You are on page 1of 8

Perception of the accomplished teacher among teacher educators in

‘‘research oriented’’ and ‘‘teaching oriented’’ institutes in Israel
Irit Levy-Feldman
a,b,
*, David Nevo
a
a
Tel-Aviv University, Israel
b
Kibbutzim College of Education Technology & The Arts, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Introduction
Teacher education takes place both in research-oriented and in
teaching-oriented institutes. In the United States, institutes of
higher education include both research universities and profes-
sional colleges, the latter including teacher colleges (Feiman-
Nemser, 1990). This distinction, however, may be misleading
because some colleges, such as Boston College, are research
institutes while some research institutes are more professionally
oriented. In Israel there is a clear separation between universities
and teachers colleges. Teacher colleges are teaching-oriented
institutes that prepare for teaching in primary education while
universities are research-oriented institutes that focus on prepar-
ing for teaching secondary education. Moreover, while in teacher
colleges training is ‘‘simultaneous’’, that is to say, students study
four years for a Bachelor’s degree (B.Ed.) and a teaching certificate,
the universities use a ‘‘continuous’’ model, where students first get
their BA at the faculty of the relevant discipline and then take one
or two more years at the School of Education in order to get a
teaching certificate.
Research-oriented institutes in Israel (the universities) generally
enjoy higher academic status because they are seen as emphasizing
academic knowledge, generating new knowledge, research and
criticism. Staff members are mainly male, with advanced degrees
and high institutional status, and while most teach in their relevant
discipline, their main focus is on research. Teaching institutes in
Israel (colleges in general and teacher colleges in particular), by
contrast, have relatively lower academic status, and are identified as
pedagogical-professional in nature with a focus on practice,
learning, interpersonal relations and collaboration. Staff members
are mixed male and female, with M.A., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees; most
of them teach pedagogy and education classes and specializes in
teaching rather than research (Levy-Feldman, 2008; Niederland,
Hoffman, & Dror, 2007). Within the research institutes, schools of
education have relatively low status. Most of the staff members,
having obtained their academic knowledge at the discipline
faculties, teach related issues such as educational psychology and
educational sociology. Thus, they mainly engage with their
particular discipline (Altbach & Lewis, 1996; Chen, Gottlieb, &
Yakir, 1996; Goodlad, 1990, 2002; Labaree, 2008; Levy-Feldman,
2004, 2008; Nevo, 1999).
The purpose of the study was to examine teacher educators’
perceptions of core components of accomplished teachers, as they
appear in the professional literature. It looks at these perceptions
among teacher educators from ‘‘research-oriented’’ and ‘‘teaching-
oriented’’ institutes in the Israeli context: universities and colleges.
We also looked at differences in held perceptions between
university-based schools of education and other faculties in the
universities. Unlike other studies of teacher education, this study
examines all the parties involved in teacher education at the
research institute: at schools of education, where teachers obtain
their pedagogical education, and at disciplinary faculties, where
the teachers get their subject matter training.
Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 11 November 2012
Received in revised form 27 June 2013
Accepted 29 June 2013
Keywords:
Teacher education
Teacher evaluation
Evaluation of teacher education
A B S T R A C T
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceived components of effective teachers among teacher
educators in research and teaching-oriented institutes in Israel.
The currently prevailing notion of the effective teacher, reflecting the complexity of teaching, can be
traced back in the attitudes of teacher educators in both institutes; and as such it can contribute to the
ongoing debate regarding what makes a good teacher and the standards that can be used for teacher
evaluation. Furthermore, the study’s results can indicate some advantages and drawbacks of teacher
education in the different institutes – thus adding valuable findings to questions regarding the desirable
location of teacher education that can also be used for the evaluation of teacher education institutes.
ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Correspondence address: 9 HaRimon st., Raanana 43570, Israel.
Tel.: +972 97728334.
E-mail address: Irit_fel@smkb.ac.il (I. Levy-Feldman).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Studies in Educational Evaluation
j o ur n al homepag e: www. el sevi er . com/ st u ed u c
0191-491X/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.06.004
Theoretical background
Some of the main educational topics discussed by education
philosophers since antiquity (Aristotle, Plato and others) have been
the goal of education, the role of school and the teacher, as well as
the image of the ‘‘accomplished teacher’’ and teacher educatio-
n.Educational philosophies were segmented in numerous ways.
One common way suggested by Dewey, 1959 compares the
progressive movement in education, also known as the ‘‘new
education’’ emphasizing the individual, to earlier movements,
known as the ‘‘old education’’ which emphasize curriculum. Strain,
1971 offered three major segments termed progressive education,
essentialism education and humanistic education. Lamm (2000,
2002) proposed three segments as well, but they were based on
what education serves: socialization (education-serving society),
acculturation (education-serving culture) and individualization
(education-serving individual). Fenstermacher and Soltis, 1986
proposed another way of segmenting educational philosophies:
the executive approach centered on products, the therapeutic
approach centered on individual needs and fulfillment, and the
liberating or emancipating approach targeted at intensifying the
individual beyond socially atrophied patterns. Another common
way looks at the focus of teaching: teacher-centered or student-
centered focused approaches (Weimer, 2013).
Each philosophy’s approach has a different paradigm or model
of teaching and teacher education and as a result stresses different
components of the ‘‘accomplished teacher’’. Furthermore, there is
evidence in literature that some of the philosophies can be
identified with either research or teaching institutes. As will be
elaborated further, some of the ‘‘traditional’’ philosophies such as
the ‘‘old education’’ (Dewey), or the socialization and acculturation
approaches (Lamm), or the executive approach (Fenstermacher &
Soltis), emphasizes the competency-based teacher education
paradigm which stress the teacher’s subject matter knowledge,
pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter, and general
pedagogical skills such as class management and the monitoring of
learning. On the other side, some of the ‘‘modern’’ philosophies
such as the ‘‘new education’’ (Dewey), the individualization
(Lamm), or therapeutic and even liberating approaches (Fenster-
macher & Soltis), emphasizes the humanistic based teacher
education paradigm, stresses personal growth of both teachers
and students and as such ascribes teachers’ commitment to the
students and their learning, teachers’ professional development
and the ability to critically examine their practice and involvement
in the learning community.
One of the main ‘‘traditional’’ philosophies is the traditional
cultural philosophy, which regards education as a process of
acculturation. This philosophy considers education as part of the
humanities and has been identified with the educational approach
of research-oriented institutes (Darling-Hammond, 1987, 1997;
Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Lam-
pert & Loewenberg-Ball, 1999; Loewenberg-Ball & Cohen, 1999;
Shulman, 1987; Wenglinsky, 2000; Zeichner, 1994). In this process,
the teacher is ‘‘knowledgeable’’ (Zeichner, 1994), so that teacher
training emphasizes the teacher’s subject matter knowledge and
the pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter (Darling-
Hammond, 1987; Zeichner, 1994).
The second common ‘‘traditional’’ philosophy is the traditional
social philosophy, which regards education as a tool in the service of
socialization. Fenstermacher and Soltis (1986) describe this
approach as ‘‘the executive approach’’. The good teacher is an
‘‘effective teacher’’ (Cochran-Smith, 2004) whose main goal is to
transmit knowledge. Teacher training emphasizes teaching theo-
ries and techniques and promotes teachers’ general pedagogical
skills such as class management and the monitoring of learning
(Cochran-Smith, 2004). This philosophy has been identified with
the educational approach of teaching-oriented institutes (Cochran-
Smith, 2004; Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Wenglinsky, 2000; Zeichner,
1994).
From the 1990s a ‘‘modern’’, student-centered philosophy of
education developed (Dewey, 1959; Fenstermacher & Soltis, 1986)
wherein the goal of education is to create the optimal conditions
for self-growth with no direct connection to cultural or social goals.
The accomplished teacher is required to be committed to the full
diversity of students and their learning. Such a teacher is called a
‘‘caring’’ teacher (Noddings, 1999), and his professional develop-
ment fosters the ability to critically examine his own practice
(reflection) as well as to cope with and adjust to ongoing changes.
Hence derives Shulman’s (2005) notion of the ‘‘pedagogy of
uncertainty’’. To acquit himself of this, the accomplished teacher
also must be involved in a learning community. Teacher training, in
this model, addresses issues related to child development and
highlights learning situations, teachers’ action research, reflection
and team work (Berliner, 2000; Bransford, Darling-Hammond, &
LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond &
Baratz-Snowden, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2007; Darling-
Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Shulman, 1987). In recent years the
teacher is also expected to be aware of and contribute to social
justice both in the classroom and in the community, and to act for
social change (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Freire, 1981; Zeichner, 1994,
2007).
The modern student-centered philosophy, in contrast with the
traditional cultural and the traditional social philosophies, which
sometimes are called teacher-centered philosophies, is not clearly
identified in the literature with either research or teaching
institutes. But when looking at what the literature describes as
good teacher education – broad and authentic practice, teaching
research, staff and institute support (Darling-Hammond, 2006,
2013; Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005; Feiman-
Nemser, 1990; Goodlad, 1990) – it would seem that teaching
institutes are more likely to train this teacher than research
institutes (Levy-Feldman, 2008). In teaching institutes, especially
in Israel, there is more cooperation between academia and the field
through, for instance, professional development school (PDS)
models, and this generates authentic practice and teaching
research (Silberstein, Ben-Peretz, & Greenfield, 2006). Staff
members in teaching institutes are involved both in research on
teaching and on teacher education as opposed to their colleagues
at research institutes whose main research topics are discipline
related (Yogev & Yogev, 2005). Moreover, staff members at
teaching institutes identify with teaching and teacher education
and institutional support for teaching and teaching-related
research is wider (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005;
Levy-Feldman, 2008; Nevo, 1999; Zeichner, 2007; Zeichner &
Noffke, 2001).
It is important to stress that the contemporary debate in
teacher education today goes beyond any district distribution.
Educational researchers as well as national committees such as
NBPTS and INTASC tend to include all the above components, that
can be attribute to different educational philosophies, in their
definition of the knowledge and skills of the accomplished
teacher. Furthermore, each component expanded and has been
suited to ongoing changes in education and as a result in the
teacher’s role as it is seen today. Despite all this, in Israel there is
still a clear separation between universities and teachers colleges
that is based on traditional assumptions regarding the role of each
institute andis a reflectionof educational philosophies. Therefore,
the dichotomy framework between ‘‘traditional’’ and ‘‘modern’’
components seems to reflect the local perception of teacher
education in the Israeli context, but, as will be elaborated in the
findings and in the discussion parts, it is not unequivocal any
more.
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 154
Research questions and hypothesis
The first research question examines the differences between
teacher educators regarding their perceptions of the components of
the accomplished teacher in research-oriented as opposed to
teaching-oriented institutes, in the Israeli context: universities
and teacher colleges. We hypothesized that teacher educators in
universities will emphasize mainly components that are associated
with their institute: subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills
specific to the subject matter. On the other hand, staff members of
teacher colleges will mainly emphasize general pedagogical skills, a
component that, according to literature, canbe attributed to teaching
institutes, but they will also emphasize components that are
associated with the students-centered philosophies (‘‘modern
components’’) which include the teacher’s committed to the full
diversity of students and their learning, the teacher’s professional
development and his ability to critically examine his own practice
(reflection) as well as to cope with and adjust to ongoing changes and
the teacher’s involvement in a learning community.
The second research question examines differences regarding the
perception of the components between the institutes when looking
at the two major groups involved in teacher education at the
universities: teacher educators from schools of education and from
the disciplinary faculties. We hypothesized that differences will
occur within research institutes and between the three groups
(university based schools of education; university based disciplinary
faculties; and teacher colleges). We assumed that teacher educators
from schools of education in the universities and from teaching
colleges would resemble each other more than teacher educators in
disciplinary faculties at the universities. The former two will
emphasize ‘‘modern components’’ more than staff members from
disciplinary faculties. However, regarding the other components,
the two former groups will emphasize the components that have
more affinity with its type of institute (research/universities vs.
teaching/teacher colleges).
The research hypotheses were derived from underlying theory
and revised on the basis of a pilot study.
Method
Participants
We collected data from a total of 523 teacher educators in 4
major universities and in 4 major teacher colleges in Israel (179
from science and humanity faculties in 4 universities; 157 from
schools of education in 4 universities; 187 from 4 teacher colleges).
The institutes were selected as representative of 4 different and
major regions in Israel. The staff members from discipline faculties
as well as from teaching institutes were chosen using a simple
random sampling from staff lists provided by the institutes. Due to
the relatively small numbers of faculty members in schools of
education, all faculty members were selected. 58% of the faculty
Table 1
Background data regarding sample participants (information presented only regarding variables with significant differences between groups).
Variable Values Research institute Overall
research
Teaching
institute
Overall
teaching
Differences
between
institutes
Differences
within research
institute
Science Humanities Education
Gender Women 29 34 92 155 162 317 81.97
***
18.06
***
32.6% 38.2% 58.6% 46.2% 86.6% 60.7%
Men 60 55 65 180 25 205
67.4% 61.8% 41.4% 53.8% 13.4% 39.3%
Overall N 89 89 157 335 187 522
Degree M.A./M.Ed. 4 10 31 45 89 134 73.73
***
12.18
***
4.4% 11/2% 19.7% 13.3% 47.6% 25.6%
Ph.D. 86 79 126 291 98 389
95.6% 88.8% 80.3% 86.7% 52.4% 74.4%
Overall N 90 89 157 336 187 523
Teaching area Science 79 0 21 100 22 122 74.70
***
176.57
***
88.8% 13.8% 30.3% 11.9% 23.7%
Humanities/social
sciences
0 88 20 108 39 147
100% 13.2% 32.8% 21.1% 28.6%
Educational
sociology
0 0 58 58 27 85
38.2% 17.6% 14.6% 15.5%
Educational
psychology
0 0 43 43 43 86
28.3% 13.0% 23.2% 16.7%
Pedagogy/didactics 10 0 10 20 54 74
11.2% 6.6% 6.07% 29.2% 14.4%
Overall N 89 88 152 329 185 514
Main activity Researcher 30 30 49 109 4 113 153.85
***
6.47
*
33.3% 35.3% 31.2% 32.8% 2.2% 21.8%
Teacher 5 9 27 41 113 154
5.6% 10.6% 17.2% 12.3% 61.1% 29.8%
Both 55 46 81 182 68 250
61.1% 54.1% 51.6% 54.8% 36.8% 48.3%
Overall N 90 85 157 332 185 517
Involvement in
teacher education
Direct 10 0 157 167 187 354 138.95
***
298.23
***
11% 100% 49.7% 100% 67.7%
Indirect 80 89 0 169 0 169
89% 100% 50.3% 32.3%
Overall N 90 89 157 336 187 523
*
p < .05.
***
p < .001.
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 155
members who received the questionnaire answered it. Significant
differences were found between institutes as well as within research
institutes. Chi-square (x
2
) was used to discover differences
regarding categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables.
As shown in Table 1, faculty members from research-oriented
institutes are mostly men (about 54%), the average age is 52.4, 87%
teach subject matter, and 55% see their main activity as a
combination of research and teaching. Upon examining research
oriented institutes there is a preponderance of men with higher
degrees who mainly teach the discipline and their involvement in
teaching is indirect. On the other hand, faculty members from
schools of education at the research-oriented institutes are men and
women with Ph.D.’s who teach psychology, sociology or philosophy
in education. In teaching-oriented institutes, faculty members are
mostly women, most of them have Ph.D.’s, around half teach the
discipline and the other half teach pedagogy, didactics, psychology,
sociology or philosophy in education. They are directly involved in
teacher education and they see their main activity as teachers.
Research instruments
The major research instrument was a previously validated
questionnaire (Levy-Feldman, 2004). The respondents were asked
to express their position regarding the importance of statements
representing the qualities of an accomplished teacher on a
five-point Likert scale where 1 refer to ‘‘very low importance’’
and 5 to ‘‘very high importance’’.
The statements represent the six core components of the
accomplished teacher as found in the professional literature. The
components include: (1) subject matter knowledge, (2) pedagogi-
cal skills specific to the subject matter, (3) general pedagogical
skills (didactics). (4) Commitment to the full diversity of students
and their learning, (5) professional development and (6) partici-
pation and involvement in learning communities. The question-
naire also included the respondents’ personal and professional
data, as well as how they view their main activity.
The findings of the current study related to a group of 28
statements that were selected following the examination of the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Significant correlations
were found between all components (p < .05) therefore factor
analysis was conducted using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct
Oblimin rotation that recognizes such connections. Table 2
presents factor analysis results for the components and informa-
tion regarding each component.
Process
The study was carried out in two stages. The first stage was a
pilot study. The main goal of the pilot study was to explore the
quality of the research tool and to reinforce research hypotheses.
Table 2
Factor analysis regarding the components of the accomplished teacher in the questionnaire.
Subject matter
knowledge
Commitment
to student’s
diversity
Participation
&involvement
in learning
communities
Subject matter
pedagogy
General
pedagogy
(didactics)
Ability to
change,
develop,
research
Knowledge of theories and recent research in the discipline .84 .09 .15 .15 À.03 .08
Reading of recent literature in the discipline .77 .07 .11 .05 .09 .03
Knowledge of theoretical principles in the
discipline beyond the class level
.71 À.03 .08 .17 .05 .04
Conducting discipline research .63 À.04 .18 .03 À.22 .12
Teaching the discipline while taking into account
unique ways of thinking
.57 .17 .07 .39 .11 .01
Breadth and depth of knowledge in the subject matter .54 À.14 .09 .38 .13 À.02
The belief that there are no children without learning
ability in subject areas
.15 .77 .18 .02 .13 .03
Assessing students with a variety of assessment tools .04 .58 .31 .24 .24 .16
Belief that every child can learn everything À.01 .57 .19 .01 .05 .10
Consideration of student’s differences À.09 .49 .14 .33 .15 .24
Advanced self reflection .16 .48 .22 .33 .01 .19
A warm and personal attitude toward each student À.18 .44 .19 .28 .30 .27
Cooperation with school management .11 .14 .75 .08 .34 .11
Involvement in developing school vision .20 .26 .69 .21 À.01 .19
Involvement in school social projects .17 .28 .63 .08 .09 .21
Cooperation with colleagues .13 .23 .60 .34 .11 .09
Regular participation in faculty meetings .26 .31 .58 .15 .14 .01
Presenting different points of view while teaching
the subject matter
.29 .12 .21 .71 À.01 .15
Encouraging critical thinking in students .28 .17 .17 .58 .08 .07
Encouraging different opinions in class .07 .38 .25 .58 .07 .22
Teaching ideas in clear and accessible ways to
all students
.14 .02 .06 .53 .29 .24
Efficiency in using teaching time .07 .33 .10 .17 .57 .15
Imposing rule and order in class À.01 .08 .06 À.01 .54 À.02
Planning teaching lessons À.01 .01 .17 .16 .59 .16
Lesson change due to unexpected changes in class .07 .25 .11 .38 .18 .54
Lesson change due to student feedback .13 .31 .28 .22 .20 .51
Lesson change due to student assessment results .09 .23 .23 .24 .32 .48
Action research .31 .34 .26 .05 À.09 .48
Number of statements (overall: 28) 6 6 5 4 3 4
Eigenvalue (overall: 17.91) 9.13 3.30 1.80 1.47 1.19 1.02
Adjusted R
2:
54.14% 31.03% 10.25% 4.76% 3.48% 2.72% 1.90%
Cronbach’s alpha (a) (overall: .92) .85 .81 .87 .78 .62 .74
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 156
At the second stage of the study, which is described in this paper,
data were collected from faculty members in teacher education
colleges and universities. The universities were then sub-divided
into schools of education and other disciplinary faculties. Thus the
study was comprised of three groups: Teacher colleges, university-
based schools of education and disciplinary faculties.
Findings
Differences between the research and teaching institutes (universities
vs. colleges)
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with interac-
tion with relevant background variables was carried out in order
to examine the first research hypothesis. Findings show
significant differences between institutes (F (1,463) = 10.946;
p < .001). The overall coefficient of determination (R
2
) was not
high and is 9% but, as shown in Table 3, the differences between
the institutes are more significant when looking at the
components separately.
The findings are indicative of the significant differences
between faculty members from the two types of institutes
regarding the component of the teacher’s commitment to diversity
among the students and adaptation of the teaching to the diversity
(F = 32.16; df = 1; p < .001) and the component of participation and
involvement in the learning community (F = 14.23; df = 1; p < .01).
Faculty members from the teaching-oriented institutes attributed
a higher level of importance comparing to faculty members from
the research-oriented institutes, in both cases. No significant
interactions were found for the variable of the type of the institute
and the background variables with regard to the held perception of
the importance of the components. Therefore, it may be stated that
the differences in the held perception of these components is
related to the type of institute. Furthermore, looking at the means
of the components in each group allows us to learn about how the
groups graded them. While commitment to student diversity was
graded the highest in teaching-oriented institutes, in research
institutes the pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter were
graded highest.
Differences between research- and teaching-oriented institutes
regarding components of an accomplished teacher, while analyz-
ing separately two major groups involved in teacher education
within the research-oriented institutes.
To examine the second research hypothesis regarding differ-
ences between the three groups – we used MANOVA with
simultaneous comparison using Tukey test and discriminant
analysis. The findings of the MANOVA showed that a multi-
variant system that includes the three reference groups is
significant [F(2,463) = 7.94; p < .001]. Membership in a group
explains 8% of the variance in the held perception of the overall
components of the image of an accomplished teacher. The overall
coefficient of determination is not high between the two groups
(research and teaching institutions), but the differences between
the groups regarding the components of the accomplished teacher
are more significant when looking at each component separately,
as shown in Table 4.
Table 3
Mean, standard deviation, inter-institutional differences regarding components of the accomplished teacher.
Components of the
accomplished teacher
Research-oriented
institutes (n = 310)
Teaching-oriented
institutes (n= 153)
F(p)
M sd M sd
Subject matter knowledge 3.68 .78 3.68 .73 .341
Commitment to diversity of students 3.77 .81 4.20 .55 32.16
***
Participation and involvement
in a learning community
3.06 .90 3.39 .80 14.23
**
Pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter 4.12 .62 4.08 .63 .559
General pedagogical skills 3.82 .74 3.88 .59 1.24
Ability to change, develop, research 3.54 .79 3.70 .72 3.29
F(1,463) = 10.946; Wilks’ d (%) = 9%; p < .001.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Table 4
Averages for the groups, F values and their significance, and the findings of the Tukey test for the differences between the groups in relation to the components of the teacher’s
image.
Core components of the
accomplished teacher
Teaching-ori-
ented
institution
(n = 153)
Disciplinary
faculty in
research-
oriented
institution
(n= 169)
School of
education in
research-
oriented
institution
(n = 141)
F(p) Tukey
M sd M sd M sd
Subject matter knowledge 3.68 .73 3.57 .78 3.77 .78 2.73 Education (teaching)
> disciplinary (teaching)
Commitment to diversity
of students
4.20 .55 3.66 .74 3.92 .87 23.69
***
Teaching > education
> discipline
Participation and involvement
in a learning community
3.39 .80 2.95 .94 3.23 .81 11.96
***
Teaching (education)
> discipline (education)
Pedagogy of the subject matter 4.08 .63 3.99 .66 4.28 .53 9.14
***
Education > discipline,
teaching
General pedagogy 3.88 .59 3.87 .66 3.78 .82 2.02 Discipline, teaching
> education
Ability to change, development
and research
3.70 .72 3.41 .81 3.71 .71 8.72
***
Teaching, education > discipline
F(2,463) = 7.94; Wilks’ d (%) = 8%; p < .001.
***
p < .001.
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 157
Table 4 presents averages and standard deviations for each
group, F values and their significance, as well as the findings of the
Tukey test, the aim of which was to distinguish between the groups
and point to the differences between them in the held perception
of the components.
Table 4 shows significant differences between the three groups of
teacher educators regarding four components of the accomplished
teacher: commitment to diversity of students, participation and
involvement in a learning community and ability to change,
development and research and pedagogy of the subject matter.
No significant differences were found between the groups regarding
subject matter knowledge and general pedagogy skills (didactics).
Using covariant analysis with simultaneous comparisons
(comparisons of posteriori pairs), which was carried out using
the Tukey test and which is presented in Table 4, the components
in each group was differentiated from the rest became evident.
The findings of the analysis show that faculty members from the
teacher colleges/teaching-oriented institutes were differentiated
from the others mainly in the relatively high level of importance
they ascribed to commitment to student diversity and to
participation and involvement in learning communities They also
ascribed relatively higher importance to the ability to change and
to the development and research of the accomplished teacher, but
were similar to the faculty members from the schools of education
in the research-oriented institutions regarding this component.
Similarly, they ascribe a higher level of importance to the
component of general pedagogy skills, and in their approach to
this component they were similar to the faculty members from the
disciplinary faculties in the research-oriented institutions. Faculty
members from the teaching-oriented institutions ascribe a
relatively low level of importance to the component of pedagogy
skills specific to the subject matter, and their approach to this
component is similar to that of faculty members from the
disciplinary faculties in the research-oriented institutions.
Faculty members from university-based schools of education
differ from the others regarding the higher level of importance
they ascribe to the component of subject matter knowledge and
the component of pedagogy skills specific to the subject matter,
both components that can be attributed to the research-oriented
institution. They further differ from the others as they ascribe a
relatively lower level of importance to the component of general
pedagogy. Regarding the component of development and
research, they especially differ from their colleagues in the
disciplinary faculties of the research-oriented institutions. At the
same time, however, they resemble faculty members from
teacher colleges by ascribe a relatively high level of importance
to the component.
The faculty members from the university-based disciplinary differ
from their colleagues in both institutes mainly as they attribute a
lower level of importance to the components of subject matter
knowledge, commitment to student diversity, participation and
involvement in learning communities, and development and
research. They were similar to faculty members from the teacher
colleges in their approach to general pedagogy, to which they both
ascribe a high level of importance compared to the faculty
members from the university based schools of education. It could
further be seen that they ascribe a relatively low level of
importance to the component of pedagogy specific to the subject
matter, similar to the faculty members from the teaching-oriented
institutions, but differing from their colleagues from the schools of
education in the research-oriented institutions.
There is a similarity between teaching institutes and schools of
education in research-oriented institutes regarding the impor-
tance of the teacher’s ability to change develop and research.
However, as per the research hypothesis, they differ regarding the
components that are associated with its institute and each stresses
the components that have more affinity with its type of institute,
that is, teaching institutes stress general pedagogy (didactics) and
schools of education from research institutes stress subject matter
knowledge and pedagogy of the subject matter.
Unexpectedly, a similarity regarding the teacher’s pedagogical
skills in the subject matter and the teacher’s general pedagogy
skills was found between teaching institutes and disciplinary
faculty in research institutes.
To further bolster the findings, a discriminant function analysis
was carried out, and the findings are presented in Table 5.
An examination of the findings for the first function (x
2
= 91.14;
df = 12; p < .001) demonstrates the unique aspect of the teaching-
oriented institutions in comparison to the others, especially in
relation to the component of commitment to diversity and the
adaptation of teaching to the diversity among the students, as well
as in relation to the component of participation and membership in
learning communities.
Findings regarding the second function (x
2
= 29.54; df = 5;
p < .001) demonstrate the unique aspect of the schools of
education in research-oriented institutions in comparison to the
other two groups, especially in relation to the component of
pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter knowledge, as well
as to the component of the subject matter knowledge and
professional development and research.
Summary and discussion
Findings regarding differences between the research and the
teaching institutes in Israel indicate that faculty members in
teaching institutes/teacher colleges, when asked about the main
characteristics of the accomplished teacher, emphasize the
teacher’s commitment to diversity among the students and
Table 5
Findings of discriminant analysis for the three research groups.
Components in the teacher’s image First function Second function
Subject matter knowledge À.063 .386
Pedagogy specific to the subject matter À.076 .709
Participation and membership in learning communities .474 .375
Commitment to diversity of students .712 .439
General pedagogical skills .130 À.319
Development and research .238 .551
Lecturer groups, centroids
Faculty members from disciplinary faculties in research-oriented institutions À.280 À.281
Faculty members from schools of education in research-oriented institutions À.248 .351
Faculty members in teaching-oriented institutions .538 À.031
Wilks % .819 .118
x
2
(p) 91.148
***
29.547
***
df 12 5
***
p < .001.
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 158
adaptation of the teaching to the diversity and the component of
participation and involvement in the learning community while
faculty members in research institutes/universities emphasize the
pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter.
However, when we look within universities at the two
subgroups involved in teacher education separately, the outcomes
somehow change. Members from disciplinary faculties rank highly
the component of general pedagogy and rank relatively low all
other components, while members from schools of education
prominently rank low the component of general pedagogy and
relatively high all the other components.
Moreover, when looking at the three groups, findings show that
in teacher colleges the emphasis is on the teacher’s commitment to
students and their learning, cooperation and membership in
learning communities, and the teacher’s ability to change, develop
and research, while schools of education emphasize mainly the
teacher’s ability to change, develop and research. In addition,
schools of education attribute high importance to the teacher’s
subject matter knowledge as well as to pedagogy of the subject
matter. In this they differ from teacher colleges as well as from
their colleagues in the other university faculties. While teaching-
oriented institutes ascribe high importance to general pedagogy
(didactics), an unexpected similarity between teaching institutes
and disciplinary faculty in research institutes was found regarding
the teacher’s pedagogical skills of the subject matter as well as the
teacher’s general pedagogical skills.
These findings have both theoretical and practical implications
for the notion of the ‘‘accomplished teacher’’, for teacher
evaluation and for teacher education.
The currently prevailing notion of the effective teacher
includes a core of components, reflecting the complexity of
teaching as it is now understood. In the present study these
components can be traced back to the perceptions of teacher
educators – whether in universities or at the teacher colleges.
They can, indeed, be used to evolve a profile of the ‘‘good teacher’’
and as such contribute to the ongoing debate regarding the ‘‘good
teacher’’ and the characteristics which this teacher should be
evaluated upon. Teacher evaluation is at the center of debate in
Israel and around the world. The home page of NBPTS (National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards) states that ‘‘There are
few topics more hotly discussed today than the evaluation of
teachers’’. Furthermore, researchers emphasize the importance of
shared standards for teachers that can guide assessments of
teaching in a continuous way throughout the entire career
(Darling-Hammond, 2013; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman,
2012). Although many U.S. states promote standards usage to
evaluate teachers, in most of them and elsewhere in the world,
teacher evaluation is still based on student achievements. This is
in spite of studies that point out the problematic connection
between teacher evaluation and student achievements (Darling-
Hammond, 2010a, 2010b; Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008; Hinchey, 2010;
Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009).
In Israel, the ‘‘National Authority for Assessment and Evalua-
tion’’ (RAMA) developed in 2011 a tool for teacher evaluation that
aroused widespread argument regarding the suggested standards.
The characteristics presented in this study can provide authentic
points of view of teacher educators, whether in universities or at
teacher colleges, who are either directly (teacher colleges,
university-based schools of education) or indirectly (disciplinary
faculties at the universities) involved in teacher education, and can
be used to improve the tool.
Moreover, the breadth of this study, taking into account the
various actors in teacher education at the teaching-oriented as
well as at the research-oriented institutes, provides a better
understanding of the comparison between research and teaching
institutes, and leads therefore to more valid conclusions and
recommendations regarding teacher evaluation and teacher
education.
As presented, teacher education in Israel takes place in teacher
colleges and in the universities and there is a clear separation
between the two kinds of institutes. We also could point out that
each institute is associated in the literature with different
educational philosophy and as a result has a different teacher
education paradigm or model that emphasizes different compo-
nents of the ‘‘accomplished teacher’’.
The research findings undermine the supposedly clear differ-
ences between the two institutes: universities and teacher colleges
in Israel. They question the assumption regarding the expertise of
each institute, assumptions that are often involved political
consideration (Robinson, 2008) and too many times are used in
discussion regarding the best location for teacher education. For
example one of the biggest public committee in Israel regarding
educational reform (Dovrat Committee, 2005) suggested that in
order to improve the teaching profession, teaching training should
be only in research oriented institutes, the universities. The
research adds empirical findings that contradict the assumption
and the stereotype that is in the base of this suggestion.The
research findings provide us with some insight into the various
advantages and drawbacks of teacher education in the institutes
examined – thus adding valuable findings regarding the preferred
location for teacher education, indicating that settings are more
than just sites (Houston, 2008; Robinson, 2008; Zeichner, 2008,
2010; Zeichner & Conklin, 2008), as well as variables that should be
considered in evaluating institutes of teacher education.
Regarding research-oriented institutions, the findings show
that the two groups of teacher educators – those who teach in the
disciplinary faculties and are indirectly involved in training
teachers, and those from the schools of education who are directly
involved in their training – do not ‘‘speak the same language’’. On
the one hand, it is possible that the teacher educators in the
disciplinary faculties that emphasize the traditional component in
the perception of the accomplished teacher, especially the
component that is traditionally identified with teaching-oriented
institutions, reflect a position that teacher education has no place
in research-oriented institutions, thereby reinforcing the prevalent
view in the professional literature regarding the low status of
educational training in research-oriented institutions. On the other
hand, the teacher educators in the university-based schools of
education are caught between their academic commitment to the
research-oriented institutions and their professional commitment
to teacher education. They are proficient in the professional
narrative and the latest developments in teacher education.
Therefore, they must aspire to advance the implementation of
their theoretical approaches regarding the image of the accom-
plished teacher, while giving practical expression in their teacher
education to the modern components, especially with regard to the
teacher’s commitment to the diversity of students, cooperation
with colleagues, and membership in learning communities. As for
the teaching-oriented institutions, it appears that they need to
strengthen the traditional components of the accomplished
teacher, especially the subject matter knowledge and the
pedagogical skills specific to the subject matter, but also to
advance professional development and involvement in education-
al research. In this way, the faculty members in these institutions
will be able to follow modern approaches to teacher education in
greater depth and to serve as role models for their students.
In general, it is important to advance varied models for teacher
education that express the complexity of the image of the
accomplished teacher, unrelated to the type of institution the
teacher trainers are working in. This is the accepted practice in
many places throughout the world. The use of these models in each
of the various institutions will make it possible to train using a
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 159
variety of styles, while making the most of the advantages of each
type of institution.
The current study points to trends that have both theoretical
and practical implications. Of special importance are a continued
discussion and exploration of the image of the accomplished
teacher, and of teacher evaluation and teacher education in view of
the fact that today the issue of the image of the accomplished
teacher and the effective ways to train and evaluate this teacher is
still of interest and voices are frequently heard calling for changes
in teacher education policy and programs. All too often, it appears
that the discussions and recommendations are based on stereo-
typical assumptions that are influenced by political and social
aspects or deal only with semantic, structural, or political change
while they should rely on empirical research.
References
Altbach, P. G., & Lewis, L. S. (1996). The academic profession in an international
perspective. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits
of fourteen countries (pp. 3–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction to. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berliner, D. C. (2000). A personal response to those who bash teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(5), 358–371.
Chen, M., Gottlieb, E. E., &Yakir, R. (1996). The academic profession in Israel: Continuity
and transformation. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The International Academic Profession:
Portraits of fourteen countries (pp. 617–666). San Francisco, CA; Princeton, NJ:
Jossey-Bass; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 55(4), 295–299.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). Schools for tomorrow’s teachers. Teacher College Record,
88(3), 354–358.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teacher College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: Ablueprint for creating schools that work.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–315.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The story of Gloria is a future vision of the new teacher.
Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 25–26.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35–47.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Evaluating teacher effectiveness, how teacher perfor-
mance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Center for American Progress
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED535859.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds.). (2005). A good teacher in every
classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Teacher education around the world:
What can we learn from international practice? In L. Darling-Hammond & A.
Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and prac-
tices. New York: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545.
Dewey, J. (1959). Democracy and education. (Hebrew Translation: Y.T.Helman). Jer-
usalem: Bialik Publications. (Hebrew).
Dovrat Committee. (2005). The national plane in education: Every child deserves more
http://www.abiliko.co.il/index2.php?id=1440&lang=HEB (Hebrew).
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alterna-
tives. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 212–233). New York: Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (1986). Approches to teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Freire, P. (1981). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (Hebrew Translation: K. Guy). Jerusalem:
Mifras. (Hebrew).
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A
research synthesis, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, ETS. Learning
Point Associates & Vanderbilt University.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Teacher education research: The outside and the inside. Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(3), 216–221.
Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right, what policymakers can learn from
research. National Education Policy Center, Penn State University.http://www.er-
ic.ed.gov/PDFS/ED513908.pdf.
Houston, W. R. (2008). Settings are more than sites. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-
Nemser, D. J. Mclntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (3rd ed., pp. 388–393). New York: Routledge.
Labaree, D. F. (2008). An uneasy relationship. The history of teacher education in the
university. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. Mclntyre, & K. E. Demers
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 290–306). NewYork,
NY: Routledge.
Lamm, Z. (2000). In the Maelstrom of ideologies: Education in the twentieth century.
Jerusalem: Magnes (Hebrew).
Lamm, Z. (2002). In the Maelstrom of ideologies: Education in the twentieth century.
Jerusalem: Magnes (Hebrew).
Lampert, M., & Loewenberg-Ball, D. (1999). Aligning teachers’ education with contem-
porary K-12 reformvision. In L. Darling-Hammond &G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33–53). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levy-Feldman, I. (2004). Perceptions of the accomplished teacher among teacher educa-
tors. Israel: Tel-Aviv University Unpublished MA thesis (Hebrew).
Levy-Feldman, I. (2008). Perceptions of the accomplished teacher among teacher educa-
tors in ‘‘research-oriented’’ and ‘‘teaching-oriented’’ institutes. Israel: Tel-Aviv Uni-
versity Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Hebrew).
Loewenberg-Ball, D., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practi-
tioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-
Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved March 8, 2011,
from http://www.personal.umich.edu/dkcohen/developingpractice.pdf.
NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards) (2010). Retrieved March 8,
2011, from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio.
Nevo, D. (1999). The academizationof university-based teacher training. In D. Kfir (Ed.),
Teacher training as training towards academic professions – A collection of position
papers (pp. 121–131). Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute. (Hebrew).
Noddings, N. (1999). Caring and competence. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of
teachers – Ninety eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.
Chicago: Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Niederland, D., Hoffman, A., & Dror, Y. (2007). The teacher through the mirror of teacher
training. Research Report #1. Tel Aviv: Mofet Institute (Hebrew).
Robinson, S. P. (2008). Settings for teacher education. In M. Chochran-Smith, S. Feiman-
Nemser, D. J. Mclntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (3rd ed., pp. 379–387). Ney-York, NY: Routhleg.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the newreform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18–25,
Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp05/
le-sp05feature2.cfm.
Silberstein, M., Ben-Peretz, M., & Greenfield, N. (Eds.). (2006). A new trend in teacher-
training program: Partnership between colleges and schools – The Israeli Story. Tel
Aviv: Mofet Institute. (Hebrew).
Strain, J. P. (1971). Modern Philosophies fo Education. New York: Random House p.21.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect. Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New
Teacher Project.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the teachers: Different setting, different results Retrieved
March 8, 2011, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTT.pdf.
Yogev, S., & Yogev, E. (2005). Teachers’ teachers as researchers: Research in teachers
colleges compared to research in universities. Dapim, 40, 90–107, (Hebrew).
Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective
practice in teaching and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage
(Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp.
9–27). London: Falmer Press.
Zeichner, K. M. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher educa-
tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46.
Zeichner, K. M. (2008). Introduction: Settings for teacher education. In M. Cochran-
Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. Mclntyre, &K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 263–268). New York: Routledge.
Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Rethinking the connection between campus and field experi-
ences in college and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K. M., &Conklin, H. G. (2008). Teacher education programs as sites for teacher
preparation. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. Mclntyre, &K. E. Demers
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (3rd edition, pp. 263–268). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–332). New York: American
Educational Research Association.
I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153–160 160