This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]On: 20 December 2014, At: 19:37Publisher: 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

Jewish and Arab Teacher Trainees'Orientations Toward Teaching-LearningProcessesBillie Eilam aa Department of Teaching and Teacher Education, Faculty ofEducation , University of Haifa , Mount Carmel, Haifa, 31905, IsraelPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Billie Eilam (2003) Jewish and Arab Teacher Trainees' OrientationsToward Teaching-Learning Processes, Teaching Education, 14:2, 169-186, DOI:10.1080/1047621032000092968

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047621032000092968

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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 Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, August 2003

Jewish and Arab Teacher Trainees’Orientations Toward Teaching–LearningProcessesBILLIE EILAMDepartment of Teaching and Teacher Education, Faculty of Education, University ofHaifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel

ABSTRACT The present study aimed to examine Jewish, Arab (Christian and Muslims),and Druze teacher trainees’ orientations toward teaching–learning processes in relation totheir cultural background. The parameter used for characterizing culture comprised thecontinuum of individualism–collectivism. As a generalization, Jews were located at theindividualistic end of the continuum, Muslim Arabs at its collectivistic end, and ChristianArabs and Druze in between them. Data were collected via a questionnaire. Teachertrainees’ responses revealed differences in orientation toward teaching–learning processes inaccordance with culture, mainly contributed by the Jewish and Muslim students.

The socio-cultural view of “culture” stresses the dynamic interactions and networksof interconnections between members of the social world, their practices andideologies, and the material and conceptual artifacts that mediate human behaviorwithin cultural groups (Cole, 1997). The practice of learning is always situated incultural settings using their resources. Learning is conceptualized as the construc-tion of knowledge by individuals who observe and practice aspects of the culturalgroup’s behavior and belief systems. The constructed knowledge is in part a productof the context and culture in which the learning process occurs, knowledge thatmight affect further learning processes (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Goodnow,Miller & Kessel, 1995; Hatano, 1999). Therefore, to understand the process oflearning and to improve instructional design, the larger social and cultural practicesin which learning is embedded should be studied as interactions of learners withother individuals and with artifacts (Cole, 1997; Hatano & Miyake, 1991).

Learning and the Individual Context

Hatano and Miyake (1991) suggested that instruction and learning may be im-proved only if the involved persons’ beliefs and values attributed to learning areknown. Yet these authors also described the difficulties inherent in measuringcultural dimensions relevant to learning objectives. They emphasized the need to

ISSN 1047-6210 (print)/ISSN 1470-1286 (online)/03/020169-18 2003 School of Education, The University of QueenslandDOI: 10.1080/1047621032000092968

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

170 B. Eilam

explain how individuals’ pieces of knowledge and beliefs about the culture areinternalized as procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge, which may actto either constrain or to enhance learning.

Goodnow (1990) suggested that individuals in various cultures learn differentvalues with respect to ways of thinking, learning, and acquiring knowledge. Onedoes not simply learn things (e.g., knowledge about sex); one learns that some waysof acquiring knowledge are more acceptable than others, and that certain subjectsrequire specific modes of knowledge seeking. Goodnow described socialization asencountering information that is already tagged in diverse ways. Verbal and par-ticularly non-verbal messages constantly convey cultural values to individuals(e.g., about the differing importance of various school subjects according to thelearner’s gender, age, generation, family social class and power, individual abilitiesor handicaps, etc.).

Learning, among other factors, interacts with students’ cultural milieu, andpedagogical approaches and procedures are likewise culturally embedded. There-fore, learners from one culture are not guaranteed success in another. Hatano andInagaki (1998) suggested that, before educational technologies and beliefs can besuccessfully implemented, they must be “translated” into the new culture, to bealigned with the students’ beliefs and attitudes (Hatano & Inagaki, 1998).

Hollingsworth (1989) claimed that learning to teach is related to cultural back-ground. She described preservice teachers as having culturally-bounded pre-existingideas about teaching and education, which interact with teacher education pro-grams’ curricula.

In view of teachers’ centrality in the design and implementation of a “culturallyrelevant” pedagogy in their classrooms (Ladson-Billings, 1995b), and in line withthe decided relations between learning, educational practices, and culture, multicul-tural teacher education programs must be a focus of study. Researchers who havestudied the receipt of a dominant-culture-oriented teacher education by minorityteacher trainees have implied that the curricula of such programs are mostlymonocultural, present the beliefs and ideas of the dominant culture, and establishobjectives that are homogeneous for all students in spite of difficulties resulting fromcultural and linguistic differences (Gagliardi, 1995). For example, the kind of schoolthat minorities should attend during their fieldwork is seldom discussed (Bennett,Cole & Thompson, 2000). These programs operate under the assumption that theminority trainees benefit from the training as well as do mainstream students. Yetminority teacher trainees have reported feelings and experiences different from thoseof the majority, which calls for re-thinking such programs (Fuller, 1992; Guyton,Saxton & Wesche, 1996; King, 1993). Some researchers have cautioned againstthe cultural mismatch between teachers and students (Ladson-Billings, 1995a;Zeichner, 1992).

The Israeli Multicultural Milieu

The Israeli university teacher education system comprises Jews, Muslim andChristian Arabs, and Druze and may be considered to epitomize a multicultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 171

milieu reflecting Israel’s multiple cultures. This population may be characterizedusing Triandis’ (1995) parameter of the individualism–collectivism continuum. Onthe individualistic end of this continuum lie Western societies, generally typified byindividuals who emphasize their own agendas, which seldom overlap that of thesociety as a whole. Eastern societies tend to lean toward the collectivist end. On thewhole, their social rules call for individuals to behave according to preferredcollective common goals, to exhibit intimate relations among themselves and re-moteness from outsiders, and to value collective harmony. Obviously, these general-izations depict different patterns of society en masse, and individual persons withineach culture may differ widely from its norms. Nevertheless, the individualism–collectivism continuum provides a useful global division of cultural tendencies andtraditions, reflecting processes that influence each culture’s members to varyingdegrees (Triandis, 1995).

Israel’s cultural composition may be said to reflect the whole spectrum of thisglobal continuum due to its subcultural variation, ranging from the culture of Jewsof Western origin (e.g., Europe, America), which is characterized as most individu-alistic, through Jewish culture of eastern origin (e.g., Africa, Middle East), then tothe Christian Arab culture, followed by the Druze, and finally to the minority cultureconsidered most collectivist—Muslim Arab culture (including Bedouin). Thus,Israeli Arabs and Druze, comprising altogether about 20% of the Israeli population,live in a collectivist society that is characterized by Arab and Jewish researchers alikeas being progressively influenced by the individualistic culture of the Jewish majority(Al-Haj, 1988, 1989, 1995; Brodai & Israelashwili, 1998; Buda & Elsayed-Elkhuoly,1998; Florian, Mikulincer & Weller, 1993). As mentioned earlier, these generaliza-tions refer to cultural norms and belief systems, and the individuals within eachculture act as agents who filter in or out various cultural influences (Cole, 1997).Yet, in general, the male and urban Arab/Druze population is more exposed toWestern, individualistic influences than is the female and rural population (Azaiza &Ben-Ari, 1997; Jarrous-Absawy, 1999).

The Israeli Educational System

The following description of Arab and Jewish educational systems in Israel derivesfrom studies performed mostly by Arab and also by some Jewish researchers.Needless to say, this description is very general; the heterogeneity in schoolingpractices in both societies is high. Yet, a micro-analysis performed within a broadqualitative study on Arab and Jewish teacher trainees and educators (Eilam, 2002)confirmed the view that, in general, the two groups try to adhere to and preservetheir traditions. With respect to education, the Christian Arabs in Israel, consideredleast collectivist among the non-Jewish subcultures, demonstrate higher academicachievements and more women in higher education than do their Muslim, andusually also their Druze, counterparts, and also boast some (mostly private) schoolsconsidered the country’s best (Swirski, 1990; Weller, Florian & Mikulincer, 1995).Druze, different in religion from Arabs and Jews, advocate for their own separateeducational practices. According to the proposed global collectivism–individualism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

172 B. Eilam

continuum, the Druze can be located between the Arabs and the Jews, leaningtoward the former.

The Arab collectivist view traditionally places great emphasis on the authority ofteachers and adults, and on the need for respect. In traditional society, learning andchildren’s obedience to adults are highly regarded values (Al-Haj, 1995; Eilam,2002; Haj-Yahia & Shor, 1995; Seginer, 1988). Many teachers in this society,overall, were found to attribute high importance to the collectivist norms of obeyingand respecting adult authority, and lower importance to individualistic normsconcerning personal and intellectual autonomy (Schwartz, 1994). Among thoseseeking to adhere to tradition in many Arab schools, these collectivist norms may betranslated into granting teachers ultimate authority; discouraging students fromexpressing opinions, criticism, or argumentation; and a predominance of memoriza-tion and rote learning in Arab instructional practices (Al-Haj, 1995, 1996; Mar’i,1974; Reches, 1981; Tzartzur, 1985). Such norms and practices have been found toresult in child education that developed an external locus of control and conformityto an accepted image, without self-critique (Barakat, 1993).

Eilam’s (2002) recent study suggested that some of these traditional values amongArab student teachers and educators may be increasingly rare, especially amongurban communities. Eilam found great heterogeneity in the degree to which Araband Druze teachers demonstrated adherence to tradition. Some Arab teachertrainees criticized aspects of their own previous school learning; in particular, theyopposed total teacher authority, which they felt led to student passivity in learning.Other Arab educators, after returning to their communities following participationin a Western-democratic university training program, regarded their traditionaleducational system and practices as better suited to Arab pupils.

Other new research has shown that Israeli Arab families continue to adhere totraditional norms that accentuate the need to respect parents, to limit individualfreedom in the family, and to exert high parental control over adolescents (Jarrous-Absawy, 1999). Adolescents often emphasized their belonging to their social collec-tive while planning their future (Al-Haj, 1995; Seginer, 1988).

Concerted efforts in Israeli education have focused on introducing new teachingand learning approaches that highlight an attempt to promote individual students’active thinking and participation in the learning process, such as cooperative andindependent learning, inquiry, alternative assessment, and a democratic manage-ment style (Chen, Yogev & Shapira, 1995; Glaubman & Iram, 1999). Change isalways difficult to bring about in any educational system, and this trend is far frombeing fully achieved in Israel; however, the implementation of such approaches atboth the management and pedagogical levels has, by and large, received moreresistance in the Arab schools due to their declared adherence to tradition. Forexample, this general traditional view is presented in the study of school atmosphereas manifested in rule formulations (Ismair, 1992). Rules in the majority of Arabschools emphasized a conservative, prohibitive view of conduct and control (“don’tdo …”), with a focus on study habits, self-discipline, obedience, and conformityrather than rules emphasizing student, teacher, and parent collaboration, partici-pation or free expression of opinions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 173

These studies corresponded, too, with Fuchs’ (1997) research on teaching prefer-ences. Using Lamm’s (1973) mapping of three teaching styles—the imitative, theshaping, and the progressive developmental style—Fuchs found that Arab teachersscored highest on perceptions of imitative teaching (e.g., rote learning, memoriza-tion), which characterizes a conservative teaching approach that focuses on theneeds of society. As a group, they scored lowest on perceptions of a developmentalprogressive teaching style, which focuses on the realization of individual potential.The Jewish teacher group revealed the opposite pattern.

A Multicultural Teacher Education Program

These research results, indicating a tendency to adhere to the valued conservative,collectivist traditions regarding educational issues in Arab society, were furthersupported by Eilam’s (2002) qualitative study of Arab and Druze teacher traineesand expert graduates of a multicultural Israeli teacher education program. TheseArab and Druze students “passed through” a Western-oriented teacher educationprogram in order to return to teach in their own culture. The study focused both on:(a) trainees’ ways of interacting with the knowledge presented in the trainingprogram, in light of their own prior traditional experiences and due to otherdifficulties related to contextual artifacts like the foreign language and unfamiliarlearning practices; and (b) contradictions that educators faced while applying newWestern-oriented knowledge to their teaching practices within the Arab and Druzecommunities. In-depth interviews and open-ended questionnaires revealed theArab and Druze trainees’ and expert teachers’ ideas and perceptions, in relation totheir current professional stage. Participants’ statements were found to mostlyexpress ideas adhering to their collectivist tradition (e.g., concepts of respect forelders and teachers, family honor, children’s obedience, authority, parents, andcommunity).

The current study aimed to examine the relations between adherence to culturaltradition and novice teacher trainees’ orientation (i.e., their beliefs, attitudes, andpredilections) toward teaching–learning processes. Revealing students’ viewpointsconcerning specific issues was expected to shed light on the manner in whichtradition might be related to learning, and therefore on the opportunities providedfor students to be successful teachers in the future. Jewish, Druze, and Christian andMuslim Arab students’ orientations were investigated before beginning their studiesin the teacher education program. Significant differences were expected betweenthese groups’ orientations, suggesting a link with students’ tendency to adhere totraditional practices, norms, and values, as depicted in the literature. These differ-ences in student groups’ orientations were expected to extend beyond differencesstemming from factors unrelated to traditional elements such as individual differ-ences and preferences. Specifically, Arab and Druze teacher trainees’ orientationswere predicted to correspond more with the collectivist ideas and values expressedin Arab education. Differences were expected to become larger with the degree ofcollectivism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

174 B. Eilam

Method

Setting

The study was conducted in the Department of Teaching and Teacher Education inthe University of Haifa’s Faculty of Education. The student population comprisesabout 30% Israeli Arab and Druze students, and 70% Jewish students. The groupsdiffer culturally and originate in two separate sectors of the Israeli educationalsystem: Arab and Jewish. This separation, stemming from policy enacted during theBritish Mandate prior to 1948 (when the Israeli state was established), was based onmutual agreement of both parties for the sake of cultural preservation and mentalharmony by educating children in a school atmosphere similar to that of home(Swirski, 1990). Each sector has its own schools. The two curricula are similar, butteaching–learning processes are conducted in the students’ mother tongue and inaccordance with their local cultural tradition. The university teacher training pro-gram (conducted in Hebrew) employs the same Western-democratic orientation forboth cultural groups. Only the practical fieldwork differs between groups; studentsobserve and practice teaching in their own language within their own educationalsector.

Participants

The participants of the study included most of the teacher candidates who hadenrolled in the first year of the Teaching and Teacher Education Department: 127Arab students (n1 � 84 Muslims, n2 � 28 Christians, and n3 � 15 Druze) and 234Jewish students. (Some were absent while the questionnaires were administered.) Allparticipants were studying to become teachers in the Jewish, Druze, and Arabsectors’ junior high and high schools, in various disciplines (e.g., Hebrew, Arabic,mathematics, literature). All participants were also enrolled in or had graduatedfrom studies toward a bachelor degree in the particular discipline they had chosento teach. During these university studies, they had some exposure to Western-democratic teaching practices. As in most years, females outnumbered males in thetotal sample by about three times (291 females, 70 males), and the number of Jewishmales was much smaller than that of Arab and Druze males.

Instrument

Data concerning students’ orientation toward teaching–learning processes werecollected via a structured questionnaire. Space triangulation was used to overcomethe limitations of the cross-cultural study. Triangulation was performed by using, inaddition to the current structured questionnaires, in-depth interviews and open-ended questionnaires that had been previously administered to members of the samecultural groups in a similar setting (Eilam, 2002). These instruments were used tomore fully explain these groups’ orientations, by studying them from more than onestandpoint and by making use of qualitative as well as quantitative data (Cohen &Manion, 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 175

Principal component analysis (with varimax rotation) explored the number ofcandidate scales among 67 items that were formulated as statements. These state-ments represented: (a) learning principles and modes taught and partly applied inthe preservice program; and (b) difficulties in their enactment and individualpreferences regarding teaching–learning procedures, as substantiated in the litera-ture and revealed in the previous study. Students were asked to indicate their degreeof agreement with the item statement, on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 � do notagree, 6 � fully agree). During administration of the questionnaire, students wereinstructed verbally that, if they could not relate to a specific area due to a lack ofrelevant prior teaching–learning experiences (e.g., with video clips or classroomobservations), they should conjecture whether the given item would be true. Theycould speculate based on past personal educational experiences as learners inschools and at university, and on ideas they then developed about teaching–learningprocesses.

Two faculty experts in the area of teaching–learning processes examined contentvalidity of the questionnaire items prior to administration of the questionnaire. Fivescales emerged from the factor analysis, comprising 42 items, accounting for 32% ofthe overall variance. Twenty-five items with a factor loading lower than 0.30 wereexcluded from the scale; therefore, a test of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha)was computed for each of the five scales (see following). Factor loadings for the fivefactors ranged from 0.30 to 0.67 (see Appendix A for sample items). These scalesand how they might contribute to revealing students’ orientations are now describedand discussed.

(1) Application of Theory in Practice (12 items, factor loadings � 0.3–0.62, Cronbachalpha � 0.81). Higher scores indicated recognition of stronger theory–practice rela-tions, and therefore a better perceived ability to apply university-studied theory instudents’ own everyday teaching practices. The theory–practice gap in teachereducation is a well-established phenomenon (for example, Goodlad, 1990; Kortha-gen & Kessels, 1999). Students experience great difficulties in perceiving theory asrelevant and as effective in improving real classroom teaching. Based on previousresearch findings, it was expected that the Arab group, who, on the whole, experi-enced greater discipline and obedience in their classrooms and whose teachers weretraditionally granted total control (the collectivist view), would be more assuredconcerning their ability to apply theory in their classrooms than the Jewish students,who, as a whole, experienced disciplinary problems and less parental cooperation.

(2) Difficulties in Learning (13 items, factor loadings � 0.38–0.62, Cronbach alpha �

0.76). Higher scores indicated experiencing more difficulties in learning. Thisscale aimed to reveal students’ perceptions of learning modes that—more thantraditional ones—call for students’ active involvement in their own knowledgeconstruction (see, for example, Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Arab teachers werepreviously found, overall, to attribute lower importance to individual and intellectualautonomy (Schwartz, 1994) and to demonstrate more passive learning practices(Al-Haj, 1996, 1999); therefore, they were expected to perceive more difficulties

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

176 B. Eilam

than would Jewish participants in using the modes of learning presented by thisscale.

(3) Modes of Improving Learning (11 items, factor loadings � 0.41–0.67, Cronbachalpha � 0.72). Higher scores indicated a mode’s higher perceived learningeffectiveness. This scale asked for the trainees’ perspectives of teaching modes thatmight contribute to improving their own learning (e.g., content-bound learning ofskills, active experience, reflection). Most of these modes, too, reflected an activeview of learning, which better suits individualistic cultural and traditional normsand beliefs than it does collectivist ones. Therefore, Arab students were expectedto score lower on this scale, and these lower Modes of Improving Learning(MIL) scores were expected to coincide with higher Difficulties in Learning (DL)scores, because greater difficulties in these learning modes would correspond withlower expectations of such modes’ capacity to improve learning. The preserviceteachers’ specific prior knowledge and experiences as learners in their own individu-alistic/collectivist tradition milieu was expected to influence their perceptions oflearning modes (possibly hinting at their preferred pedagogies) (Hollingsworth,1989).

(4) Classroom Observations (three items, factor loadings � 0.44 to 0.57, Cronbachalpha � 0.68). Higher scores indicated the observation’s high effectiveness in pro-moting learning about teaching and learning. This scale’s importance emerged fromthe status of the practicum as a major component in teacher education. None of thestudents had yet experienced the practicum; therefore, intergroup differences werenot expected regarding this component’s perceived ability to improve students’learning to be teachers. Also, students were aware that their practicum would occurin schools within their own culture. In as much as students hold a general sense offamiliarity with their own school system and teaching practices, participants as awhole were expected to consider classroom observations to be non-threatening,productive, and useful.

(5) Video Clip Analysis (three items, factor loadings � 0.31–0.61, Cronbach alpha �

0.69). Higher scores indicated that video clips might better help the respondentto comprehend learning processes. This scale was included due to the recentintroduction of video analysis of authentic classroom episodes into the program,to promote students’ awareness to cognitive (rather than behavioral) teachingand learning aspects. As in the case of classroom observations, neither studentgroup had past video analysis experience but both could imagine favorably,especially under university teachers’ guidance, how it might promote their learningto teach.

By revealing students’ ideas concerning these five aspects of learning, it was hopedthat some facets of the program might be improved to make it “culturally relevant”to all students (Ladson-Billings, 1995b).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 177

Procedure and Data Analysis

To prevent sequence biasing effects, two versions of the questionnaire were admin-istered. Each version began with a different half of the questionnaire. No significantdifferences were found between the two versions. The questionnaire was completedduring class in the first week of the academic year. Students required 30–55 minutesto complete it. Intercorrelations between scales were calculated for the total popu-lation and for the Jewish and non-Jewish groups separately.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to revealdifferences between Jewish and Arab students regarding the five scales. A one-wayMANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests were used to reveal differences in perspectivesamong the four cultural groups of students (Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews)regarding the study scales.

Results

The one-way MANOVA comparing the Jewish teacher candidate group with thenon-Jewish group (Christian and Muslim Arabs and Druze) on the five scalesyielded a significant difference between Jewish and non-Jewish groups’ orientationstoward teaching–learning processes regarding the Application of Theory in Practice(ATP) scale (F(1,359) � 4.82, p � 0.05), the DL scale (F(1,359) � 21.6, p � 0.001), andthe MIL scale (F(1,359) � 12.2, p � 0.001). No significant differences were foundbetween the Jewish and non-Jewish orientations with regard to the ClassroomObservations (CO) scale or the Video Clip Analysis (VCA) scale (see Table 1).

The one-way MANOVA comparing the four cultural groups’ orientations alsorevealed significant differences for only the first three scales (ATP, F(3,357) � 2.55,p � 0.06; DL, F(3,357) � 7.48, p � 0.001; and MIL, F(3,357) � 5.68, p � 0.001). TheTukey post-hoc test revealed that only Jewish and Muslim Arab groups contributed

TABLE 1. Means, standard deviations, and F values comparing Jewish and non-Jewishstudents on the five scales

Jewish Non-Jewish F(n � 234) (n � 127) (df � 1.359)

Application of Theory in Mean 3.34 3.54 4.82*Practice SD 0.86 0.79Difficulties in Learning Mean 3.05 3.43 21.6***

SD 0.79 0.65Modes of Improving Learning Mean 4.86 4.64 12.2***

SD 0.56 0.57Classroom Observations Mean 2.91 2.88 0.03

SD 1.25 1.05Video Clip Analysis Mean 4.61 4.44 2.33

SD 1.03 0.84

df � degrees of freedom; SD, standard deviation.Multivariate F(5,355) � 7.8, p � 0.001.*p � 0.05, ***p � 0.001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

178 B. Eilam

TABLE 2. The four cultural groups’ mean scores on the five scales

Jewish Muslim Christian Druze F(n � 234) (n � 84) (n � 28) (n � 15) (df � 3.357)

Application of Theory in Mean 3.34 3.63 3.37 3.36 2.55*Practice SD 0.86 0.77 0.82 0.80Difficulties in Learning Mean 3.05 3.47 3.39 3.28 7.48***

SD 0.79 0.62 0.74 0.63Modes of Improving Mean 4.86 4.57 4.84 4.66 5.68***Learning SD 0.56 0.58 0.44 0.66Classroom Observations Mean 2.91 2.88 3.00 2.64 0.31

SD 1.25 1.08 0.97 0.98Video Clip Analysis Mean 4.61 4.40 4.48 4.62 1.01

SD 1.03 0.84 0.85 0.88

df � degrees of freedom; SD, standard deviation.Multivariate F(5,975) � 3.2, p � 0.001.*p � 0.06, ***p � 0.001.

to these significant differences, with higher ATP and DL scores and lower MILscores among the Muslim group as compared with the Jewish group. Neither theChristian Arab nor the Druze group differed significantly from either the Jewishgroup’s orientation or that of their Muslim peers (see Table 2).

The groups’ mean scores calculated on the five scales reflected students’ generalorientations concerning teaching–learning processes. Generally, the mean scores ofthe Druze and the Christian Arab groups ranged between those of the Jewish and theMuslim groups’ scores for the first three scales (ATP, DL, and MIL).

The range of mean scores for the ATP scale indicated that students were quiteneutral with regard to their ability to apply theory in their future practice as teachersbut, overall, students in the Jewish group were significantly more skeptical thanthose in the Muslim group concerning their own ability. The latter resembled theirDruze and Christian counterparts.

Regarding the DL scale, respondents did not exhibit a full awareness of thedifficulties inherent in various teaching–learning activities, which require activethinking on the part of the learner. The non-Jewish groups (especially the Muslims)revealed a higher awareness of such difficulties than did the Jewish group.

Surprisingly enough, of all the scales, scores were highest on the MIL, whichexpressed students’ preference for particular learning procedures that might facili-tate their understanding and achievements. These scores exhibited students’confidence in the ability of certain modes of learning to improve their learningsuccess. Students in the Jewish group were significantly more aware of the potentialfor certain learning modes to affect their learning than in the Muslim group.

Students’ conjectures about the capability of classroom observations to promotetheir ability to learn how to teach and to deal with classroom situations (CO scale)revealed the lowest of their evaluations. No significant differences emerged hereamong the four groups of students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 179

Revealing no significant differences, all the student groups speculated that guidedvideo-analysis might contribute meaningfully to their understanding of the class-room, although they had never experienced such a learning mode.

Intercorrelations were calculated between the five scales for the total sample. Twosignificant correlations were found. First, the more students perceived learnedtheories as applicable in practice (ATP scale), the more they perceived difficulties inlearning (DL scale). Second, the more students believed in the benefit of variousmethods for advancing learning (MIL scale), the more they considered the video tobe an effective method (VCA scale). It seems, therefore, that the scales examineddifferent issues of teaching and learning. Thus, the questionnaire as a whole maysuggest an overall view of various aspects of students’ orientations concerningteaching–learning processes.

Discussion and Conclusions

As expected, significant differences were found between the groups of Jewish andArab (especially Muslim) students regarding their orientations toward teaching andlearning issues relevant to the process of becoming teachers. These different orienta-tions among the groups’ members (who represent different traditions along thecollectivist–individualistic continuum) suggest dynamic interactions between thestudents of a certain culture or tradition and their preferred modes of learning, asoccurring directly or through the medium of that culture’s artifacts. For example,cultural artifacts emerge from early school practices that create the learning contextsin which pupils construct ideas, beliefs, and knowledge concerning education. Thesebodies of education-related knowledge, reflected in university students’ orientations,interact with those encountered in the new context of the university and may thusresult in dynamic processes of change in the individuals’ perspectives, norms, andbeliefs. Hence, while constantly attempting to achieve their own educational goalswithin the context of their university environment, the students incorporate variousinterwoven elements into their learning activities, like their early school experiences,newly acquired knowledge, teachers’ knowledge and behavior, group members’traditional orientations, university policies, and so on (Cole, 1997). Su’s (1997)study concerning differences between minority and mainstream preservice teachers’perspectives of education, schooling, and what makes a good teacher and concerningthe role of prior cultural and educational influences, might lend support to thecurrent outcomes.

Data analysis revealed possible relations between students’ cultural backgroundand their orientations toward teaching and learning processes, as reflected in theirresponses to the scales’ items. They used these orientations as frameworks forinterpreting and relating to the various items.

The present students’ neutral scores on the ATP scale seem to substantiate thewell-documented finding that students have difficulty in perceiving how theoryrelates to educational practices (for example, Bromme & Tillema, 1995; Ethell &McMeniman, 2000), especially regarding cognitive aspects of teaching–learningprocesses (Brown, 1994; Copeland & Decker, 1996; Eilam & Poyas, 2002; Ethell &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

180 B. Eilam

McMeniman, 2000). The Arab educational milieu, which traditionally involves firmdiscipline and grants teachers high status and respect, may have encouraged MuslimArab students to believe more in their ability to successfully apply what they hadlearned. Perhaps an expectation to deliver more traditional modes of learning by roteand memorization in the Arab sector may have led to many Arab students’ higherconfidence in their ability to relate theory to practice, due to these modes’ percep-tion as easier to control and administer, in comparison with the university-taughtand university-implemented constructivist modes promoting individually meaning-ful, active learning.

Despite the Arab students’ confidence regarding their ability to teach according touniversity-acquired theory, they demonstrated more awareness than their Jewishpeers to the difficulties involved in active modes of learning (per the DL scale). Asfound in Eilam’s (2002) previous study, the Arab students probably first encoun-tered these difficulties while studying for their degree. New experiences in theseactive learning modes probably evoked thoughts about various teaching–learningprocesses, perceived through both lenses—of their traditional collectivist culture andof the Western culture predominating the academic program. The Arab students’responses were unsurprising in light of the differences between their cultural tra-dition and their current experiences in the new university context, as suggested byAl-Haj (1999). He reported four types of unique difficulties that Arab preserviceteachers might experience: (a) linguistic gaps (particularly for Muslims); (b) unfam-iliar learning modes; (c) making sense of knowledge by bridging their own cultureand that of the Western-oriented campus; and (d) relating theory grounded inWestern culture to practice conducted within Arab schools.

Both non-Jewish and Jewish cultural groups’ scores on the MIL scale were thehighest given in this questionnaire. Both seemed confident that active learning,involvement, open discussions, and an emphasis on thinking and understandingrather than on memorization would help them learn to become teachers. Neverthe-less, the Muslim Arab students’ responses, overall, reflected lower expectations thanamong their Jewish counterparts. Owing to the likelihood that the Muslim students’past experiences with such learning procedures were more infrequent than those oftheir Jewish peers, their expectations from these methods were probably speculative(Al-Haj, 1999; Reches, 1981; Schwartz, 1994; Tzartzur, 1985). Some research hassuggested, despite within-culture heterogeneity, differences between Arab and Jew-ish students in learning style. The former group tended to perform better on theWechsler (1981) intelligence subscales that required knowledge storage and memo-rization (i.e., passive learning modes), whereas the latter group tended to performbetter regarding analytical thinking and decision making (Dwairy, 1998). Further-more, concerning anxiety and thought disturbances during tests, Arab adolescentsexpressed more difficulties in remembering knowledge, whereas Jewish studentsexpressed more difficulties in thinking processes (Nahhas, 2000).

As expected, the orientations of the Christian Arab and the Druze students werefound to lie in between those of the Jewish and the Muslim Arab students, inaccordance with the four groups’ location on the collectivist–individualist contin-uum. These outcomes supported earlier findings that suggested that the Muslim

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 181

society is still more collectivist than the Christian and Druze societies (Weller et al.,1995), granting further support to the idea of relations between cultural traditionand learning.

No intergroup differences were found concerning the scales measuring expecta-tions from classroom observations and video-based teaching methods. These scales,like the previous three, reflected learning modes; however, they were very specificand practical, related to teacher education, and had never been experienced before.Perhaps these features led to insignificant differences among the various groups ofnovice teacher trainees.

The present study holds both theoretical and practical implications. Its theoreticalimportance lies in revealing how an individual’s cultural traditions inter-relate withorientations concerning teaching–learning processes and how the latter may changedynamically in various contexts to meet the individual’s educational goals. Neitherof these elements stands alone. They are both interwoven in the social world of theindividual.

The practical importance arises once these relations and student difficulties havebeen established for preservice teachers of different origins. Specific considerationsof the Israeli training program’s curriculum and practices must be introduced topromote Arab teacher trainees’ ability to learn effectively. The rationale for suchconsiderations in Israel differs from that motivating other multicultural contexts. Inmany countries, multicultural teacher education aspires to train teachers of alltraditions to teach in a multicultural classroom. Various global reasons have beencited for rejecting an underlying melting-pot principle, such as individuals’ declareddesire to adhere to their culture and traditions; the benefits of human diversity,especially for learning situations (Banks, 1993; Nieto, 1992); and the contributionand enrichment offered by a multicultural context, in contrast to the possiblelimiting and constraining effects of homogeneous educational experiences (Powell,2000). Beyond these universal considerations, the particular structure of the Israelieducational system, with its two separate sectors, makes it entirely illogical to worktoward such a blending. Taking into account that the Israeli Arab and Jewisheducational sectors were planned to differ in order for education to occur in thecontext of specific dissimilar cultural traditions, policy-makers external to thespecific tradition must not seek to erase or decrease these distinctions. Certainboundaries might be blurred by the mere dynamic character of these juxtaposedcultures and groups, whose cultural artifacts continuously change over time due tonew interactions with other groups and within larger contexts. However, the objec-tive of teacher education in Israel should be to optimally prepare trainees to teachsuccessfully in their target sector.

Nevertheless, the university department probably suffers from many of the re-ported difficulties specifically facing its Arab teachers, despite its provision of amulticultural context for learning. A previous study (Eilam, 2002) asserted thatthese teachers merely “pass through” the Western-democratic teacher education,after being raised and educated within their own collectivist culture and beforereturning to work in their own Arab sector. Despite their exposure to the Western-democratic teaching–learning curriculum, some of these teachers felt they only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

182 B. Eilam

minimally implemented this knowledge in the field, due primarily to incompatibilityor inappropriateness of the new modes in the traditional cultural milieu (Eilam,2002).

Another issue seeming to affect the training program’s effectiveness relates to thevariability in Arab trainees’ self-defined teaching objectives vis-a-vis cultural aspects:some of them regarded their aim as meeting the needs of the Arab elementary andsecondary students to participate meaningfully and successfully in Arab Israelisociety; others expressed a desire to strengthen the elements of the Arab culture; andstill others wished to facilitate their students’ access to the Jewish, Hebrew-speaking“culture of power” in Israel (Eilam, 2002). No cohesive overt advertized policyexists within the Arab educational sector with regard to cultural preservation versusintegration into the majority culture. These issues are further complicated by the factthat future teachers may teach in multicultural Arab classrooms—containing varyingratios of Christians, Muslims, Druze, and Bedouins. Thus, the multicultural diver-sity issues facing Israeli Arab teachers differ from those usually encountered byteachers in other countries in the world.

Israeli Arab teachers must learn how to better utilize their own studies in theWestern-oriented department in order to become better teachers in another contextthat is itself multicultural. Thus, Arab teacher trainees should first be provided theopportunity to fully enjoy and benefit from their studies in the teacher educationprogram, perhaps necessitating modifications to ease transition into the program,due to variation in some trainees’ knowledge and beliefs rooted in prior experiencesin their own minority sector. Second, due to the added step facing these trainees—oftranslating possibly foreign teaching–learning concepts and methods back into thecultural milieu of their own Arab sector—the teacher program should directly assistArab preservice teachers by enhancing sensitivity to the importance of defining adynamic cultural ideology for the multicultural Arab classroom, and also by provid-ing means for successfully applying desired aspects of their newly constructedknowledge to the work of teaching in that sector.

Some of the practices thought to promote these goals include: purposeful utiliza-tion of illustrations deriving from all cultures while teaching various subjects likepsychology, sociology, and history; students’ enactment of the practicum in theirown sectors, to enable observation and experiences in one’s mother tongue withinthe context of one’s own tradition; and special courses covering the orientations ofboth educational systems, taught by lecturers from both sectors. To address theunique needs of these preservice teachers, Arab teacher education colleges and anall-Arab teacher education program inside a Jewish college have also been estab-lished in Israel, offering alternative settings. Moreover, professional teachers canreceive joint inservice training (in various educational issues) through the Israeliteachers’ union or specific in-school inservice programs according to local needs.Recognition of the unique needs of Arab teacher trainees must incorporate anunderstanding of the vigorous interactions between cognitive practices, ideologies,use of teaching–learning tools, and the within-group heterogeneity of Israeli Arabteachers. With this notion in mind, minority difficulties in teacher education pro-grams should be addressed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 183

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express her appreciation to Dee B. Ankonina for herremarks.

References

AL-HAJ, M. (1988). The changing Arab kinship structure: The effect of modernization in anurban community. Economic Developmental Cultural Change, 36, 237–258.

AL-HAJ, M. (1989). Social research on family life styles among Arabs in Israel. Journal ofComparative Family Studies, 20, 175–195.

AL-HAJ, M. (1995). Kinship and modernization in developing societies: The emergence ofinstrumentalized kinship. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 311–328.

AL-HAJ, M. (1996). Education among the arabs in Israel: Control and social change. Jerusalem: TheHebrew University Magnes Press (in Hebrew).

AL-HAJ, M. (1999). Higher Education among the arabs in Israel: Situation, needs and recommenda-tions. Haifa: University of Haifa, Center for Multiculturalism and Educational Research (inHebrew).

AZAIZA, F. & BEN-ARI, A.T. (1997). Minority adolescents’ future orientation: The case of Arabsliving in Israel. International Journal of Group Tensions, 27, 43–55.

BANKS, J.A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice.In L. DARLING-HAMMOND (Ed.), Review of research in education (vol. 19, pp. 3–49). Wash-ington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

BARAKAT, H. (1993). The Arab world. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.BENNETT, C., COLE, D. & THOMPSON, J.N. (2000). Preparing teachers of color at a predominantly

white university: A case of project TEAM. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 445–464.BRODAI, A. & ISRAELASHWILI, M. (1998). Similarities and differences in the preferred coping styles

of Israeli adolescents who originated in various cultures. Educational Counseling, 7, 36–37 (inHebrew).

BROMME, R. & TILLEMA, H. (1995). Fusing experience and theory: The structure of professionalknowledge. Learning and Instruction, 5, 261–267.

BROOKS, J.G. & BROOKS, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivistclassrooms (part I–II). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-opment.

BROWN, A. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23, 4–12.BROWN, J.S., COLLINS, A. & DUGUID, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.BUDA, R. & ELSAYED-ELKHUOLY, S. (1998). Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 487–492.CHEN, D., YOGEV, A. & SHAPIRA, R. (1995). Education toward the twenty-first century. Tel-Aviv:

Ramot (in Hebrew).COHEN, L. & MANION, L. (1989). Research methods in education (3rd edn, chap. 11). London:

Routledge.COLE, M. (1997). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap–

Harvard University Press.COPELAND, W.D. & DECKER, L.D. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making

in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 467–481.DWAIRY, M. (1998). Cross-cultural counseling: The Arab–Palestinian case. New York: Haworth

Press.EILAM, B. (2002). “Passing through” a western democratic teacher education: The case of Israeli

Arab teachers. Teacher College Record. 104(8), 1658–1701.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

184 B. Eilam

EILAM, B. & POYAS, Y. (2002). Promoting awareness to the characteristics of classroom com-plexity: A course curriculum in teacher education (submitted for publication).

ETHELL, R.G. & MCMENIMAN, M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action of an expertpractitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 87–102.

FLORIAN, V., MIKULINCER, M. & WELLER, A. (1993). Does culture affect perceived family dynam-ics? A comparison between Arab and Jewish adolescents in Israel. Journal of ComparativeFamily Studies, 24, 189–201.

FUCHS, I. (1997). Teaching images and socioeconomic status of teachers in four sectors of theIsraeli educational system. Megamot, 38(2), 226–246 (in Hebrew).

FULLER, M.L. (1992). Monoculture teachers and multicultural students: A demographic clash.Teaching Education, 4, 87–93.

GAGLIARDI, R. (1995). An integrated model for teacher training in a multicultural context. In R.GAGLIARDI (Ed.), Teacher training and multiculturalism: National studies (pp. 1–13). Lau-sanne: UNESCO, International Bureau of Education.

GLAUBMAN, R. & IRAM, Y. (Eds) (1999). Developments in teaching: The Israeli case. Tel-Aviv: Ramot(in Hebrew).

GOODLAD, J.I. (1990). Places where teachers are taught. San Francisco, CA: Jose Bass.GOODNOW, J.J. (1990). The socialization of cognition. What’s involved? In J.W. STIGLER, R.A.

SHWEDER & G. HERDT (Eds), Cultural psychology (pp. 259–286). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

GOODNOW, J.J., MILLER, P.J. & KESSEL, F. (Eds) (1995). Cultural practices as contexts for develop-ment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

GUYTON, E., SAXTON, R. & WESCHE, M. (1996). Experiences of diverse students in teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 643–652.

HAJ-YAHIA, M.M. & SHOR, R. (1995). Child maltreatment as perceived by Arab students of socialscience in the West Bank. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1209–1219.

HATANO, G. (1999). Is cultural psychology on the middle ground or farther? Human Development,42, 83–86.

HATANO, G. & INAGAKI, K. (1998). Cultural contexts of schooling revisited: A review of thelearning gap from a cultural psychology perspective. In S.G. PARIS & H.M. WELLMAN (Eds),Global prospects for education, development, culture, and schooling (pp. 79–104). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

HATANO, G. & MIYAKE, N. (1991). What does a cultural approach offer to research on learning?Learning and Instruction, 1, 273–281.

HOLLINGSWORTH, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

ISMAIR, N. (1992). The effect of the curriculum in pedagogy in teacher training on the develop-ment of the cognitive structure of student teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Haifa, Israel.

JARROUS-ABSAWY, G. (1999). Relationships between parents and adolescents as a function ofculture and values. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.

KING, S.H. (1993). The limited presence of African-American teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 63, 115–150.

KORTHAGEN, F.A.J. & KESSELS, J.P.M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the peda-gogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28, 1–14.

LADSON-BILLINGS, G. (1995a). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. InJ.A. BANKS & C.A.M. BANKS (Eds), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747–759). New York: Macmillan.

LADSON-BILLINGS, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of cultural relevant pedagogy. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

LAMM, Z. (1973). Contradictory logics in teaching. Tel-Aviv: Sifriat Poalim (in Hebrew).MAR’I, S.K. (1974). School and society in the Arab village in Israel. Studies in Education, 4, 85–104

(in Hebrew).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Culture and teachers’ orientation 185

NAHHAS, A.I. (2000). The relationship between family environment and parental educationalexpectations and trait and test anxiety among Jewish and Arab adolescents. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.

NIETO, S. (1992). Affirming diversity. New York: Longman.POWELL, R. (2000). Case-based teaching in homogeneous teacher education contexts: A study of

preservice teachers’ situative cognition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 389–410.RECHES, E. (1981). The Arabs in Israel: Continuity and changes. In A. LAISH (Ed.), The Educated.

Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).SCHWARTZ, S. (1994). Beyond individualism–collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In

U. KIM, H.C. TRIANDIS, C. KAGITCIBASI, S.C. CHOI & G. YOON (Eds), Individualism andcollectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SEGINER, R. (1988). Adolescents facing the future: Cultural and socio-political perspectives. Youthand Society, 19, 314–333.

SU, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: minority candidates’ perspectives.Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 325–340.

SWIRSKI, S. (1990). Education in Israel: Schooling for inequality. Tel Aviv: Breirot (in Hebrew).TRIANDIS, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.TZARZTUR, S. (1985). The question of educating a foreign minority in one’s country. In W.

AKERMAN, A. CARMON & D. ZUKER (Eds), Education in a society in the making: The Israelisystem (pp. 473–527). Tel-Aviv: Kibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).

WELLER, A., FLORIAN, V. & MIKULINCER, M. (1995). Adolescents’ reports of parental division ofpower in a multicultural society. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 413–429.

WESCHLER, D. (1974). Weschler intelligent scale for children (3rd edn). New York, NY: Psycholog-ical Corporation.

ZEICHNER, K.M. (1992). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (NCRTL Special Report). EastLansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Appendix A: Sample Questionnaire Items for the Five Scales

Application of Theory in Practice (ATP)

• The theoretical courses did not make me aware of problems and possible solutions to them(reversed).

• Theoretical lectures on various subjects in teaching improve my performance as a teacher atschool.

• With all due respect to educational philosophy, the reality in the classrooms is very different(reversed).

Difficulties in Learning (DL)

• I find that I have to invest a lot of energy in the internalization of what I learn even if it is allcompletely clear to me.

• I find it difficult to reveal school students’ thinking processes while observing the classroom ifthey are not explicitly exposed for me.

• I find it very difficult to work on a learning task with other university students in a small groupsetting.

Modes of Improving Learning (MIL)

• I perform better when I check and recheck my thinking processes with regard to a certainsubject and the product I obtained.

• I think that a personal involvement in learning tasks improves understanding of them.• In order to consider a specific situation seriously and reliably, I have to be fully aware of the

elements operating in it and their specific influences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

186 B. Eilam

Classroom Observations (CO)

• Classroom observations in the school help me teach lessons in the classroom.• Classroom observations do not provide me with tools for dealing with discipline problems

(reversed).

Video Clip Analysis (VCA)

• The analysis of classroom events as recorded in video clips during classroom learning does nothelp me perform successfully while I teach (reversed).

• A discussion about the characteristics of thinking processes based on a classroom lessonrecorded on a video clip (e.g., how a student constructs the knowledge of a concept) promotesmy general understanding of learning processes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

olor

ado

at B

ould

er L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

37 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014