Education Stakeholders’ Viewpoints about an ESD Competency Framework: Q Methodology Research
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Teacher Preparation Programs as Complex Systems
2.2. A Competency Framework as an Accountability Mechanism
2.3. The Qatari Teacher Education Context
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Step 1 Q Set Development
3.3. Step 2 Participant Selection
3.4. Step 3 Data Collection
3.5. Step 4 Data Analysis
3.6. Step 5 Factor Interpretation
4. Results
4.1. Viewpoint 1: Core Classroom Practices
4.2. Viewpoint 2: Creative Minds Count
4.3. Viewpoint 3: Digitally Enriched Instructional Strategies
4.4. Viewpoint 4: Local Culture and Ethics
4.5. Viewpoint 5: Leading and Adapting Ethically
4.6. Viewpoint 6: Focusing on Students
5. Discussion and Practical Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rieckmann, M.; Mindt, L.; Gardiner, S. Education for Sustainable Development Goals. In Learning Objectives; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2017; ISBN 978-92-3-100209-0. [Google Scholar]
- QNV 2030 Qatar National Vision 2030. Available online: https://www.mdps.gov.qa/en/qnv1/Documents/QNV2030_English_v2.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning. Paris: UNESCO. 2011. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/191442e.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Nolet, V. Teacher education and ESD in the United States: The vision, challenges, and implementation. In Schooling for Sustainable Development in Canada and the United States; McKeown, R., Nolet, V., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 53–67. [Google Scholar]
- Bertschy, F.; Künzli, C.; Lehmann, M. Teachers’ Competencies for the Implementation of Educational Offers in the Field of Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2013, 5, 5067–5080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cochran-Smith, M. Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability. Oxford Rev. Educ. 2021, 47, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L. Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. J. Teach Educ. 2006, 57, 120–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollins, E.R. Teacher preparation for quality teaching. J. Teach. Educ. 2011, 62, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ingvarson, L.; Beavis, A.; Kleinhenz, E. Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2007, 30, 351–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ell, F.; Haigh, M.; Cochran-Smith, M.; Grundoff, L.; Ludlow, L.; Hill, M.F. Mapping a complex system: What influences teacher learning during initial teacher education? Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2017, 45, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liston, D.; Borko, H.; Whitcomb, J. The teacher educator’s role in enhancing teacher quality. J. Teach. Educ. 2008, 59, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strom, K.J.; Viesca, K.M. Towards a complex framework of teacher learning- practice. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2020, 47, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stronge, J.H.; Ward, T.J.; Grant, L.W. What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. J. Teach. Educ. 2011, 62, 339–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludlow, L.; Ell, F.; Crochran-Smith, M.; Newton, A.; Trefcer, K.; Klein, K.; Grudnoff, L.; Haigh, M.; Hill, M.F. Visualizing teacher education as a complex system: A nested simplex system approach. Comp. Int. J. Comp. Educ. 2017, 14, 36–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Thani, W.A.; Ari, I.; Koç, M. Education as a Critical Factor of Sustainability: Case Study in Qatar from the Teachers’ Development Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crochran-Smith, M.; Ell, F.; Ludlow, L.; Grundoff, L.; Aitken, G. The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2014, 116, 050302. [Google Scholar]
- Sanford, K.J.; Hopper, T.F.; Starr, L. Transforming teacher education thinking: Complexity and relational ways of knowing. Com. Inter. J. Comp. Ed. 2015, 12, 26–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L. Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educ. Res. 2016, 45, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goodwin, A.L.; Low, E.L. Rethinking conceptualisations of teacher quality in Singapore and Hong Kong: A comparative analysis. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2021. [CrossRef]
- Rheaume, J.; Spencer, B.L.; Donlevy, J.K.; Gereluk, D.; Brandon, J. Alberta’s New Teaching Quality Standard and Its Implications for Teacher Education. J. Educ. Thought 2018, 51, 162–183. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26873062 (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Goodwin, A.L. Teaching standards, globalisation, and conceptions of teacher professionalism. Euro. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 44, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menter, I.; Flores, M.A. Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education. Euro. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 44, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romanowski, M.H. The Qatar National Professional Standards for School Leaders: A critical discourse analysis using Habermas’ theory of knowledge constitutive interests. Int. J. Lead. Educ. 2014, 17, 174–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, S.; Stenner, P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-84920-415-6. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, B.; Sumara, D. Complexity and Education: Inquiries in Learning, Teaching, and Research; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780805859355. [Google Scholar]
- Morrison, K. Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educ. Phil. Theory 2008, 40, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorente-Echeverría, S.; Canales-Lacruz, I.; Murillo-Pardo, B. The Vision of Future Primary School Teachers as to Education for Sustainable Development from a Competency-Based Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, L.-H.-P.; Bui, N.-B.-T.; Nguyen, T.-N.-C.; Huang, C.-F. An Investigation into the Perspectives of Elementary Pre-Service Teachers on Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachs, J. Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teach. Teach. 2016, 22, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mausethagen, S.; Granlund, L. Contested discourses of teacher professionalism: Current tensions between education policy and teachers’ union. J. Educ. Pol. 2012, 27, 815–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Call, K. Professional teaching standards: A comparative analysis of their history, implementation and efficacy. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 43, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Flaherty, J.; Beal, E.M. Core competencies and high leverage practices of the beginning teacher: A synthesis of the literature. J. Educ. Teach. 2018, 44, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MOEHE. Ministry of Education and Higher Education. Qatar National School Accreditation. 2017. Available online: http://www.edu.gov.qa/En/SECInstitutes/EvaluationInstitute/SEO/QNAS/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Nasser, R. Qatar’s educational reform past and future: Challenges in teacher development. Open Rev. Educ. Res. 2017, 4, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, S.R. Subjectivity in the Human Sciences. Psychol. Rec. 2019, 69, 565–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKeown, B.; Thomas, D.B. Q Methodology, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundberg, A.; de Leeuw, R.; Aliani, R. Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, Z.; Valcke, M.; De Wever, B. Are they ready to teach? Student teachers’ readiness for the job with reference to teacher competence frameworks. J. Educ. Teach. 2017, 43, 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñiz-Rodríguez, L.; Alonso, P.; Rodríguez-Muñiz, L.J.; Valcke, M. Developing and validating a competence framework for secondary mathematics student teachers through a Delphi method. J. Educ. Teach. 2017, 43, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banasick, S. KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Cebrián, G.; Junyent, M. Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Exploring the Student Teachers’ Views. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2768–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Canrinus, E.T.; Klette, K.; Hammerness, K. Diversity in coherence: Strengths and opportunities of three programmes. J. Teach. Educ. 2017, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grossman, P.; Hammerness, K.M.; McDonald, M.; Ronfeldt, M. Constructing coherence: Structural predictors of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher education programmes. J. Teach. Educ. 2008, 59, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goh, P.S.; Yusuf, Q. Validation of the Malaysian Version of the Teacher Education Program Coherence Questionnaire. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2017, 42, 42–59. (accessed on 19 October 2021). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chaaban, Y.; Sawalhi, R. The role of agency in the development of a teacher leadership stance among student teachers during the practicum experience. Res. Post-Comp. Educ. 2020, 25, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izadinia, M. Student teachers’ and mentor teachers’ perceptions and expectations of a mentoring relationship: Do they match or clash? Prof Dev. Educ. 2016, 42, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaaban, Y.; Sawalhi, R. Student teachers’ development as teacher leaders during the practicum experience. J. App. Res. High. Educ. 2019, 12, 927–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, E.R. The dark side of mentoring on pre-service language teachers’ identity formation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2016, 55, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimensions of Pre-Service Teachers’ Competencies | Number of Statements |
---|---|
(K) What teachers should know about ESD | 5 |
(D) What teachers should do to implement ESD | 25 |
(V) What teachers should value in ESD | 10 |
Group | Total Years of Experience | Gender | Nationality |
---|---|---|---|
Teacher educators | M = 23.3 years | F (N = 7) M (N = 3) | Jordanian (N = 3), Egyptian (N = 2), Qatari, Iraqi, British, Lebanese, Tunisian, American |
PD specialists | M = 23.8 years | F (N = 9) M (N = 2) | Jordanian (N = 6), Palestinian (N = 2), Egyptian, Yemeni, Indian |
Ministry specialists | M = 22.7 years | F (N = 8) M (N = 1) | Qatari (N = 8), Egyptian |
Teachers | M = 10.4 years | F (N = 13) | Qatari (N = 6), Palestinian (N = 2), Jordanian, Bahraini, Syrian, Omani |
Dim | # | Statement | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | Z-Score Variance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D | 19 | Promote students’ higher-order thinking skills | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0.104 |
D | 11 | Provide active learning experiences | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | −2 | 0 | 0.171 |
D | 12 | Relate classroom learning to authentic local and global issues | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | −3d | 0 | 0.192 |
D | 22 | Build positive relationships with students | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0.192 |
V | 33 | Have empathy | −3 | −4 | −1 | −3 | −1 | −4 | 0.2 |
D | 30 | Reflect on teaching and learning approaches | 0 | 3 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 4 | 0.212 |
D | 27 | Manage students’ challenging behavior | −1 | −3 | −2 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 0.213 |
D | 24 | Maintain an orderly learning environment | −1 | −1 | 2d | 0 | 0 | −2d | 0.279 |
D | 7 | Implement a variety of assessment | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0.283 |
D | 9 | Give feedback to students | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0.304 |
D | 15 | Use digital tools and learning technologies | 2 | 1 | 5d* | 1 | 2 | −1 | 0.324 |
V | 32 | Have collaboration skills | −1 | −1 | 0 | −2 | 3 | −3 | 0.326 |
D | 8 | Use assessment outcomes | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | −2 | 1 | 0.339 |
D | 20 | Encourage social interaction | −3 | −4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | −4 | 0.357 |
D | 26 | Foster emotional connectedness and community | −5 | −5 | −3 | −4 | −4 | −1 | 0.362 |
D | 18 | Make connections between disciplinary and interdisciplinary concepts | 0 | −3 | 1 | −2 | −3 | −3 | 0.37 |
D | 29 | Collaborate with colleagues | −2 | −1 | −1 | −3 | 1 | 2 | 0.397 |
D | 23 | Incorporate classroom management strategies | 3 | −2d* | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.503 |
D | 21 | Accommodate students’ educational needs | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | −2 | −1 | 0.546 |
D | 25 | Enable social-emotional learning | −4 | −5 | 0 | −3 | 2 | −4 | 0.562 |
V | 38 | Demonstrate entrepreneurship thinking | −4 | 1d | −4 | −4 | −2 | −1 | 0.575 |
V | 31 | Have communication skills | 0 | −2 | 2 | −1 | 3 | 3 | 0.586 |
D | 13 | Engage students in cooperative work and self-directed learning | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | −1 | 5 | 0.604 |
V | 36 | Adapt to new situations | −2d* | 1 | 2 | −1 | 4d | 0 | 0.609 |
K | 5 | Have knowledge of local education policies | −2 | −2 | −4 | 2d* | −5 | −5 | 0.642 |
D | 14 | Design teaching materials and resources | 0 | 2d | −1 | −5d* | 0 | −1 | 0.718 |
D | 17 | Use verbal and nonverbal communication strategies | 1 | −3d* | 3 | −1 | 4 | 1 | 0.72 |
V | 34 | Engage in professional learning | −3 | 5d* | −2 | −2 | 0 | −2 | 0.78 |
K | 3 | Have knowledge of curriculum | 5d | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | −2 | 0.864 |
K | 4 | Have knowledge of local culture | −2 | −4 | −2 | 4d* | −1 | −2 | 0.885 |
D | 10 | Implement a variety of instructional strategies | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 | −3d* | 4 | 0.886 |
K | 1 | Have knowledge of learners | 3 | −1 | −3 | 3 | −4 | 3 | 1.008 |
V | 37 | Apply ethical principles | −1 | −1 | −3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1.025 |
K | 2 | Have knowledge of learning | 4 | 2 | −4d* | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1.09 |
V | 39 | Enhance creativity | 0 | 5d* | −1 | −4 | 2 | 1 | 1.213 |
V | 40 | Have integrity | −1 | −2 | 1 | 4 | 5d* | 1 | 1.214 |
D | 28 | Participate in school-decision-making | −5 | 4d* | −1 | −2 | −4 | −5 | 1.281 |
D | 16 | Build on students’ prior knowledge | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | −5d* | 5 | 1.304 |
D | 6 | Design lesson/units | 5d* | 2 | −5 | −5 | −1 | −3 | 1.708 |
V | 35 | Have teacher leadership skills | −4 | 2 | −5d | −1 | 5d* | 1 | 2.035 |
F | N | Explained Variance | Group Membership | Highest Ranked Statement | Lowest Ranked Statement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 17 | 23% | Teacher educators (N = 3) PD specialists (N = 9) Ministry specialist (N = 3) Teachers (N = 2) | 3d (K) 6d* (D) 10 (D) 2 (K) | 28 (D) 26 (D) 38 (V) 35d (V) |
F2 | 3 | 7% | Teacher educators (N = 1) Ministry specialist (N = 1) Teachers (N = 1) | 39d* (V) 34d* (V) 22 (D) 28d* (D) | 26 (D) 25 (D) 20 (D) 4 (K) |
F3 | 2 | 7% | Teacher educators (N = 1) Ministry specialist (N = 1) | 10 (D) 15d* (D) 13 (D) 21 (D) | 35d (V) 6 (D) 38 (V) 5 (K) |
F4 | 5 | 10% | Teacher educators (N = 1) PD specialists (N = 1) Ministry specialist (N = 1) Teachers (N = 2) | 37 (V) 2 (K) 4d* (K) 3d (K) | 14d* (D) 6 (D) 26 (D) 39d* (V) |
F5 | 4 | 6% | PD specialists (N = 1) Ministry specialist (N = 1) Teachers (N = 2) | 35d* (V) 40d* (V) 37 (V) 36d (V) | 16d (D) 5 (K) 28 (D) 26 (D) |
F6 | 3 | 9% | Teachers (N = 3) | 16 (D) 13 (D) 10 (D) 9 (D) | 28 (D) 5 (K) 33 (V) 20 (D) |
# | Statement | Viewpoints |
---|---|---|
3 | Have knowledge of curriculum | 1(+), 4(+) |
4 | Have knowledge of local culture | 1(−), 2(−), 4(+) |
5 | Have knowledge of local education policies | 3(−), 5(−), 6(−) |
6 | Design lessons and units of study | 1(+), 2(+), 3(−), 4(−) |
10 | Implement a variety of instructional strategies | 1(+), 3(+), 6(+) |
13 | Engage students in cooperative work and self-directed learning | 3(+), 6(+) |
16 | Build on students’ prior knowledge | 5(−), 6(+) |
26 | Foster emotional connectedness and community | 1(−), 2(−), 4(−), 5(−) |
28 | Participate in school decision-making | 1(−), 2(+), 5(−), 6(−) |
35 | Have teacher leadership skills | 1(−), 3(−), 5(+) |
37 | Apply ethical principles | 4(+), 5(+) |
38 | Demonstrate entrepreneurial thinking | 1(−), 3(−), 4(−) |
39 | Enhance creativity | 2(+), 4(−) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chaaban, Y.; Du, X.; Lundberg, A.; Abu-Tineh, A. Education Stakeholders’ Viewpoints about an ESD Competency Framework: Q Methodology Research. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031787
Chaaban Y, Du X, Lundberg A, Abu-Tineh A. Education Stakeholders’ Viewpoints about an ESD Competency Framework: Q Methodology Research. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031787
Chicago/Turabian StyleChaaban, Youmen, Xiangyun Du, Adrian Lundberg, and Abdullah Abu-Tineh. 2023. "Education Stakeholders’ Viewpoints about an ESD Competency Framework: Q Methodology Research" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031787