Getting out the most of the combination of working and learning: The case of teachers-

in-training in Flanders

David Gijbels1, Eva Kyndt2, Lore Peeters1, & Wouter Schelfhout1

1University of Antwerp, Belgium2KU Leuven – University of Leuven

Introduction

Several countries are facing shortages of qualified teachers and have started actions to attract

more people to become teachers. The latest report of the OECD teaching and learning

internationals survey (TALIS) indicates that more than a third of the teachers in lower

secondary education work in schools with a significant shortage of qualified teachers, in

Japan (80%), The Netherlands (71%) and Abu Dhabi (60%) the proportion of teachers

indicating this shortage is even larger (OECD, 2014). Consequently, several countries have

started actions to attract more people to become teachers. One of those actions is the

development of flexible dual routes into teaching in which workplace learning is combined

with a formal teacher training programme (Tigchelaar, Brouwer, & Vermunt, 2010). A case in

point is the in-service teacher-training programme in Flanders (the “learning-in-the-

workplace” or LIW-trajectory). This is an alternative programme in which (student) teachers

learn in parallel at the teacher training institute and “in and from” practice while they have a

(part-time) paid job as a teacher often including full teaching responsibilities. Some of these

teachers-in-training (TiT) even have several years of experience as a teacher before entering

teacher education. Earlier research in this field focused on the one hand on the macro aspects

of this policy (Birkeland & Peske, 2004) and on the other hand on the pedagogical principles

that support the training of these teachers-in-training (Tigchelaar et al., 2010). Although the

formal aspect of the teacher-training programme is very important, the learning in and from

the workplace is typically considered to be more important in general (Tynjälä, 2008) and for

teachers in particular (Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans & Donche (2016).

Practice-based, practice-focused, or practice-centred teacher education (Ball & Cohen, 1999),

wherein practicing teaching is the central element of teacher education already has a long

history (Zeichner, 2012). Essentially it means that a larger part of the initial teacher training

occurs at the workplace, under joint guidance of a mentor in the workplace and a supervisor

from the training institution (Akkerman & Bakker, 2012). The role of the mentor and teacher

1

supervisor is then to help student teachers reflect on their experiences, expecting that they will

learn from successes and failures. While a lot of research has been devoted to identifying

conditions for successful reflective processes (Korthagen, 2001), the reflective practitioner

movement entails a wide variety of perspectives and positions (Hagger, Burn, Mutton &

Brindley, 2008; Parsons & Stephenson, 2005) and there is no consensus as to what constitutes

reflective practice, nor as to which components of initial teacher education programmes are

likely to produce reflective practitioners (Rodgers, 2002). Supporting both practical theorising

as well as reflective practice adapted to phases in the learning process of student teachers,

poses huge challenges to the relative importance of the school and the teacher-training

institute in teacher education (Hagger et al., 2008). A number of these challenges could be

addressed by means of an improved cooperation between teacher education institutions and

schools (Korthagen, Loughran and Russel, 2006).

Despite the fact that combining learning at a training institute with learning in the workplace,

have a long tradition in dual educational programs, and are becoming more and more

common in Germany, Austria, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Denmark and parts of the

Netherlands (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; 2012; Fürstenau, Pilz & Gonon, 2014), a recent

review of Tynälä (2013) showed that most of the existing research focus on learners in one

single context, that is the formal training context or the work context (Endedijk & Bronkhorst,

2014). An interesting exception is the work of Oosterheert and colleagues on individual

differences in how students in teacher training learn during internships (Oosterheert, 2001;

Oosterheert & Vermunt, 2001; Oosterheert, Vermunt, & Denessen, 2002; Endedijk, Donche

& Oosterheert, 2014). They conducted several studies to develop and test a framework

describing individual differences in how pre-service student teachers are learning to teach by

building on concepts such as learning conceptions, learning activities and regulation activities

starting from the idea that learning to become a teacher occurs from both studying course

materials and being involved in internships in which many sources of regulation for learning

can be distinguished, such as mentors and co-workers.

Recently Gijbels, Donche, Van den Bossche, Ilsbroux and Sammels (2014) investigated how

students made use of these different sources available in the training institute (e.g., theory, the

mentor, etc.) and in the workplace (e.g., job demands, peers, supervisors, etc.) to better

understand the learning of learning in internships. They made use of validated questionnaires

derived from the job-demands-control framework (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the work of

Oosterheert (2001) and questioned 117 third year engineering students about their learning

during a long-term internship. Similar questions and instruments were central in the study by

2

Kyndt, Donche, Gijbels and Van Petegem (2014) about learning in internships with 464

students in teacher education. Both studies found interesting relationships between the

investigated variables but at the same time stressed the limitations of a quantitative approach

to fully grasp the factors that play a role in students’ learning during internships and to get a

more contextualized picture. In the present study we therefore aim to qualitatively explore

which work-related and training-programme related factors facilitate or hinder the learning in

the context of teachers-in-training. The theoretical framework used to answer this question is

the job-demands-control-support model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). This model provides an

interesting resource-based heuristic for studying work-related learning and entails factors that

can be generalized across different contexts. This model has made it possible in quantitative

research to investigate how job-characteristics such as job demands, job control and social

support (at work and within the training programme) can explain work-related learning

behaviour of the student teacher (see e.g. Kyndt, Donche, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2014). We

argue that the model can also provide a rich lens to look to learning of teachers-in-training

from a qualitative perspective. Below, we briefly explain the theoretical model and the central

concepts.

The Demands-Control-Support Model

Karasek’s job demands-control model (JDC model, Karasek, 1979) and the derived job

demands-control-support model (JDCS model) are leading models in research into the

psychology of work (De Jonge, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). The model is

well known for research investigating stress at work. The widely investigated and ample

confirmed ‘strain hypothesis’ puts forward that stress will occur in a situation where there is

minimal job control and social support but job demands are high. The model is far less known

but not necessary less promising for investigating learning in a working context. The so-called

‘active learning hypothesis’ suggests that learning occurs when people have a high degree of

job control and job demands especially when social support is high (Schaufeli, Bakker & De

Jonge, 2003; Taris & Kompier, 2005; Taris, Kompier & Wielinga-Meijer, 2006). Below we

elaborate more on the three main dimensions in the JDCS model: psychological job demands,

job control and social support.

Job demands refer to “those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the

job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort”

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). A demanding job means for instance that someone has

to complete a great deal of work within a limited space of time (De Witte, Verhofstadt, &

3

Omey, 2007). Recent research has shown a curvilinear relationship between workload and

learning opportunities, meaning that increased workload will first improve opportunities for

workplace learning but when the demands are too high, this will result in a lower quality of

the learning experience of the employees (Van Ruyssenveldt & van Dijke, 2011). On the

other hand, boredom can explain why too little job demands is also not beneficial for learning.

Job control refers to workers’ control over their work processes, in other words, the ability to

make decisions and the opportunity to exercise a degree of control over the work to be carried

out (De Witte et al., 2005). A work situation is believed to offer more learning potential if the

dimensions of job demands and job control are in balance (Lucas & Unwin, 2009).

Social support refers to the existence of good relations with colleagues and supervisors, being

able to rely on others, obtaining accurate information via others, and gaining actual help,

understanding and attention when difficulties are encountered (De Jonge et al., 2003). The

nature of the way in which employees mutually support one another and the manner in which

a person’s superiors show their understanding will, to a considerable extent, determine

whether the pressure of work will develop into work stress. The most favourable effects on

work-related learning are expected when job demands, job control and social support are all

high (e.g., Gijbels, Raemdonck, & Vervecken, 2010; Gijbels, Raemdonck, Van Herck, &

Vervecken, 2012; De Jonge, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003).

Learning in the workplace differs to a great extent from learning in the context of education.

The latter is based on formal, de-contextualised, intentional and planned learning activities

while learning in the context of work is usually informal, contextualised, not planned and

accidentally (Tynjälä, 2008). Teachers-in-training are explicitly learning in the formal context

of the teacher training program as well as the informal context (with regard to learning) of the

workplace.

Previous research on learning at the crossroads of a formal training program and an informal

workplace context using the JDCS-model hold a plea for more qualitative research in order to

better understand the role of occupation specific and organisation specific job characteristics

in learning at the workplace (Gijbels et al., 2014). Consequently, the central research question

of the present study is:

How do job demands, job control and social support contribute to the learning (in the

workplace) of teachers-in-training.

4

Method

The Context of the Present Study

The “learning-in-the-workplace” (LIW)-trajectory gives someone the opportunity to start

working as a teacher and simultaneously follow an on-the-job-learning-program. in order to

get his teaching diploma. In a LIW-trajectory student teachers (‘teacher in training’) will

teach autonomously without the permanent presence of a mentor in the classroom and they

will function as (often fully) employed teachers in the school. This means that they will not

only teach their classes, but also fulfil all other responsibilities associated with a teaching job.

According to the regulations, the LIW-student should be coached in the workplace by a staff

member of both the teacher training institute and the school. The latter should be appointed as

the “mentor” who coordinates the support of the pre-service trainees. As part of this context

learning in the workplace does not only imply working. It also includes formal learning.

Therefore the LIW-students have to participate in formal education issued by a teacher-

training institute and their teaching job at the school should be part of a structurally organized

and cognitively supported training at the workplace.

Sample

All the students (N = 18) that were enrolled in the LIW-trajectory (academic year 2012-2013)

aiming to get a degree for teaching in secondary education at the teacher training institute of

the first author were contacted via e-mail at the start of the academic year with the request to

participate in this study. In the case of non-response to the initial e-mail, a reminder was sent

two weeks after the initial invitation. A total of 11 teachers agreed to participate (see Table 1)

and participated in a semi-structured interview.

Table 1: Overview of participants in the study

Respondent Sex Discipline Years of teaching experience

Respondent 1 Male Philosophy 1

Respondent 2 Female Physics 1

Respondent 3 Female Mathematics 1

Respondent 4 Male Philosophy 1

Respondent 5 Male Applied linguistics 8

Respondent 6 Male Chemistry 2

Respondent 7 Male Economics 1

5

Respondent 8 Female Biology 2

Respondent 9 Male History 2

Respondent 10 Female Language and linguistics 1

Respondent 11 Male Language and linguistics 7

Instrument

The interview questions (see appendix A) were based on the theoretical framework discussed

in the introduction of this paper and the research question. In a first step, a pilot was

conducted with one regular student in teacher training to have an indication of the length of

the interview and to check for the clarity of the questions. In the second step, the 11 teachers

that agreed to participate were interviewed. On average, the interviews took about 40 minutes.

The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim and coded (see

Table 2) using the Nvivo-software. Coding was both deductive and inductive. The starting

point for the coding-schema was deductive starting from the JDCS-model. This resulted in

three main codes: job demands, job control and social support. Based on the specific context

in which the teachers-in-training are learning, social support was further divided in five

categories: support from the colleagues in the school, the mentor at the workplace, the

supervisor from the teacher-training program, the principal of the school and the peers in the

teacher-training program. In a final inductive step, the main code ‘job demands’ was further

divided in three sub codes ‘high expectations, variety in tasks and work-pressure’ based on a

first reading of the transcribed interviews. The final coding scheme is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Coding scheme

Job demands

High expectations

Variety in tasks

Work pressure

Job control

Social support

Support from colleagues in the school

Support from the mentor at the workplace

6

Support from the supervisor from the teacher-training program

Support from the principal of the school

Support from the peers in the teacher-training program

Results

Below the results of our analyses are reported and illustrated with citations from the semi-

structured interviews (references are made to the original Dutch transcripts).

Job Demands: High Expectations

All except two respondents report that the schools in which they are working as a teacher

have as high expectations for them as for ‘regular’ teachers and they consider this beneficial

for their learning

“(…) nobody treats me as an intern because most colleagues even do not know I am

still in training and they also do not care, I am just a colleague like the others and…

yes actually this is the way I learn most” (Respondent 3, rule 91-95)

Some students (n = 2) report they would even prefer that their schools would have even

higher expectations. The role of the mentor and the degree to which the mentor is expecting

more innovative forms of teaching seems to be important there.

“(…) it would be nice if they would expect more from me… because then you will do

also other things and will try to do things in a different way and then you can learn

more…” (Respondent 10 , rule 99-103)

On the other hand the expectations from the training institute are considered to be too high

and not supportive for their learning in the workplace (mentioned by five respondents), but

this – importantly – also in interaction with reduced opportunities in the schools to try out

these more innovative forms of teaching as expected by teacher training.

“… yes, you actually do not euh, often you even do not reach the minimum for the

preparation of a lesson and euh… the things you should apply … that you learned in

the training… there is no possibility to give them a try so eh, you fall back on routines

and the learning process goes slow” (Respondent 6, rule 102-106)

Job Demands – Variety in Tasks

7

Eight teachers in training indicated that they experience a huge variety in tasks in their work

and they consider it their own responsibility to look for variety in order to foster their own

learning

“ Oh yes, yes, for sure…. There is much more than just teaching at school… there is

much more… not just teaching a lesson…. No it is not like that at all…” (Respondent

3; rule 140-142)

The variety in tasks is considered to be supportive for learning according to these respondents.

These respondents mentioned working in projects or other initiatives (like organising a sports-

day) to illustrate the variety in tasks and considered these to be interesting learning

opportunities.

“Oh yes, because you get to know your colleagues better, you also do this in the staff-

room and so but if you are involved in a project-group you see also other students and

that can only be positive to learn new things myself” (Respondent 1, rule 168-171)

Three respondents considered the variety in tasks as less supportive or even contra-productive

for their learning. These respondents indicate that they would prefer to focus more on the

teaching itself. All respondents agreed that their job is a challenge for them, mainly because

of the students they are responsible for. However, the challenge is considered to support their

learning.

“if you are not challenged by your job, I think you go reluctantly to work and... you do

not learn new things or you do not see new opportunities to do other things and it can

get boring in the end... but luckily this is not the case for me as I continue to learn new

things in my job...” (Respondent 8, rule 165-171)

Job Demands – Work Pressure

Work pressure is considered as high by all respondents and seems to be caused mainly by the

combination of tasks from the training institute and the work in the school (mentioned by nine

respondents) and is considered by some as beneficial for learning ‘to become more resistant

to stress’ (mentioned by four respondents) and as a barrier for their learning for others

because ‘you do have less time to reflect on things’ (mentioned by four respondents). Work

pressure seems to conflict with taking time to learn from experiences in a more focused way,

for example by means of reflective conversations with the mentor and/or supervisor. However

8

although work pressure is considered to be high, most respondents do not report stress on the

job. It is rather the combination with the training program that is considered to be stressful.

“... no stress for the job although it is a lot of work...but no... rather the combination”

(Respondent 5, rule 85-88)

Job Control

Most respondents (n = 8) indicate that they have the possibility to work rather autonomous at

the workplace and they see this as beneficial for their learning.

“ they let me… free so to speak… to do things myself so that I can learn more things

on my own” (Respondent 10, rule 70-72)

Some respondents (n = 2) experience too much structure and do not feel that much

challenged to look for new things. The daily demands of the work context seem to inhibit the

gradual creation of a broader framework.

“…in my school…there is a lot of control… for me it limits me and I feel inhibited to

do things… as soon as things get too structured it becomes difficult to teach in a

spontaneous way and I get… well stressed is a big word but… you cannot do what you

would like to do you know…but I have the feeling that… you have to learn by yourself

anyway.” (Respondent 7, rule 73-80)

Social Support

Seven respondents report that the feedback and support from the mentor at the school is of

much importance for their learning – both content wise and for practical issues.

“… the support I get from my mentor now makes me better at changing things if things

go wrong and so I learn more from what I do different because my mentor makes it

clear for me without… controlling me or so… that is a great support” (Respondent 8,

rule 332-336)

Further the respondents differ in their experiences about the support from the supervisor

from the training institute. Four respondents experience the support as very useful and a

valuable addition to the feedback of the mentor. For two respondents the number of visits

from this supervisor should increase:

9

“…because then I really reflect upon myself, you do not see yourself always in that

way, there are things you simply do not think of yourself and that you can try to do in

a different way”( Respondent 3, rule 278-281)

Nevertheless and quite striking, the supervisor from the training institute is for the other

respondents mainly considered relevant for practical issues and does not seem to have much

impact on their learning:

“it is mostly about procedures and what I have to do when, practical issues”

(Respondent 2, rule 458-460)

Six respondents indicated having rather little contact with the school principal but do

consider her or his support or ‘acceptance’ as important.

“ (…) they really are understanding if I say I cannot do some things… because… they

also changed my timetable… on Wednesday I am free so that I can go to the

university…they really are considerate…” (Respondent 3, rule 383-387).

All respondents did consulted their colleagues in the school with questions and when facing

problems. Most respondents consider the colleagues to be the most valuable source for

learning:

“I always had the feeling that, okay, I first go to my colleagues when I have a question

or I do not know how to deal with something or when I am uncertain about the content

of my lesson” (Respondent 1, rule 359-252)

“… the most important are the colleagues, from them I learn most, also just in the

coffee room… even if there is almost no coffee and it is not a decent room …”

(Respondent 2, rule 491-494)

Most respondents indicated that they do know their peer students in the teacher-training

institute but that they do not consider them as persons to learn from (the latter is mentioned by

two respondents), they are only ‘used’ for practical issues.

“...yes for practical issues it is good to have your peer students because...in the

beginning it was difficult to figure out who to contact and using the different websites

and registration systems and on top blackboard... for these issues the peer students are

good to consult.” (R10, I10, 310-314)

10

Finally, nearly all the teachers-in-training reported another actor to be of great importance for

their own learning: their own students and how they respond to their teaching activities.

Conclusion and Discussion

In this study the aim was to explore which work-related and training-programme related

factors facilitate or hinder the school-based learning of teachers-in-training. The job-demands-

control-support model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) has been used as a heuristic framework to

analyse 11 interviews with teachers combining a paid job as a teacher with an enrolment in an

alternative teacher-training programme: the LIW-trajectory. When developing the coding

scheme, job-demands were further subdivided in our study in three categories: high

expectations, variety in tasks and work-pressure. The results of our interview study support

earlier research (e.g., De Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007) that concludes that high

expectations make a positive contribution to the learning process. Furthermore, the results

indicate that a high variety in tasks results in more learning opportunities. With regard to

work-pressure, our results indicate that work-pressure was mainly caused by the combination

of working and studying. Although the combination was seen by some as helpful to become

more resistant to stress, none of the respondents reported that the tasks they had to do in view

of the formal training programme facilitated their learning as a teacher. On the contrary,

several respondents indicated that the workload hindered them to find time for reflection.

Also with regard to job control, the results of this study are in line with earlier research

(Lohman, 2006; Lucas & Unwin, 2009) and show that the teachers in training experience high

degrees of autonomy in their job and that they consider this to be beneficial for their learning.

Based on the specific context in which the teachers-in-training are learning, social support

was subdivided in five categories: support from the colleagues in the school, the mentor at the

workplace, the supervisor from the teacher-training program, the principal of the school and

the peers in the teacher-training program. Our results indicate that the mentor in the school

and the colleagues in the school are considered as the most important actors to support the

learning of teachers in training, which is in line with some earlier research with regular

teacher training students (Deketelaere, Kelchtermans, Robben, & Sondervorst, 2004; Lucas &

Unwin, 2009; Coetzer, 2007). This research further adds that also the pupils who the teachers-

in-training are teaching are an important source for learning. Nor the peer students in the

teacher-training programme nor the supervisors from the training institute are considered to

be supportive for the learning of most teachers in training. Teachers-in-training consider their

11

support mainly of value for practical issues, but not so much for fostering their learning.

Finally, the teachers-in-training do not expect feedback on their performance from the

principal of the school but they do acknowledge that the principal is important in creating a

supportive environment for learning (also see Krecic & Grmek, 2008).

An important opportunity created by the LIW-trajectory is that the students’ learning can be

fostered by the formal teacher education context as well as the work context. It is a goal of the

trajectory to make efforts to attune both learning contexts. An important challenge there is one

the one hand how to learn from experience, but on the other hand not to step into the pitfall of

merely dealing with these experiences. This dilemma already has been put forward by

Calderhead (1989) and McIntyre (1993) and became more specific in the research of Hagger,

Burn, Mutton and Brindley (2008). In fact the results of the study at hand show that also the

LIW-trajectory falls short in creating an effective interaction between both contexts. A

number of causes can be identified. Quite often mentors take limited initiative to deliberately

link the practice experiences to a broader and gradually growing more complex theoretical

framework. Opportunities to continuously improve the quality of the reflective processes as

proposed by for instance Korthagen (2001) are not often seized. There are different reasons

for this that can be assigned to shortcomings in the role of the mentor as well as in the role of

the teacher educator. Related to the role of the mentor, a huge challenge is of course that the

coaching process is a very intensive, time-consuming trajectory with high demands for the

student teachers (combination of teaching, working in the school, learning from this practice,

studying and attending classes in teacher education) and the mentors (intensive coaching

trajectory with limited time). Former researcher observed that mentors are often not able to

invest additional time for individual coaching when needed (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Ingersoll

& Strong, 2011). However more time does not automatically lead to coaching that makes

students reflect on their teaching in a more critical way making use of a broader range of

theoretical background knowledge (see also Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Some teachers in

training in this study indicate that feedback by the mentors can also remain limited to rather

traditional ways of teaching, especially focusing on knowledge transmission and following

the existing course materials (Schelfhout, Dochy, Janssens, Struyven, Gielen & Sierens,

2006). Therefore it is necessary to support and train mentors in their role as a coach, taking

into account present-day insights on learning and teaching. As also discussed in the research

of Snoeck and Struyf (2012) other (subject) teachers/colleagues could be motivated to join the

mentor in giving support and coaching to the teachers in training, bringing in different

educational backgrounds and thus broadening the range of feedback.

12

But not only the role of the mentor should be improved. Teacher education and teacher

trainers have an essential responsibility in taking workplace learning to a higher level

(Furlong & Smith, 2013; Hagger, Mcintyre & Wilkin, 2013). Looking at the previously

mentioned call for a wider range of involvement in the coaching during the LIW-trajectory, it

is only logical that sufficient communication needs to occur. Both mentors and student-

teachers imply that the teacher-training institutes should take the lead in this. As Snoeck and

Struyf (2012) suggest, this process should be regarded as forming an actual cooperation with

schools, which demands mutual participation in formalizing the coaching and evaluation

process of the LIW-trajectory. Teacher training institutes should allow schools to have a say

in the implementation of these engagements and if necessary the institutes can adapt the LIW-

contract to the needs, capacities and pedagogical position of the school. We agree with

Snoeck and Struyf (2012) that this could create an efficient way of putting a vision on

coaching and evaluating into practice. Based on the results of our study we want to stress the

need to be able to impose a minimum quality in mentoring the workplace learning of the

student teachers.

The results of this study identified some missed opportunities for fostering learning in the

workplace by the teacher-training programme; both regarding the perceived work-pressure

and social support the respondents reported little added value for their learning coming from

the formal teacher-training programme. This is in contrast with the mainly positive

experiences reported by the teachers-in-training of their perceptions of the job demands,

control and support at their workplace and seems to indicate that different approaches to

support the learning of these teachers-in-training need to be explored by the teacher training

institute in this study.

This brings one of the main weaknesses of this study to the fore; all the teachers-in-training in

our study were enrolled in the same teacher training programme, hence strong claims about

alternative teacher training programmes in general cannot be made. The current study did

however point to the necessity of aligning formal learning and learning in the workplace in

order to create optimal learning opportunities. While our knowledge about teacher

development in formal training programmes is extended, research on teacher learning in the

workplace and how accompanying formal learning programmes could foster this is still

limited. The approaches as put forward by Hagger, Mcintyre, and Wilkin (2013) seem to be

able to make a difference and could form a sound basis for reforming our teacher training

institution.

Finally, although the JDCS model seems to provide an interesting framework to analyse

13

learning in this contexts in a qualitative way, it also has some limitations. One of these

limitations is that the model does not take personal factors into account (Raemdonck, Gijbels,

& van Groen, 2014). Nevertheless personal factors such as teachers’ attitudes towards

learning are important to explain differences in learning outcomes of teachers’ everyday

professional development (Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans, & Donche, 2015). This study did not

take teachers’ attitudes towards learning into account but this might be one interesting

personal variable to consider in future research when further exploring which work-related

and training-programme related factors facilitate the in-service learning of teachers in

training. Including a more person-oriented approach is likely to yield more diagnostic and detailed

information than the variable-centred approach, and can help us to understand

for whom and under which condition the combination of school and work is beneficial and

when a barrier.

14

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of

Educational Research, 81, 132-169.

Akkerman, S.F., & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing boundaries between school and work during

apprenticeships. Vocations and Learning, 5, 153-173.

Bakker, A.B, & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a

practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes

(Eds.), Teaching as a learning profession (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Ball

& Cohen, 1999)

Birkeland, S.E., & Peske, H.G. (2004). Literature review of research on alternative

certification. Washington D.C.: National Education Association.

Calderhead, J. (1989) Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 7(5/6), 531–535.

Coetzer, A. (2007). Employee perceptions of their workplaces as learning environments.

Conditions for teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher education, 24,

59-68.

De Witte H., Verhofstadt, E., & Omey E. (2007). Testing Karasek's learning and strain

hypotheses on young workers in their first job. Work & Stress, 21, 131-141.

Deketelaere, A., Kelchtermans, G., Robben, D., Sondervorst, R. (2004). Samen voor de

spiegel: Een werkboek over de begeleiding van beginnende leraren. [together for the

mirror: a book to guide novice teachers] Cahiers voor didactiek, 17. Wolters Plantyn:

Mechelen.

Endedijk, M. D., Donche, V., & Oosterheert, I. (2014). Student teachers’ learning patterns in

school-based teacher education programmes: The influence of person, context and time. In

D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T.E. Richardson & J.D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in

Higher Education. Dimensions and Research perspectives (pp.102-122). Routledge:

London.

Endedijk, M. E., & Bronkhorst, L. H. (2014). Student’s learning activities within and between

the contexts of education and work. Vocations and Learning, 7, 289-311.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review. ERIC Digest.

Furlong, J., & Smith, R. (2013). The role of higher education in initial teacher training. New

York: Routledge.

15

Fürstenau, B.; Pilz, M. & Gonon, Ph. (2014): The Dual System of Vocational Education and

Training in Germany – What Can Be Learnt about Education for (Other) Professions. In: S.

Billett; Ch. Harteis & H. Gruber (Eds.): International Handbook in Professional and

Practice-based Learning (pp. 427-460) . Dodrecht: Springer.

Gijbels, D., Donche, V., Van den Bossche, P., Ilsbroux, I., & Sammels, E. (2014).

Understanding work-related learning: The role of job characteristics and the use of

different sources of learning. In T. Halttunen, M. Koivisto & S. Billett (Eds.), Promoting,

Assessing, Recognizing and Certifying Lifelong Learning: International Perspectives and

Practices (pp. 97-107). Springer: Dordrecht.

Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., & Vervecken, D. (2010). Influencing work-related Learning: The

role of job characteristics and self-directed learning orientation in part-time vocational

education. Vocations and Learning, 3, 239-255.

Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the potential

of school-based teacher education. McGraw-Hill Education.

Hagger, H., Burn, K., Mutton, T., & Brindley, S. (2008). Practice makes perfect? Learning to

learn as a teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 159-178.

Hagger, H., Mcintyre, D., & Wilkin, M. (2013). Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based

teacher education. New York: Routledge.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for

beginning teachers a critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research,

81(2), 201-233.

Jonge, H.A de, Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D, & Bongers, P.M. (2003). The

very best of the millenium: Longitudinal research and the Demand-Control-(Support)

Model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282-305.

Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-307.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the

reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking

practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. London: Routledge.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for

teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-

1041.

16

Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem. (2014). Workplace learning within

teacher education: Exploring the role of job characteristics and goal orientation.

Educational Studies, 40, 515-532

Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I. & Donche, V. (in press). Teachers’ everyday

professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning

outcomes. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654315627864

Lucas, N., & Unwin, L. (2009). Developing teacher expertise at work: In-service trainee

teachers in colleges of further education in England. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, 33, 423-433.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom in teaching

and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 225-240.

McIntyre, D. (1993) Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education, in: J.

Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds) Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. London,

UK: Falmer Press.

OECD. (2014), New Insights from TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning in Primary and

Upper Secondary Education, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Onstenk, J. (2010). Coaching and collaborative work-based learning in Dutch VET: The

‘TEAMstages’ project. In E. Smith & F. Rauner (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship:

Research findings of the international network of innovative apprenticeship (INAP) (pp.

161–170). Dordrecht: Springer

Oosterheert, I. (2001). How student teachers learn. A psychological perspective on knowledge

construction in learning to teach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Groningen, The Netherlands.

Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001) Individual differences in learning to teach:

Relating cognition, regulation and affect. Learning and Instruction, 11, 133-156.

Oosterheert, I., Vermunt, J.D., & Denessen, E. (2002). Assessing orientations to learning to

teach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 41-64.

Parsons, M. & Stephenson, M. (2005) Developing reflective practice in student teachers:

collaboration and critical partnerships, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,

11(1), 95–116.

Rodgers, C. (2002) Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.

Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.

Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Struyven, K., Gielen, S., & Sierens, E. (2006).

Educating for learning-focused teaching in teacher training. The need to link learning

17

content with practice experiences within an inductive approach. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 22, 847-897

Shaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & De Jonge, J. (2003). De psychologie van arbeid en gezondheid.

[The Psychology of Work and Health.] Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum: Houten.

Snoeck, I., & Struyf, E. (2012). The inservice-teacher-training in Flemish schools: Does

practice make a (more) perfect teacher? A perspective on coaching and evaluating. Journal

of Workplace Learning, 24(4), 286-298.

Taris, T., Kompier, M., & Wielinga-Meijer, E. (2006). Leren op het werk: Een

handelingstheoretisch perspectief. [Learning at Work: an Action Theoretical Perspective.]

Gedrag en organisatie, 19(1), 68-90.

Taris, T.W., & Kompier, M.A.J. (2005). Job characteristics and learning behavior: Review

and psychological mechanisms. Occupational Stress and Well Being, 4, 127-166.

Tichelaar, A., Brouwer, N., & Vermunt, J. (2010). Tailor-made: Towards a pedagogy for

educating second-career teachers. Educational Research Review, 5, 164-183.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review,

3, 130 - 154.

Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations

and Learning, 6, 11-36.

Van Ruysseveldt, J., & Van Dijke, M. (2011). When are workload and workplace learning

opportunities related in a curvilinear manner? The moderating role of autonomy. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 79, 470-483.

Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 63(5), 376-382.

18

Appendix A: semi-structured interview questions (original questions in Dutch)

Introductory questions

1) What is your age

2) What is your highest degree? What jobs did you do in the past?

3) In which grade do you teach at the moment? What courses?

4) How long do you work as a teacher in training (TiT) already?

5) Your previous profession was... why did you switch to teaching?

6) Why did you make the choice for the TiT program?

7) What were your expectations of being a TiT when you subscribed?

Questions to set the scene

1) Do you have the feeling that you learned a lot in the past months at your work?

2) De you experience stress at work? If so, why?

3) The internship for a TiT is the same as your work. You need to learn the profession for

the most part by doing in this way. Do you have the feeling that you have sufficient

opportunities to learn?

Job demands

1) TiTs are expected to do the job of a regular teacher. Which demands do you

experience? Do you consider this to be achievable? Why?

2) You have indicated that you consider the demands achievable/not achievable. Do you

think that these low/high demands have an impact on your learning process or

achievements? (Do you learn better/worse at your workplace because of these

low/high demands?)

3) How would you describe your work as a TiT? Can I say from this description that you

have a variety of tasks? Do you learn more/less at your work because of this variety?

Why?

4) To what extent is your job a challenge for you? Does this affect the extent to which

you as a TiT learn something about the teaching profession?

5) Do you consider being a TiT as an appropriate way to learn the teaching profession?

Why? Why not?

6) How would you describe your work pressure? Do you think that your work pressure

has an impact on the extent to which you learn at work? If so: How?

Job control

19

1) You just have described your work pressure as too high/low. Do you have the

possibility to adapt your work pressure towards your own needs? Do you think this

has an impact on what you can learn as a TiT? Why? Why not?

2) To what extent do you have the possibility to work autonomously (e.g. making

decisions, choosing the topic of a lesson,..). What is your opinion about this? What is

the impact according to you of the extent to which you can make decisions

autonomously on your learning process and achievements?

3) Do you think that the extent to which you can make decisions about your tasks

autonomously has an impact on your learning process as a TiT?

4) What do you thing about your involvement in the school? Is this important according

to you in order to learn something?

Social support

1) How do you get feedback about your performance as a teacher? Do you think that this

feedback supports your learning as a TiT?

2) Are you satisfied about the guidance you get? Would you prefer a different way of

guidance? How? (Individual or in group?) Do you think that this guidance will help to

improve your performances as a teacher?

3) Do your mentor at the workplace and the supervisor from the training institute meet to

discuss things every no wand then? What do you think about this?

4) Whom do you consult if you have difficulties at work? I show you some cards and you

can tell me from whom you expect most support and why (cards with: colleagues in

the school, the mentor at the workplace, the supervisor from the teacher-training

program, the principal of the school and the peers in the teacher-training program) Are

there any other persons that you consult when you experience problems?

5) You just stated that you experience most support from... What impact has this support

on your learning process as a starting teacher? In other words; do you think that the

support from.... has an impact on the extent to which you learn something on the

workplace?

6) How is the relationship with your colleagues (e.g. collaborations)? To which extent do

you consider your colleagues to be important for your learning performance?

7) What is the role of the principal in your learning as a TiT? Do you consider the

support of the principal to be important in order to be able to learn at the workplace?

Concluding question

20

1) We have discussed three factors that can have an impact on your learning as a TiT: job

demands, job control and social support. Is there anything that you would like to add

to what you have already told me?

21