Do the qualifications of vocational teachers make a difference to their teaching?

Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/13596748.2023.2166690
Erica Smith, J. Tuck
{"title":"Do the qualifications of vocational teachers make a difference to their teaching?","authors":"Erica Smith, J. Tuck","doi":"10.1080/13596748.2023.2166690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A survey of over 500 teachers and trainers in the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector was carried out to examine whether their teaching practices and approaches varied with their qualification levels. The survey, carried out with teachers and trainers from different types of training providers – public and private – formed a major part of a larger research project on the topic. The project was carried out because of an overall decline in the qualification levels of the VET teaching workforce over a 20-year period, and national debate on the appropriate qualification level. Analysis of the survey results showed that those with pedagogical qualifications above the regulatory minimum were more confident overall, and were more able to deal with the demands of different teaching contexts and of diverse learner groups. Teachers with higher level qualifications also reported, in qualitative questions, specific gains from their qualifications. They were also more likely to undertake professional development, challenging an often-cited view that professional development activities can compensate for lower qualification levels. The findings have implications for policy development in Australia and elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2023.2166690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT A survey of over 500 teachers and trainers in the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector was carried out to examine whether their teaching practices and approaches varied with their qualification levels. The survey, carried out with teachers and trainers from different types of training providers – public and private – formed a major part of a larger research project on the topic. The project was carried out because of an overall decline in the qualification levels of the VET teaching workforce over a 20-year period, and national debate on the appropriate qualification level. Analysis of the survey results showed that those with pedagogical qualifications above the regulatory minimum were more confident overall, and were more able to deal with the demands of different teaching contexts and of diverse learner groups. Teachers with higher level qualifications also reported, in qualitative questions, specific gains from their qualifications. They were also more likely to undertake professional development, challenging an often-cited view that professional development activities can compensate for lower qualification levels. The findings have implications for policy development in Australia and elsewhere.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
职业教师的资格对他们的教学有影响吗?
摘要对澳大利亚职业教育与培训(VET)部门的500多名教师和培训师进行了一项调查,以检查他们的教学实践和方法是否因资格水平而异。这项调查由来自不同类型培训机构(公共和私营)的教师和培训师进行,是该主题更大研究项目的主要组成部分。该项目的实施是因为在20年的时间里,职业教育与培训教师队伍的资格水平总体下降,以及全国对适当资格水平的辩论。对调查结果的分析表明,那些教学资格高于最低监管标准的人总体上更有信心,更能够应对不同教学环境和不同学习群体的需求。在质量问题中,具有较高学历的教师还报告了他们从学历中获得的具体收获。他们也更有可能进行专业发展,这挑战了一种经常被引用的观点,即专业发展活动可以弥补较低的资格水平。研究结果对澳大利亚和其他国家的政策制定具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1