Educational Research for Policy and Practice

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

Beginning teachers’ conceptions of competency: implications to educational policy and teacher education in Malaysia

Article

Abstract

When any innovations or measurement procedures are introduced into the education system to improve or judge the quality of its teaching force, beginning teachers often have to adapt to these new concepts of what constitute a high quality teaching. This article contends that these new concepts neither necessarily match beginning teachers’ own conceptions about their own competency nor has it given beginning teachers a chance to be heard. This study provides an opportunity for beginning teachers’ ‘voices’ to be heard through phenomenography which is an interpretive research approach to discover what beginning teachers in Malaysia conceive and understand as competence in relation to what they do every day as teachers. The main finding of this study is the key role played by beginning teachers’ conceptions of competency which has provided strong implications for educational policies and teacher education. The findings suggest that teachers need to be represented in any quality improvement measures. Careful attention should also be paid to the school systems and to teacher training programmes to support and encourage teachers in their professional growth as competent teachers.

Keywords

Malaysia Beginning teachers Conceptions of competency  Educational policies Teacher education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledged each of the 18 beginning teachers involved in this study and who have kindly contributed with integrity and honesty. The authors also would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their constructive comments and feedback.

References

  1. Åkerlind, G. (2002). Principles and practice in phenomenographic research. Paper presented at the current issues in phenomenography conference, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (1994). Educational reform: A critical and post structural approach. Bristol: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowden, J., & Martön, F. (2004). The University of learning: Beyond quality and competence. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  4. Bruce, C., Buckingham, L., Hynd, J., McMahon, C., Roggenkamp, M., & Stoodley, I. (2004). Ways of experiencing the act of learning to program: A phenomenographic study of introductory programming students at university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 143–160.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, J. K. S. (2010). Teachers’ responses to curriculum policy implementation: Colonial constraints for curriculum reform. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, K. (2010). Change is due. The star. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2010/12/19/education/5889535&sec=education.
  7. Chapman, K. (2012). More focus on the job. The star. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2012/5/20/education/11302900&sec=education.
  8. Cheng, Y. C. (2007). Future developments of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region: Paradigm shifts, reforms, and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delandshere, G., & Arens, S. A. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Economic planning unit. (2008). Mid-term review of the ninth Malaysian plan 2006–2010. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.Google Scholar
  11. Economic Planning Unit. (2010). The Malaysian economy in figures 2009. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from http://www.epu.gov.my/malaysianeconomyfigures2009/.
  12. Freiberg, H. J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Universal teaching strategies (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, F. F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: Seventy-fourth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 25–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Futernick, K. (2010). Incompetent teachers or dysfunctional systems? Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from http://www.wested.org/tippingpoint/downloads/incompetence_systems.pdf.
  15. Goh, P. S. C. (2012). The Malaysian Teacher Standards: A look at the challenges and implications for teacher educators. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(2), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goh, P. S. C., & Matthews, B. (2011). Listening To the concerns of student teachers In Malaysia during teaching practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huntly, H. (2008). Teachers’ work: Beginning teachers’ conceptions of competence. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Improving Teaching Practices Via PLC Concept. (2011). The star. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/7/18/nation/9098092&sec=nation. Accessed 13 June 2012.
  19. Ingvarson, L., & Rowe, K. (2007). Conceptualising and evaluating teaching quality: Substantive and methodological issues. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jala, I. (2010). The crux of the matter is quality education – Idris Jala. Malaysian insider. Retrieved on August 1, 2011 from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/article/crux-of-the-matter-is-the-quality-of-education-idris-jala/.
  21. Larsson, J. (2010). Discerning competence within a teaching profession. Retrieved on July 30, 2011, from http://hdl.handle.net/2077/21905.
  22. Malaysia First in Region to Adopt Benchmark for Educators. (2009). The star online. Retrieved on October 1, 2010 from http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/12/3/nation/5225720&sec=nation.
  23. Malaysian Teacher Standards (2009). Putrajaya: Teacher Education Division.Google Scholar
  24. Martön, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Martön, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Key Result Areas. (2010). Literacy and numeracy: Education NKRA lab. Putrajaya: Department of the Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  27. Ng, P. T. (2007). Quality assurance in Singapore education system in an era of diversity and innovation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(3), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ng, P. T. (2010). The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(4), 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ng, P. T. (2012). The quest for innovation and entrepreneurship in Singapore: Strategies and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Page, M. L. (2008). You can’t teach until everyone is listening: Six simple steps to preventing disorder, disruption, and general mayhem. California: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  32. Rodman, G. J. (2010). Facilitating the teaching-learning process through the reflective engagement of pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandberg, J., & Pinnington, A. H. (2009). Professional competence as ways of being: An existential ontological perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), L1138–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schon, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Serafini, F. (2002). Possibilities and challenges: The national board for professional teaching standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Tam, W.M., & Cheng, Y.C. (2007). Teacher educator and professional development for sustainable school effectiveness. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 751–766). Springer International Handbooks of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Toi, A. (2010). An empirical study of the effects of decentralization in Indonesian junior secondary education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to Teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching. London: David Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Wolf, K., & Siu-Runyan, Y. (1996). Portfolio purposes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(1), 30–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia Tanjong MalimMalaysia

Personalised recommendations