UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| This article compares the characteristics of quality teachers against the characteristics of future teachers for Malaysia. This study aimed to examine the expectation and preferences towards school teachers. A survey was conducted with 74 first year students who were pursuing Bachelor of Design degree programmes in a Malaysian public university which afforded them to provide meaningful insights in accordance to current social and culture trend in Malaysia. In the survey, the respondents listed down three main characteristics of quality teacher and three main characteristics of future teachers for Malaysia. The data were sorted and coded to form four themes, which were attitudes to teaching profession, attitudes to students, teachers’ knowledge and physical appearance. The themes were compared to identify common and different characteristics between quality teachers and future teachers. The results showed that most of the respondents concerned about teachers’ attitudes to teaching profession. A majority of the preferred characteristics were found common between quality teachers and future teachers. The respondents generally expected quality teachers as constantly knowledgeable pretty ladies or handsome men who are sporting, dedicated, open-minded, responsible and punctual at work. Majority of the respondents demarcated the characteristics of quality teachers and future teachers for Malaysia. This phenomenon indicated that the perceived quality of present teachers may not fit for the future. Thus, the concept of quality teachers should be updated from time to time, leading to the constant need to research and keep abreast with the latest teacher education model. |
| References |
1. Agezo, C. K. (2009). School reforms in Ghana: A challenge to teacher quality and professionalism. IFE PsychologIA: An International Journal, 17(2), 40-64. 2. Abell Foundation. (2001). Annual Report. Baltimore: Abell Publications & Communications. 3. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2004). A guide to teaching practice. 5th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis. 4. Colker, L. J. (2008). Twelve characteristics of effective early childhood teachers. Young Children, 63(3), 1-6. 5. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. 6. Da Ros-Voseles, D., & Moss, L. (2007). The role of dispositions in the education of future teachers. Young Children, 62(5), 90-98. 7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Achieves, 8(1), 1-40. 8. Dunbar, N. E., & Segrin, C. (2012). Clothing and teacher credibility: An application of Expectancy Violations Theory. International Scholarly Research Network Education, 1-12. 9. Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (2002). What urban students say about good teaching. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 18-22. 10. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2011). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. London: Routledge. 11. Garcia, V., Agbemakplido, W., Abdella, H., Lopez, O., & Registe, R. (2006). High school students’ perspectives on the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act’s definition of a highly qualified teacher. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 698-724. 12. Howard, T. C. (2002). Hearing footsteps in the dark: African American students’ descriptions of effective teachers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(4) 425-444. 13. Hubbard, D. W. (2001). Student perceptions of effective teaching: What students want from their teachers. (PhD thesis) Alabama: University of Alabama. 14. Ingvarson, L., Reid, K., Buckley, S., Kleinhenz, E., Masters, G., & Rowley, G. (2014). Best practice teacher education programs and Australia’s own programs. Canberra: Department of Education. 15. Ja, Y. (2013). Are teachers engineers of human soul? Theory and Management of Education, 11. 16. Liu, Z. (2010). Teachers are engineers of human soul? Thinking about higher education. Journal of Higher Education Research, 33(3), 20-22. 17. Martin, J. S., & Chaney, L. H. (2009). Passport to success: The essential guide to business culture and customs in America’s largest trading partners. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. 18. Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Bloomington: Marzano Research. 19. Marzano, R. J., Simms, J. A., Roy, T., Heflebower, T., & Warrick, P. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington: Marzano Research. 20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. 21. MOE. (2012). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025: Preliminary report. Putrajaya: MOE. 22. MOE. (1982). The philosophy of teacher education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division. 23. MOHE. (2012). Malaysian teacher quality: Perceptions by various stakeholders. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education. 24. Noguera, P. (2007). How listening to students can help schools to improve. Theory Into Practice, 46(3), 205-211. 25. Norman, A. D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. 26. Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research (understanding qualitative research). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27. Slavin, R. (2006). Educational psychology. 8th ed. Boston: Person. 28. Springer, K., Morganfield, B., & Diffily, D. (2007). Actual versus preferred classroom experience among secondary teachers and their students. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 17-35. 29. Walsh, C., & Apperley, T. (2012). Using gaming paratexts in the literacy classroom. Proceedings of the Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 13-15, 2012, pp. 323-330. |
| 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. |