CC BY
24
IN-SERVICE EDUCATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN SERBIA1
M. Marusic A. Pejatovic
Analyzing the systems of teacher continuous education, we can focus on the content of the improvement programs, the forms it is organized in, and approach that is underlining this process. According to Hobart (Hobart, 1987: 787) three components can be recognized inside of every system of teacher education: preparation for realizing the specific teaching content - vocational contents, preparation for working in the classroom - pedagogical contents, and preparation intended for personal development of the teacher - developmental contents. The possible approaches in teacher professional improvement system defined by some authors are the deficit approach, based on covering the gaps that are recognized in the teachers’ knowledge and competences. In this kind of systems the improvement is defined by the educational politics authorities. The other one, development approach, tends to transform the implicit theories of teachers, to stir rethinking of their practice and experiences. In this kind of approach, the participants themselves are taking part in the process of goal and content designing (Stankovic i Pavlovic, 2010, 17-40).
In Serbian schools, required education of elementary and secondary school subject teachers is the same - university degree in the relevant subject domain. This fact implies that any faculty can educate the future subject teachers, no matter if it can offer the proper pedagogical preparation as well2. The consequence of these regulations is different level and different kind of pedagogical preparation of subject teachers educated in different faculties and universities. For example, program Teacher of Physics and Chemistry in the University of Novi Sad, offers up to 30% of contents designated to prepare students for the teaching tasks (for example: psychology, pedagogy, chemistry teaching methodic, physics teaching methodic, school practice). Some faculties offer pedagogical courses as optional ones (for example History in the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade does contain: psychology for teachers, basics of pedagogy with didactic, history teaching methodic as optional courses). On the other hand, there are numerous faculties where the future teachers are being educated without any knowledge of pedagogical science or any other kind of preparation designed for school work. The lack of pedagogical knowledge specially refers to the education of teachers of vocational subjects in secondary vocational schools (for example in faculties of machine and electrical engineering, faculties of economics, faculties of law, etc. in 1 2
1 This article is a result of the projects: „From encouraging initiative, cooperation and creativity in education to new roles and identities in society" (№ 179034); „Improving the quality and accessibility of education in modernization processes in Serbia” (№ 47008); ''Models of evaluation and strategies for improvement of education quality in Serbia'', (№ 179060), financially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Serbia (2011 -2014).
2 Described regulations have defined the pre-service education of the present teachers, they have been changed by the law in 2009.
218
all Serbian universities). Reviewing the contents of different faculties infers that the vocational contents are the major ones in the system of pre-service teacher education in Serbia. Having in mind this fact, we can understand that pedagogical knowledge and competences are to be attained during the in-service teacher education.
In Serbian system of in-service teacher education, participation in certain number of educational programs is obligatory, the law demands one hundred hours of teacher training during a five year period. The forms of organizing teacher training are usually short forms, mostly seminars. There are more than 800 programs offered, the content of which covers different school subjects and pedagogical disciplines, for example: methodical contents, identifying and developing certain abilities of students, developments in different vocational areas, quality of textbooks, student evaluation, communication skills, classroom management, active learning etc. The catalogue of professional improvement consists of programs selected out of a bigger number of programs offered by different authors, but it is not based on teachers’ educational needs identification and analysis.
In the 2011 a comparative study was conducted in two countries Serbia and Greece in order to describe teachers’ education and their professional development as well. For the purpose of this article, we will present the data concerning teachers’ professional improvement in Serbia (N=118): how often do teachers attend different forms of improvement; if they have chosen pedagogical contents and which ones; and what their plan for the further improvement of their knowledge is.
Pedagogical contents Never Rarely Vocational contents Never Rarely
seminars 21.4% 32.1% seminars 7% 40%
conferences 61.6% 32.1% conferences 25% 49%
lectures 36.6% 46.4% lectures 12% 43%
Books and magazines 12.5% 45.5% Books and magazines 1% 15%
Internet 13.4% 42.0% Internet 6% 21%
We can see from the table above that the frequency of attendance is much lower for pedagogical topics, for every form of professional improvement named above. Further on, 64 of 118 (54.2%) teachers could name the three pedagogical topics they have learned about lately. Among others, they have named the following domains: (a) didactics, students evaluation; principles of teaching, plan and program; (b) development of educational science, teacher’s personality; (c) different forms of group work and workshops; (d) active teaching, test constructions; (e) educational psychology, classroom communication, self evaluation; (f) special education, adult education. The most frequently chosen topics by our teachers are (1) student evaluation; (2) didactic and (3) methodic, which uncovers where the major lacks of knowledge and the main educational needs of our teachers are located.
In order to learn if the teachers do plan their future professional learning activities, we have asked them about the field of their forthcoming improvement. The field of future professional improvement was defined by 90 teachers, which is
219
76.3% of the sample. We can conclude with big certainty that the rest 23.7% of teachers do not plan in advance the content of their own learning. The named topics of the forthcoming improvement are divided into three categories: various pedagogical topics, both pedagogical and vocational and strictly vocational topics. Examples of the three categories of answers are listed below: (1) Contemporary teaching methods; methodic and didactic; active teaching; multimedia teaching of mathematics; evaluation; psychology and pedagogy; (2) Didactics and economy; both vocational and pedagogical topics; informatics and pedagogy; pedagogy and car diagnostics; (3) Entrepreneurship, marketing; economy; topics concerning Serbian language and literature; marketing, tourism; vocational topics; natural science and ecology. Compared with previous professional improvement, we can expect that the attendance of pedagogical programs will enhance, because the proportion of pedagogical contents is equal to the proportion of vocational contents inside the teachers’ plans for the future learning. This fact which implies that during their practice some teachers come to a conclusion that pedagogical contents are important as well. However, the previous research indicates that the influence of inservice programs is rather forceless and has no implications to teacher theories or to ideas under beneath teacher practice (Kennedy, 1999: 81).
During the short term professional development programs, in the system designed to cover the gaps created during the pre-service education, teachers freely choose certain contents and not to choose other ones. As our research results have displayed, teachers in practice do attend much more vocational content programs then the pedagogical content ones, which can be explained by the fact that teacher appreciates more the areas close to his own knowledge and competences, at the same time, participating in programs with familiar contents he/she feels more self assure. On the other hand, this behavior results in building of vocational competences, related to the subject being taught, and neglecting of pedagogical skills and knowledge. The necessary teachers’ job elements are mastery of the science he teaches but does not apply, and pedagogical knowledge and competences he does not teach but he needs to apply every day. Described situation in Serbian system of in-service teacher education creates a contradiction, since the development exists in the not applied vocational domain, while the applied pedagogical domain remains with the attempts of covering the gaps.
Bibliography
1. Hobart R. B.: Teacher Education for Vocational and Industrial Education, in: Dunkin, M. J.(Ed.) (1987): The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, Beijing, Frankfurt, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto (787-807).
2. Kennedy M. M. (1991): The Role of Preservice Teacher Education, in: Darling- Hammond, L.&Sykes, G. (ed.): Teaching as the learning profession, handbook of policy and practice, Jossey- Bass, San Francisco (54-85).
3. Stankovic, D i Pavlovic, J. (2010): Modeli profesionalnog razvoja nastavnika, u: Polovina N. i Pavlovic, J. (ur.) Teorija i praksa profesionalnog razvoja nastavnika, Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja, Beograd (17-40).
4. Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja (2009), Beograd, Sluzbeni glasnik RS, 72/09.
220
