Gilada Avissar, Ph.D. Rivka Reichenberg, Ph.D.

Mofet Institute, Tel AvivBeit Berl Academic College

‘Professional development activities are hard work’ (Swennen & Bates, 2010. pp.7):

An exploratory study of the

actions taken by teacher educators in Israel toward their professional development.

What prompted our study?

• The claim made in the editorial of the latest issue of Professional Development in Education (36(1-2), 2010) by Anja Swennen and Tony Bates: “professional development activities are hard work” (P.2)

Potential contribution

• To facilitate a probe in an attempt to identify what are the specific activities taken by teacher educators that are aimed at professional development.

Research Questions

A. What activities are considered by teacher educators in Israel to promote their P.D.?

B. To what extent is engagement in research considered a way to promote P.D.?

C. To what extent are the activities related to background variables?

A few comments about the methodology:

• Participants• Questionnaire

Participants

• Table 1: Background variables of the participants:

  N (of respondents)

range M SD

Age 39 42-66 54.79 6.79

Tenure in education 39 8-44 29.11 7.71

Tenure in teacher training

40 2-34 17.28 8.66

Professional experience

• Out of 36 respondents, 25 (70%) have had previous professional experience in teaching, mostly in the upper grades, 6 (1.6%) have taught in university and the professional background of 4 (1.4%) was in areas other than education.

• Table 2: Area of expertise/schooling (N=40)

• Table 3: Role in college (N=40)

Education sciences; Pedagogy

61%

Social science 2.2%

Humanities 7.3%

Natural science 7.8%

Lecturer in education 43.9%

Lecturer in a disciplinary area 22.9%

Pedagogic instructor 9.8%

Academic position – middle management

9.8%

Other 12.2%

QuestionnairePart 1: Background data i.e., tenure, academic degree and

area of expertise. Part 2: Area and type of teaching role. Part 3: Activities taken for the purpose of P.D.: The first question in this part asked to specify the different

activities undertook in order to promote P.D. and to rank them on a 1-6 Likert scale in reference to possible contribution toward P.D. The second question in this part asked the participants to rank, on a 1-6 Likert scale, different P.D. activities that they would recommend to their colleagues.

Part 4: Engagement in research (6 questions).

The last question asked the participants to rank, on a 1-10 scale, where they see themselves as far as P.D. is concerned.

What did we find?

An important comment:

As we ourselves are veteran T.E.s we were under the impression that external factors are first and foremost in motivating T.E.s in Israel to engage in P.D. Among these are the demands to obtain a Ph.D. degree as a prerequisite for positions, tenure and over-all professional status. Our findings here seem to indicate that first and foremost is internal motivation.

Role perception

The academic staff in teacher training colleges in Israel is comprised of four different groups:

(a)pedagogic instructors and mentors of the practicum;

(b)lecturers in the areas of education, psychology and sociology;

(c) lecturers in different disciplinary areas; (d)instructors in the area of research,

assessment and measurement methodologies.

The first two perceive themselves as teacher educators whereas the latter perceive themselves as disciplinary lecturers who happen to find a job in teacher training.

Type and essence of activities that promote P.D. Differentiation between structured,

formal study programs and non-structured, informal activities and to take into account whether engagement in P.D. activity is motivated by external or internal factors.

• Table 4: Motivating factors in choosing P.D. activities

  1+2 3+4 5+6 M SD

A recommendation made by a colleague

47.8 25.0 29.1 3.17 1,76

Personal interest   2.8 97.2 5.83 0.44

A recommendation made by my superior

44.0 16.0 40.0 3.24 2.06

Possible contribution to tenure 40.0 24.0 36.0 3.28 1.90

A.The activities considered by teacher educators in Israel to

promote their P.D.

• Table 5: P.D. activities presented by type (structured/non-structured) and source of motivation (N=40):

  Internal motivation External motivationStructured Study

programsResearchWriting and Publishing

47.5%

15%10%

Ph.D. 25%

Non-Structured

Various short-term, non-credit courses

2.5%    

• Table 6: P.D. activities as recommended by the respondents (N=40)

  Highest rank (5+6) M SD

Ph.D. 87.5 5.55 0.87

Study programs taken at Mofet 64.7 4.69 1.14

Research 9 5.45 0.65

Writing and publishing 87.5 5.50 0.84

Non-credit courses 42.5 4.12 1.11

B. To what extent is engagement in research

considered a way to promote P.D.?

• Table : Engagement in research (N=35)

Current involvement in research 82.9%Area of latest research 0.0%Type of research:

QualitativeQuantitative

 65.9%34.1%

Research was sponsored by:College

Mofet

 36.6%31.6%

Group researchIndividual research

53.7%24.4%

Publication in peer-reviewed journal:Yesno

 61.1%

C. To what extent are the activities related to

background variables?

No relationships were found between background variables and P.D. activities.

Future research:

(1) The questionnaire needs to be revised. (2) The next sample should be planned in an effort

to include a more varied sample. (3) These questions could be used for a

comparative international study in order to contribute to policy and practice with regard to T.E.P.D.

(4) Engagement in research by T.Es should be investigated in depth.

(5) The contribution of studies toward a Ph.D. of T.Es should also be looked into more carefully.

Thank You!