A Case Study of Preservice Teacher Development Using Korthagen’s Three-Level

Teacher Learning Model

1

Iwan Syahril Michigan State University

Paper presented at the AERA (American Educational Research Association) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, April 10, 2016, 10:35am-12:05pm

Marriott Marquis, Level Four, Independence Salon E

This presentation is supported by funding provided by the Educational Policy Program & the Department of Teacher Education,

Michigan State University

What it is not

• Aspects of teacher development such as teacher identity, teacher effectiveness, etc.

• Sociocultural perspective

2

What it is

• Preservice teacher development about how to teach during field experience Teacher development is defined by the framework used in this study, three-level teacher learning model: with terms such as Gestalt, schematization, and schema.

3

Experiences with

concrete examples

Gestalt(holistic)

Schema(network

of elements & relations)

Theory(a logical

ordering of the relations

in the schema)

Gestalt formation

SchematizationTheory

formation

Reflection Reflection

Level Reduction

Theoretical Framework

(Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Korthagen, 2001; Korthagen, 2010)

5

Teaching is a gestalt-driven activity!

Research Design• RQ: What factors contribute to preservice teacher

development of knowledge about teaching during the field experience?

• Qualitative, case study. Participants: 2 teacher interns.

• Data collection: interview, supported by observation videos, and observation notes.

• Each participant was observed twice, one in fall semester, and one in spring semester. Each observation was recorded on the video, and was followed by a post-observation interview within three days after the observation.

6

7

Findings (1): Gestalt

“I hate when I see my kids start to doze off. I hate when I’m the boring teacher. I hate

when I feel that way….The culture of that school is that my kids are always going to pay attention. They are always going to be

taking notes….I was talking about the Royal Road, and wanted to convey that it was so much more efficient having these steps to

pass a message rather than having a person travel the whole way, and I was like ‘I’m going to show it. I’m going to do it. We’re

going to test it out.”Participant A,Observation 1

Sending students to the hallway to simulate The Royal Road

8

Findings (2): Schematization

“…I do this a lot, I don’t think it is intentional, but I like them to come in, get situated, get

their notebook, and then I like to move them….I feel that when they are out of their comfort, they tend to focus more because

they are not being distracted by their personal belongings.“

Participant A,Observation 2

Movingstudents awayfrom their belongings

9

Findings (3): Schema

Group Work

Participant B. Observation 1 & 2

Social skills in group work

Scaffolding (little manageable activities)

Grouping students — academic achievement,

— student’s behavior,— student’s relationships

10

Table 1. Code FrequencyParticipant A Participant B

Post obs. Interview

1

Post obs. Interview

2Overall

Post obs. Interview

1

Post obs. Interview

2Overall

Gestalt 6 60% 2 33% 8 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Schematization 4 40% 3 50% 7 44% 1 20% 1 10% 2 13%

Schema 0 0% 1 17% 1 6% 4 80% 9 90% 13 87%

Compare and Contrast

• Subject matter knowledge

• The support from mentor teacher

• More (diverse) coursework

• A disposition to focus on students

11

Participant A Participant B

Structuring reflection

• Reflection is key.

• Structuring reflection in teacher education: —-> triggering Gestalts, reflecting on Gestalts and experiences to develop schemas

• Each pre-service teacher has a unique path in his or her learning to teach.

12

The three-level teacher learning model

• Strengths: 1. Could be useful in understanding teacher development. 2. Integrating a number of key concepts

• Weaknesses: 1. Coding issue (Gestalt or schema?) 2. Does not discuss student learning

13

Suggestions

• Teacher education program should be tailored to student teachers’ Gestalts.

• Future studies:More participants, more observations, following student teachers to TE courses, longitudinal.

14

Questions?

15