Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study (ltews) Final Report

Importance of university-based units of study in teacher education programs

Table 60 below shows the responses to two questions in the Graduate Teacher Survey that asked about the importance of the university-based component of teacher education programs. The questions required a response on a five-point Likert scale to indicate the level of agreement with the following statements:

• 
  The knowledge for teaching I gained through my university-based units were important
  
• 
  The university-based units of my teacher education program helped prepare me for my current teaching context
  

Table 60. Importance of university-based units for the knowledge gained and help in preparing for current teaching

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
	%	%	%	%	%
Round 2
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	1.7	6.4	13.0	58.1	20.8
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.0	11.8	19.9	51.3	14.1
Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	2.1	8.5	14.1	56.7	18.5
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	4.4	14.2	20.6	48.1	12.7

The data show that in both surveys, respondents were more likely to agree that the knowledge gained was important (78.9 per cent in Round 2 and 75.2 per cent in Round 3) than to agree that the units helped prepare them for their current teaching (65.4 per cent in Round 2 and 60.8 per cent in Round 3).

The level of disagreement with both statements rose slightly from Round 2 to Round 3; disagreement that the knowledge gained was important rose from 8 per cent in Round 2 to almost 11 per cent in Round 3; disagreement that the units helped prepare them for their current teaching rose from 15 per cent in Round 2 to almost 19 per cent in Round 3.

Responses to the statement 'University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context' were then cross-tabulated with the distinguishing features of teacher education programs. This analysis was conducted to look for possible relationships between distinguishing features of programs and graduates’ level of agreement that university-based content helped prepare them for their current teaching.

In Table 61 below, an agreement level higher than 65.4 per cent (combining 51.3 'agree' + 14.1 'strongly agree' as shown for statement 2 in Round 2 in the table above) indicates there may be a positive relationship between that particular distinguishing feature and agreement that university-based units prepared graduates for their teaching.

Table 61. Importance of university-based units for the knowledge gained and help in preparing for current teaching

University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
	%	%	%	%	%
School linkages	2.6	7.9	16.6	54.4	18.5
Community-based learning	1.9	8.5	15.8	55.7	18.1
Reflective practice	2.4	8.9	17.8	55.4	15.5
Social justice	2.2	9.3	15.8	55.3	17.3
Discipline expertise	1.9	7.0	15.5	54.2	21.4
Internship	2.1	10.7	20.3	53.2	13.7
Quality teaching	1.8	7.8	16.3	55.8	18.2
Distance education	3.3	7.3	14.6	57.0	17.8
Team teaching	1.7	7.3	15.6	57.2	18.3
Practicum visits from academic staff	2.3	9.4	18.5	53.2	16.6
Rural education	1.4	10.9	16.4	51.4	19.8
CALD learners	2.3	8.8	13.9	52.9	22.1
Linking theory and practice	1.9	6.1	15.3	56.7	20.0
ICT skills	2.0	8.4	16.4	55.7	17.6
Literacy	2.3	8.5	17.0	56.2	16.0
Numeracy	1.9	9.1	16.7	55.8	16.6
Content knowledge	1.8	8.2	14.6	56.4	19.1
Supportive learning environments	1.4	8.1	15.7	56.6	18.1
Social relationships	1.5	7.8	16.3	54.5	19.8

One-way between subjects ANOVA tests were conducted to compare the effect of several key program variables on the two statements in the survey that looked at graduates’ opinions of university-based units. The key program variables are:

• 
  Program type (masters, bachelor, graduate diploma)
  
• 
  Campus location (metropolitan, outer-metropolitan, regional, off-campus, various locations)
  
• 
  Mode of study (full-time, part-time, combination)
  
• 
  Main area of program (early childhood, early childhood/primary, primary, primary/secondary, secondary)
  

The results for program type are shown in Table 62 below.

Table 62. Comparison of mean for university-based units statements – by program type

	Masters		Bachelor				Grad dip		Signif
	Mean	SD		Mean	SD	Mean		SD		p
Round 2
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	4.01	0.868		3.91	0.813	3.86		0.881		0.034
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.70	0.939		3.62	0.939	3.60		1.002		0.348
Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	3.87	0.962		3.83	0.840	3.74		0.991		0.072
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.65	1.073		3.53	0.972	3.45		1.077		0.044

Note: Round 2: Masters n=270, Bachelor n=1,000, Grad. Dip. n=724; Round 3: Masters n=244, Bachelor n=773, Grad. Dip n=545 p<0.05

There was a significant effect for program type on graduate teacher agreement with ‘Knowledge gained through university-based units were important’ (statement 1) in Round 2 and on agreement with ‘University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context’ (statement 2) in Round 3, both at the p<0.05 level.

A post hoc test was performed on statement 1 in Round 2 and found there was significant difference between masters and graduate diploma respondents, with graduate diploma respondents less likely to agree that the knowledge gained through university-based units was important.

A post hoc test was performed on statement 2 in Round 3 and found there was significant difference between masters and graduate diploma respondents, with graduate diploma respondents less likely to agree that university-based units help prepare them for their current teaching context. The results of the one-way between subjects ANOVA for campus location and the two statements on university-based units are shown in the table below.

The results of the one-way ANOVA for campus location and the two statements on university-based units are shown in Table 63 below. The results for both rounds show no significant differences in agreement with the two statements for respondents by their campus location.

Table 63. Comparison of mean, for agreement with statements on university-based units – by campus location

	Metro		Outer metro		Regional		Off-campus		Various		Signif
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p
Round 2
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	3.90	0.886	3.89	0.794	3.90	0.845	4.00	0.807	3.86	0.912	0.603
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.64	0.973	3.59	0.922	3.54	0.987	3.69	0.987	3.71	0.860	0.407
Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	3.78	0.958	3.77	0.88	3.84	0.790	3.79	0.979	4.09	0.879	0.377
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.49	1.033	3.55	1.026	3.55	0.962	3.46	1.120	3.64	1.194	0.798

Note: Round 2: Metro n=888, Outer metro n=133, Regional n=335, Off-campus n=213, Various n=35; Round 3: Metro n=707, Outer metro n=128, Regional n=255, Off-campus n=180, Various n=33 p<0.05
The results of the one-way ANOVA for mode of study and the two statements on university-based units are shown in Table 64 below. There was a significant effect for mode of study on graduate teacher agreement with statement 1 in Rounds 2 and 3 and on agreement with statement 2 in Round 2, both at the p<0.05 level.

Table 64. Comparison of mean, for agreement with statements on university-based units – by mode of study

	Full-time		Part-time				Combination		Signif
	Mean	SD		Mean	SD	Mean		SD		p
Round 2
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	3.90	0.900		4.10	0.800	3.90		0.900		0.001
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.60	0.972		3.80	0.943	3.60		0.980		0.031
Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	3.80	0.900		4.00	0.800	3.90		0.800		0.008
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.50	1.000		3.70	1.000	3.60		1.000		0.056

Note: Round 2: Full-time n=1,269, Part-time n=180, Combination n=154; Round 3: Full-time n=1,041, Part-time n=139, Combination n=123; p<0.05

A post hoc test was conducted on these areas in Rounds 2 and 3, and the significant differences are shown in Table 65.

Table 65. Comparison between groups, of mean for agreement with statements on university-based units – by program type

	Significance p
Comparisons between mode of study	Round 2	Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important
Full-time and part-time	0.001	0.012
Full-time and combination	0.871	0.290
Part-time and combination	0.009	0.621
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context
Full-time and part-time	0.024	0.065
Full-time and combination	1.000	0.499
Part-time and combination	0.144	0.723

Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for:

• 
  ‘Knowledge gained through university-based units was important’ was significantly different between:
  
  • 
    respondents who completed their education program on a full-time and on a part-time basis, in both rounds
    
  • 
    respondents who completed their education program on a part-time basis and through a combination of full-time and part-time attendance, in Round 2
    

This suggests that respondents who completed their program on a part-time basis were more likely than both other groups to agree with the statement ‘Knowledge gained through university-based units was important’ in Round 2, and more likely to say this than those who completed full-time in Round 3,

• 
  ‘University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context’ was significantly different between the respondents who completed their education program on a full-time and on a part-time basis, in Round 2
  

This suggests that respondents who completed their program on a part-time basis were more likely than full-time respondents to agree with the statement ‘University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context’ in Round 2.

The results of the one-way ANOVA for program area and the two statements on university-based units are shown in Table 66 below.

Table 66. Comparison of mean, for agreement with statements on university-based units – by program area

	Early Childhood		EC/Prim		Primary		Prim/Sec		Secondary		Signif
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p
Round 2
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	4.30	0.600	4.00	0.800	3.90	0.900	3.90	0.800	3.80	0.900	0.000
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.96	0.637	3.57	0.984	3.65	0.964	3.55	1.009	3.59	0.972	0.015
Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important	4.08	0.720	3.95	0.638	3.85	0.880	3.73	0.930	3.73	0.975	0.011
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context	3.80	0.840	3.52	0.844	3.54	1.014	3.37	1.030	3.49	1.065	0.124

Note: Round 2: Early Childhood n=77, EC/Prim n=112, Primary n=754, Prim/Sec n=196, Secondary n=862; Round 3: Early Childhood n=60, EC/Prim n=101, Primary n=607, Prim/Sec n=151, Secondary n=676 p<0.05

There was a significant effect for program area on agreement with both statements at the p<0.05 in Round 2 and with statement 1 in Round 3. A post hoc test was conducted on the two statements, and the significant differences are shown in Table 67below.

Table 67. Comparison of mean, for agreement with statements on university-based units – by program area

	Significance p
Comparisons between program areas	Round 2	Round 3
Knowledge gained through university-based units was important
EC and EC/Primary	0.030	0.947
EC and Primary	0.001	0.377
EC and Primary/Secondary	0.001	0.107
EC and Secondary	0.000	0.049
EC/Primary and Primary	0.995	0.889
EC/Primary and Primary/Secondary	0.930	0.400
EC/Primary and Secondary	0.464	0.220
Primary and Primary/Secondary	0.961	0.718
Primary and Secondary	0.087	0.239
Primary/Secondary and Secondary	0.899	1.000
University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context
EC and EC/Primary	0.050	0.563
EC and Primary	0.049	0.431
EC and Primary/Secondary	0.012	0.066
EC and Secondary	0.011	0.208
EC/Primary and Primary	0.941	1.000
EC/Primary and Prim/Secondary	0.999	0.850
EC/Primary and Secondary	1.000	0.999
Primary and Primary/Secondary	0.694	0.427
Primary and Secondary	0.783	0.927
Primary/Secondary and Secondary	0.976	0.798

Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for:

• 
  ‘Knowledge gained through university-based units was important’, was significantly different between:
  
  • 
    Early childhood graduates and respondents from all four areas in Round 2
    
  • 
    Early childhood and secondary graduates in Round 3
    

This suggests that respondents from the early childhood program area were more likely to agree that the ‘Knowledge gained through university-based units was important’ than were all other respondents in Round 2, and more likely to say this than those whose program area was secondary in Round 3.

• 
  ‘University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context’ was significantly different between:
  
  • 
    Early childhood graduates and respondents from primary, primary/secondary and secondary areas in Round 2
    

This suggests that respondents from the early childhood program area were more likely to agree than those from primary, primary/secondary and secondary that ‘University-based units helped prepare me for my current teaching context’.

Principals’ perspectives on challenges faced by graduate teachers and transition difficulties

Principals were asked to name two challenges they perceived graduate teachers faced when they began teaching. Table 68 provides a summary of the key themes from principals’ responses, ordered by the number of references given by principals to each.

Table 68. Principals’ views of key challenges faced by newly employed graduate teachers

	Challenges
1	Classroom management
2	Pedagogy
3	Catering for diverse learners
4	Assessment and reporting
5	Behaviour management
6	Engagement with parents/families/communities
7	Workload
8	Curriculum
9	Qualities of being an effective teacher
10	Time management
11	Working and learning from other staff
12	Teaching
13	Effectiveness of tertiary degree
14	Student engagement
15	Professional ethics/standards
16	Working and living in a rural or remote area
17	Access to support
18	Administration
19	Special education

The most common area of challenge referred to by principals was classroom management, followed by pedagogy and catering for diverse learners. Comments from principals in relation to challenges associated with classroom management include:

• 
  Establishing a relationship with students whilst at the same time learning the art of teaching
  
• 
  I am concerned that at times graduate teachers can be intimidated by the students and perhaps “want to befriend” kids; early career teachers need to make sure they maintain clear expectations of acceptable behaviour and that they are not afraid to be tough when needed
  

Comments from principals in relation to challenges associated with pedagogy include:

• 
  I have observed a lack of confidence in ability to work within pedagogically sound frameworks
  
• 
  Implementing pedagogical practices that might not fit the culture of the school
  
• 
  Having a comprehensive understanding of the pedagogy that will both engage and support the learner
  

Comments from principals in relation to challenges associated with catering for diverse learners include:

• 
  The complex needs that students from low socio-economic backgrounds and with learning needs bring to the school settings now
  
• 
  Knowing how to build relationships with students while setting those high expectations and also knowing what to be tough on when there are so many other personal issues for these students
  

Principals were also asked what, in their opinion, made graduates’ transition into teaching difficult. The following table summarises principals’ responses, again ordered by the number of references to each.

Table 69. Principals’ views of key attributes that contribute to a difficult transition into teaching

Attributes

Teacher

Poor teaching skills/classroom management

Lack of interpersonal/communication skills (parents, teachers, students)

Wrong career choice or personal challenges

Do not listen to advice/not willing to improve

Did not seek support

Unable to adapt to the remoteness of school

Unrealistic expectations/lack of understanding of what teaching is about

Unable to connect to school culture

No commitment/enthusiasm to teaching

Unable to work or obstructions to work with other teachers

Unprofessional

Workload pressures/time management

Do not know the curriculum

Lack of confidence

Overconfidence

Not preparing for class

School

Lack of support offered

Lack of induction

No or ineffective mentoring program

Not able to access professional learning opportunities

No performance feedback

Poor selection process

Students

Poor student behaviour

Other

Not prepared adequately by institutions

The most common response was poor teaching skills and classroom management. However, principals also noted lack of school support and induction as well as lack of interpersonal/communication skills and inadequate teacher preparation as contributing to a difficult transition into teaching. These attributes reflect partly on the quality of the preparation provided by initial teacher education programs, but they also connect with issues of school culture and school support.