A change in perspective – Teacher
education as an open system
Christoph Königa,
Regina H. Muldera
aUniversity
of
Regensburg, Germany
Article received 30
April 2014 / revised 5 June 2014 / accepted 11 September
2014 / available online 24 September 2014
Abstract
Teacher education is the environment for the
learning and instruction of prospective teachers. Its
structure, components, and contents shape the development of
relevant competences which enable prospective teachers to be
effective in the classroom. But its relevance is questioned
because respective research, characterised by inconclusive
results, does not offer explanations about the reasons why
certain teacher education programmes are more effective than
others in the development of relevant competences. One reason
for the lack of explanations can be found in the way research
assesses the effectiveness of teacher education. This might be
due to problems regarding the conceptualisations of teacher
education, as well as to the inherent selection and non-random
allocation problems in research on the relation between
teacher education and student achievement. In this paper we
respond to claims for an organisational perspective on teacher
education and develop such a new perspective. Accordingly, we
provide these claims with an adequate theoretical foundation
and develop an organisational model of teacher education based
on Open Systems Theory. Besides being one of the first
integrative organisational models of teacher education, it is
among the first models which illustrate the relations and
interdependencies of systems, its different parts, and its
different levels, and enables researchers to investigate these
interdependencies. The development of this model is further
based on an alteration of the input variables of the concept
of teacher quality. Moreover, the model has consequences for
the notion of teacher education effectiveness. We illustrate
these changes, and discuss them and the model with respect to
possible areas of further research.
Keywords: Teacher Selection;
Teacher Allocation; Teacher Education Effectiveness; Open
System; Positive Matching
1.
Introduction
Teacher education is the
environment for the learning and instruction of prospective
teachers. Its structure, components, and contents shape the
development of relevant competences which enable prospective
teachers to be effective in the classroom. These competences comprise
cognitive, motivational, volitional, and social abilities and
skills necessary for effective teaching (Weinert, 2001). But
its relevance is questioned because respective research,
characterised by inconclusive results, does not offer
explanations about the reasons why certain teacher education
programmes are more effective than others in the development
of relevant competences (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2009; Harris & Sass, 2011; Yeh, 2009). One reason
for the lack of explanations can be found in the way research
assesses the effectiveness of teacher education. Most studies
compare graduates from different teacher education programmes
with regard to differences in the achievement of students in
schools; this approach has relatively high demands concerning
methodology and conceptualisations of teacher education (Boyd,
Grossman, Hammerness, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff,
2012; Morge, Toczek, & Cakroun, 2010). However, this
dominant approach and the conceptualisations of teacher
education in these studies do not fully grasp the complexity
of teacher education, especially the interplay between
different components and the learning and instruction of
prospective teachers. Four specific aspects illustrate the
problems associated with the way research currently
investigates teacher education effectiveness. The first two
aspects are directly related to teacher education
conceptualisations.
First, many studies
conceptualise teacher education as an individual teacher
attribute. They use narrow sets of variables, for example the
degree and certification status, as proxies for competences
which teachers bring into the classroom (Harris & Sass,
2011). Even structural features or policies of teacher
education, for example the selection procedures or the structure
of learning opportunities, are considered such individual
teacher attributes (Little & Bartlett, 2010). These kinds of
conceptualisations may not adequately reflect the relation
between organisational aspects of teacher education and the
behaviour of individuals, e.g. the use of learning opportunities
by prospective teachers during initial teacher training. What
happens at the level of the individual prospective teacher, that
is, his learning processes, is embedded in the structure of
teacher education. Harris and Sass (2011) labelled this aspect
the “inherent selection problem”. Second, most studies directly
relate the aforementioned narrow sets of indicators for teacher
education to the achievement of students in schools. However, as
Konold, Jablonski, Nottingham, Kessler, Byrd, Imig, Berry, and
McNergney (2008, p. 310) argue, “[…] there is little to be
learned by examining the long jump between teacher
characteristics and pupil learning. […]”. Few studies take into
account the full complexity of the relation between teacher
education, teacher characteristics (such as their competences),
teacher behaviour, and student achievement. Especially the
relation between teacher behaviour and student achievement is
neglected (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005). An
effect size of 0.91 for teacher behaviour measured by classroom
observations on student achievement, found by Schacter and Tum
(2004), illustrates the importance of teacher behaviour. The
‘long jump’ disregards this relation, and does not take into
account the distinction between teacher quality (characteristics
teachers possess) and teaching quality (their teaching
practice). Thus, it hinders the identification of teacher
characteristics which are important for effective teaching. The
other two aspects are related to potential sources of bias in
current estimates of the effectiveness of teacher education
(Harris & Sass, 2011).
Third, one source of bias
is the variation in the development of relevant competences
across teacher education programmes (Boyd, et al., 2009). This
variation may not be attributed only to a better provision of
opportunities to learn, but also to a better selection of
prospective teachers (Denzler & Wolter, 2009). Structural
features of the selection procedures may shape unobserved
characteristics of prospective teachers which influence their
learning (Kennedy, 1998). Individual conceptualisations of
teacher education lack explanatory power with regard to such
organisational aspects. Fourth, another source of bias is the
non-random allocation of teachers to schools. A prominent
manifestation of this problem is positive matching. Students in
schools with high socioeconomic status have better access to
highly qualified teachers (in terms of paper qualifications),
compared to students in schools with a lower socioeconomic
status (Luschei & Carnoy, 2010; Loeb, Kalogrides, &
Beteille, 2012). Only few studies investigate relevant
structural features of the teacher labour market with regard to
their influence on teacher distributions (Goldhaber, 2007;
Winters, Dixon, & Greene, 2012). Current individual
conceptualisations of teacher education do not allow for
explanations of the development of positive matching, because
they address this problem when the allocation of teachers to
schools has already happened. Hence, it remains unknown why
teachers bring their competences into schools and classrooms in
such a systematic way.
In this paper we address
these issues and argue that, with a change in perspective on
teacher education, some of them may be attenuated. This change
in perspective is based on three premises: (1) a rearrangement
of teacher education and teacher characteristics within the
concept of teacher quality, accompanied by a clear distinction
between teacher quality and teaching quality (Goe &
Strickler, 2008). (2) An organisational approach to teacher
education modelling teacher education as a system, which focuses
on structural features relevant for the selection of teacher
education candidates and prospective teachers, the development
of relevant competences, and for the allocation of teachers to
schools. (3) A change in the notion of teacher education
effectiveness, which is due to the rearrangement of the teacher
quality concept and the organisational approach to teacher
education.
The aim is to develop an
organisational model of teacher education which allows
researchers to take into account (1) the relation between
teacher education and its context, as well as (2) the interplay
between teacher education and prospective teachers. The
development is oriented along the ecological framework of
teacher education proposed by Zeichner and Conklin (2008) and
specifically focuses on the admission process and the
institutional and labour market context of teacher education.
Grossman and McDonald (2008) identify these contexts as being
important influences on the policy and practice of teacher
education, and argue that in order to gain new insights research
should incorporate these contextual conditions. Moreover, the
model provides a theoretical basis for explanations of learning
and instruction of prospective teachers which is embedded in a
teacher education system (Zeichner, 2005). Given the lack of
research on organisational level we make use of system and
organisational theories in order to characterise teacher
education as a system. However, the reliance on these theories
might be an advantage because, as Grossman and McDonald (2008)
state, broadening the theoretical basis of research on teacher
education might facilitate new insights and explanations of
teacher education policy and practice. Eventually, the model
will provide researchers with a new theoretical basis for
research in order to reach a better understanding of learning
and instruction of prospective teachers, because it illustrates
the connections between different (organisational and
individual) levels and systems, as well as the interdependencies
of individual and organisational learning. These new insights
might further be used for policies aimed at the facilitation of
learning and instruction of prospective teachers.
2.
The prerequisite
- Rearranging components of the teacher quality concept
Goe and Strickler (2008)
conceptualise teacher quality as a multidimensional concept
consisting of three interrelated dimensions. They conceive of
teacher qualifications (understood as degrees, majors, and other
paper qualifications) and characteristics (such as their
competences) as input variables, teacher behaviour as process
variable, and teacher effectiveness as output variable which is
commonly measured by standardised student test scores. In
accordance with other authors they emphasise that teacher
quality and teaching quality are two different aspects, and that
they should be modelled accordingly (Goe & Strickler, 2008;
Konold et al., 2008). However, as we already mentioned in the
introduction, many studies on the relation between teacher
education and student achievement disregard this distinction.
The interrelations between the different concepts are as
follows. Teacher qualifications and characteristics (such as
their competences) have an influence on the behaviour of
teachers, that is, what they do and can do in the classroom
(teaching quality). Following Weinert’s (2001) definition of
competence, teacher characteristics constituting teacher quality
comprise cognitive abilities and skills, for example knowledge
about and mastery of subject-didactics and a repertoire and
understanding of multiple models of teaching, as well as
motivational, volitional, and social aspects such as commitment
to a continued professional development after initial teacher
training, love of children, collaboration with colleagues, and
reflection over practice (Hopkins, 2008). Teacher quality
translates into teaching quality. At the same time, with
teaching being an experience good and social practice
(Jovanovic, 1979), teaching quality influences teacher quality.
For example, reflection over practice, collaboration with
colleagues, and a high commitment to continued professional
development enables teachers to refine their practice and to
further develop their competences after their initial teacher
training. Eventually, the interplay between teacher and teaching
quality is an important influencing factor for student
achievement and, consequently, directly related to student
achievement.
What becomes obvious is
that teacher characteristics (such as their competence) have no
direct relation to student achievement. Their effect on student
achievement is mediated by the respective teacher behaviour,
that is, they only have an indirect effect on student
achievement. This indirect relation is also disregarded by many
studies (for example Marshall & Sorto, 2012). Differences in
teacher characteristics may lead to differences in what teachers
are able to do in the school and in the classroom, and in turn
to differences in student achievement. As of yet the specifics
of these pedagogical mechanisms are unclear (Baumert, Kunter,
Blum, Brunner, Voss, Jordan, Klusmann, Krauss, Neubrand, &
Tsai, 2010). The unclear picture is due to a negligence of the
indirect effect of teacher quality on student achievement.
Hence, a first prerequisite for the change in perspective on
teacher education involves acknowledging this indirect relation.
This is accompanied by shifting the focus to the relation
between teacher and teaching quality. This may be a way to
identify specific teacher characteristics which are relevant for
effective teaching.
Teacher qualifications and
characteristics are frequently used interchangeably. However,
they are two distinct concepts. Teacher qualifications are
frequently used in studies as proxies for what the teacher did
during initial teacher training (Harris & Sass, 2011). But
teacher characteristics, such as their competence, are a
consequence of teacher qualifications, that is, of what they did
during initial teacher training. In other words, what teachers
did during their initial teacher training, and why, has
consequences for what they bring into the school and the
classroom, and where. Jackson (2010) showed that the quality of
teacher-student matches accounts for up to 40 percent of what is
usually attributed to a teacher effect on student achievement.
Hence, the second prerequisite involves a clear distinction
between teacher qualifications and teacher characteristics.
However, with individual level conceptualisations of teacher
education, which mix up teacher qualifications and teacher
characteristics, we cannot explain what a prospective teacher
actually does during initial teacher training and why, where he
ends up teaching, what he is able to do in the classroom, and
eventually how his behaviour affects student achievement. Having
teacher education disentangled from teacher characteristics, and
having it identified as starting point for the complex chain
between the resulting teacher characteristics (such as their
competence), teacher behaviour, and student achievement, we are
now in a position to model teacher education as a system of
structured learning opportunities, including structural elements
governing the selection of prospective teachers and the
allocation of teachers, which is embedded in multiple
institutional contexts (Zeichner, 2006).
3.
A different perspective – Teacher education as an
open system
The organisational model of
teacher education described in this section is based on Open
Systems Theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Despite being a rather
old model, up to this date it still remains “the most systematic
introduction of open system concepts into organisation theory”
(Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 90), and is furthermore the
theoretical basis for much of current organisational research
(Schneider & Somers, 2006; Martz, 2013). Katz and Kahn
(1978) were among the first recognising the dependency of
organisations and their environment, as well as the linkage
between psychological and structural/economic aspects of
organisations. Compared to other currently used open system
models, for example Contingency Theory (Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967), it is the aforementioned linkage between individual and
organisation which makes Open Systems Theory an appropriate
framework for teacher education systems. Compared to current
further developments of open system models, for example Complex
Adaptive Systems (Stacey, 1995), Open Systems Theory provides a
more accessible framework due to the comprehensiveness of its
core components.
However, the main reason
for choosing Open Systems Theory was the fit of its theoretical
propositions with the characteristics of teacher education
systems (Bess & Dee, 2008) also show the usefulness of this
theory for educational organisations in their application of
Open System Theory to Higher Education). First, it explicitly
takes into account the relations and exchanges between different
systems. This is important because the teacher education system
is not an isolated entity, but is embedded in multiple contexts,
for example Higher Education and the teacher labour market
(Grossman & McDonald, 2008). In this part of the framework
we are able to model which individuals choose teacher training,
and where teachers bring their characteristics (such as their
competence) to the school and the classroom. Second, it
explicitly takes into account the dependencies and interplay of
system and prospective teachers. This is important for modelling
the use of available learning opportunities by prospective
teachers. In this part of the framework we integrate what the
prospective teacher does during initial teacher training.
3.1
Teacher
education from the point of view of Open Systems Theory
An open teacher education
system consists of a sequence of structured learning
opportunities provided to prospective teachers within the
system. The sequence and structure of the learning opportunities
constitute an environment where the learning of prospective
teachers is situated in a gradually growing participation in
teaching practice (Korthagen, 2010). The active use of these
opportunities leads to the development of competences required
for effective teaching. The use of learning opportunities by
prospective teachers is labelled as, in open system terms,
patterned activities of individuals and describe the core of the
interplay between system and prospective teachers (Katz &
Kahn, 1978). Thus, what happens within the teacher education
system is seen as an active developmental process, rather than
just a transmission of declarative knowledge (Zeichner, 1983).
What prospective teacher
do, and how successful their professional development is during
initial teacher training depends on the characteristics they
bring into the teacher education system. At the same time, the
learning opportunities provided by the teacher education system
require certain individual characteristics. If teacher education
candidates or prospective teachers do not meet these
requirements, the utilisation of learning opportunities, as a
part of their professional development, becomes suboptimal and
may even get cancelled prior to graduation (Blömeke, 2009).
Thus, for an open teacher education system control over entry is
essential (which is also called boundary maintenance; Scott
& Davis, 2007). The selection function plays a key role in
this regard, and is defined as the selection and sorting of
teacher education candidates and prospective teachers (Musset,
2010; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010). It is based on the
characteristics of the candidates and prospective teachers. An
optimal selection function avoids adverse selection in terms of
characteristics which hinder a successful utilisation of
learning opportunities as a part of the professional development
of prospective teachers.
Given the connection of an
open teacher education system to its context (Scott & Davis,
2007), we have to consider what happens immediately after
initial teacher training. The degree to which prospective
teachers successfully use the learning opportunities during
initial teacher training influences the competence they bring
into schools and classrooms. This is a second component of the
connection between teacher education and the education system.
This allocation function is defined as the assignment of
teachers to schools (Parsons, 1951), which has long been based
on the assumption that schools and teaching position are
equivalent across districts and regions (Johnson & Kardos,
2008). However, Jackson (2010) could show that there are
teacher-school combinations which lead to better student
achievement. Thus, it matters where teachers bring their
competence into the classroom. An optimal allocation function
provides teacher-school matches that minimise teacher turnover
and attrition.
In sum, the general
characteristics of an open teacher education system closely
resemble the three common functions of education systems, which
constitute an input-transformation-output-model (Kast &
Rosenzweig, 1972): the selection and sorting of candidates and
prospective teachers (input/selection), the provision of
learning opportunities for students situated in a gradually
growing participation in teaching practice to develop relevant
competences (transformation/instruction), and the allocation of
qualified teachers to schools (output/allocation).
In order to establish and
maintain the selection and allocation processes, the open
teacher education system develops respective structural elements
(Katz & Kahn, 1978; Wang, Coleman, Coley, & Phelps,
2003). These structural elements are arranged in subsystems
governing the selection and sorting of prospective teachers, and
the allocation of teachers to schools. These structural elements
comprise institutional structures and administrative regulations
for control over and socialisation of prospective teachers and
teachers (Maaz, Hausen, McElvany, & Baumert, 2006). They
allow screening out individuals when they do not meet the
requirements of teacher education or a given teaching position
in a school.
Both functions are closely
connected to the context of the teacher education system,
because they govern the transitions of individuals into and out
of initial teacher training. Thus, the arrangements of
structural elements can be understood as transition systems (Van
der Velden & Wolbers, 2007). As such, they are means for the
teacher education system to react to policy changes in the
immediate context, namely the education system and the teacher
labour market. An example for such reactions is a change in the
selection mechanisms of a teacher education system given a
shortage of teachers in the teacher labour market (Blömeke,
2006).
3.2.1 General
characteristics of the selection function
The selection function
governs the admission of teacher education candidates at entry
into, and the sorting of prospective teachers within the teacher
education system. By means of the aforementioned control and
socialisation elements, the selection function provides
information about (1) the aptitude of teacher education
candidates for teaching, and (2) about the success of
prospective teachers in their use of learning opportunities.
Moreover, socialisation mechanisms initiate the transfer of
professional role expectations and norms from teacher education
to the prospective teacher and support the professional
development of the prospective teacher (Saks, Uggerslev, &
Fassina, 2007). This information can be used by prospective
teachers in order to judge his attitude to and aptitude for
teaching. Furthermore, it enables prospective teachers to
reflect on their practice in order to determine how to improve
his teaching. Moreover, the information provided by the
selection function serves also as relevant feedback for the
system for admission and progression decisions, in order to
reduce the variability in the use of learning opportunities,
which is due to variability in individual characteristics (Scott
& Davis, 2007). With its control and socialization
mechanisms, the selection function serves both the prospective
teachers and the teacher education system in determining if a
given prospective teacher can progress to the next developmental
stage. While the information provided by the function is at
first only a rough estimate of how well a given candidate might
do, the information becomes more detailed when the actual
development of the prospective teacher is assessed.
It is important to note
that it is only possible to select individuals who (are able to)
make themselves available (Grodsky & Jackson, 2009). Thus,
variability in individual characteristics can be found either in
the candidate pool or the prospective teachers. The structural
elements constituting, and in turn influencing the success of
the selection function, can be assigned to and described with
three dimensions. First, the capacity of the teacher labour
market influences the number and characteristics of the
candidates. This comprises the accessibility of teacher
education and the attractiveness of teaching. Second and third,
the comprehensiveness of available information about candidates
and students and the level of integration of students into
teaching influence the number and the characteristics of the
prospective teachers.
3.2.2 Structural
elements of the selection function
We begin with the
structural elements constituting the capacity of the teacher
labour market. The theoretical rationale of the respective
structural elements is based on rational choice and supply and
demand models (Sicherman & Galor, 1990; Ehrenberg &
Smith, 2011). Given that initial teacher training is an
educational choice among others they postulate that individuals
analyse educational alternatives by weighing costs against
benefits. When the costs of a given educational alternative are
higher than individual resources, individuals will opt for
another alternative. Rational choice models emphasise two core
aspects relevant for characteristics of the candidate pool:
structure and status. Based on these core aspects, the length
and level of initial teacher training and the occupational
status of teaching are structural elements of the capacity of
the teacher labour market. While the influence of the length and
level is ambiguous, a high occupational status of teaching
attracts a greater number of teacher training candidates and
increases the candidate pool. Countries with a highly attractive
teaching profession do not have teacher supply problems
(Schwille & Dembele, 2007). However, with an increased
candidate pool it is more likely that the variability in
individual characteristics is increased as well. Furthermore,
characteristics of the student population affect the number of
available teaching positions, that is, the demand of teachers.
For example, an increased number of students in the education
system affects the student-teacher ratio, which in turn
influences teacher demand. While this aspect has no direct
influence on the candidate pool, it affects the control
mechanisms at entry into initial teacher training.
Educational decisions and
the selection process are characterised by an asymmetric
distribution of information (Van der Velden & Wolbers,
2007). Imperfect information about candidates and prospective
teachers is problematic for systems, because they rely on
signals (Stiglitz, 1975). Lack of information increases the risk
of admitting and progressing teacher education candidates and
prospective teachers who are not successfully using the learning
opportunities, or else show an insufficient development. Hence,
structural elements influencing the comprehensiveness of
information available to the teacher education system are
admission and assessment procedures, which are based on
respective criteria. These criteria determine which individual
characteristics are required for entry into initial teacher
training and for teaching. Students with required
characteristics utilise learning opportunities successfully and
are more likely to graduate. While the admission procedures are
implemented in order to collect information about teacher
education candidates, the assessment procedures are implemented
in order to monitor prospective teachers with respect to their
use of learning opportunities as part of their professional
development. Moreover, the assessment procedures serve as
feedback and possibility for the prospective teachers to reflect
on their development and teaching practice. The
comprehensiveness of information increases if the admission and
assessment procedures exhibit certain characteristics. According
to Baartman, Bastiaens, Kirschner and van der Vleuten (2006) the
characteristics of such assessment procedures within a
competence-based approach to teacher education comprise fitness
for purpose, comparability and reproducibility of results,
acceptability and transparency. Moreover, the fairness,
cognitive complexity, meaningfulness, and authenticity of the
procedures are relevant, besides their costs and efficiency and
their consequences (admission and progression decisions).
Especially admission procedures are closely linked to the demand
of teachers. The literature frequently discusses solutions to
teacher shortages in form of reduced entry requirements for
initial teacher training (Blömeke, 2006). The sequence, rigor,
and the aforementioned quality-characteristics of procedures and
their criteria increase the comprehensiveness of information
about candidates and prospective teachers. This is especially
important when the candidate pool is large.
Socialisation mechanisms
serve as means to help prospective teachers to take on new roles
and simultaneously stress the social aspects of the learning
processes. These structural elements reduce the uncertainty of
students about expectations and requirements about teaching when
entering teacher education. Furthermore, the respective
structural elements situate the learning of prospective teachers
in a social environment, where they are guided and supported in
their professional development (Korthagen, 2010). One structural
element is internal support. It gives access to structured forms
of support, either with guidance by experienced teachers or
sequenced in clearly defined courses. The other is field
experience. It describes opportunities for field experiences
prior to entering the teaching profession, and directly
influences the transfer of professional role expectations and
norms. The level of integration of the selection function is
high when a prospective teacher receives frequent internal
support, as well as several possibilities to make relevant field
experiences. The structural elements of the selection function
and their assignment to their respective dimensions are
summarised in Table 1.
3.2.3 General
characteristics of the allocation function
The selection function
governs the transition of trained teachers from initial teacher
training into the teaching profession. Thus, it is related to
the allocation of teachers to schools. By means of the
aforementioned control and socialisation elements, the
allocation functions provides information (1) for schools about
the characteristics of trained teachers, and (2) for trained
teachers about characteristics of teaching positions in schools.
The socialisation mechanisms initiate the transfer of school
specific role expectations and norms. They serve as information
for schools about how well a trained teacher is able to
integrate into the specific school context. This is a relevant
feedback for schools in order to make recruitment decisions.
These decisions result in teacher-school matches (Lankford &
Wyckoff, 2010). Similarly, the information is at first only a
rough estimate of the characteristics of teachers, but becomes
more detailed by an increasing amount of time between the first
assignment and the definite recruitment decision (Liu &
Johnson, 2006).
Due to varying success
regarding the use of learning opportunities variability in
teacher competences is likely. For example, despite having
obtained the same degree, trained teachers still can vary in
their acquired cognitive, motivational, volitional, and social
skills (Van der Velden & Wolbers, 2007). Thus, it is
difficult for schools to distinguish between teachers who are
suited for a given teaching position, and those who are not.
Hence, the structural elements constituting, and in turn
influencing the success of the allocation function, can be
assigned to and described with three dimensions. The first
dimension is control over the recruitment process. This
dimension includes the level of control, as well as the actual
utilisation of the level of control with adequate recruitment
procedures. A more direct control over recruitment, combined
with various recruitment measures may facilitate staffing (Liu
& Johnson, 2006). The control over the recruitment process
is directly connected with the second dimension, namely the
comprehensiveness of information which is available to schools
and teachers about each other. With an increased
comprehensiveness of information it is possible to make more
informed recruitment decisions. Third, the level of integration
of teachers into schools influences the smoothness of the
transition into the specific teaching position.
3.2.4 Structural
elements of the allocation function
The starting point are
structural elements constituting the comprehensiveness of
available information about teachers and their characteristics.
Similarly to the selection function, the allocation process is
characterised by an asymmetric distribution of information (Van
der Velden & Wolbers, 2007). Signals for teachers’
characteristics and structural factors of the recruitment
process attenuate the lack of information (Stiglitz, 1975). Lack
of information about teacher characteristics increases the risk
of recruiting the “wrong” teacher and increases the risk of
teacher turnover. Signals are provided by certification
requirements which trained teachers have to fulfil. However,
certification requirements and respective teacher test scores
are only weak signals of teachers’ knowledge and skills
(Goldhaber, 2007). Thus, another structural element for
information about beginning teachers is probationary periods.
With probationary periods, where teachers are monitored
regarding their performance, the definite recruitment decision
can be delayed, and more information about a teacher can be
collected (Staiger & Rockoff, 2010). However, it is
important to note that not only the length of the probationary
period is relevant, but also its implementation. Probationary
periods may be successful only if they provide trained teachers
with a well-established and supportive environment (OECD, 2011).
Examples of respective aspects are, for example, faculty
collaborative periods, meeting with supervisors, classroom
assistance, or a reduced workload (Ingersoll & Strong,
2011), within which teachers are enabled to reflect on their
practice. Probationary periods may be combined with induction
measures. In sum, the comprehensiveness of information is high
if the allocation function includes certification requirements
combined with elaborate probationary periods for teachers.
However, the influence of
the level of information on the allocation process depends on
the control over the recruitment process. As mentioned before,
control over the recruitment process comprises the level of and
utilisation of this control. The level of control is indicated
by the degree of school autonomy regarding recruitment
decisions. A direct control over recruitment decisions might
facilitate the staffing of schools (Liu & Johnson, 2006). It
may be hindered when there are central authorities or union
regulations governing the recruitment process. Such regulations
may not adequately consider school specific needs regarding
personnel and can be understood as constraints interfering with
school based recruitment. Thus, the level of control over
recruitment decisions can be distinguished between school based
or local recruitment, a recruitment controlled by regional or
central authorities, or a recruitment which is coordinated
between local and central authorities. However, the level of
control alone is not sufficient to characterise control over the
recruitment process. Several studies have found that although
schools have a high degree of autonomy in staffing decisions,
they only utilise a small set of recruitment procedures during
recruiting teachers (Balter & Duncombe, 2008; Staiger &
Rockoff, 2010). Respective recruitment procedures might include
for example interviews and supervised sample lessons. In sum,
control over the recruitment process is adequate only if a
school-based recruitment is complemented by a variety of
recruitment procedures. At the same time, such control has a
positive influence on the comprehensiveness of information about
trained teachers (Liu & Johnsons, 2006).
Table 1
The functions, their
dimensions, and their respective structural elements
|
Function |
Dimension |
Structural Elements |
|
Context |
Capacity of the Teacher Labour Market |
Length of Teacher Education |
|
|
|
Level of Teacher Education |
|
|
|
Occupational Status of Teaching |
|
|
|
Student Population |
|
Selection |
Comprehensiveness of Information about
Candidates & Prospective Teachers |
Admission Procedures |
|
|
|
Assessment Procedures |
|
|
|
Admission Criteria |
|
|
|
Assessment Criteria |
|
|
Level of Integration of Prospective
Teachers |
Internal Support |
|
|
|
Field Experiences |
|
Allocation |
Control over the Recruitment Process |
School Autonomy |
|
|
|
Union Regulations |
|
|
|
Recruitment Procedures |
|
|
Comprehensiveness of Information about
Trained Teachers |
Certification |
|
|
|
Probationary
Periods |
|
|
Level of Integration of Teachers into
Schools |
Teacher Mentoring |
|
|
|
Teacher Induction |
Socialisation mechanisms
serve as means to help teachers to take on school-specific roles
and norms. First, the beginning teacher learns the requirements
of a role or teaching position (functional aspect); second, he
integrates into the social structure of the school (inclusion
aspect). Over time they get accustomed to the specific
organisational characteristics and can adapt to them. Similarly
to the selection function, these structural elements reduce the
uncertainty of teachers about expectations and requirements when
they start teaching in a given school. Moreover, they offer
possibilities for teachers to reflect on their practice in order
to improve their teaching. As such the socialisation mechanisms
are means to foster teacher professional development after
initial teacher training (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
Structural elements related to the level of integration are
teacher induction and teacher mentoring. They are means to make
the teachers acquainted to the specific characteristics of a
given school. It includes a formalised system to support
teachers. Teacher mentoring is personal guidance provided by a
senior teacher at a school. It varies from single meetings to
formalised programmes involving frequent communications between
teacher and mentor. Teacher induction and mentoring also
influences teacher retention, thus decreasing teacher shortages
and turnover (Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2010). Schools are
more frequently required to provide teachers with
school-specific learning opportunities (Ingersoll & Strong,
2011). The level of integration varies according the
comprehensiveness of induction and mentoring measures. The
structural elements of the allocation function and their
assignment to their respective dimensions are summarised in
Table 1.
4.
A change in notion – A different view of teacher
education effectiveness
We already mentioned that
the change in perspective on teacher quality and teacher
education requires a different notion of teacher education
effectiveness. Morge et al. (2010) distinguish three levels of
validation of teacher education, depending on the specific
outcome variable which is evaluated. The first level comprises
teacher thinking and teacher knowledge as primary outcome. The
effectiveness of teacher education is assessed by the level of
cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics of teachers, that
is, their knowledge and motivational, volitional, and social
skills which they acquired during initial teacher training.
However, at this first level the link between these
characteristics and the instructional practice of teachers is
not included (Morge et al., 2010). The second level includes
this link, i.e. the effectiveness of teacher education is
assessed with respect to the behaviour of the teachers. While
the first level only allowed to ask what teachers know, the
second level extends this question to what they are able to do
in the school and in the classroom. The third level further
extends the concept of teacher education effectiveness. Here,
teacher education effectiveness is a question of what teacher is
able to do in schools and in the classroom, and how this affects
student achievement.
Current notions of teacher
education effectiveness involve primarily the third level of
validation. However, with the narrow teacher education
conceptualisations which directly relate distal variables to
student achievement, we cannot expect to gain reliable estimates
of the effect of teacher education on student achievement
(Konold et al., 2008). Furthermore, we cannot investigate if
teachers who participated in initial teacher training behave in
ways which positively affect student learning (Morge et al.,
2010; Konold et al., 2008). The organisational model of teacher
education as an open system, however, may be a way to
investigate this question. In this regard, a change in notion of
teacher education effectiveness, that is, a focus on the second
level of validation, might be a necessary step. In the following
we illustrate this change in notion and focus.
The starting point is
teacher competence as outcome of teacher education. Thus, we
focus on the first level of teacher education validation.
Teacher competence depends on the utilisation of learning
opportunities by prospective teachers. As already mentioned, the
learning process situated in a gradually growing participation
in teaching practice requires specific individual
characteristics (Tillema, 1994). Teacher education is effective
if it provides learning opportunities, based on specific
curricula, which provide prospective teachers with the
possibility to develop competences necessary for effective
teaching. Given that the characteristics of prospective teachers
depend on the effectiveness of the selection function in sorting
them, the notion of teacher education effectiveness is extended:
a teacher education system is only effective if (1) it provides
prospective teachers with information about their development,
with which they can reflect on their practice, and additionally
if (2) the system screens out prospective teachers who are
likely to fail. Besides this individual outcome of teacher
education, we also have an organisational outcome. A successful
utilisation of learning opportunities by students implies higher
success rates (Gansemer-Topf & Schuh, 2006). Hence, a
comprehensive notion of teacher education effectiveness includes
selection effects on the use of learning opportunities and,
thus, the professional development of prospective teachers, and
an organisational aspect in terms of success rates. Moreover,
the competences of prospective teachers are related to their
teaching practice. In other words, teacher quality may only
become visible through the associated teaching quality (Mulder,
Messmann, & Gruber, 2009). This means that in order to
assess teaching quality it is necessary to consider the
competences of the (prospective) teachers, and vice versa.
Classroom observations during initial teacher training, along
with guided support by experienced teachers and room for
reflection on their teaching practice, may facilitate an
assessment of prospective teachers’ readiness to teach and
teaching quality, given the consensus on effective teaching
practices (Akiba, LeTendre, & Scribner, 2007). However,
classroom observations require the teachers’ reflections on
their teaching, that is, explications of the reasons why they
did what they did. This may be a way to unravel the connection
between teacher and teaching quality, and thus a possible
clarification of the mechanisms with which teachers translate
their competence into effective teaching.
Including what a teacher is
able to do in a real classroom in a school, and how this affects
student achievement in the concept of teacher education
effectiveness is difficult. Each school, even each classroom, is
a unique social system (Johnson & Kardos, 2008). Hence,
specific contextual characteristics of schools, for example
their facilities and equipment, or the leadership style of the
principal, may influence how well teachers are able to translate
their knowledge into effective teaching. Moreover, where
teachers bring their characteristics into schools and in the
classroom depends on the specific characteristics of the
allocation function. Each teacher effect on student achievement
involves a complex interplay between recruitment decisions,
school and classroom characteristics, and the behaviour of the
teacher in the schools and in the classroom. Given that it is
still unclear how teachers translate their knowledge into
effective teaching (Baumert et al., 2010; Croninger, Rice,
Rathbun, & Nishio, 2007), it is questionable if an effect of
teacher education on student achievement can be identified. As a
consequence, the assessment of teacher education effectiveness
remains a question of the development of competences necessary
for effective teaching, and thus remains on the second level of
validation.
Figure 1. (see pdf file) The
organisational model of teacher education as an open system.
Rectangles depict the dimensions of the selection and allocation
function, as well as contextual conditions in the education
system/teacher labour market. Black arrows illustrate the
transition of an individual through teacher education into
schools, from teacher education candidate over prospective
teacher to a trained teacher in a school. Gray arrows and boxes
show the consequence of the use of learning opportunities by
prospective teachers on their competence and success rates, and
the consequences of specific teacher distributions (teacher
turnover and positive matching).
From an organisational
point of view it is nevertheless possible to relate the
allocation function to specific manifestations of teacher
distributions, such as the positive matching between teachers
and schools. It is a peculiarity of the allocation in the
context of education systems that a successful allocation is not
only a question of balancing supply and demand, but to a greater
degree a question of students’ equal access to highly qualified
teachers. Hence we have an organisational indicator for the
effectiveness of the allocation function: the degree to which
its structural arrangement of elements attenuates positive
matching of teachers to schools.
In sum, based on the
changes in the teacher quality concept and the organisational
perspective on teacher education as an open system, the notion
of teacher education effectiveness receives a narrower, but more
meaningful and distinct focus. The inclusion of organisational
indicators for the effectiveness of the selection and allocation
functions allow for an investigation of teacher education
effectiveness on a different level. An interesting aspect in
this regard is the relation between higher success rates of the
teacher education system and the impact of the allocation
function on positive matching, because higher success rates
imply a higher number of teachers available for allocation.
Hence, the organisational model allows investigating the
relation between the functions as well. The complete
organisational model is visualised in Figure 1.
5.
Discussion – The model’s value in research on teacher
education
In this paper we addressed
four shortcomings of current research on the relation between
teacher education and student achievement, namely the
conceptual, the complexity, the inherent selection, and the
non-random allocation problem (Konold et al., 2008; Harris &
Sass, 2011). The aim was to develop an organisational model of
teacher education which provides researchers with a new,
alternative perspective on teacher education practice. This
perspective enables researchers to investigate the relation
between teacher education and its context (for example the
teacher labour market and the education system), the interaction
of different systemic levels, as well as the interdependencies
of individual and organisational development.
The development was based
on three specific premises. First, an alteration of the input
variables of the teacher quality concept. This involved a clear
distinction between teacher education as an antecedent of
teacher characteristics, that is, teacher education directly
influences teacher competences relevant for teaching. Second, a
change in perspective away from teacher education as an
individual teacher characteristic to a model of teacher
education as an open system. Within this model, we outlined the
role of the selection function for prospective teachers’
professional development, and the role of the allocation
function for different manifestations of the non-random
allocation of teachers to schools, for example positive
matching. Third, as a consequence of the change in perspective,
we illustrated an associated change in the notion of teacher
education effectiveness. This concept was refocused on the
development of competences of prospective teachers, and extended
with two organizational indicators of effectiveness. This
narrower focus is necessary because of the complex interplay
between school and classroom characteristics and what teachers
are able to do in the school and in the classroom, which may
hinder the identification of a definite teacher education effect
on student achievement.
The relative
underspecification of the learning opportunities in the model is
intentional. In contrast to the elements of the selection and
allocation functions, it is difficult to identify generic
elements of learning opportunities which are comparable across
institutional or national settings. Although there is some
convergence in the design of learning opportunities, there is
still a great variety in elements of learning opportunities
(Paine & Zeichner, 2012). Moreover, research shows that some
of the more generic characteristics such as the length and
structure of teacher education are unrelated to teacher
education effectiveness (Zeichner, 2006). However, in order to
make the model useful for, for example, cross-country
comparisons it is necessary to keep the model as generic as
possible. The underspecification of the learning opportunities
provided by a teacher education system might be interpreted as
an opportunity for researchers to take into account
country-specific characteristics of the learning opportunities
in their own studies. Hence, researchers are able to fill this
gap in the model with characteristics of learning opportunities
in their respective samples.
The model as a whole
imposes high requirements on the collection, amount, and quality
of data. This limitation applies to all aspects mentioned in
this section. Although recent international comparative studies
such as TEDS-M and TALIS provide new databases, available data
might not be sufficient to test the model as a whole. Thus, it
might be more reasonable to concentrate on specific aspects of
the model, such as the relation between selection and student
characteristics, the relation between allocation and positive
matching, or the relation between student teachers and their use
of learning opportunities. Nevertheless, the model outlined in
this paper might serve as a foundation for more elaborate and
comprehensive data collection in future studies on teacher
education systems.
We hope that the
organisational model of teacher education will provide a
theoretical basis which initiates new research leading to new
insights and a better understanding of teacher education policy
and practice, especially with regard to the identification of
teacher characteristics relevant for teaching, the selection of
teacher education candidates and prospective teachers, and the
positive matching between teachers and schools. In the following
sections we will discuss the usefulness of our model in the
context of three possible areas of research.
5.1
Identification
of teacher characteristics relevant for effective teaching
We already mentioned in the
introduction that research on the relation between teacher
education and student achievement is unsuccessful at identifying
teacher characteristics relevant for effective teaching. Besides
the inherent selection problem, that is, the unobserved
characteristics which influence what a teacher did during his
initial teacher training, this is further due to the distal
conceptualisations of teacher education used in current studies.
These conceptualisations, for example the certification status
of teachers, are selected because of their relevance for
policies concerning the teacher labour market (Goldhaber, 2007;
Harris & Sass, 2011). However, these conceptualisations
might gain meaning if the aforementioned unobserved
characteristics are made observed, and their relations to
effective teaching are established (this is in line with the
focus on the second teacher education validation level described
in section four). We argue that our model can provide a means in
order to accomplish these tasks.
Our model explicitly states
relations between characteristics of prospective teachers and
their use of learning opportunities provided by the system. With
teaching being an experience good, the identification of
relevant characteristics requires accurate information about
what prospective teachers are able to do in the classroom, that
is, classroom observations of prospective teachers which are
supported by guided reflection on teaching practice (Morge et
al., 2010). These classroom observations and possibilities for
reflection may be integrated in a more refined concept of the
assessment procedures. The authenticity of the assessment
procedures may be the core aspect with regard to the
identification of relevant characteristics, because it is a more
direct way of assessing how well prospective teachers are able
to translate the contents of their initial teacher training into
effective teaching behaviour (Darling-Hammond & Snyder,
2000). The performance scores derived from these observations,
as well as information about the reflections of the teachers,
may then be related to a set of characteristics prospective
teachers possess.
The identification of
relevant teacher characteristics further has positive
consequences for the selection and sorting of prospective
teachers during initial teacher training. The selection and
sorting of teacher education candidates and prospective teachers
are still based on rather gross measures, such as the grade
point average or subject-specific grades in secondary education
(Blömeke, 2009). With an increased authenticity of assessment in
the context of the selection function, and with the associated
more accurate information about prospective teachers, the
identified characteristics can in turn be used as more refined
and accurate admission and assessment criteria. Hence, our model
not only allows addressing the inherent selection problem on
individual, but also on organisational level. It has to be noted
that the identification and use of the identified
characteristics is an iterative process and requires a
significant amount of time, that is, longitudinal models.
However, our model is flexible enough to allow for such
extensions. The identified characteristics of prospective
teachers may be of limited use for the identification of what a
teacher is able to do in a school and in a real classroom, given
school-specific contexts influencing their practice.
5.2
Research
on teacher distributions and the teacher body
Given the explicit
modelling of the allocation function, which is integrated into
our model of teacher education as an open system, researchers
are enabled to investigate consequences of different approaches
to allocating teachers to schools. For example, it may be
investigated how certification requirements affect the pool of
teachers who choose to teach. There are already studies
concerning this problem (for example Angrist & Guryan,
2008). However, they investigate this feature of the allocation
function isolated from other relevant features, and isolated
from the teacher labour market context. An isolated
investigation of these features may not suffice for explanations
of different teacher distributions. For example, Boyd et al.
(2012) conclude that, while some teacher education programmes
produce teachers with higher student achievement gains than
others, these effects are eliminated when their attrition rate
is taken into account. Another example are the results a
simulation study conducted by Rothstein (2012). It showed that
changing the quality of the teaching force through selection is
only successful if at the same time teacher evaluation systems
and increased teacher salaries are introduced. This illustrates
the need for possibilities for an integrated rather than
isolated investigation of selection and allocation effects,
which our model provides.
Moreover, schools depend on
the amount of available information about teachers in order to
make informed recruitment decisions. These decisions seem to
rely on only weak and noisy signals (Goldhaber, 2007). Thus, it
is frequently argued that for an acquisition of reliable
specific information, an assessment of teachers based on actual
classroom performance is necessary (Goldhaber & Liddle,
2011). Staiger and Rockoff (2010) suggest that tenure should be
delayed until a sufficient amount of information is collected.
As long as indicators of teacher education do not adequately
capture what teachers do during their initial teacher training
(cf. the respective description in section 5.1), mismatches
between teachers and schools are to be expected which lead to
teacher turnover. In light of the change in the notion of
teacher education effectiveness, a stronger reliance on actual
classroom performance of teachers in the context of recruitment
seems reasonable. Our model allows for an investigation of the
influence of different approaches to recruiting teachers and
their relation to teacher turnover, taking into account
contextual conditions of the teacher labour market. It has to be
noted that the model in his current state captures only the
structural prerequisites of recruitment decisions. However, our
model can be easily extended to include the individual
recruitment (or transfer) decisions of teachers and principals
within the context of a given configuration of an allocation
function. The relations and research questions outlined in the
previous sections may also be investigated by cross-country
comparisons of teacher education systems, for example a
comparison of credential-based and information-based allocation
functions (Van de Werfhorst, 2011).
Comparisons of different
approaches to allocating teachers to schools need to consider
not only quantitative, but also qualitative aspects of, for
example, recruitment procedures or probationary periods. These
qualitative aspects not only include the variety of the
different procedures, but also the actual utilisation of these
procedures by principals, school boards, or other entities
responsible for staffing decisions. Thus, when collecting data,
researchers may not only rely on institutional data provided by
administrative datasets or official documents, because this
might only cover the ‘espoused allocation’. In order to gain a
complete picture of the qualitative aspects, it might be
necessary to actually ask principals or school boards about the
actual utilisation of the procedures in order to capture the
‘allocation in use’ (a similar distinction can be found in
Cannata, 2010). Covering only one of these two procedures may
lead to biased estimates of the relation between allocation
approaches and teacher distributions.
5.3
Cross-country
and cross-institutional comparisons of teacher education
systems
It is important to consider
that teacher education practice, as well as learning of
prospective teachers during initial teacher training, depend on
country-specific characteristics of teacher education systems
and contextual conditions present in education systems and
teacher labour markets (Paine & Zeichner, 2012). Depending
on the point of view, our model enables researchers to
investigate not only cross-country, but also cross-institutional
differences in teacher education practice. Cross-country, as
well as cross-institutional analyses involve three overarching
steps: (1) the choice and inclusion of contextual information in
the model; (2) modeling the interrelation between functions,
dimensions, or structural elements; (3) and modeling the
interrelation between prospective teachers and the system.
In its current form, the
focus is on the general education system, or teacher labour
market, as the immediate context of teacher education. It has to
be kept in mind that this is not the only context teacher
education is embedded in. Depending on the researcher’s point of
view, the institutional, political, or societal context might be
considered the immediate context of teacher education (Grossman
& McDonald, 2008). The choice of contextual information
relates to the decision of the researcher to compare different
teacher education programmes (for example, university-based
versus school-based teacher education; concurrent versus
consecutive), or to compare teacher education systems in
different countries. When comparing teacher education
programmes, the primary context is the institutional context.
Thus, respective information relates to Higher Education, for
example the degree of integration of the teacher education
programme into universities. When comparing teacher education
systems, the primary context is the education system or teacher
labour market. Respective information relates, according to our
model, to the supply and demand of teachers in the education
system.
It is possible to include
contextual characteristics as background information, or else,
information about group membership in a multigroup model. For
example, comparing teacher education programmes in this
multigroup framework allows investigating the differential
effect of teacher education variables across different
educational levels (Huang & Moon, 2009). For example, the
importance of obtaining a degree for student achievement seems
to differ across elementary, middle, and high school levels
(Phillips, 2010). The differential relevance is explained by the
generalist/specialist distinction between elementary, middle,
and high school teacher education; the importance of
subject-specific degrees increases with education level, where
teachers are more often trained to be specialists. Hence, there
seem to be differential effects of different teacher education
programmes on teacher characteristics. Other possibilities to
include contextual information are cross-classification
approaches or multilevel models, depending on the quality and
detail of available data.
The interrelation of the
functions, the dimensions of the functions, and even the
structural elements constituting the functions might complicate
cross-country or institutional comparisons of teacher education
systems. With these interrelations it becomes difficult to
pinpoint the influencing factors of competence (development) of
the prospective teachers, as well as of positive matching, or
more general teacher-school matches. However, it can be argued
that it is especially this interrelation which renders the
possibility of a single influencing factor of teacher education
effectiveness improbable. Consequently, our model allows the
investigation of the influence of configurations of functions,
dimensions, and structural elements on the different aspects of
teacher education effectiveness. This might be a more
appropriate approach to research on teacher education,
especially in light of the complex nature of teacher education
systems.
These interrelations can be
accounted for depending on the availability of data and on the
focus on either outcomes or processes. With our characterisation
of the selection and allocation functions, it is possible to
construct empirical typologies of their structural arrangements.
In this case, the structural elements are then treated as
indicators of their respective dimensions. For example, the
assessment procedures and their criteria are indicators of the
comprehensiveness of information available about prospective
teachers. In a similar manner, school autonomy, recruitment
procedures, and union regulations are indicators of control over
the recruitment process. Based on the structural elements
composite measures can be constructed for each dimension. In a
further step these composite measures can be used in latent
class or cluster analyses in order to identify different
approaches to selecting teacher education candidates and
prospective teachers, as well as different approaches to
allocating teachers. These different profiles can be
investigated with regard to their associated organisational
outcomes, that is, to success rates of the teacher education
system or to different distributions of teachers in the
education system. Similar approaches have been taken in the
context of institutional dimensions of education systems and the
relation between education and labour market outcomes (Hofman,
Hofman, & Gray, 2008; Bol & Van de Werfhorst, 2011).
Another possibility for
cross-country comparisons in a multigroup framework is focusing
on processes rather than outcomes, that is, focusing on the
interplay between use of learning opportunities and development
of competence rather than on comparisons of mean competence
levels. Such questions are suited best for a multiple group
structural equation modelling approach. The different
configurations of both functions can be used as background
variables to select countries with similar or different levels
of information, integration, or labour market capacities. Next,
these countries can be compared in differences in the relation
between characteristics of prospective teachers, their use of
learning opportunities, and the development competences.
Depending on the comprehensiveness of this learning model,
differences in the relations are attributed to differences in
the configuration of the functions.
Interrelations may further
be specified as interaction effects or cross-classifications of
the structural elements in multilevel models. This might be
suited if the researcher wants not only to compare different
teacher education systems or programmes, but also to identify
the influencing factors on for example competence development of
prospective teachers. The aforementioned multigroup model can be
extended to a multigroup multilevel model. On the organisational
level we have the specific structure and characteristics of the
learning environment, cross-classified with characteristics of
the selection function and contextual conditions in the
education system. The individual level comprises, for example,
characteristics of prospective teachers and information about
their use of the learning opportunities. The different
programmes or systems can easily be integrated into the
multigroup approach by specifying the multilevel model for each
educational level (for example elementary, middle, or high
school level). The aforementioned relationships can then be
compared across programmes or systems. Any difference in
coefficients across the groups informs us about the differential
effect of teacher education on competence development across
teacher education programmes or systems. With this approach, is
it not necessary to keep contextual information constant,
because it is directly included in the model. Moreover, modern
structural equation modeling programmes allow the specification
of cross-level interactions. With these interaction it is not
only possible to investigate top-down (from the system to the
prospective teacher), but also bottom-up processes (from the
prospective teacher to the system), or else, to investigate the
relation between individual and organisational development more
closely.
6.
Conclusion
To sum up, it can be stated
that the organisational perspective on teacher education as an
open system can contribute to existing research by raising
awareness with regard to the interrelations of the different
parts of a teacher education system, and the interplay between
system and individual prospective teachers. With its focus on
the selection and sorting of teacher education candidates and
prospective teachers, and on the allocation of teachers to
schools in the education system, it offers a framework which
facilitates a better understanding of these processes and their
relation with teacher education effectiveness. Additionally it
is flexible enough to allow for further developments and
extensions, for example the continuing professional development
of teachers once they are in the teaching profession, and offers
a framework in which researchers are able to integrate own
studies and projects. In the end, the model may lead to
substantive new insights which facilitate informed and effective
policies in order to make teacher education practice more
effective, both for prospective teachers and for the system
itself.
Keypoints
References
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner,
J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national
achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher,
36(7), 369-387. doi:10.3102/0013189X07308739
Angrist, J., & Guryan,
J. (2008). Does teacher testing raise teacher quality? Evidence
from state certification requirements. Economics of Education
Review, 27, 483-503. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.03.002
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner,
M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., ... Tsai, Y.-M. (2010).
Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the
classroom, and student progress. American Educational
Research Journal, 47, 133–180.
doi:10.3102/0002831209345157
Bess, J. L. & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and
university organization: Theories for effective policy and
practice; Volume I: The state of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Blömeke, S. (2006). Struktur der
Lehrerausbildung im internationalen Vergleich. Ergebnisse
einer Untersuchung zu acht Ländern. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 52, 393-416. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-44668
Blömeke, S. (2009). Predicting educational
and occupational success in teacher training and
subject-specific degrees – on the predictive validity of
cognitive and psycho-motivational selection criteria. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12,
82-110.
doi:10.1007/s11618-008-0044-0
Bol, T., & Van de Werfhorst, H. (2011). Signals and closure by
degrees: the education effect across 15 European countries. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility, 29, 119-132.
doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2010.12.002
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H.,
Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and
student achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416-440.
doi:10.3102/0162373709353129
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K.,
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J.
(2012). Recruiting effective math teachers: evidence from New
York City. American
Educational Research Journal, doi:10.3102/0002831211434579
Cannata, M. (2010). Understanding the
teacher job search process: espoused preferences and
preferences in use. Teachers
College Record, 112,
2889-2934. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16011, Date
Accessed: 1/23/2014 4:13:37 PM
Connor, C. M., Son, S. H., Hindman, A. H.,
& Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications,
classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool
experience: complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and
early reading outcomes. Journal
of School Psychology, 43, 343-375.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.001
Croninger, R. G., Rice, J. K., Rahbun, A.,
& Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early
learning: effects of certification, degree, and experience on
first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education
Review, 26, 312-324.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.05.008
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J.
(2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16, 523-545.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9
Denzler, S., & Wolter, S. (2009).
Sorting into teacher education: how the institutional setting
matters. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 39, 423-441.
doi:10.1080/03057640903352440
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, R. S.
(2011). Modern labor
economics (11th Edition). Amsterdam: Prentice Hall.
Gansemer-Topf, A., & Schuh, J. (2006).
Institutional selectivity and institutional expenditures. Research in Higher
Education, 47, 613-142. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9009-4
Goe, L., & Strickler, L. (2008). Teacher quality and
student achievement: Making the most of recent research.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED520769)
Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone’s doing it,
but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher
effectiveness? Journal
of Human Resources, 42, 765-794.
doi:10.3368/jhr.XLII.4.765
Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2011). The gateway to the
profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on
student achievement. Seattle: CEDR.
Grodsky, E., & Jackson, E. (2009).
Social stratification in higher education. Teachers College Record,
111, 2347-2384. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number:
15713, Date Accessed: 9/16/2013 3:53:50 PM
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M (2008).
Back to the future: directions for research in teaching and
teacher education. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205.
doi:10.3102/0002831207312906
Harris, D. N. & Sass, T. R. (2011).
Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public
Economics, 95, 798-812.
doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
Hofman, R. H., Hofman, W. H. A., &
Gray, J. M. (2008). Comparing key dimensions of schooling:
towards a typology of European school systems. Comparative Education, 44,
93-110. doi:10.1080/03050060701809508
Hopkins, D. (2008). A teacher’s guide to
classroom research. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Huang, F. L., & Moon, T. R. (2009). Is
experience the best teacher? A multilevel analysis of teacher
characteristics and student achievement in low performing
schools. Educational
Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 209-234.
doi:10.1007/s11092-009-9074-2
Ingersoll, R.M., & Strong, M. (2011).
The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning
teachers: a critical review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 81, 201-233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323
Jackson, C. K. (2010). Match quality, worker
productivity, and worker mobility: Direct evidence from
teachers. NBER Working Paper 15990.
Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M.
(2008). The next generation of teachers: Who enters, who
stays, and why. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser &
D.J. McIntyre (eds.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 445-467). New
York: Routledge.
Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the
theory of turnover. Journal
of Political Economy, 87, 972-990.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833078
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972).
General
systems theory: Applications for organization and management.
The Academy of
Management Journal, 15, 447-465.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/255141
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning to teach
writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New
York: Teachers College Press.
Konold, T., Jablonski, B., Nottingham, A.,
Kessler, L., Byrd, S., Imig, S., … McNergney, R. (2008).
Adding value to public schools – Investigating teacher
education, teaching, and pupil learning. Journal of Teacher
Education, 59, 300-312. doi:10.1177/0022487108321378
Korthagen, F.J.A. (2010). Situated
learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards
an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning.
Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 98-106. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.05.001
Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2010).
Teacher labor markets: An overview. In D.J. Brewer & P.J.
McEwan (eds.), Economics
of Education (pp. 235-242). London: Elsevier.
Liu, E., & Johnson, S. (2006). New
teachers’ experiences of hiring: late, rushed, and
information-poor. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42, 324-360.
doi:10.1177/0013161X05282610
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, T., & Beteille,
T. (2012). Effective schools: teacher hiring, assignment,
development, and retention. Education Finance and
Policy, 7, 269-304. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00068
Luschei, T., & Carnoy, M. (2010).
Educational production and the distribution of teachers in
Uruguay. International
Journal of Educational
Development, 30, 169-181.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.08.004
Little, J., & Bartlett, L. (2010). The
teacher workforce and problems of educational equity. Review of Research in
Education, 34, 285-328. doi:10.3102/0091732X09356099
Maaz, K., Hausen, C., McElvany, N., &
Baumert, J. (2006). Keyword: transitions in the educational
system. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 299-327.
doi:10.1007/s11618-006-0053-9
Marshall, J. H., & Sorto, A. M. (2012). The effects of teacher
mathematics knowledge and pedagogy on student achievement in
rural Guatemala. International
Review of Education, 58, 173-197.
doi:10.1007/s11159-012-9276-6
Martz, W. (2013). Evaluating
organizational performance: rational, natural, and open system
models. American
Journal of Evaluation, 34, 385-401.
doi:10.1177/1098214013479151
Morge, L., Toczek, M-C., & Chakroun,
N. (2010). A training programme on managing science class
interactions: its impact on teachers‘ practises and on their
pupils achievement. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26, 415-426.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.05.008
Musset, P. (2010). Initial teacher
education and continuing training policies in a comparative
perspective: Current practices in OECD countries and a
literature review on potential effects. OECD Working
Papers No. 48. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2011). Teachers matter:
attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Pointers for policy development. Paris: Directorate for
Education, Education and Training Policy Division.
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48627229.pdf
Paine, L., & Zeichner, K. (2012). The
local and the global in reforming teaching and teacher
education. Comparative
Education Review, 56, 569-583. doi:10.1086/667769
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system.
London: Routledge.
Phillips, K. J. R. (2010). What does
‘highly qualified’ mean for student achievement? Evaluating
the relationships between teacher quality indicators and
at-risk students’ mathematics and reading achievement gains in
first grade. Elementary
School Journal, 110, 464-493.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/651192
Rothstein, J. (2012). Teacher quality policy
when supply matters. NBER Working Paper 18419.
Saks, A., Uggerslev, K., & Fassina, N.
(2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: a
meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, 413-446. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004
Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2004).
Paying for high and low-quality teaching. Economics of Education
Review, 23, 411–430.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2003.08.002
Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006).
Organizations as complex adaptive systems: implications of
complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly,
17, 351-365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
Schwille, J., & Dembele, M. (2007). Global perspective on
teacher learning: improving policy and practice. Paris:
UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and
organizing. Rational, natural, and open system perspectives.
Upper Sadle River: Pearson.
Sicherman N., & Galor O., (1990). A
theory of career mobility. Journal of Political
Economy, 98, 169-192.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2937647
Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E.
(2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect
information. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 24, 97-118.
doi:10.1257/jep.24.3.97
Stiglitz, J. E. (1975). The theory of
screening, education and the distribution of income. American Economic Review,
65, 283-300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804834
Tillema, H. H. (1994). Training and
professional expertise: bridging the gap between new
information and pre-existing beliefs of teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 10, 601-615. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)90029-9
Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2011). Skills,
positional good or social closure? The role of education
across structural-institutional labour market settings. Journal of Education and
Work, 24, 521-548. doi:10.1080/13639080.2011.586994
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J.
B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional
structure of educational systems: a comparative perspective. Annual Review of
Sociology, 36, 407-428.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538
Van der Velden, R., & Wolbers, M. H.
J. (2007). How much does education matter and why? European Sociological
Review, 23, 65-80. doi:10.1093/esr/jcl020
Wang, A., Coleman, A., Coley, R., &
Phelps, R. (2003). Preparing
teachers around the world. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S.
A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers‘
teaching. A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher
Education, 59, 132-152. doi:10.1177/0022487107314002
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of
competence: a conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen, &
L. H. Salganik (eds.), Defining and selecting key
competencies (pp. 45-65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Winters, M. A., Dixon, B. L., &
Greene, J. P. (2012). Observed characteristics and teacher
quality: impacts of sample selection on a value added model. Economics of Education
Review, 31, 19-32. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.014
Yeh, S.S. (2009). The cost-effectiveness
of raising teacher quality. Educational Research
Review, 4, 220-232. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.06.002
Zeichner, K. (1983). Alternative paradigms
of teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 34, 3-9.
doi:10.1177/002248718303400302
Zeichner, K. (2005). A research agenda for
teacher education. In M. Cochran Smith, & K. Zeichner
(eds.), Studying
teacher education (pp. 737-761). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Studying teacher
education programs: enriching and enlarging the inquiry. In
C.F. Conrad, & R.C. Serlin (eds.), The Sage handbook for
research in education (pp. 79-95). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H.G. (2008).
Teacher education programs as sites for teacher preparation.
In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. McIntyre, & K.
Demers (eds.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 269-289). New
York: Routledge.