The character of teaching practices in a teacher education institution: findings from observation checklist

Eng Tek Ong, Abdul Rahman Nurulhuda, Wahid Rosdy, Mohd Tajudin Nor’ain, Abd Samad Yahya Razak, Mazuwai Azwani, Kosni Ahmad Nazri,

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education (General)
ISSN :	2232-0458
Main Author :	Eng Tek Ong, Abdul Rahman Nurulhuda, Wahid Rosdy, Mohd Tajudin Nor’ain, Abd Samad Yahya Razak, Mazuwai Azwani, Kosni Ahmad Nazri,
Title :	The character of teaching practices in a teacher education institution: findings from observation checklist

Place of Production :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
Year of Publication :	2017

Full Text :

This study was conducted to characterise the teaching practices in a teacher education institution so as to inform us the existing practices which could then be compared with the aspired practices, uncovering the pedagogical shortfall. This study employed a form of implementation study using classroom observation. A total of 20 lessons drawn from Early Childhood Education, Mathematics, Science, Secondary School TESL (Teaching of English as a Second Language), History, Physical and Health Education, and Moral Education taught by lecturers in one Teacher Education Institution were observed over a one-semester period. A psychometrically-supported Observation Checklist comprising 50 items or indicators that spread across six principles was utilised in the observation whereby observers checked in terms of presence or absence of each indicator during the classroom observations. This study provides the characterisation of evidenced-based practices, uncovering the pedagogical gap which could be subsequently addressed by various means such as the providence of continuous in-service courses. Empowering lecturers pedagogically will produce quality teachers which in turn, produce quality students.

References

1. Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research (2nd ed.). CA: Wadsworth. 2. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing schools come out on top. McKinsey & Company. 3. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girl’s math achievement Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(5), 1860-1863. 4. Belisle, T. (1999, May). Peer coaching: Partnership for professional practitioners. The ACIE Newsletter, 2(3), 3-5. 5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. 7. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research (6th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill. 8. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 3(3), 39-54. 9. Goh, P. S. C., & Wong, K. T. (2015). Exploring the Challenges for Teacher Educators. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 5(1), 37-45. 10. Gore, J. M., Griffiths, T., & Ladwig, J. G. (2004). Towards better teaching: productive pedagogy as a framework for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 375-387. 11. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014) Assessment for teaching. Melbourne: Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne. 12. Griffin, P., Care, E., Francis, M., Hutchinson, D., Arratia-Martinez, A., & McCabe, C. (2013) Assessment and learning partnerships: The influence of teaching practices on student achievement. Melbourne: Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne. 13. Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. 14. Jensen, B., Hunter, A., Sonnemann, J., & Burns, T. (2012). Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Melbourne, Victoria: Grattan Institute. 15. Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 12-15. 16. Mazlini, A., Azwani, M., Nor;ain, M.T., & Nurulhuda, A.R. (2015). An exploratory factor analysis on generating teaching and learning guiding principles from Malaysian teacher educators’ perspectives. Creative Education, 6, 1245-1255. 17. Noraini Idris et al. (2014). Teaching and Learning Guiding Principles: Informing the design of a Malaysia Teacher Education Model for preparing quality teachers for the future. Tanjung Malim: Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. 18. O’Leary, M. (2014). Classroom observation: A guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning. London: Routledge. 19. Ong, E. T., Wong, Y. T., Sopia, M. Y., Sadiah, B., & Asmayati, Y. (2013). Acquisition of basic and integrated science process skills amongst form 2 students in Sarawak: Interaction effects of gender, ethnicity, and school location. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (Pertanika JSSH), 21(3), 981-998. 20. Ong, E. T. (2004). The character of ‘Smart Science Teaching’ in Malaysian schools and its effects on student attitudes, process skills, and achievement (doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 21. Ong, E.T., & Ruthven, K. (2010). The distinctiveness and effectiveness of science teaching in the Malaysian ‘Smart School’. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 25-41. 22. Paronjodi, G. K., Jusoh, A. J., & Abdullah, M. H. (2017). A comparative study of beginning teacher induction in Malaysia and Victoria (Australia): A review of the literature. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 7(1), 36-48. 23. Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education, New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training. 24. Ratnavadivel., N., Chang., L. H., Salih, M., Low, J., Karuppiah, N., Omar, A., Yassin, S. M., Dawi, A. H., Saad, N. S., & Mohamed Hashim, A. T. (2015). Curriculum framework for preparing quality teachers for the future: Developing guiding principles. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 4(2), 32-44. 25. Roberts-Hull, K., Jensen, B., & Cooper, S. (2015) A new approach: Teacher education reform. Melbourne, Australia: Learning First. 26. Suchman, J.R. (1964). The Illinois studies in inquiry training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 230-233. 27. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved Oct 19, 2015, from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible.pdf 28. Thanheiser, E., Browning, C., Edson, A. J., Lo, J.-J., Whitacre, I., Olanoff, D., & Morton, C. (2014). Prospective elementary Mathematics teacher content knowledge: What do we know, what do we not know, and where do we go? The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(2), 433-448. 29. The Scottish Executive. (2001). Report of the ‘First Stage’ Review of Initial Teacher Education. Accessed on October 13, 2015, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2001/07/9546/File-1 30. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31. Washer, P. (2006). Designing a system for observation of teaching. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 243-250. 32. Jarzabkowski, P., & Bone, Z. (1998). A 'how-to' guide and checklist for peer appraisal of teaching. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(2), 177-182.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page