Teachers’ studies, experience and professional development

teach in primary schools. Teachers with a teaching degree for the lower primary (four-year education) are trained to teach all subjects in grades 1-4. In addition, a specialization in a content area - which can be a foreign language - allows lower-primary teachers to teach the subject of the specialization in grades 1-6. Teachers with a four-year double major college degree are qualified to teach their subjects in grades 5-8.

This dual training structure has been replaced by a multi-level training system since 2004 due to the implementation of the Bologna Process (Kárpáti, 2009), however, none of the teachers under investigation were affected by these reforms.

Table 8 summarizes the qualifications and experience of the 15 language teachers participating in the research.

Table 8

Qualifications and Experience of Language Teachers

Teacher’s

code Qualifications

Teaching experience

(years) S1TE1 college degree for the lower primary with English

specialization 7

S1TE2 college degree for the lower primary with English

specialization 10

S1TG1 primary school teacher college degree in German and

Hungarian 12

S1TG2

primary school teacher college degree in Russian and Hungarian, participation in retraining program for Russian teachers (German language)

25

S2TE1 four-year college degree for the lower primary with English

specialization 6

S2TG1

primary school teacher college degree in Russian and History, participation in retraining program for Russian teachers (German language)

26

S2TG2

primary school teacher college degree in Russian and Hungarian, participation in retraining program for Russian teachers (German language)

12

S3TE1 four-year college degree for the lower primary with English

specialization 1

S4TE1

primary school teacher college degree in Russian and Hungarian, participation in retraining program for Russian teachers (English language)

25

S4TE2 four-year college degree for the lower primary with English

specialization 3

S4TG1 primary school teacher college degree in German and

History 16

S4TG2 primary school teacher college degree in German and

Hungarian 15

S5TG1 college degree for the lower primary, German specialization

finished later in corresponding course 7

S6TE1 primary school teacher college degree in English and

Communication 2

S6TG1 primary school teacher college degree in German and

Hungarian 19

Out of the 15 teachers, six had a lower-primary teacher degree, and nine teachers had primary school teacher degrees. Four persons participated in the Russian teachers’

(Medgyes and Miklósy, 2000) qualifying former teachers of the Russian language to become a teacher of another foreign language, most frequently English or German. As it can be seen from the table, these teachers have the longest teaching experience of all (more than 25 years). The experience of the other teachers ranged from 1 to 16 years.

None of the teachers were unqualified, which indicates that the standard practice for head teachers to hire underqualified or unqualified foreign language teachers in order to alleviate the shortage of teachers of English and German in the 1990s (Medgyes and Miklósy, 2000) has gone by.

It was observed in the schools as a general tendency that lower-primary teachers (whose degree officially qualifies them to teach in grades 1-6) continue teaching in grades 7 and 8, in other words, their work is not restricted to the lower primary section as their original degree entitles them. If small schools have a foreign language teacher with a lower-primary degree, they rarely hire another teacher for the last two years.

Furcsa and Szilágyiné (2010) investigated career and professional development possibilities of lower-primary teachers and found that ambitious teachers who continue their studies at university level, usually do not remain in their primary school, but transfer to secondary school teaching, which is a better-paid job and enjoys a higher prestige as well. .

The responses of the teachers revealed that the first years of teaching were associated with unexpected problems and challenges. The phenomenon termed as practice shock (Stokking, Leenders, De Jong and Van Tartwijk, 2003) or reality shock (Veenman, 1984) in pedagogy refers to the actual teaching experience of beginning teachers characterized by “the collapse of the missionary ideals formed during teacher training by the harsh and rude reality of everyday classroom life. New teachers are usually faced with a discrepancy between their studies and the actual practice of

teaching” (Veenman, 1984, p.143). Research indicates that beginning teachers’

difficulties and the reality shock may be more extensive in school contexts which are poorly funded and have insufficient financial resources (Hammerness, 2006).

Teachers in the present research experienced an extremely sharp clash between the theory of teaching and the reality: they were all thrown at the deep end immediately after graduation. They all agreed that their studies had hardly prepared them for teaching disadvantaged children. The difference between theory and practice in teaching was prevalent:

It is sad to see that our experiences outside the school are completely different from what we were taught inside it, since life is totally different.[S1TG1]

I hadn’t even heard about disadvantaged students when I graduated.

[S2TG1]

One of the teachers reported on her incredible experience in a regular, rural primary school:

I didn’t know what I had taken on. It was my first year at this school when the better ones were singled out for the first time. I was 23 then.

Only 16 students finished school out of 31 because the others dropped out – some died, some ended up in prison, all sorts of things. There’s been nothing new under the sun to me since then. [S2TG2]

Not only the theory of teaching did not help them much, the teaching practice did not prove to be useful either, as it was conducted in an ideal educational context:

I’d been living in a dream world. My teaching practice was just the way it should be, and when I really started teaching, I was taken aback to find things not even mentioned in books, wondering, what on earth I could do to solve this? [S2TE1]

These findings reflect problems of teacher training summarized by Kárpáti (2009) asserting that practice schools are “of excellent standards (far exceeding the national average) and are thus unsuitable for preparing trainees for the reality shock they are likely to encounter at their first workplace” (p. 213). Some of the teachers criticized the teachers and training they gained at college:

I hold my college teachers in great honour, with all due respect, I truly loved them, but they do not know what is going on in schools. [S1TE1]

At college, we were taught a good deal of methodology, yet I think it is only average Hungarian students our higher education concentrates on.

[S4TG2]

Teachers complained that the content of their training was rather academic than practical, and the actual teaching practice was insufficient, especially for those who participated in the retraining program for Russian teachers. As far as education is concerned, one of the teachers claimed that she could make use of the methods acquired to teach young children also with older children:

The methods used for teaching language to small kids really suit disadvantaged students. They are like small kids.[S1TE2]

In-service teacher development was an important issue in both the teachers’ and the head teachers’ interviews. In Hungary, since 1998 teachers have been obliged by law to take part every seven years in an accredited in-service training of 120 hours under Government decree No. 277/1997(XII.22), the costs of which are covered by the schools and the participants. Since then, there have been a large variety of in-service programmes, workshops and training courses accredited. The schools have to prepare a plan for in-service training considering local needs and lacking teacher competences, therefore in-service training in other subjects (not only foreign languages) or skills may

be given priority (Nikolov, 2000). During the interviews the teachers expressed their urgent need for useful and relevant in-service trainings:

Because I often feel I’d like more. But I don’t know how, and I need help. Because there are more and more disadvantaged children. [S6TG1]

We would need good training courses badly. The training (differentiation, kindergarten-school transition) in which two of our colleagues took part was of crucial importance, but our two participants were not language teachers. [S2HT]

Language teachers reported relatively few in-service training programs that helped them specifically to teach disadvantaged children. There was a general demand for practicality in in-service training, theoretical courses were usually found useless.

Teachers listed the following themes for in-service training they could make use of in their everyday work:

• situational training for dealing children with behavioural problems

• drama pedagogy

• learning strategies

• supportive education skills

• using visuals in class

• developmental pedagogy.

Teachers found they could utilize the benefits of training courses on drug prevention and mental hygiene courses to a lesser degree. One of them mentioned her developmental pedagogy training, which she found highly effective, however, it was not an accredited in-service training. Other courses found effective were language methodology and classroom practice training courses, which were not specifically designed for dealing with disadvantaged children.

Language teachers asserted that they would need more collaboration with other teachers working under similar conditions to discuss problems, possibly organized as an in-service course. Discussions and consultations could provide information not only for teachers but also for stakeholders as

“in-service training and development for teachers provides an essential opportunity for teachers to critique their position in the education society, identify points of opportunity and mechanisms to influence education planning, including assessment, and to find ways to contribute to positive change” (Hamp-Lyons, 2007, p. 492).

They would also participate in methodological training on how to deal with special needs children in language classes (especially dyslexic children).

To sum up, teachers’ comments highlight that they did not get sufficient preparation for teaching disadvantaged children. The reasons include excessive academic training, insufficient information on the characteristics of disadvantaged children and the methodology of teaching them, and inappropriate inadequate teaching practice.

In document Laura Furcsa (Pldal 141-147)