Preservice and Novice Teachers’ Views of a University Teacher-Training Program in Lebanon ()
1. Introduction
Second language teacher education (SLTE) has emerged in response to the need of a large number of individuals world-wide to learn a second/foreign language (Coronado & Petron, 2008; Smith, 2014) . According to Coronado and Petron, SLTE has taken many forms, one of which is a university degree in preservice training. These programs in many parts of the world, including Lebanon, consist of practicum courses, language methodology courses, and general education courses. Since the establishment of such degrees, researchers have been exploring the following questions: Are such programs effective in preparing the prospective teachers for real-life classrooms? How do student-teachers and novice teachers perceive these programs?
In a review of research, Korthagen (2010) concluded: “Many studies reveal a (significant) gap between theory and practice in teacher education” (p. 407). This research has documented that novice teachers feel that their SLTE programs have not prepared them well for the real classroom (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007; Farrell, 2012) . Does this observation hold true in Lebanon? Studies available on the quality of SLTE are scarce in the MENA region, including Lebanon (Chapman & Miric, 2009) . Particularly in Lebanon, “more quality research is needed to further explore teachers’ preparation programs in subject matter, pedagogy, and student learning” (Bahous & Nabhani, 2010: p. 22) . Specifically, research that compares the SLTE experiences of both novice and preservice language teachers is in general lacking (Brannan and Bleistein, 2012; Farrell, 2012) . The present study responds to this gap by exploring both the novice and the preservice teachers’ views and experiences of their university SLTE program. It uses varied data sources to compare these views and experiences.
2. Theoretical Overview
Teacher preparation programs have been evolving since their establishment, and the crucial changes they have undergone have led to the rise of several models (Jourdenais, 2009) . These models include: 1) “teaching as an art”, 2) “teaching as a science”, 3) “reflective teaching”, and the sociocultural approach (Crandall, 2000; Johnson, 2009; Murray, 2011; Richards, 2008; Wallace, 1991) .
2.1. Teacher-Education: From a Mystical View to a Scientific One
One of the oldest forms of professional education that appeared even before the existence of universities and formal teacher education programs is the craft model (Day, 1991) . This model proposes that skills are acquired by observing and imitating an expert (Murray, 2011; Olafsson & Thorsteinsson, 2009) . The craft model can be linked to behaviorism, the epistemology theorizing that learning represents a change in behavior which takes place through practice and drilling (Brown, 2001) . Around the year 1945, there was a growing dissatisfaction with this model, which led to the development of the applied science model.
Critics of the craft model argue that its focus on the imitation of a master as a main approach that novice teachers resort to in developing their expertise reflects a deterministic view that considers teaching as static and new comers to the profession as unable to be innovative (Wallace, 1991) . Wallace explains that with the rise of the universities in the 1870s, educators rejected this mystical and unscientific view of teaching and argued for the application of science to solve teaching problems. This has given rise to the applied science model which suggests that trainees learn how to teach by being first introduced to learning theories based on solid research. Then, they are expected to apply this knowledge in their teaching (Whitcomb, 2003) . According to this view, applying the theoretical knowledge that novice teachers learn at the university enables them to develop the professional competence needed for their careers.
The applied science model, still dominant in many SLTE programs (Murray, 2011) , was proposed in a historical period dominated by a positivistic epistemology. This epistemology led to the view that the university produces science based on empirical research; This research-based knowledge forms the rational foundation of human activity (Waks, 2001) . “Teaching (in this model) is viewed as something that can be clearly delineated, defined, and presented—a body of knowledge to be learned, courses to be taken” (Jourdenais, 2009: p. 648) . Hence, it is a science that can be analyzed objectively and rationally (Murray, 2011) .
2.2. The Complexity of Teacher Education: From Positivism to Social Constructivism
Like any scholarly work, the applied science model which was motivated by the positivistic epistemology was critiqued on several grounds. One of the major criticisms has been raised against its theorization that “learning as an internal psychological process, isolated in the mind of the learner and largely free from the social and physical contexts within which it occurs” (Johnson, 2009: p. 7) . Thus, it fails to capture the complexity of teaching and learning. This complexity is evident in the accumulated body of research carried out so far. Indeed, in the 1990s, research showed that the transfer of the theories studied at the university into practice had rarely happened (Bartels, 2005; Richards, 2008; Whitcomb, 2003) . Notably, this observation has been documented in the area of language teaching. “Despite knowing the theory and principles associated with Communicative Language Teaching, for example, in their own teaching, teachers are often seen to make use of traditional ‘grammar-and practice’ techniques in their classrooms” (Richards, 2008: p. 162) . This research and the critiques of the positivistic applied science model have given way to the social constructivist epistemology which situates learning within its social contexts; from this standpoint, “human cognition in the individual has its origin in social life” (Johnson, 2009, p. 1) .
The social constructivist view of knowledge as socially constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed has shaped the reflective model of teacher education. This model considers the novice teacher as autonomous reflective practitioner capable of critically examining theory and practice (Day, 1991; Johnson, 2009 ). Within the reflective model, systematic reflection allows practitioners to meet the challenges of the constantly changing and complex nature of teaching and learning (Bruce, 2013) . These complex dynamics of the classroom do not mean that we should do away with research and theory; they rather require a kind of reflexivity that allows educators to build practice on theory as well as to theorize based on practice (Ibrahim, 2022) . This reflexive thinking allows teachers to reexamine the decisions they take, their experiences, their knowledge, and their concerns; “In this model, then, what teachers bring to their practice in the form of reflective behavior plays a role equal to that of the received and experiential knowledge gained from more traditional perspectives of teacher education” (Jourdenais, 2009: p. 649) . Thus, the reflective model bridges the divide between theory and practice that the applied science model has created.
The theoretical sketch presented above suggests that teacher education programs should prepare their graduates to tackle the multifaceted nature of education. Pennington (1999, as cited in Jourdenais, 2009 ), proposes that instead of taking any extreme theoretical position, “…teacher education…(should) aim (to help) teachers…synthesize and consolidate personal and shared knowledge in a professional persona which bridges the subjective and the intersubjective, the ‘art’ and the ‘craft’—or the ‘magic’ and the ‘science’—of teaching” (p. 648). Teachers with those characteristics are skilled persons, with a strong knowledge-base, capable of reflecting on this knowledge and on the practical challenges as they occur in their contexts in order to creatively take the appropriate actions.
2.3. SLTE Research
As in all other disciplines, SLTE research has been highly impacted by the paradigm shifts that characterized academia in different historical periods (Tsui, 2011) . This research addressed various dimensions of SLTE, including its effect on novice teachers’ skills (e.g., Farrell, 2008 ; Kiely & Askham, 2012 ; Oudah & Altalhab, 2018 ), the usefulness and applicability of its pedagogical knowledge (e.g., Faez & Valeo, 2012 ; Gatbonton, 2008 ; Hadi, 2019 ; Woodcock, 2011 ), and type of support provided to novice teachers (e.g., Kidd et al., 2015 ; Rahman, 2019 ; Urmston & Pennington, 2008 ).
Kiely and Askham (2012) carried out a study that explored the impact of a short TESOL training program. Twenty-seven graduates from this program participated in two interviews. The participants agreed that their training helped them set realistic expectations and approach their work as novice teachers with confidence. Oudah and Altalhab (2018) conducted a mixed methods study in Saudi Arabia that examined the perceptions of Saudi EFL public school teachers regarding their in-service training. The researchers collected questionnaire data from 216 participants and conducted semi-structured interviews with eight female and two male teachers. Results showed that EFL teachers believe that in-service training is essential in helping them develop their professional skills. However, the participants stated that not all trainers were qualified.
Woodcock (2011) examined the change in self-efficacy of 467 primary and secondary preservice teachers as a result of participating in a training program in Australia. Two groups of participants, sophomores and seniors in the training program, filled out a survey composed of ten items about the general teacher efficacy (GTE) and the personal teacher efficacy (PTE). Findings showed that the primary teachers’ efficacy at the two levels was not influenced by training. However, the secondary teachers’ GTE increased, but their PTE decreased.
The reports presented above illustrate the varied emphasis of SLTE research, making it hard to generalize many of its results. Borg (2010) states: “experientially we know a lot (about novice teachers) because we all work with these people, but empirically, not much has been published” (p. 88). Additionally, only a few studies utilized multiple data sources to compare the training experiences and views of novice and preservice teachers. This gap has motivated the present study.
3. The Research Approach
Since the present study aims to understand the participants’ views of their teacher preparation program, it adopts the qualitative, case study approach. Denzin (2009) explains that case studies examine complex phenomena within their natural settings. This applies to the research in this article, which explores a complex topic in its natural context. The participants belonged to the same institution, i.e., they constitute a bounded system characteristic of a case study (Yin, 2009) . According to Merriam (1998) , Creswell (2009) , and Stake (2008) , the term “case” refers to a unit, an entity, or a phenomenon with defined parameters that the researcher can demarcate or “fence in”). The researchers add that a case study explores its phenomenon with multiple lenses by using more than one tool and data source. This is done within clear parameters, and this applies to the present research as the description of the participants and data collection tools shows.
3.1. Participants and Context
Twenty-seven female participants, 14 student-teachers and 13 novice teachers took part in the study. The participants were in their early twenties and were selected from the faculty of pedagogy at the same university in Lebanon based on the convenience sampling technique. This technique allows researchers to choose participants who are easy to reach and willing to respond (Cohen et al., 2007; Gravetter & Forzano, 2016) . Student-teachers were in their second or third (last) university year with no failing grades in any of their subjects. Novice teacher participants had up to two years of experience teaching elementary classes at private schools in Lebanon.
The participating university is one of the largest in Lebanon, and its Faculty of Pedagogy offers B.A. and M.A. degrees in a number of sub-disciplines of education, including “Teaching of English at the Elementary Level”. The B.A. program in all sub-fields consists of five components: General educational courses, content courses related to each subfield, general pedagogy courses, pedagogy courses specific to each subfield, and practicum courses in each subfield. The training component includes three practicum courses: 1) Training and Observation, 2) Practicum 1, and 3) Practicum 2. Students enroll in the first course in the third semester, and they do 40 hours of observation at elementary schools; they enroll in Practicum 1 in the fourth semester and in Practicum 3 in the fifth one; in each of these two courses, students had to do 80 training hours that include at least three practice teaching sessions.
3.2. Design and Data Collection Tools
The study was divided into three phases. In the first phase, all the participants filled out a questionnaire, and those who were interested in participating in follow-up interviews and/or observations were asked to leave their contact information. In the second phase, three student-teachers and three novice teachers were interviewed. In the third phase, three novice teachers were observed. This use of multiple sources provided rich data that allowed for triangulation. Table 1 summarizes the three stages.
3.2.1. The Questionnaire
The open-ended questionnaire consisted of three sections, the first of which aimed to elicit information regarding how well the participants feel the practicum courses had prepared them to tackle the following issues in TESOL classes: Lesson planning, student engagement, behavioral problems, time management, and technology use. In the second section, the participants were asked to share their beliefs and attitudes about the usefulness of the practicum courses in terms of duration, meeting frequency, instructor, and other aspects. The third section sought the participants’ views of the instructional methodology courses they had taken in their university studies.
Piloting the questionnaire. Two TESOL professors provided their feedback on the following elements of the questionnaire: Its content, layout, and the time needed to be filled out. This feedback was thoroughly taken into account in revising it.
3.2.2. The Interview
Based on the questionnaire data, three preservice teachers and three novice teachers were interviewed. The interviews aimed to elicit clarifications of ambiguous responses in the questionnaire and more data about ideas that had emerged in their responses.
![]()
Table 1. Summary of the three phases.
3.2.3. The Observations
Three volunteering novice teachers were observed three times while teaching their elementary classes during the first semester. In these observations, one of the researchers took detailed notes about the different dimensions of teaching/learning. These data were compared to those collected via the questionnaires and interviews.
To interpret the data collected via the three sources, thematic analysis was employed as a main tool, supported with the frequencies of the participants’ responses under each theme. According to Guest et al. (2012) and Lyons and Coyle (2007) , thematic analysis captures both the surface and the hidden meanings of data, and it is based primarily on the researcher’s interpretation. It is important to keep in mind that the investigator’s analysis cannot simply be found in the data, and themes don’t suddenly emerge (Braun et al., 2016) . Instead, as Braun et al. (2016) and Rossman & Rallis (2012) suggest, analysis in the present research involved a recursive, reflexive process of data familiarization, coding, generating themes, revising them, organizing the data, and writing up the analysis.
4. Results
The participants in the present study provided interesting insights regarding the effectiveness of the practicum courses offered at their university. They talked about how these courses help them in engaging students, in dealing with students’ behavioral problems, in lesson planning, in managing time, and in using technology. The following table presents the frequencies of the participants’ responses. In the table and throughout the article, preservice teachers are referred to using the letter “P”, while novice teachers are referred to using the letter “N”. Also, the participants have been assigned pseudonyms.
Based on the frequencies presented in Table 2 and on the questionnaire and interview narrative data, we can make the following observations:
• All participating preservice and novice teachers perceived the practicums as effective in helping them plan their lessons well. According to many participants, training tackled the following planning dimensions: using a planning format that helps in preparing detailed and well-organized lesson plans with appropriate beginnings and closures, choosing a variety of activities to meet the objectives of every lesson, adapting their lessons to suit the emerging class dynamics, and designing extra activities in case something goes wrong. Many interviewees confirmed the survey data. Only 1 from each group did not think that the practicums helped them manage their time well. However, observation data do not support these views. One of the observed teachers, Majida, failed across most teaching dimensions, and her case will be discussed separately. While the two other observed instructors, Pascale and Kylie, were able to effectively manage the time needed for many of their lesson components, none of them had a prepared lesson plan, and none finished their lessons on time with an appropriate closure. For instance, the bell would ring while they are still explaining or working on an activity.
![]()
Table 2. Frequencies of the participants’ perceptions of the practicums.
• Most participants from both groups stated that they were well-trained to engage their students through well-planned, interesting activities that include relating learning to the children’s lives, experiments, games, etc. Only 1 preservice and 2 novice teachers did not respond to the question. Additionally, the interviewees confirmed the survey data; also, the observations of Pascale and Kylie showed that they were successful in grabbing their students’ attention, most of whom volunteered to answer a question or do an activity.
• Many participants from both groups thought that the practicums were effective in training them in dealing with behavioral issues. They considered the use of engaging activities as an effective strategy to do that. According to some novice and pre-service teachers, this knowledge was gained during field visits, during in-class discussions at the university, and during individual conferences with the trainer. Some mentioned that these various training activities taught them to deal with specific cases like learners with ADHD, introverts, gifted learners, etc. Moreover, some participants explained how the practicums trained them in having professional manners like patience and understanding. Mary (P), for instance, stated that she learned “to communicate with students in order to know about their problems and try to solve them together.” In addition, Pascale and Kylie’s observed classes were managed successfully to a large degree. However, 3 novice teachers did not think that they were well-trained in handling behavioral issues, and 1 from each group did not respond to the question.
• Many preservice and novice teachers stated that they were well-trained in using technology, and they listed PowerPoints, visual aids, audios, LCDs, and the active board as examples on these devices. Only 2 preservice and 1 novice teachers were negative about the effectiveness of the practicums in this regard. Additionally, only one observed teacher used technology in her classes.
5. Discussion
As shown in the results section, preservice and novice teacher participants share many views regarding the effectiveness of the university training they received. It is important to situate these results in the commonalities and differences that both groups have. Novice teachers differ from preservice teachers in that they have started their career, but they are still fresh graduates. This gives them the advantage of examining their training from their new professional positions. It is expected that this examination will be affected by their fresh work experiences and would lead to changes in their perceptions of their preservice training program. On one hand, actual teaching gives novice teachers opportunities to experiment with what they have been trained in. Also, being in direct professional contact with the students, with colleagues, and with the administration provides them with some realistic knowledge about the school, its expectations, and its dynamics. Preservice teachers, on the other hand, are still outside the actual profession. Although they undergo training that intends to give them a sense of what teaching means, this training in no way mirrors actual teaching; although they observe actual classes many times, the practice they do is very short and is under control. These differences are actually expected to impact the views of both groups, and it is speculated that novice teachers form views that are different from those held by preservice teachers. However, the data do not confirm these speculations in relation to many dimensions that the present study explored. So why is this the case? Why have novice teachers and preservice teachers participating in the study revealed similar views about many aspects of their university training? Do the observations support what novice teachers say?
5.1. The Strength of Shared Training Experiences in Shaping Beliefs
The strikingly similar views held by many preservice and novice teachers who participated in the present study seem to result from their shared training experiences. Many members from both groups believed that their university training program significantly helped them in planning successful, engaging lessons, in handling behavioral problems, and in using technology in their instruction, as shown in the survey and the interview data. Laura (N), for example, explained: “Each practicum taught me that student engagement…(and) excitement mean that the lesson plan has passed the hard test.” This seems to have happened through using engaging activities in the preservice teachers’ practice in schools, as Myriam (P) mentioned. This may indicate that the training program in which the participants were involved had been influential in shaping their beliefs. Indeed, the intensive training that these participants received appear to have strongly impacted their conceptualizations of effective teaching regardless of their status as novice or preservice teachers. All the participants have taken the same practicum courses at the same university. In these courses, student teachers are asked to prepare lessons and implement a few of them in the host schools, using formats that the trainer provides. They modify their plans based on the feedback of their trainers and their classmates, and they are provided with a lot of support before their practice sessions. They also have to reflect on the whole process. In addition, the trainees take courses about different educational technologies. Their performance is evaluated based on the following criteria: Engaging instruction and activities that address clear objectives, appropriate timing of the different instructional components, appropriate openings and closures of lessons, classroom management, and use of suitable instructional aids including technology. This intensive training may have caused both novice and preservice teachers participating in the study to feel that their training enabled them to handle teaching real classes, as Miriam (P) stressed.
Additionally, the observation courses completed at the B.A level ensure student-teachers the opportunity to observe different instructors in more than one school, and these different instructional contexts are discussed with the trainer on campus. These various training experiences seem to strongly affect the views of both novice and preservice teachers in positive ways. They may have made many participants aware of the importance of student engagement, of lesson planning, of dealing appropriately with behavioral problems, and of using technology. The same specific ideas that two Ps and two Ns said they learned from the practicums about dealing with chronic students’ behavioral problems provide evidence on the strength of the shared training experiences in shaping the common beliefs of the preservice and novice teachers. These participants stated that because children with chronic behavioral problems want attention, the most effective way of dealing with them is to keep them busy through things like asking them to assist teachers in class, involving them in pasting a card in its correct category on the board, or requiring them to cut and paste something on their copybooks. Aya (N), who observed classes which included students with special needs in an inclusive school, clarified how observing real classes “…before actually teaching, helped (her) enter class with (…) more knowledge (…) as to what to do (when) facing students that have behavioral problems.” She said that this experience alongside the discussion with the trainer helped her know how to teach inclusive classes. The finding that novice teachers appreciated the training they received in various instructional dimensions is corroborated by Faez and Valeo (2012) . These researchers found that novice teachers thought highly of the ongoing training part in their preparation program. However, I am not aware of any study that compared the views of the preservice and novice teachers regarding the impact of their preservice education.
Do the common views of both preservice and novice teachers regarding the effectiveness of their training imply that actual teaching has not impacted the latter group? It may be the case that the novice teachers’ early experiences have confirmed what they have been trained in. Many of these teachers reported that they found many of the strategies they had learned in the practicums successful in real classes. Loubna (N) elaborated this saying: “…a game, a competition, …rapid questions…ignite their curiosity to move on with our lesson. They want to have me. They…are eager…to have English.” The observations of Pascale and Kylie (N) corroborated Loubna’s statement. These two teachers made sure to involve everyone in class, all the students in their classes were highly motivated. This indicates that the participants’ application of what they learned during their training made them aware of how student engagement can create “…enthusiasm and positive energy between my students and I”, as Hiba (N) stressed. Thus, it is possible that the novice teacher participants early instructional experiences have created a sense of assuredness about what they have been trained in.
If the real pedagogical experiences of novice teachers have contributed to their certainty about the positive effect of their education, what makes the preservice teachers so sure about it? It is possible that most preservice teachers were thrilled with all the new information and ideas they learned during their training. For instance, Kate (P) was attracted by what she knew about “learning (styles): The visual learners, auditory learners and so on.” She was excited to know that taking these styles into account makes “…all students…like really present in class, like taking action”, as she stressed. Thus, preservice teachers in this study capitalized on the theoretical knowledge they gained during training and on their practice they had in their B.A. program in voicing their positive opinions. However, three participants expressed negative views about their training program, so what may cause these differences? It may be that these participants went through negative training experiences. It is important to bear in mind that the trainees at the participating institutions are supervised by different trainers. Each trainer may work with three to five student teachers. This may be one explanation for the negative views of these three participants. It also could be that these trainees had individual differences or life conditions that made them benefit from their training program less than their classmates. The factor of individual differences is discussed in Majida’s case later in the article.
5.2. No Reality Shock?
The results of the present research shows that while the positive beliefs of many participants were supported by the observations in relation to some constructs like engaging students and managing time, this was not the case when it comes to lesson planning and technology use. Can the absence of lesson planning in the practices of three observed participants and the use of technology from the practices of two of them be explained by the “reality shock” notion? “Reality shock” refers to the transitory phase in which the teachers feel mostly challenged because of the lack of connections between what has been learned and what real practice is about ( Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005 ; Farrell, 2008 , as cited in Farrell, 2008 ; Furlong & Maynard, 2012 ). According to Brouwer and Korthagen, this phase is accompanied by the worries of novice teachers to remain in control of the emerging class dynamics, which makes them unable to apply what they may have learned. These teachers may blame their preservice training program for not preparing them to pass this transitional stage with ease. However, this does not seem to be always the case in the present study. Indeed, not only many participants highly valued their training program, but also two of the three observed novice teachers gave credit to this training regarding their success at engaging their students and managing their classes, which they demonstrated during the observed sessions.
The fact that the observation data support the novice teachers’ affirmation about applying what they learned runs counter to what the “reality shock” notion proposes. This notion suggests that due to the complexity of teaching, novice teachers might find it hard to strike a balance between managing their time, facing student’s behavioral problems, integrating technology, and engaging students; as a result, they only focus on content delivery and do not aim to be the ideal teacher who thinks strategically (Farrell, 2008) . Actually, two of the observed teachers could balance among many of these components. So how could this be interpreted?
It seems that the ability of the novice teacher participants to apply some of what they have been trained in reinforced their positive views of their preservice training program, which allowed them to skip the reality shock stage and to maintain what they thought of their training before actual teaching. This finding differs from the findings of other studies in which novice teachers emphasized their concern and struggles in handling the multifaceted nature of teaching (e.g., Dickson et al., 2014 ; Keltchermans & Ballet, 2002 ; Kidd et al., 2015 ). In the present study, not only the survey and the interview data reveal that most participants did not have this worry, but also two of the three observed teachers demonstrated a successful conduct of some aspects of teaching. This cannot be explained by the proposition that while preservice teachers are thrilled by what they learn during training, novice teachers develop the view that what they have learned at the university cannot be applied. If most novice teacher participants do not seem to go through the reality shock stage, how can the lack of preplanning and having appropriate closures by all three observed teachers be explained? Why has only one observed participant used technology in her classes? School conditions and the subtlety of some of these constructs may cause this.
5.3. School Conditions
Do school conditions cause the absence of technology use from the observed participants’ practices? It is very likely that this has been the case in the classes of two of the three observed teachers. This likelihood is supported by the detailed description that many participants provided about how technology can be used, which indicates that they were well-trained in this dimension. Michelle (N) for instance stated: “A teacher can simply insert a video or a song that summarizes the whole lesson in a couple of minutes besides adding freshness…and entertainment.” Pascal, who used some technological devices during the observed sessions, elaborated on this point as follows:
(…) some students are visual learners while others are auditory, so they like to see or hear what’s happening. I think they would remember more the topic when presented in this way because reading is boring to them especially that they read everything. They read science, math, everything is about reading. They need a change. I use PowerPoint, videos with questions…songs (to fill in the blanks with theme-related words).
Many attributed this knowledge to the practicums which clarified how technology helps in “getting rid of traditional teaching”, as Michelle (N) emphasized, “makes students more interested in the lesson, (and) facilitates the work of the teacher”, as Sophie (P) stated. This knowledge about the use of technology in instruction indicates that factors other than knowing about it hinder its use by some participants. This is evident in Jamie (P) and Rita’s (P) stress that they do not use technology in their practice because of its unavailability at the host schools. Consequently, teachers in these contexts may gradually lose their technological skills (Al-Awidi & Alghazo, 2012) . Despite its important role, training does not suffice for keeping the teachers’ technological abilities intact. The unavailability of educational technology from schools would lead to the loss of the related skills that one may have gained through training and drive novice teachers to just use the textbook.
School conditions may also lie behind the absence of lesson planning from the practices of the three observed instructors. This is incongruent with the assertion of many participants that the extensive planning practice enabled them to plan for their lessons with ease and flexibility and to have a clear vision of how instruction would proceed, as Mariam (N), Aya (N), Daniella (N), and Ola (P) mentioned. These assertions imply that the importance of lesson planning is clear to many participants at the conceptual level, but school conditions do not allow some novice teachers to apply it. Urmston and Pennington (2008) reported on research that supports this interpretation. The researchers concluded that novice teachers found it really hard to plan creatively when the government, the school, and even parents are pressuring them to follow a rigid syllabus and standardized instruction. In another study, Kidd et al. (2015) found that “Although most of the beginning teachers agreed that the workload was within their capabilities, 39% commented that the non-contact planning time was insufficient” (p.169). This insufficiency of time may explain why the observed participants in the present study did not have prepared lesson plans. These participants may have resorted to improvising in order to handle their workload. They may have felt that their training empowered them with the ability to improvise engaging activities, which may have facilitated their work.
5.4. Some Subtleties
One factor that may cause the observed novice teachers to exhibit some inappropriate pedagogical practices like session closure and handling chronic behavioral problems lies in the subtleties of these constructs. For instance, finishing a session smoothly looks simple, but the close attention it needs makes it complex. This is because it requires teachers to notice that they need to stop what they and their students may be engaged in and remember what to highlight at the end of the session. Both preservice and novice teachers highlighted the problem of wrapping up their sessions appropriately. Possibly, training cannot tackle this subtle detail effectively because of its nature, i.e., it is unlikely that the trainees are allowed enough time to practice teaching whole sessions due to the requirements of the host schools. Additionally, the short experience of the novice teachers does not appear to be enough for handling this seemingly simple situation. Aya, Jamie, and Mariam illustrate the complexity of appropriate lesson closure when they said that it will become better with more experience. Thus, while the preservice teachers’ recognition that they are unable to have suitable session closures may be due to training dynamics, novice teachers may need more experience and supervisors’ guidance to do that.
The complex issues of handling chronic behavioral problems may also constitute a solid interpretation of the insufficiency of training. Many participants said that although they received intensive training in this aspect, “real teaching is important for learning more about how to work with these cases,” as Aya put it. Aya provided the following story of how she experimented with some strategies to deal with a hyperactive student “who could not sit still and who always talked to her friends”:
I needed her to focus with me for like 5 min. So, I (motivated her) to sit still (an be attentive) by…tell(ing) her that if you sit still…and do not talk to your friends…for five minutes…you can become my helper…and (get) a reward, a token…We would increase it to 6, 7, 8 (minutes), and she was able to sit still for 10 min. But at the beginning, she wouldn’t even sit still, whenever I turn around, I would see her behind me, wherever I go she would be behind me. She would be following her friends.
Aya stressed that knowledge related to this factor was gained during training, but her skill was sharpened during actual teaching. This finding contradicted findings from other studies in which novice teachers emphasized their concern and struggles in dealing with behavioral problems (e.g., Dickson et al., 2014 ; Keltchermans & Ballet, 2002 ; Kidd et al., 2015 ). Thus, the present research indicates that the training program at the participating university provided novice teachers with the foundations of tackling some subtle pedagogical constructs and that real instructional experiences sharpened their abilities to tackle the complexity of teaching
5.5. Majida’s Case
One observed teacher, Majida, consistently failed across all teaching dimensions examined in the present study. Her instruction was mostly teacher-centered. For instance, she would read a sentence and ask students to repeat. Students would keep repeating what she says even when she wanted to comment or explain something in between. She sometimes simply repeated the same task over and over again until the end of the session. As a result, chaos dominated her class. Most of the time, students were busy doing things like flipping pages, discussing a karaoke event, emptying one water bottle into another, etc. In order to manage the situation, Majida was constantly shouting, punishing, and threatening the students. However, these student behaviors increased.
Obviously, Majida’s case cannot be understood in light of the university training she underwent, particularly that the other observed participants in the study did not exhibit a similar conduct; also, the survey and interview data reflected the appreciation of most participants of their preservice training program. This indicates that a number of other factors may underlie Majida’s pedagogical practices.
The overload Majida had may be one of the factors that lead to her teaching practices. She had to teach five different grades with two sections each three times per week (a total of 30 teaching hours per week), whereas one of the other observed participants had a total of 14 English sessions only, and the second had a total of 18. Thus, this could have made it difficult for Majida to adopt constructive instructional behaviors. In addition, the small class area and the big number of diverse students (Lebanese, Syrian, Bangladeshi, Siri Lankan) in her class might have complicated the situation. The findings of some studies reveal that teachers’ efficacy in diverse classes is not significant (e.g., Brannan & Bleistein, 2012 ; Dunkin, 2002 ). Brannan and Bleistein stated that “It is possible that novice ESOL teachers may face greater challenges as they work with students from varied cultural backgrounds and cultures of schooling; they may feel that fully engaging their students is difficult.” (p. 533). This supports the previous interpretation of Majida’s case. However, does this justify all of Majida’s inappropriate teaching practices?
Certainly, the heavy teaching load that Majida had does not alone explain her instructional approach which mainly focused on drilling and repetition. Her teaching strategies used during the observed sessions indicate that she does not make her students the center of instruction and does not know how to involve them. The overload that was probably much more than she could handle as an inexperienced novice teacher seems to interact with her weak teaching skill. It also seems that the school where Majida used to teach did not provide her with the needed support. Brannan and Bleistein (2012) explain that the little amount of feedback provided to novice teachers about how and what they need to do to engage their students may affect their performance. Thus, it seems that institutional guidance in the school where Majida used to teach was lacking, which contributed to the persistence of the instructor’s inappropriate pedagogy.
Additionally, the fact that two observed participants could engage their classes effectively implies that Majida’s teaching pattern, like all other instructional practices, is influenced by a complex array of factors. One of them is the theoretical explanation that some novice teachers need time to adapt to real-teaching contexts. Also, some individual differences may affect how each of the three participants handle the challenges they face in their classes during their first professional year. It may be that Majida did not benefit from the practicum courses as much as the other two teachers due to individual differences or to life conditions.
6. Conclusion
Do novice teachers have similar views to the preservice teachers regarding their B.A. training program, or are their views affected by their short teaching experience? Interestingly, in responding to this question, the present study found that many participants from both groups shared positive views of how their induction program prepared them to plan lessons, to engage students, to manage the class, and to use technology. The observation data of three participants, however, showed that two of the three observed teachers did not apply all what they said they were trained in; while they could engage students and handle behavioral issues, they did not have preplanned lessons, and only one used technology. It was concluded that the short teaching experiences reinforced the novice teachers views regarding what they could apply, which explains the similarity with the preservice teachers. We also speculated that school conditions did not allow the novice teacher participants to apply all what they were trained in, but this did not seem to cause them a reality shock. One observed novice teacher did not show that she benefited from training, and this might be due to school conditions, to the multicultural composition of her student group, and to her weak pedagogical skills. All in all, the rich, interesting data revealed that novice teachers do not always find that their preservice training failed to prepare them to face the complexity of teaching.