lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Unfit to teach?: Failures in student teaching related to the idea of admission tests
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
2014 (English)In: Abstracts. NERA 42nd Congress, Education for Sustainable Development, N 19. Teachers' work and teacher education, Paralell sessions 3., 2014Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This study is part of a larger Swedish research project: ”Let the right one out! - Teacher training and the induction period as gatekeepers”. In the presentation categories of indicators of failures, in nine cases of student teaching, are described and linked to a current issue in Sweden: The introduction of admission tests before entering the teacher education. Based on interviews with supervisors and the visiting teachers from the university, empirical examples are presented in order to discuss the following issues: Do the examples contain possibilities to detect insufficient teacher quality before the student has entered the program? Can knowledge of such possibilities facilitate the selection of future teacher students? If so, how?The cases can be categorized into two groups: 1) Those who won’t be fit to teach and 2) those who might be fit to teach. Crucial for the sorting was the informant’s experiences of hope for development. The informants expectations on that the students in the first group will be able to develop the necessary qualities and skills are low. On the other hand, those who “might be fit to teach” show a certain degree of talent and the prospect of acquiring the necessary skills/qualities. The main difference between the two groups is the point of time when the deficiencies are detected. In the first group this happens immediately, while for the second group a pedagogical situation is required to spotlight their shortcomings.

The second major difference between the groups concerns the indicators of poor teacher quality. In both groups the students are apprehended as passive. What differs between the two groups is that the “non-suited” seem to combine the passivity with an unassured manner, a kind of unsteadiness and sometimes even fear. Another characteristic for the group of “not suited” is, according to the supervisors, their lack of social timing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014.
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-43848OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-43848DiVA: diva2:818570
Conference
NERA 42nd Congress, Education for Sustainable Development, Lillehammer, Norway 5-7 March, 2014
Available from: 2015-06-09 Created: 2015-06-09 Last updated: 2016-04-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Fulltext of abstract

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nordänger, Ulla KarinLindqvist, Per
By organisation
Department of Education
Pedagogy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 101 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf