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 Bachelors degree (B.Ed.) and a teaching certicate, the universities use a continuous model, where students rst 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 certicate. 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 identied 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) 153160 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, reecting 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 studys results can indicate some advantages and drawbacks of teacher education in the different institutes thus adding valuable ndings to questions regarding the desirable location of teacher education that can also be used for the evaluation of teacher education institutes. 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 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 fulllment, 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 philosophys 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 identied 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 teachers subject matter knowledge, pedagogical skills specic 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 identied 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 teachers subject matter knowledge and the pedagogical skills specic 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 identied 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 (reection) as well as to cope with and adjust to ongoing changes. Hence derives Shulmans (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, reection 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 identied 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 eld through, for instance, professional development school (PDS) models, and this generates authentic practice and teaching research (Silberstein, Ben-Peretz, & Greeneld, 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 denition 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 teachers 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 reectionof educational philosophies. Therefore, the dichotomy framework between traditional and modern components seems to reect the local perception of teacher education in the Israeli context, but, as will be elaborated in the ndings and in the discussion parts, it is not unequivocal any more. I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153160 154 Research questions and hypothesis The rst 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 specic 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 teachers committed to the full diversity of students and their learning, the teachers professional development and his ability to critically examine his own practice (reection) as well as to cope with and adjust to ongoing changes and the teachers 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 afnity 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 signicant 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) 153160 155 members who received the questionnaire answered it. Signicant 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 ve-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 specic 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 ndings 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. Signicant 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 rst 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 students 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 .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 .03 .08 .17 .05 .04 Conducting discipline research .63 .04 .18 .03 .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 .14 .09 .38 .13 .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 .01 .57 .19 .01 .05 .10 Consideration of students differences .09 .49 .14 .33 .15 .24 Advanced self reection .16 .48 .22 .33 .01 .19 A warm and personal attitude toward each student .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 .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 .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 Efciency in using teaching time .07 .33 .10 .17 .57 .15 Imposing rule and order in class .01 .08 .06 .01 .54 .02 Planning teaching lessons .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 .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% Cronbachs alpha (a) (overall: .92) .85 .81 .87 .78 .62 .74 I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153160 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 rst research hypothesis. Findings show signicant differences between institutes (F (1,463) = 10.946; p < .001). The overall coefcient of determination (R 2 ) was not high and is 9% but, as shown in Table 3, the differences between the institutes are more signicant when looking at the components separately. The ndings are indicative of the signicant differences between faculty members from the two types of institutes regarding the component of the teachers 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 signicant 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 specic 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 ndings of the MANOVA showed that a multi- variant system that includes the three reference groups is signicant [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 coefcient 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 signicant 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 specic 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 signicance, and the ndings of the Tukey test for the differences between the groups in relation to the components of the teachers 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) 153160 157 Table 4 presents averages and standard deviations for each group, F values and their signicance, as well as the ndings 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 signicant 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 signicant 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 ndings 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 specic 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 specic 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 specic 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 teachers 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 afnity 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 teachers pedagogical skills in the subject matter and the teachers general pedagogy skills was found between teaching institutes and disciplinary faculty in research institutes. To further bolster the ndings, a discriminant function analysis was carried out, and the ndings are presented in Table 5. An examination of the ndings for the rst 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 specic 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 teachers commitment to diversity among the students and Table 5 Findings of discriminant analysis for the three research groups. Components in the teachers image First function Second function Subject matter knowledge .063 .386 Pedagogy specic to the subject matter .076 .709 Participation and membership in learning communities .474 .375 Commitment to diversity of students .712 .439 General pedagogical skills .130 .319 Development and research .238 .551 Lecturer groups, centroids Faculty members from disciplinary faculties in research-oriented institutions .280 .281 Faculty members from schools of education in research-oriented institutions .248 .351 Faculty members in teaching-oriented institutions .538 .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) 153160 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 specic 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, ndings show that in teacher colleges the emphasis is on the teachers commitment to students and their learning, cooperation and membership in learning communities, and the teachers ability to change, develop and research, while schools of education emphasize mainly the teachers ability to change, develop and research. In addition, schools of education attribute high importance to the teachers 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 teachers pedagogical skills of the subject matter as well as the teachers general pedagogical skills. These ndings 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, reecting 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 prole 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 ndings 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 ndings that contradict the assumption and the stereotype that is in the base of this suggestion.The research ndings provide us with some insight into the various advantages and drawbacks of teacher education in the institutes examined thus adding valuable ndings 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 ndings 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 identied with teaching-oriented institutions, reect 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 procient 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 teachers 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 specic 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) 153160 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 inuenced 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. 350). 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), 358371. 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. 617666). 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), 295299. Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). Schools for tomorrows teachers. Teacher College Record, 88(3), 354358. 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), 300315. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The story of Gloria is a future vision of the new teacher. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 2526. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 3547. 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 qualied 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(56), 523545. 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. 212233). 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 nations schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Teacher education research: The outside and the inside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 216221. 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. 388393). 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. 290306). 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. 3353). 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. 332). 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_ve_core_propositio. Nevo, D. (1999). The academizationof university-based teacher training. In D. Kr (Ed.), Teacher training as training towards academic professions A collection of position papers (pp. 121131). Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute. (Hebrew). Noddings, N. (1999). Caring and competence. In G. A. Grifn (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. 379387). Ney-York, NY: Routhleg. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the newreform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 122. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 1825, Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp05/ le-sp05feature2.cfm. Silberstein, M., Ben-Peretz, M., & Greeneld, 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, 90107, (Hebrew). Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reective 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. 927). London: Falmer Press. Zeichner, K. M. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher educa- tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3646. 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. 263268). New York: Routledge. Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Rethinking the connection between campus and eld experi- ences in college and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 61(12), 8999. 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. 263268). 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. 298332). New York: American Educational Research Association. I. Levy-Feldman, D. Nevo / Studies in Educational Evaluation 39 (2013) 153160 160