Razvoj in validacija Instrumenta za merjenje učinkovitosti mentorstva na pedagoški praksi
Povzetek
Prispevek predstavlja razvoj in prilagoditve instrumenta Mentorstvo za učinkovito poučevanje naravoslovja na razredni stopnji izobraževanja (orig. Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching – MEPST). Cilj razvojnega dela je bil razviti univerzalni instrument, ki bi bil uporaben za spremljavo mentorstva študentom na pedagoški praksi z namenom izboljšanja kakovosti izobraževanja učiteljev. Revidirani instrument smo poimenovali »Mentoring for effective teaching practicum instrument – METPI«, kar bi lahko v slovenskem jeziku prosto poimenovali kot Instrument za merjenje učinkovitosti mentorstva na pedagoški praksi (IZMUMpp). Nov revidiran in validiran instrument omogoča ocenjevanje zaznanih izkušenj študentov z njihovimi mentorji na strnjeni pedagoški praksi na osnovnih in srednjih šolah. V prvi fazi razvoja je bil originalni Hudsonov instrument MEPST razširjen s 34 na 62 trditev, z dodajanjem lastnih trditev in trditev iz predhodnih Hudsonovih instrumentov. Vse trditve so bile preoblikovane iz konteksta poučevanja primarnega naravoslovja na način, da zajamejo širše področje izobraževanja. Na podlagi odgovorov 105 študentov (94 jih je bilo ženskega spola) četrtega letnika pedagoškega študija (pribl. starosti 22–23 let) ter analize glavnih komponent (angl. Principal component analysis – PCA) in potrditvene faktorske analize (angl. Confirmation factor analysis – CFA) je bil instrument skrajšan na 36 trditev, razvrščenih v šest dimenzij (komponent). Te komponente so bile: osebnostne lastnosti, sistemske zahteve, pedagoško znanje, modeliranje, povratne informacije ter informacijska in komunikacijska tehnologija (IKT). Vseh šest dimenzij novega instrumenta je enodimenzionalnih, s Cronbachovimi alfami nad 0,8 in faktorskimi obremenitvami nad 0,6. Instrument je uporaben za izboljšanje učnih rezultatov pedagoške prakse in nadaljnje študije. Na osnovi z instrumentom zbranih ugotovitev bi lahko izpeljali posebna in splošna priporočila za študente, mentorje, univerzitetne predavatelje in za druge deležnike, spodbudili refleksijo lastnih praks in ponudili predloge za prihodnost.Prenosi
Literatura
Abed, O. H., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2015). Jordanian preservice primary teachers' perceptions of mentoring in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 703–726.
Ambrosetti, A., & Dekkers J. (2010). The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and mentees in preservice teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.3
Baker, M. (2016). Reproducibility crisis. Nature, 533(26), 353–66.
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Chen, Y., Watson, R., & Hilton, A. (2016). A review of mentorship measurement tools. Nurse Education Today, 40, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.01.020
Dolenc, K., Šorgo, A., & Ploj Virtič, M. (2021). The difference in views of educators and students on Forced Online Distance Education can lead to unintentional side effects. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7079–7105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10558-4
Ferk Savec, V., & Wissiak Grm, K. S. (2017). Development of chemistry pre-service teachers during practical pedagogical training: Self-evaluation vs. evaluation by school mentors. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 64(1), 63–72.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). SAGE.
Hobson, A. J. (2016). Judgementoring and how to avert it: Introducing ONSIDE Mentoring for beginning teachers. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-2016-0024
Hudson, P. B. (2004a). Mentoring for effective primary science teaching. [Doctoral dissertation, Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.] QUT EPrints. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/16002/1/Peter_Hudson_Thesis.pdf
Hudson, P. B. (2004b). Specific mentoring: A theory and model for developing primary science teaching practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976042000223015
Hudson, P. B. (2005). Identifying mentoring practices for developing effective primary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1723–1739.
Hudson, P. B. (2009). Mentoring preservice teachers in primary mathematics. The International Journal of Learning, 16(4),119–132.
Hudson, P. B. (2010). Mentors report on their own mentoring practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 30–42.
Hudson, P. B., Usak, M., & Savran-Gencer A. (2009). Employing the five-factor mentoring instrument: Analysing mentoring practices for teaching primary science. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 63–74.
Hudson, P. B., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2005). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for effective primary science teaching (MEPST). Science Education, 89(4), 657–674.
Hudson, P. (2016). Forming the mentor-mentee relationship. Mentoring & tutoring: Partnership in learning, 24(1), 30-43.
Izadinia, M. (2016). Student teachers' and mentor teachers' perceptions and expectations of a mentoring relationship: Do they match or clash? Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 387–402.
Jobling, A., & Moni, K. B. (2004). ‘I never imagined I’d have to teach these children’: Providing authentic learning experiences for secondary pre‐service teachers in teaching students with special needs. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 5–-22.
Johnson, T., & Owens, L. (2003). Survey response rate reporting in the professional literature. Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Retrieved from http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2003/Files/JSM2003-000638.pdf
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management, 26(4), 608–625.
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at Work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America.
Kundu, A., & Basu, A. (2022). Feminisation of the Teaching Profession and Patriarchy. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 36(1–3), 8–18.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Pradhan, S., & Huitema, B. E. (2019). An overview of scientific reproducibility: Consideration of relevant issues for behavior science/analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 33–57.
Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., & Busher, H. (2015). Research on teaching practicum–a systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 392–407.
LeBeau, B., Ellison, S., & Aloe, A. M. (2021). Reproducible analyses in education research. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 195–222.
Leshem, S. (2012). The many faces of mentor-mentee relationships in a pre-service teacher education programme. Creative Education, 3(4), 413–421.
Lynn, S., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2020). Operationalizing the mentoring processes as perceived by teacher mentors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(3), 295–317.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nikoceviq-Kurti, E., & Saqipi, B. (2022). Toward developing a qualitative mentoring program for pre-service teachers: Kosovo's experience. Issues in Educational Research, 32(2), 634–658.
Patil, V. H., Surendra, N. S., Sanjay, M., & Todd, D. (2008). Efficient theory development and factor retention criteria: A case for abandoning the ‘Eigenvalue Greater Than One’ criterion. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 162–170.
Ploj Virtič, M., Du Plessis A., & Šorgo, A. (2021a). In the search for the ideal mentor by applying the “Mentoring for effective teaching practice instrument”. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1957828
Ploj Virtič, M., Du Plessis, A., & Šorgo, A. (2021b). Slovenian translation and adaptation of Mentoring for Effective Teaching Practicum (METP) instrument. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4647757
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Rocha, K. D. (2014). Europe's got talent: Setting the stage for new teachers by educative mentoring. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(4), 99–120.
Shanks, R., Attard Tonna, M., Krøjgaard, F., Annette Paaske, K., Robson, D., & Bjerkholt, E. (2020). A comparative study of mentoring for new teachers. Professional Development in Education, 48(5), 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1744684
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stîngu, M., Eisenschmidt, E., & Iucu, R. (2016). Scenarios of mentor education in Romania-towards improving teacher induction. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(3), 59–76.
Tarekegn, G., Terfa, D., Tadesse, M., Atnafu, M., & Alemu, M. (2020). Ethiopian preservice primary science teachers' perceptions of mentoring in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(8), 894–913.
Van Ginkel, G., Van Drie, J., & Verloop, N. (2018). Mentor teachers' views of their mentees. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(2), 122–147.
Van't Hooft, M., & Swan, K. (2007). Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vršnik Perše, T., Ivanuš Grmek, M., Bratina, T., & Košir, K. (2015). Students’ satisfaction with teaching practice during pre-service teacher education. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(2), 159–174.
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.
Zuljan Valenčič, M., & Marentič Požarnik., B. (2014). Induction and early-career support of teachers in Europe. European Journal of Education, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12080
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
