1 of 18

Nóra Rapos – Katalin Tókos – Krisztina Nagy* – Fruzsina Eszes – Dóra Czirfusz

Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Institute of Education, Budapest; *Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Teacher Training Center Pedagogical Group

Examining the learning activity systems and learner profiles of student teachers �in MoTeL research �(Model of Teacher Learning)

ATEE 2023 Annual Conference, 29. August, 2023. Budapest

Project no. 128738 has been implemented with the support provided from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the K_18 funding scheme.

2 of 18

  • The examination and/in MoTel project (Models of Teacher Learning)
  • Conceptual background
  • The complex and dynamic theoretical framework
    • Meso-level learning environment that determines the professional development and learning of student teachers
  • About the research
    • Aim, research questions, methods, questionnaire, data collection
  • Research findings
  • Conclusions, significancy of this study

3 of 18

About the project…

MoTeL-project

Individual level

Student teachers

    • Models of Teacher Learning
    • 4-year (2018-2022),
    • Institute of Education of ELTE – 3 three research groups
    • Teachers’ learning and CPD (personal, emotional and contextual dimensions) - effectiveness
    • Career paths in Hungary
    • Individual-personal learning of student teachers
    • F/IF/NF learning activities and processes
    • In a meso-level learning field

4 of 18

Research design

Mixed research design:

  • Developing and piloting questionnaires of online surveys (survey of student teachers; de Vries et al., 2013; OECD/TALIS, 2018);
  • Developing protocol and interview plans
  • Developing interview plan of focus group interviews
  • Online survey of student teachers
  • Quantitative examination
  • (Qualitative examination)

5 of 18

Theoretical background I.

  • Complex human ecological perspective:
    • Constructivist/socio-constructivist and situational theories of learning �(Wenger, 1998; Vigotskij, 2000; Beijaard et al., 2004; Kelchtermans, 2004; Kyndt et al., 2014; Boylan et al., 2018 etc.)
    • Concept of teachers’ and student teachers’ CPD and learning (Rapos et al., 2020)

Individual/ personal level: �Teachers and Student teachers

    • Learning environment: Teacher training - structural and content unit of the training program (Neoinstitutionalist theory)

Meso level

    • systemic characteristics

Macro level

Complexity in learning - Broadly defined learning activities:

formal, non-formal, and informal; affective factors &

personal dimensions: perceptions, identity,

Dynamic interactions

CPD

Systematicity

6 of 18

Meso-level learning environment �that determines the professional development and learning of student teachers

Individual/personal level:

Meso level:

Concept of ST’s CPD and learning:

  • Student teacher as a complex, personal "system"
  • ST’s professional learning can be understood systematically at the personal level as well, in the complexity of the personal factors that influence it and their functioning.

Interpretation of ST’s meso-level learning environment:

Training = structural and content unit of the teacher education

  • dynamic system with history, assuming many different paths; change in professional identity
  • Training is a station with special functions in the professional preparation.

Dynamic interaction between individual and environmental level system elements

7 of 18

The meso-level learning environment �of student teachers’ professional development and learning

8 of 18

About the research…

9 of 18

Aim and research questions

Aim:

Understand the dynamics and complexity of student learning

Student teachers’ individual-personal learning was investigated along � F/IF/NF learning activities and processes in a meso-level learning field.

​

Research questions:

1) What kind of (learning) activities do the students report participating in, and how are these related to practice?

2) What profiles can be identified based on students' participation in activities?

3) What is the relationship between the profiles and the optimal learning conditions and their learning outcomes?

​

10 of 18

    • Based on previous research (de Vries, 2013; TALIS, 2018) we have created an activity structure that can be used to understand formal, informal, non-formal learning processes, and to explore them in the training process. �
    • In our quantitative research, we investigated the importance and relationships between different learning activities. �
    • Based on these activity factors, we created distinct student profiles

​

Methods

11 of 18

The Questionnaire

Questionnaire – 22 items

1. �Basic data / personal characteristics (gender, year of birth, degree, number of semesters completed, previous teaching experience, etc.)

2. �Professional development and learning: learning activities �(formal, non-formal, informal, digital tool use, characteristics of learning situations, etc.) �(de Vries et al., 2013; OECD, 2018)

3. �Beliefs and attitudes �(Becker & Riel, 2000; de Vries et al., 2013)

4. �Role perceptions

5. �Career motivation and self-efficacy �(Geijsel et al., 2009; OECD, 2018)

6. �Questions on training coherence �(Canrinus et al., 2017)

12 of 18

    • Self-administered online questionnaire
    • April - May 2022
    • Students (n=315) of teacher training institutions in Hungary

​

Data collection

13 of 18

Results I. – Learning activities

Students' activities before and after their placement

(Please think about how often you did the following activities during the 2021–2022 academic year)

*significant at 1% level

Completed (some) teaching practice �(n=214)

Before �any teaching practice�(n=98)

1. I read studies and literature on learning and other topics related to pedagogy and psychology (in addition to the compulsory literature)*

2.9

2.3

2. I read studies and literature on my subject (in addition to the compulsory literature)*

3.3

2.7

5. I discussed professional issues with others in order to learn from them.*

3.6

2.8

6. I attended a class/school visit.*

3.8

2.4

7. I shared with my mentors and peers my experiences and the new teaching ideas that I learned.*

3.8

2.7

9. I followed news about education (e.g., reforms, good practices) in newspapers, on TV, on the Internet, etc.

3.8

3.6

11. Outside my university courses, I discussed current issues in education with fellow students and friends.

4.1

3.9

14 of 18

Results II. - Identified profiles �based on students' participation in activities

    • non-formal;
    • The least use of direct learning opportunities through practice

"High participation profile in 'Learning by reflecting on a career in teaching and intellectual life‚” �(N=85)

    • active in learning activities related to their academic life;
    • members of professional communities;
    • enrolled in their training with previous teaching experience

"High participation profile” �(N=157)

​

      • lowest activity in all respects;
      • most likely to have plans to leave the profession

"Low participation profile” �(N=70)

1.

2.

3.

15 of 18

Results III. - Relationship between the profiles and the optimal learning conditions and their learning outcomes

    • learning environments: learning is based on individual needs,
    • with active and immersive learning situations
    • need for flexibility and personalisation

"High participation profile in 'Learning by reflecting on a career in teaching and intellectual life‚” �(N=85)

    • the systematic and coherent processing of experiences
    • prior knowledge and were keen to connect their learning more closely to the world of school
    • looked for a precise learning structure

"High participation profile” �(N=157)

    • no demands concerning their own learning

"Low participation profile” �(N=70)

16 of 18

Differences in participation in learning activities, special needs

Training design

    • Target these differences and support students
    • Consider the importance of the placement

�Professional development and learning

    • individual process of change
    • learning activity initiates the change

Conclusions

FREQUENCY OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

17 of 18

Complex system of professional development and learning�

    • Includes all learning activities
    • Widening learning environment needed
    • Importance of understanding F/NF/IF learning activities within students’ learning process
    • Professional preparation should be seen as a complex, dynamic system within the training
    • Training cannot be considered an independent stage of professional preparation
    • Student teachers are learning teachers at a given point in their personal learning processes.

​

Conclusions

18 of 18

Thank you for your attention!

motelproject@ppk.elte.hu