachers at work in their classes and plot the interpersonalmessages that are communicated with the teacher behaviour in the coordinate systemthat is depicted in Figure 1. By doing so, they familiarize themselves with describinginterpersonal messages in terms of these dimensions. Subsequently, the teachers’nonverbal behaviour, visible on these video clips, is analyzed. This analysis helpsstudents realize that effective teacher–student communication should not be ascribedto something mystic like ‘teacher charisma’, but can be traced down to observable, butoften subtle, (nonverbal) behaviours. It is emphasized that the behavioural repertoireof effective teachers can be learned with experience. Reflections (Hatton & Smith,1995; Janssen, et al., 2008) and deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2006) help to speed upthis process. Working with videos is important, because students who are about tostart teaching are eager to see and discuss other teachers’ teaching strategies.Subsequently, videotaped examples of interactions are used to illustrate themechanisms of complementarity. This helps students realize how their own behaviourinfluences student behaviour. After this, the QTI and the Model for InterpersonalTeacher behaviour are introduced. Students practice with a shortened 16-item version
Figure 2. Model for interpersonal teacher behaviour and profile of the average best Dutchteacher according to pupils in secondary education (based on QTI data).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
180 J. van Tartwijk et al.
of the QTI (two items for each sector) by completing the questions for either their bestor their worst teacher. Finally, research findings are presented about the relationbetween the teacher–student relationship and variables such as the working atmo-sphere in the classroom, student cognitive outcomes and motivation, and teacher expe-rience. A reader is available in which theory that is presented in the lecture issummarized, relevant literature for further reading is suggested, and exercises forfurther practicing are provided.
Immediately after the lecture, student teachers ‘practice’ in their mentor group anumber teacher behaviours in specific interaction situations, using role-plays and theexercises from the reader. Examples of situation are: correcting disruptive pupilbehaviour and having an individual conversation with a pupil.
In the meetings in the mentor group with their fellow students, students reportabout their experiences and concerns every week in the first half year of the program,and once or twice a month later in the program. For most of them, creating and main-taining a positive working atmosphere is one of the main concerns. When studentsdon’t do that themselves, teacher educators refer to the theory to help students betterunderstand their experiences and selecting new plans for action. If necessary, teachereducators also have individual discussions with students.
After about two to three months of teaching, students make a video-recording oftheir teaching in one of their classes. In these classes, they also administer the Ques-tionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Students compare the data gathered with the QTI intheir own classes with the data on the average and best Dutch teachers, which areavailable in the literature, and with their self-perceptions. They analyze significantdifferences between students’ perceptions, self-perceptions, and average and idealperceptions, and try to explain the results by carefully examining the video-recordings.Results of these analyses are discussed with fellow students and, if necessary, withteacher educators. The reports, the QTI results, and a selection of relevant video-fragments are included in the student portfolios.
If students continue to have problems with classroom discipline in the secondhalf of the program, they can join a group with fellow students with similar prob-lems that is supervised by a specialized teacher educator. In this group studentswatch video-clips of teachers who are successful in creating a positive workingatmosphere in their classrooms, and analyze the strategies these teachers use. Subse-quently role-plays are used in which the students try to identify and practice particu-lar solutions for problems with classroom management they have encountered intheir classrooms.
Evaluations
In the introduction of this paper, we wrote that because students indicated that theyfelt ill-prepared, a shift was made towards a realistic approach in 2004. The aim of thisshift was to better match the program with the concerns and learning needs of thestudents. One indication of students feeling ill-prepared was an online survey amongalumni of the teacher education program (N = 75, response 37%). Alumni were askedto indicate on a five-point rating scale how well they felt prepared for each of theteacher roles. In Figure 3 we have depicted the mean scores of the alumni that gradu-ated between 2000 and 2004 alongside the mean scores of students who answered thesame question anonymously in a questionnaire that was is used to gather informationabout students’ evaluation of the program. This questionnaire is administered just
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 181
before the end of the program. Data are presented that were gathered in the period2007–2009 (N = 166, response about 65%).Figure 3. Mean answers to the question ‘How well do you feel prepared for the following teacher role…’ Answers range from ‘1’ (‘very poor’) to ‘5’ (‘very well’).For all teacher roles the improvement in feeling prepared was significant (p < .01).For the role of classroom manager however, the improvement is remarkably strong.From a position as the teacher role for which alumni felt least prepared after gradua-tion, it changed to the role for which students feel prepared best.
The evaluation data show that students feel best prepared for those roles that aremost relevant for actual classroom teaching: the role of classroom manager and therole of subject teacher. Students also feel relatively well prepared for the role of expertin adolescent psychology, which relates to understanding the development of adoles-cents and being able to signal problems of individual pupils and problems in groupprocesses and take appropriate action. This role too is directly relevant for teaching inactual classrooms. The roles for which students feel least prepared, member of theschool organization and specialist/educational researcher, do have an impact on beingable to further develop as a teacher, but may be less relevant for teacher who aremaking their first steps in the profession.
Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have described how helping students with creating and maintaininga positive and orderly classroom atmosphere can be realized in a teacher educationprogram using a realistic approach to teacher education. In the program we described,the teacher education program of the Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching,a shift was made towards this approach in 2004. This shift, implying a much strongerfocus on students’ own concerns and related learning needs and the use of theory as atool to help them better understand and reflect on their experiences, resulted in a
Figure 3. Mean answers to the question ‘How well do you feel prepared for the followingteacher role…’ Answers range from ‘1’ (‘very poor’) to ‘5’ (‘very well’).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
182 J. van Tartwijk et al.
significant improvement in students’ feeling better prepared for practice. The feelingprepared for the role of classroom manager showed the strongest improvement.
Our findings illustrate that teacher education using a realistic approach can makea difference for many students who make their first steps in the teaching career, in partic-ular for the role of classroom manager, the role that relates to students’ main concern:preventing problems with discipline in their classrooms. It can help prevent a ‘practiceshock’ (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995; Veenman, 1984) andmight result in more teachers staying in the profession. This approach aims at educatingteachers who have not distanced themselves from the theory that is used in teachereducation. This theory can help them understand their experiences in the classroom.
However, teacher education using a realistic approach is vulnerable in the followingways: in the Netherlands, just like in many other countries on both sides of the Atlanticand in Australia, teacher shortages are threatening the quality of education (CommissieLeraren, 2007). More and more of our students are invited to apply for a paid job asteachers. Accepting such a paid job implies that they are confronted with a teachingenvironment that is characterized by ‘insecurity, complexity, a need for independentand responsible action, and a substantial workload’ (Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995;Korthagen, et al., 2001) – but with a workload that is simply too high and, very often,without adequate supervision at the workplace to pull them through. Furthermore, formany of these students, also having to work on assignments for the teacher educationprogram is just too much. We regard it as one of our main challenges for the comingyears – to cope with the challenges of the teacher shortage, together with the resultingpressure on teachers to teach in schools before they are fully prepared.
We consider it an important success of the realistic approach we used that studentsfeel better prepared now for those teacher roles that are most directly relevant foractual teaching. Those roles are very important for teachers in the first year of theircareer, whose primary concern is survival in the complex reality of the classroomwhere, according to Doyle (2006), many things happen at the same time, at a fast pace,are basically unpredictable, and where all the teachers’ actions are most of the timeobserved by dozens of students.
Of course, our next challenge is to prepare student teachers even better forprospective teachers for roles such as member of the school organisation and special-ist/ educational researcher. At the moment, training aimed at the roles of member ofthe school organization and specialist/educational researcher immediately followstraining aimed at the roles of classroom manager and subject teacher. However, itmight be better to postpone training aimed at the roles of member of the school orga-nization and specialist/educational researcher until teachers have learned to master theroles of classroom manager and subject teacher. Teachers who are already adequateclassroom managers and subject teachers probably have more energy and attention todevote to roles such as ‘member of the school organization’ and ‘specialist/educa-tional researcher’, which are very important for the development of teachers as profes-sionals, but over the long haul.
ReferencesBransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-
Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparingteachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
Teaching Education 183
Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Student performance, attitudes, instructionalstrategies and teacher-communication style. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you knowwhat you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 50–56). London: TheFalmer Press.
Brekelmans, M., Holvast, A., & van Tartwijk, J. (1992). Changes in teacher communicationstyles during the professional career. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(1), 13–22.
Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & van Tartwijk, J. (2005). Teacher–student relationships acrossthe career. International Journal of Educational Research, 32(1/2), 55–71.
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F.A.J. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? AmericanEducational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224.
Brown, D.F. (2003). Urban teachers’ use of culturally responsive management strategies.Theory into Practice, 42(4), 277–282.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacherlearning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Commissie Leraren. (2007). Teaching force! [in Dutch: Leerkracht!]. Den Haag Ministerievan OCW.
Connolly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes.New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher–student relationships are effective: Ameta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.
Créton, H.A., & Wubbels, T. (1984). Ordeproblemen bij beginnende leraren. Utrecht: WCC.den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and
student outcomes. School effectiveness and school improvement, 15(3/4), 407–442.Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C.M. Evertson &
C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, andcontemporary issues (pp. 97–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson, K.A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the develop-ment of expert performance. In K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich & R.R. Hoff-man (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–704).New York: Cambridge University Press.
Evertson, C.M., & Weinstein, C.S. (2006a). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. InC.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research,practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evertson, C.M., & Weinstein, C.S. (Eds.). (2006b). Handbook of classroom management:Research, practice and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fuller, F.F., & Bown, O.H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education(pp. 25–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goodrich Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubric: The good, the bad, and the ugly. CollegeTeaching, 53(1), 27–30.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition andimplementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.
Janssen, F., De Hullu, E., & Tigelaar, D.E.H. (2008). Positive experiences as input forreflection by student teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2),115–127.
Janssen, F., De Hullu, E., & Tigelaar, D.E.H. (2009). Using a domain-specific model toimprove student teachers’ reflections on positive teaching experiences. Action in TeacherEducation, 31(2), 120–135.
Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity inhuman transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214.
Koetsier, C.P. (1991). Een brug tussen opleiding en praktijk: Een studie over de individueleeindstage als brug tussen lerarenopleding en praktijk [A bridge between theory and prac-tice: The independent final teaching period as a bridge between teacher education andpractice]. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.
Koetsier, C.P., & Wubbels, T. (1995). Bridging the gap between initial teacher training andteacher induction. Journal of Education for Teaching, 21(3), 333–345.
Korthagen, F.A.J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linkingtheory and practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 0
7 D
ecem
ber
2014
184 J. van Tartwijk et al.
LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Gutierrez, C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock,K. (2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),Preparing teachers for the real world: What teachers should learn and be able to do(pp. 327–357). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D.D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool forstimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 47–62.
Meijer, P. (1999). Teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching reading comprehension insecondary teaching. Leiden University, Leiden.
Nijveldt, M.J., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., Verloop, N., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Assessingbeginning teachers’ interpersonal competence: The quality of assessors’ judgementprocesses. International Journal of Educational Research, 1–2(43), 89–102.
Pianta, R.C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers:Implications for research and practice. In C.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbookof classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 685–710).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15, 4–14.
Tracey, T.T. (1994). An examination of the complementarity of interpersonal behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 864–878.
Van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogicalcontent knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
van Tartwijk, J., den Brok, P., Veldman, I., & Wubbels, T. (2009). Teachers’ practical knowledgeabout classroom management in multicultural classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,25(3), 453–460.
van Tartwijk, J., van Rijswijk, M., Tuithof, H., & Driessen, E.W. (2008). Using an analogy inthe introduction of a portfolio. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 927–938.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 54(1), 51–67.
Verloop, N., van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base ofteaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communica-tion. New York: Norton.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C.S. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on classroommanagement. In C. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom manage-ment: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 181–219). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & van Tartwijk, J. (2006). An interpersonalperspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. InC. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research,practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1161–1191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Wubbels, T., Créton, H.A., & Holvast, A. (1988). Undesirable classroom situations: Asystems communication perspective. Interchange, 19(2), 25–40.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1981). Are the effects of teacher education ‘washed out’by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–13.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Auc
klan
d L
ibra
ry]
at 1
6:59
07
Dec
embe
r 20
14
