NJCIE 2019, Vol. 3(1), 33–50
http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2871
Teachers’ Professional Development and an
Open Classroom Climate: A Comparative Study of Norway, Sweden, South Korea, and
Taiwan
Aihua Hu
Postdoctoral Fellow, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Lihong Huang
Research Professor, Oslo Metropolitan University
Abstract
This
article examines teachers’ professional development (PD) in terms of content
knowledge and teaching methods, their sense of preparedness in teaching, and
their teaching practice of civic and citizenship education (CCE) in lower
secondary schools in Norway, Sweden, South Korea, and Taiwan, and how these
variables influence students’ experience of classroom climate. We use data from
the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS 2016) initiated
by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA). ICCS 2016 data from these four places contain responses from teachers
(N=7,159), and students (N=16, 089; average age =14.4 years) from 558 schools.
We find that the more PD training on CCE topics and teaching methods teachers
receive, the higher their sense of preparedness in teaching CCE in all four
education systems. We also find that students of different cultures have
different experiences about open classroom climates despite that teacher’s in
the four places have utilized the same teaching approaches.
Keywords:
Teachers’ professional development; civic and
citizenship education; open classroom climate, ICCS
2016
Introduction and background
Civic and citizenship education (CCE) is critical for cultivating future generations’ knowledge about
democracy while engaging them in democratic life in the future. Citizenship
education involves learning how to live as democratic citizens in a democratic
society (Bîrzea, Cecchini, Harrison, Krek,
Spajic-Vrkas, 2005, p24). “CCE” is an interchangeable term with citizenship
education, and while it is not specifically written in the curriculum and
literature reviewed for this study, the term CCE is used. In schools, teachers are highly influential in student learning, as “the
quality of teaching is the most important factor that influences student
learning” (Wang, Odell, Klecka, Spalding, & Lin, 2010, p.395). Teachers’
participation in professional development (PD) is an indicator of teacher quality
(Blömeke, Olsen, & Suhl, 2016) and has an impact on students’ learning
(OECD, 2017). Teacher PD is a lifelong process that starts with preservice
training (UNESCO, 1996). “No
matter how good pre-service training for teachers is, it cannot be expected to
prepare teachers for all the challenges they will face throughout their
careers” (OECD, 2009, p.49). “Teachers must become
lifelong learners and inquisitive professionals” (OECD, 2018, p. 31).
There is
a wealth of literature on teachers’ PD across diverse topics. Some studies have
explored how PD changed teachers’ beliefs and practices (e.g., Desimone, 2009),
while others researched how the length of PD influenced the depth of these
changes (e.g., King & Newmann 2001). Some explored how PD influenced
teachers’ sense of preparedness (e.g. Kee, 2012). Some studies examined how
teachers’ PD affected their teaching practices (e.g., Desimone, 2009), while
others have investigated the characteristics of effective PD (e.g., Abu-Tineh,
& Sadiq, 2018; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017) and suggested models
of effective PD (e.g., Abu-Tineh & Sadiq, 2018; Misra, 2018). There is also
literature on PD for different subjects like music (e.g., Wong & Bautista,
2018), English as a second/foreign language (e.g., Sandlund, Sundqvist, &
Nyroos, 2016), and mathematics (e.g., Kaur, Leong, & Kwon, 2017; Scher
& O'Reilly, 2009). While there is an abundance of research on PD in the
literature, there is little research on PD in CCE, on how PD affects CCE
teachers’ sense of preparedness and teaching practices, and on how students
experience the classroom climate. Our article aims to address the gaps by
examining PD across four education systems in Norway, Sweden, Taiwan, and South
Korea to determine whether and how PD influences teachers’ sense of
preparedness and teaching practices, and what students’ experiences are of the classroom
climate in CCE classrooms.
This
comparative study aims to a) examine our own education system and further understand
it; b) widen our perspectives by learning from other cultures and systems; c) identify PD factors in formal educational
settings that foster an open classroom climate that is best for student
learning in different education systems; and d) inspire better CCE policies and practices.
We chose
to compare two pairs of neighboring cultural systems, which enable us to
compare and contrast these two pairs of settings. It is particularly interesting in comparing these four
places as we have observed similarities and differences
from the literature regarding how CCE is organized in the four education
systems. In Norway, CCE is
integrated into several compulsory subjects such as social studies (history,
geography, and civics), knowledge of Christianity, religion, philosophies of
life, and ethics in lower-secondary schools (Mikkelsen, & Fjeldstad, 2013).
In Sweden, CCE is also integrated into different compulsory subjects; from grades
7 to 9, it is integrated into subjects like history, religion, and geography,
while in grade 10 it is integrated into social studies, history, and religion
(Lind, 2013). At the same time, CCE is a cross-curricular theme embedded in the
general educational objectives in both Nordic countries. In Taiwan, CCE is a
specific curriculum subject at the junior secondary level and covers seven
major cross-curricular themes (Liu, Lin, & Tsai, 2013). Conversely, Korea
does not officially define CCE, but there have been suggestions that CCE should
be developed through public education (Kim, 2013). As such, CCE is embedded in
related subjects like social studies (Cha & Mo, 2008 cited in Kim, 2013);
it is also incorporated in moral education on values and attitudes (Ministry of
Education, Science, and Technology, 2009 cited in Kim, 2013).
Theoretical framework,
assumptions, and research questions
According
to OECD (2009), teacher PD is
“activities that develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other
characteristics as a teacher.”(p. 49). This definition illustrates that teacher PD is a broad term that
covers different aspects of teacher learning that can be conducted formally or
informally. The contents of PD can range from teaching skills, subject
knowledge, to ethical values and attitudes and beyond. In this article, we use
the term PD in a narrow sense. As such, teacher PD refers to formal preservice
and in-service teacher education/training, with teacher education and teacher
training being interchangeable. As far as the PD contents concern, we refer to
teachers’ subject knowledge and teaching methods as they have covered in the
ICCS 2016 questionnaires. We recognize that this has
limitations. However, we do not seek to draw conclusions about the components
or characteristics of effective PD; rather, we connect formal teachers’ PD with the development of an open
classroom climate.
Research
on preservice teacher education has suggested that teachers who have more
comprehensive preparation experiences tend to feel more prepared and teach more effectively (Kee, 2012).
Teachers who feel prepared have a greater sense of efficacy about whether they
are able to make a difference in student learning and are more likely to
believe that they can reach all of their students, handle problems in the
classroom, teach all students at high levels, and make a difference in students’
lives (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Teachers’ sense of efficacy
increases after accessing PD training, as this can help them develop additional
skills and gain confidence in their teaching (Rose
& Reynolds, 2006). Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy can be enhanced with
their improvement of pedagogical knowledge (Wyatt, 2013) and access to positive
PD experiences (the General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2012). When Allinder
(1994) concluded enhanced self-efficacy was associated with teachers’
willingness to try new teaching methods, Darling-Hammond (2006) found that effective
PD opportunities had significant impacts on teacher instruction quality.
Self-efficacy
is “a variable found in a number of studies to be correlated with teacher
effectiveness” (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002, p.294). These findings
ultimately indicate that teachers’ PD influences their sense of preparedness, sense
of efficacy in teaching and thus their teaching. The review of the literature
leads us to the assumption that teachers’ PD in terms of subject knowledge and
teaching methods influences teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy,
which affect how they teach.
According
to Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, and Lovett (2010), the classroom climate is “the
intellectual, social, emotional, and physical environments in which our
students learn” (p.170). In this article, we talk about the classroom climate
in terms of the intellectual aspects that lead us to define an open classroom
climate as “a learning environment that is focused on open discussion about
political and social issues” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p.587). Research has
indicated that the open classroom climate consistently contributes to positive
civic outcomes (Huang & Biseth, 2016) and the development of political
self-efficacy (Levy, 2011).
Building
an open classroom climate can be challenging, but teachers can create such
environments through daily pedagogical decisions (McCafferty-Wright &
Knowles, 2016). In fact,
teachers’ teaching methods are strong contributing factors to creating positive
classroom climates (Chapin & Eastman, 1996) (refer to Adelman and Taylor,
2002 for indicator list). In addition, Evans, Harvey, Buckley, and Yan (2009) highlight
how the classroom climate is almost exclusively tied to teachers’ skills. These
findings have provided compelling evidence to connect teachers’ PD with the development
of an open classroom climate. Based on the literature, we construct our
theoretical framework, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Theoretical framework of the assumptions of the
relationships between teachers’ PD and students’ experience of the classroom
climate
Our
theoretical framework (Figure 1) intends to visualize three assumptions from
previous research:
a) Teachers’ PD training is
associated with teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy in what and
how they teach;
b) Teachers’ PD and their
sense of preparedness and self-efficacy influence how they teach; and
c) How teachers teach is
related to how students experience teaching practices in the classroom.
By
testing the three assumptions on the four different education systems, we aim
to answer the following research questions: a) What and which factors embedded
in teachers’ PD could foster an open classroom climate for student learning?; and
b) Are these factors similar or different across education systems and
cultures?
Data and methods
We use
data from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS 2016)
initiated by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). ICCS 2016 data from these four places contained responses
from teachers (N=7,159), and students (N=16,089; average age =14.4 years) from
558 schools. Table 1 describes the data and results from the ICCS 2016 study
findings across the four places in collected through two separately
administered questionnaire surveys obtained from teachers and students.
Table 1: ICCS 2016 data used in the analysis
|
Norway
|
Sweden
|
South
Korea
|
Taiwan
|
Total
|
|
Number
of schools
|
148
|
155
|
106
|
149
|
558
|
|
Number
of teachers
|
2,010
|
1,542
|
1,368
|
2,239
|
7,159
|
|
Number
of students
|
6,271
|
3,264
|
2,601
|
3,953
|
16,089
|
|
Average
age of students
|
14.6
|
14.7
|
14
|
14.1
|
14.4
|
|
Average
student civic knowledge achievement (standard error)
|
564
(2.2)
|
579
(2.8)
|
551
(3.6)
|
581
(3.0)
|
517
(0.7)*
|
* International average
(Table 2.9; Schulz et al., 2018).
Two
groups of questions from the ICCS data are of interest for this study. The
first group of questions ask about teachers’ professional preservice and
in-service training in CCE-related topics, and their feelings of preparedness
in teaching those topics (Table 2). The second group of questions ask about teaching
methods applied by teachers in the classroom (Table 3) and students’ experiences
of teachers’ teaching practices in a regular classroom of CCE-related subjects.
We realize
our comparison across the four systems using three data analysis steps. First,
we apply descriptive analyses of teachers’ PD together with their feeling of
preparedness and teaching methods applied in the classroom, and students’ experiences
of classroom climate. Second, to see if and how these factors are related, we utilize
scales derived from teachers’ and students’ responses to questions on teacher
PD training and teaching practices in the classroom, and students’ experiences of
teaching practices in the classroom. These scales are calculated by applying item
response theory (IRT) weighted likelihood estimate (WLE) scores with an
international average score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for equally
weighted countries (Köhler, Weber, Brese, Schulz, & Carstens, 2018). Third,
we perform correlational analyses to see the correlations between teacher
variables and student variables. We disaggregate teachers’ responses on the question
asking how often they use certain teaching methods in the CCE classroom and
correlate these with students’ reported experiences of an open classroom
climate.
Our results are presented in response to the three
assumptions made at the beginning of this work, which is a) teachers’ PD training is associated with teachers’ sense of
preparedness in what and how they teach; b) teachers’ PD and sense of
influence how they teach; and
c) how teachers teach is related to how students
experience teaching practices in the classroom.
Results
Teachers’ PD training and their sense of preparedness in
teaching CCE-related subjects
Table 2
compares teachers’ self-reported feelings of preparedness to teach CCE-related
topics, and whether they receive training relevant to these topics and teaching
methods during their pre-service education, in-service training, or both. We
find interesting results across the four systems. First, CCE-related topics and
teaching methods are more likely to be addressed in preservice training than in
in-service training for teachers in Norway and Sweden, while these topics are usually
covered in in-service training in Taiwan and South Korea. Second, teachers in
Taiwan generally receive more training when compared to teachers in the other
three places, as only 21.6% of them receive no training on CCE-related topics,
while two-thirds of Norwegian teachers and half of the Swedish teachers and
South Korean teachers do not receive training on related topics. Third,
although over half of the teachers in Norway and Sweden do not receive any
training on CCE-related topics, most Norwegian and Swedish teachers feel well
prepared to teach these topics. Further, half of the teachers in South Korea do
not receive any training on CCE-related topics, and one third do not feel well
prepared to teach these topics. Meanwhile, in Taiwan, a similar proportion of
teachers who do not receive training on CCE-related topics do not feel well
prepared to teach these topics. When examining the teaching
methods covered in preservice and in-service training across the four education
systems, teachers in Taiwan appear to be most trained in these teaching
methods.
In
Norway, teachers’ PD training on CCE topics is only positively correlated with asking
students to work on projects that involve gathering information outside of school,
while teachers’ PD training is positively related to asking students to take notes
and study textbooks in the classroom. Further, Norwegian teachers who feel
well-prepared to teach tend to use role play, student discussions, and student
research in the classroom. In Sweden, teachers’ PD training on CCE topics
appears to have no significant correlation with any teaching practices in the
classroom. It seems that teachers who have more PD training on teaching methods
tend not to ask students to work in small groups in the classroom. However,
Swedish teachers who feel well prepared to teach tend to ask students to take notes
and hold discussions in the classroom.
In South
Korea, teachers’ PD training on CCE topics is positively correlated with using methods
such as asking students to work on projects, asking students to engage in research,
and asking students to propose lesson topics, while teachers’ PD training in
teaching methods is positively related to nearly all classroom-based teaching
practices, with the exception of asking students to take notes and study
textbooks. The same holds true for teachers feeling prepared to teach, which is
positively correlated with all teaching practices in the classroom, except asking
students to work on projects where they gather information outside of school,
as well as asking students to study their textbooks. In Taiwan, teachers’ PD training
on CCE topics correlates positively with asking students to work in small
groups, role play, and research and propose lesson topics, but there is no
significant correlation between teachers’ PD and the use of teaching methods overall.
Teachers in Taiwan who feel well prepared to teach often promote student
discussions and research in the classroom.
Moreover,
we do not find any correlations between teachers’ PD training and students’
perception of an open classroom climate, although there is one significant but
weak, positive correlation between teachers’ sense of preparedness and students’
perceptions of an open classroom climate in Sweden (Table 4). Nevertheless, we
find some significant and rather strong correlations between teachers’ frequent
use of some teaching methods in the classroom and students’ perceptions of an
open classroom. Table 5 shows the correlation coefficients between students’
perceptions of an open classroom and teachers’ use of different teaching
strategies in the classroom. Only a few teaching strategies applied by teachers
in the classroom are correlated to students’ experience of an open classroom
climate. First, in all four education systems, the most frequently used
teaching practice is asking students to discuss current issues, which is associated
with open classroom climates. Second, as one of the least frequently used
methods, asking students to work on projects is strongly related to students’
perceptions of an open classroom climate in the two Asian systems and Norway,
but not in Sweden. Third, studying textbooks is rather strongly associated with
students’ experiences of an open classroom climate in South Korea and Taiwan,
while this correlation is weak in Sweden and not significant in Norway. Further,
asking students to work in small groups appears to correlate strongly with
students’ experience of an open classroom in Taiwan, while this correlation is not
significant in the other three countries. Finally, proposing topics and issues for the following lessons has a weakly
positive correlation with Norwegian students’ perceptions of an open classroom
climate.
Table 5: Correlation coefficients between students’
perception of an open classroom climate and frequently used teaching methods in
the classroom
|
Norway
|
Sweden
|
South
Korea
|
Taiwan
|
|
Students work on
projects that involve gathering information outside school (e.g., interviews
in the neighborhood, small-scale surveys).
|
0.26*
|
0.07
|
0.37*
|
0.63*
|
|
Students work in
small groups on different topics/issues.
|
0.04
|
0.20
|
0.27
|
0.58*
|
|
Students
participate in role-play.
|
-0.05
|
-0.14
|
-0.11
|
-0.04
|
|
Students take notes
during teachers’ lectures.
|
0.04
|
0.00
|
0.02
|
-0.03
|
|
Students discuss
current issues.
|
0.25*
|
0.31*
|
0.51*
|
0.35*
|
|
Students research
and/or analyze information gathered from multiple Web sources (e.g., wikis,
online newspapers).
|
0.09
|
-0.09
|
0.16
|
0.10
|
|
Students study
textbooks.
|
0.11
|
0.10*
|
0.31*
|
0.32*
|
|
Students propose
topics/issues for the following lessons.
|
0.10*
|
0.02
|
0.04
|
-0.02
|
* P<0.05.
Discussion and
implications
The above findings enable us to respond to the two
research questions introduced at the beginning of the article: a) What and which factors embedded in teachers’ PD could foster an
open classroom climate for student learning?; and b) Are these factors similar
or different across education systems and cultures?
There are
several commonalities found in the different cultures. First, in line with most
literature on PD and teachers’ sense of preparedness (e.g., Darling-Hammond,
Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Kee, 2012), the results of our analyses indicate
that the more PD training on CCE topics and teaching methods teachers receive,
the higher their sense of preparedness. As indicated previously, teachers’
sense of preparedness has a significant impact on their sense of self-efficacy,
which directly influences teaching effectiveness. This implies that proper and
carefully planned preservice and in-service PD should be offered to teachers
who teach CCE-related subjects. Of the four cultures, Taiwan is the only place
where CCE is taught as an independent subject, while there are seven
CCE-related themes taught in other subjects. This might explain why teachers in
Taiwan receive the most education. In the other three countries, CCE is
integrated into other subjects; in the two Nordic countries, CCE is a
cross-curricular theme embedded in general education objectives. South Korea
can learn from the other three cultures in how to integrate CCE-related topics
into different subjects systematically. Besides, the practice of integrating
CCE into different subjects suggests that PD training on CCE and teaching
methods should be offered not only to teachers who teach CCE-related subjects
but also to teachers of all subjects.
The findings also indicate that teachers who feel
prepared use more student-centered teaching methods such as role-playing,
student research, student discussion in the classroom, and asking students to
propose lesson topics. This implies that teachers should receive quality PD
training that can help them feel better prepared to teach, and it can also
increase teachers’ content knowledge to help them employ different teaching
approaches. According to Monk’s (1994) findings, good
subject knowledge enables student teachers to teach the same materials using different
pedagogies and from different perspectives. Additionally, Tsui (2003) found
that “teachers who had better subject matter knowledge were observed to be able
to help make conceptual connections, provide appropriate and varied
representations, and construct an active and meaningful dialogue with students”
(p. 54). This means that good
content knowledge is helpful for teachers in creating an open classroom
climate. This implies that when designing the curriculum for PD training, it is
important to provide student teachers and in-service teachers with good and
relevant subject knowledge. It is evident that “a good
grasp of subject area is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
effective teaching” (Monk, 1994, p.142), teachers’ content pedagogy is an
essential factor for effective teaching (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Shulman,
1987). From the list of the teaching methods described earlier, it is evident
that more CCE-specific teaching methods are needed. One of the most important
functions of CCE is to motivate and engage students to become active in a democratic
society, which distinguishes the content pedagogies of CCE from other
pedagogies. Teachers who teach CCE-related topics should have opportunities to
learn more about how to involve students in the participation of democratic
life.
A
surprisingly common phenomenon is the use of similar teaching methods across the
four cultures. Approaches such as lecturing on textbook content, notetaking
during lectures, and student discussions are dominant in CCE classrooms in all four
cultures. This indicates that teachers tend to use more traditional teaching
methods in their CCE classrooms. When looking closely at these findings,
questions arise as to what types of content and pedagogical knowledge are being
presented in CCE-related teacher training in these four systems. We must be
aware that CCE involves much more than overloading students with textbook knowledge.
It is more important that they also possess the awareness and competence required
to engage in a rapidly developing world. It is not easy for students to gain
these competencies in traditional classrooms. Nonetheless, studying textbooks
is strongly associated with students’ experiences of an open classroom climate
in South Korea and Taiwan. A possible explanation would be that students have
been given opportunities to discuss textbook materials amongst themselves or
with the teachers.
Further,
our results also show that the most frequently used teaching method, “students
discuss current issues”, is significantly and positively related to students’
experiences of open classroom climates in the four cultures. The more teachers
use this strategy, the more students experience open classroom climates.
Teaching current issues in an open classroom climate has “tremendous potential
to change how students respond to their world and to, ultimately, make the
world a more equitable place” (McCafferty-Wright & Knowles, 2016, p. 113).
This implies that teachers should be encouraged to use this method in their
classroom through in-service PD training, which is an important channel where teachers
can update their knowledge of current issues for CCE and of the different methods
and technologies that can aid them in their practice.
When
examining the relationship between PD and teachers’ sense of preparedness, the
four cultures differ. Specifically, in the two Nordic cultures, PD has a moderate
positive correlation with teachers’ sense of preparedness, while it is strongly
associated with teachers’ sense of preparedness in the eastern cultures. It is
possible that the values of democracy and democratic activities are integrated
into education and everyday life as early as in early childhood education in
the two Nordic countries, while the two eastern cultures are newly established
democratic systems with around five decades of history. The long tradition of
democracy has provided teachers with more knowledge of CCE-related topics,
which helps them feel prepared to teach CCE content. Nonetheless, the practice
of integrating the values of democracy and democratic activities into education
and everyday life as early as in early childhood education in the two Nordic
countries can be an inspiration for their eastern counterparts and beyond.
Interestingly,
one teaching method (“students working on a project”) is found to enhance students’
perceptions and experiences of open classroom climates in the two Asian systems
and Norway, but not in Sweden. It may be that students work on projects
independently in Sweden, while they do so collectively in the other three
systems.
As for the
differences in students’ perceptions and experiences of teachers’ teaching
methods and open classroom climates, we should consider the possibility that although
the teaching methods appear to be the same, teachers may use them differently (Cohen, & Hill, 2000) and involve students to different
degrees in different cultures and even the same culture.
To
conclude, although we do not find a direct relationship between teachers’ PD
and students’ perceptions and experiences of an open classroom climate, we do find
that teachers’ PD influences their sense of preparedness, content knowledge,
and teaching methods, with teaching methods directly affecting students’
experiences of an open classroom climate. These findings suggest that PD
matters not only for CCE but for other subjects in general. It is important
that both student teachers and in-service teachers are provided with quality PD
opportunities. “Effective professional development for teachers is a core part
of securing effective teaching” (Department of Education, 2016, p.3).
We have
to admit that our study has limitations insofar as the data source relies
solely on the ICCS 2016. During data analysis, we have observed that questions
concerning PD in the teacher questionnaire need updating especially the items
of PD of teaching methods that are too general and lacking CCE specific pedagogies
in their current forms. We thus call for future research to explore major stakeholders’
perspectives of teachers’ PD for CCE and an update of questions asked in
teacher questionnaires in future ICCS study.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank
the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to the earlier draft.
The analysis of this article is part of the ICCS 2016 study in Norway, financed
by the Norwegian Directorate for
Education and Training
References
Abu-Tineh, A.M. & Sadiq, H. M. (2018). Characteristics and models
of effective professional development: the case of school teachers in Qatar. Professional
Development in Education, 44(2), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1306788
Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (2002). Classroom climate. In: S.W. Lee,
P.A. Lowe, & E. Robinson (Eds). Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp.
304–312). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the
instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401700203
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro,
M. & Lovett, M.C. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based
principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass.
Blömeke, S., Olsen, R. V. & Suhl, U. (2016). Relation of student achievement to the quality
of their teachers and instructional quality. In T. Nilsen, & J. E.
Gustafsson (Eds.), Teacher quality, instructional quality and student
outcomes, IEA Research for Education 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41252-8_2
Bîrzea, C., Cecchini, M., Harrison, C.,
Krek, J. & Spajic-Vrkas, V. (2005). Tool for quality assurance of
education for democratic citizenship in schools. Paris, UNESCO. Retrieved 19 April 2018 from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001408/140827e.pdf
Chapin, S., & Eastman, K. (1996). External and internal
characteristics of learning environments. Mathematics Teacher 89(2),
112–115.
Cohen, D. K. & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and
classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teacher College
Record, 102(2), 294-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00057
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57(3), 1-15. Retrieved
19 April 2018 from: https://chalkboardproject.org/sites/default/files/Constructing-21st-Century-Tchr-Ed.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in
teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053004002
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E. & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective
teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Department of Education (2016). Standard for teachers’ professional development: Implementation
guidance for school leaders, teachers, and organisations that offer
professional development for teachers. Retrieved 19 April 2018 from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/537031/160712_-_PD_Expert_Group_Guidance.pdf
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’
professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and
measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140
Evans, M. I., Harvey, T. S., Buckley, L. & Yan, E. (2009).
Differentiating classroom climate concepts: Academic, management, and emotional
environments. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 4(2),
131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522449
Huang, L. & Biseth, H. (2016). Openness in Scandinavian
Classrooms: Student Perceptions of Teaching Practices and High Achievers of
Civic Knowledge. Creative Education, 7(5), 713-723. http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.75075
Kaur, B., Leong, Y. H. & Kwon, O. N. (Eds.) (2017). Professional
development of mathematics teachers: An Asian perspective. Singapore:
Springer.
Kee, A. N. (2012). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively
certified teachers: What is the role of program features? Journal of Teacher
Education 63(1), 23-38.
Kim, T. J. (2013). Republic of Korea. In J. Ainley, W. Schulz, & T.
Friedman. (Eds.) ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia: Approaches to civic and citizenship
education around the world,
(pp. 227-236). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: IEA.
King, M.B. & Newman, F.M. (2001). Building school capacity through
professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110383818
Köhler, H., Weber, S., Brese, F., Schulz, W. & Carstens, R. (2018).
ICCS 2016 user guide for the international database. Amsterdam: IEA. Retrieved
25 April 2018 from:https://iccs.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor_Group/Downloads/ICCS2016_IDB_User_Guide.pdf
Levy, B. L. M. (2011). Fostering cautious political efficacy through
civic advocacy projects: A mixed methods case study of an innovative high
school class. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(2), 238-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2011.10473454
Lind, F. (2013). Sweden. In J. Ainley, W. Schulz & T. Friedman.
(Eds.) ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia: Approaches to civic and citizenship education
around the world, (pp.
373-388). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: IEA.
Liu, M., Lin, T.B. & Tsai, J. C. (2013). Chinese Taipei. In J.
Ainley, W. Schulz & T. Friedman. (Eds.) ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia:
Approaches to civic and citizenship education around the world, (pp. 69-76). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.
McCafferty-Wright, J. & Knowles, R. (2016). Unlocking the civil
potential of current events with an open classroom climate. Social Studies
Research and Practice 11(3), 112-121.
Mikkelsen, R. & Fjeldstad, D. (2013). Norway. In J. Ainley, W.
Schulz, & T. Friedman. (Eds.) ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia: Approaches to
civic and citizenship education around the world, (pp. 313-322). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
IEA.
Misra, P. K. (2018). MOOCs for teacher professional development:
Reflections, and suggested actions. Open Praxis, 10(1). 67–77. Retrieved
6 August 2018 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1171151.pdf.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics
and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
13(2), 125-145.
OECD (2009). Creating
effective teaching and learning environments first results from TALIS. OECD
Publishing. Retrieved 19 April 2018 from: www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf.
OECD (2017). "How can professional
development enhance teachers’ classroom practices?". Teaching in Focus,
16, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved
9 February 2018 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2745d679-en.
OECD (2018). Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from
PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, Retrieved 19 April 2018 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.
Rose, J. & Reynolds, D. (2006). Teachers’ continuing professional
development: A new approach. Paper presented at 20th Annual World International
Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement.
Sandlund, E., Sundqvist, P., & Nyroos, L. (2016). Research-based
professional development workshops for EFL teachers: Focus on oral test
interaction and assessment. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, 4(1),
24-48.
Scher, L. & O'Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development
for K–12 math and science teachers: What do we really know?, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(3), 209-249, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802641527
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
The General Teaching Council for Scotland (2012). The standard for career-long professional
learning: Supporting the development of teacher professional learning.
Retrieved 19 April 2018 from: http://www.gtcs.org.uk/web/FILES/the-standards/standard-for-career-long-professional-learning-1212.pdf.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press
UNESCO (1996). Recommendation concerning the status of teachers. Retrieved
19 April 2018 from: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/TEACHE_E.PDF.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E.
& Lin, E. (2010). Understanding
teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110384219
Wong, J. & Bautista, A. (2018). How do teachers define the notion
of professional development?: The case of primary music teachers. Professional
Development in Education, 44(4), 539-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1369450
Wyatt, M. (2013). Overcoming low self-efficacy beliefs in teaching
English to young learners. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 26(2), 238-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.605082
