I strongly feel that the initial teacher education programmes have to be more dynamic and flexible to incorporate the needs of the changing society. We need to prepare teachers who can handle the challenges of the 21st Century. Some one who can handle the current needs of the students. For instance, ITE programme in the country where I come from is as old as ten years without much review. And our Higher Education policy provides more emphasis on face-to-face teaching (as much as 80%) not realising that there are other forms of teaching-learning that can be more effective. For all these to happen, policies will have to be reviewed and more importantly teacher educators have to be willing to change themselves first (which is not the case most often). Many teacher educators are not willing to change and they stick to old forms of teaching pedagogy. The outcome is that the teacher graduates that come through such systems are not able to handle the situation when they are in the schools. In fact, their students in the schools are much ahead of them, especially when it comes to the digital literacy. Hope my points make sense!!!

I think teacher education does not focus enough on developing students' soft skills like communication, interpersonal relationships, and team work. Also Classroom Management needs more attention now in these programs due to the diverse backgrounds of students and the rise in mobile technology, causing teachers to compete for students' attention in the teaching-learning process. The cultural diversity in the student population need for teachers to be adept at culturally responsive teaching, making curriculum materials more balanced in representing the ethnic diversity among students as well as incorporating a variety of teaching strategies to accommodate such diversity. I am including a few articles to highlight the challenges that students face in the culturally and internationally diverse classroom:

Article Workforce Education and Development (WED): Graduate Students...

Data Generation I: International and invisible in a workforce edu...

Data Curriculum Inclusiveness Challenge: Responding to Multicultu...

Best regards,

Debra

I strongly feel that the initial teacher education programmes have to be more dynamic and flexible to incorporate the needs of the changing society. We need to prepare teachers who can handle the challenges of the 21st Century. Some one who can handle the current needs of the students. For instance, ITE programme in the country where I come from is as old as ten years without much review. And our Higher Education policy provides more emphasis on face-to-face teaching (as much as 80%) not realising that there are other forms of teaching-learning that can be more effective. For all these to happen, policies will have to be reviewed and more importantly teacher educators have to be willing to change themselves first (which is not the case most often). Many teacher educators are not willing to change and they stick to old forms of teaching pedagogy. The outcome is that the teacher graduates that come through such systems are not able to handle the situation when they are in the schools. In fact, their students in the schools are much ahead of them, especially when it comes to the digital literacy. Hope my points make sense!!!

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-22608-8

It is not oriented to the 21st Century. See our research monograph, now achieving 3500 downloads.

These resources will offer you detailed insight. Best regards

Thank you Maria, and to clarify for everyone, I am assuming that people will respond to this question by either localising it to their respective system, or by generalising it to a wider geographic area and perhaps even to a more global understanding of what they think might be needed. I don't wish to place constraints on the ability to respond at any of these levels, and thus prefer to leave the question more open-ended, and in this respect I note that some colleagues have contextualised their response more, while others have responded in more generalised terms. I do work within Australia for the most part, but am also involved in large projects in Japan and China, which both offer very different perspectives and issues in the area of ITE, so I do appreciate the essence of what you are saying here. I would also point out, however, that I am not asking for a "problem" to be identified per se', but rather for a discussion of what different people identify as an important change to the way we currently conduct ITE.

I do appreciate your input...Tony

Being a graduate from a UK university, I know that a person who seeks a teaching career in a state school, needs to have a degree plus a teaching qualification. Initial Teacher Education or Training(ITET) programs offer academic study, visits to schools, and learning efficient teaching methods.

My "excellent" teachers & supervisors, during the PhD study at that university, prepared me for work at chemical industrial plants primarily. They knew that I had a diploma in education after the B.Sc. degree but they gave me teaching duties,for 2 years, to get more experience & they watched that.

In my opinion, the British system (in this regard) is a good model to follow. You know that a degree from a university may cause some baseless confidence in its holder amounting to arrogance so this person may think of possessing a capability in teaching while the truth of the matter is far from that. The students, thus, will pay the heavy price in terms of inadequate knowledge.

Not enough time to check basic ability and bolstering of this once accepted into the faculty. At my university, 1st year Math(s), English and History were requirements before acceptance into the Faculty of Education and it was understood that you would take 1st year Biology, Physics and Earth Science (this was for primary / elementary education). Following this first year pre-faculty, was a year of arts education: 1 year of drama, art and music in the classroom as well as 1 year of PE. Child psychology was every year with more complex concepts as we progressed. All of the major subjects were covered in year long courses and our fifth, and final, year was given to us for concentration subjects - you might have chosen EAL, linguistics, technology, science, math, or a combination of these.

This 5 year program(me) gave you a degree; the four year program(me) without the year of specialisation, gave you a teaching certificate for the province. The ITE in the UK is a bit worrying.

The most important issue is CHOICE by FORCE or by interest. Any one choosing Teaching as career by Choice can Only deliver.

In India 80 % is by compulsion because they do not get opportunity in Medecine, Engineer, Media, Accountant, Management.......

Next is moving with Time, adopting new technology and vast resources available.

Initially Teacher should be groomed as MENTOR.

What is wrong with Initial Teacher Education?

In order to answer properly on this question research should be conducted.

Teacher training programmes need to prepare teachers who are able to

• understand the role of assessment in student learning
• use assessment results to inform the development of appropriate learning experiences
• create good quality assessment instruments
• use different teaching/learning strategies when delivering the curriculum

Complete new approach is required.

look at age of 2/3 yrs Child using MOBILE !!!

some insight is absolutely necessary from MOBILE mfg / Google or application developer w r t design, ease of operation....

A Child without formal training using more efficiently smart phone,

same design, application, ease of handling has to be incorporated in Teaching Delivery so that students understand the subject at "ONE GO"

if we follow the old system , probably students will be much much smarter than teachers.

many have raised points w r t cultural diiference, income disparity.....

for a good teacher above is absolutely immaterial.

ITE does not focus on students' development regarding EQ, SQ (Social Intelligent Quotient), SQ (spiritual quotient ) and MQ so each and every institution suffers.

I do not see students preparing to be teachers walking away with the expectation that they are doing action research. They do not expect to participate, contribute, and learn from the body of fellow teachers. It is as if administrators are training them, rather than practitioners of the teaching profession. Thus, when they get to their districts and begin teaching, they are all alone, with all the administrative expectations levied against them. As a result, we see huge turnover and many leave the profession.

Take it out of the teachers' colleges and universities and place aspiring teachers in the classroom with experienced teachers for two years. Higher ed should not add useless coursework to a student teacher's limited time.

Tony, and others, while I am drawn to responding to the question because it brings attention to an extremely important issue, Initial Teacher Education (ITE), might I recommend that we not use such changed words as “wrong” in our consideration of it? Instead, I suggest we place our discussion of ITE within a framework of the need for continuous improvement in preparing new members of a community. Other highly respected professions such as medicine, engineering, and business (to name only a few) productively use that model for the good reason that it does not box itself in a narrative of “wrong and right.”

Based on my 36 years in formal education as a teacher (in two countries and in several states in the USA within differing contexts—urban, suburban, and rural) and as a teacher education in ITE programs in two different universities in two states and in different programs—namely, elementary, middle school, secondary, and higher education) I have come to the conclusion that the ongoing need for ITE to meet the needs of all in a community requires regular input from all impacted by the education system and not simply by the education policy community which most frequently plays such a dominant role in guiding ITE. While the education policy community may claim it reflects all stakeholders in its guidance for ITE it has a tendency at times to over represent differing members (e.g., the business community and the government) and under represent others (such as community members and the educational research community).

Therefore, in my dream ITE, I would suggest that the potentially beneficial programmatic inclusion of an ongoing inquiry group consisting of teacher candidates, classroom teachers, young learners, higher education experts in pedagogy disciplinary content, school administrators and the learners’ family members and members of the local community) could be highly transformative and beneficial. The main focus in the inquiry group would be consideration of what type and what content of education would meet the needs and desires of all members of the educational system, especially our diverse young learners, and how intending new teachers might realistically be prepared in their local ITE program to begin the process to: 1. Become aware of such goals by others, 2. Develop and/or recognize their own personal goals, and, 3. Construct and implement a plan to prepare themselves to pursue educational goals in their careers as classroom teachers that met as much as possible both personal and other’s views. As a member of an ITE with teaching and supervision responsibilities, I would be highly motivated to participate and to learn in the inquiry group and to work throughout in my teaching and supervision to meet the needs of my ITE students (and the broader education community) as they –and all of us who participated in the inquiry group--learned by meaningful participation how to become members of a professional community and hopefully how to sustain it.

Thanks for the opportunity you have given me to add my thoughts to such an important and rich discussion, Tony.

The initial formation of the teachers is perhaps a little deficient in some cases. The main problem is few connection between the university and the requests of the labor market. On the other hand, the formation sometimes is very theoretical, not always the teachers are prepared for the reality.

Thanks Randy. Using the term "wrong" was a bit charged, I know, and I admit to using it intentionally in an effort to be provocative. At the time, I just couldn't think of how to properly phrase the idea of "what needs changing in ITE" in a way that was compelling and seemed to convey the importance and urgency of the matter sufficiently, so I admit to taking the "provocative" way out of this in order to simply get the dialogue going. This is my mea culpa, but I trust you will forgive any limitations or biases this places on the conversation, on the basis that we are now discussing an important matter, and one that likely affects all of us at one level or another. Thanks for you considered input, and apologies if my wording has confused the issue for anyone! Cheers...Tony

Initial teacher preparation does not occur in a political vacuum. Federal and state laws regulating teacher preparation are onerous and demanding, predicated on the exact premise that this question poses: teacher education is bad, primarily because teacher preparation does not police itself and eliminate programs that produce bad teachers, whatever that is. While I admire many of the suggestions of my colleagues, I suggest that increased clinical preparation is crucial, as long as the replication of bad practice can be avoided. I am sure that my colleagues who actually work at the college or university and also supervise student teachers have seen the results of "on the job" teacher education. In the estimation of its critics, all teacher education is actually "teacher training" and is actually "on the job." In 35 years of my own experience, it is the quality of the course work preparation to the reality of the classroom that makes a difference.

Initial teacher education may have significant contributions if it is exploited for the improvement of student teachers. A lot of factors cause hindrances from effective planning to successful implementation. These factors including financial, educational, social and cultural vary in a different contexts.

In response to James Alouf, I wholeheartedly agree. I remember peers of mine at university who: did not pass the practicum year due to the stress and strain of being in a classroom; did not gain entry to the faculty due to poor math(s) results; were told the truth about their teaching and changed for the better; rose to the challenge because they were told where their failings were.

Does this still happen? I have seen too much of it not happening because teachers are needed.

Apprenticeship with lots of deliberate practice with prompt feedback turns out the best teachers. Without hands-on practice in the field among various groups of learners and within varying socio-economic populations of students, the training risks being deficient.

My wife is studying to be a teacher now and has attended various schools. The school know for it's teacher education program is the best among her experiences. Many schools teach the doctrine but the practice is so limited that the teachers are not prepared as well as they should be.

Only by practicing and observing many types of teachers and classrooms can you learn enough classroom management skills to find your level of comfort to where you can focus on the learners and not just your delivery of the content. It takes time and practice.

I've taught all grades in both public and private schools and in multiple countries and cultures and what I have learned mostly came from observation and practice. I also taught aspiring teachers at the University level. There's a lot of great material but I expect you will agree, the main need today is more deliberate practice with coaching.

I do agree that more deliberate practice with coaching is indeed a very useful approach, especially since it is a lifelong endeavor. I also think that so much "practice" depends on what's valued in both public and private school settings. For instance, approaches to classroom management vary widely for authoritarian to authoritative, from allowing students to have choice to compete regimentation. It depends so much on what the school or school district holds as its philosophy. I have first year teachers who find themselves at odds with their administrations because they don't conform to running a "tight ship" or because they allow students choice.

I find myself in the position of telling them to conform to the district's expectations or to find a teaching position where the administration has a different set of expectations. Once student teachers enter the work force, they find that, unless their clinical experiences took place in the same place where they now work, they must adapt, even if it violates their own experiences about how students learn. In teacher education, there must be much more high quality clinical preparation and it is certainly headed in that direction. Michael Sinclair, your questions depend on the quality of the teacher preparation program. However, school districts license teachers with any preparation if it is a "high need" content area. In addition, alternative licensure programs regularly license without much preparation.

I wonder what everyone things about the possibility of embedding a coaching, mentoring and feedback regime within initial teacher education programs, as a mandatory aspect of teacher training. Is this desirable? Would it be widely accepted? Would it actually work to resolve a lot of the issues being discussed here? Further thoughts on this?

Yes, Tony, I think that many programs have already implemented such an approach and are researching the results of their efforts. Herein lies the strength of embedding teacher education in a college/university setting, as well as, the public or private schools. Unfortunately, the problem is often the quality and the practice in the clinical placement. There are all kinds of models for this approach and much research has to be accomplished to define what coaching and teaching practices work best.

Handbook of Teacher Training in Europe: Issues and Trends

M Galton, B Moon - 2018 - content.taylorfrancis.com

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2017&q=technology+and+teacher+training&oq=technology+and+teacher+

This is an excellent question and one which merits a degree of deconstruction and contextualisation so I would offer several themes which could be usefully explored (I’m sure that there are more!). As usual the themes merge and overlap at points and someone suggesting that they are different perspectives on the same issue would have a valid point.

Theme 1 – Responding to change.

I see others have rightly mentioned the necessity of social and cultural readjustment as time goes on. We constantly ask teachers to update their subject knowledge e.g. science teachers must be aware of scientific advances. We also ask that they keep abreast of new approaches (trends?) in pedagogy. Also we will ask teachers to update their knowledge of new curricula and assessment systems. If we review the many national “training” and competency frameworks through which new teachers become qualified these three aspects of becoming a teacher are well represented. What is less frequently addressed in initial teacher education is the development of an understanding of the nature of the teachers role in a wider social and political context. The nature of what it means to be a teacher and the expectations and boundaries placed on the role vary both through time and across space and culture and I would offer that this initial social, political and cultural orientation is what is missing in most courses in ITE. This leads to theme 2.

Theme 2 – The nature of the teacher’s role.

One of the changes with which new teachers must engage with on an intellectual level is the ongoing remediation of the relationship between the profession, the institution (school), government and increasingly in some countries the commercial sector. In England this can be illustrated by the change in responsibility for defining the curriculum. We have seen several decades where the state claimed the right to define the curriculum and the role of the teacher was to “deliver” it. More recently, policy has been to delegate this responsibility to teachers. Now we see an initial teacher training framework which prioritises curriculum knowledge and pedagogy but does not prepare them for the task of defining a curriculum. Following from the above I would say that a missing element in initial teacher education is an engagement with the “tensions and ambiguities” which surround the teacher’s role in society. Possibly there are two reasons for this. Firstly these issues are politically charged and government training frameworks may be reluctant to encompass such potentially ‘dangerous’ ideas. Secondly, where countries have embraced “standards” or competency frameworks the critical engagement with such complex issues are difficult to “tick off” or “evidence”. Clearly engaging with such issues may be quite unsettling for someone new to the teaching profession especially where their subject specialism has encouraged convergent thinking. As such it would probably be wise to carefully moderate such critical engagement in the initial teacher education phase.

Theme 3 – The notion of “initial”.

In filling this gap of critical and political engagement I suspect it would be necessary to limit exposure to issues which would seem to have the most relevance to new teachers and to connect these issues with some of the practical and immediate concerns of learning to work in the classroom. For example the need to accommodate stronger and weaker pupils in planning a lesson begs us to consider core questions on social justice, appropriate curricula, entitlement and schooling as a mechanism for social reproduction. In dealing with subject knowledge we might usefully combine the question of “what we teach” with ….”why we teach it”. This may seem obvious but in my experience some teachers who are effective in teaching an aspect of subject knowledge have only the most rudimentary idea of “why” this particular aspect of learning is being taught. Clearly such questions can lead to some very disconcerting conversations with student teachers as they dissect the certainties they often arrive with. However I would offer that that such critical engagement, whilst being disconcerting is essential to become a “teacher” rather than a “learning technician” or “crafts/wo/man of the classroom”.

initial teacher education or training ?

For me, it is teacher education. Training connotes rote learning to me and I see teachers as rational human beings who must make conscious choices every minute of every day.

following