A case study of preservice teacher development using korthagen's three level teacher learning model

Using Korthagen’s (2010) three-level teacher learning model, I conducted a qualitative study addressing a central question: What factors contribute to preservice teacher development of knowledge about teaching during field experiences? Data were collected through interviews, supplemented by observation videos and document analysis. The findings show that participants showed some progress in their knowledge about teaching, which could be attributed to the opportunity to reflect on practice in their university-based courses during their field experience program. Moreover, there seemed to be a difference in the level of the development of knowledge about teaching between the two study participants. This difference could be attributed to subject matter mastery, good instructional support, having more diverse coursework, and having a disposition to focus on students. This study suggests that teacher education should provide experiences in which needs and Gestalts are triggered and elaborated, and preservice teachers are given opportunities to reflect on those experiences.

1. A Case Study of Preservice Teacher Development 

Using Korthagen’s Three-Level
Teacher Learning Model
1
Iwan Syahril 

Michigan State University
Paper presented at the AERA (American Educational Research Association) Annual
Meeting, Washington, DC, April 10, 2016, 10:35am-12:05pm
Marriott Marquis, Level Four, Independence Salon E
This presentation is supported by funding provided by the
Educational Policy Program & the Department of Teacher Education,
Michigan State University

2. What it is not
•Aspects of teacher development such as teacher
identity, teacher effectiveness, etc.
•Sociocultural perspective
2

3. What it is
•Preservice teacher development about how to
teach during field experience



Teacher development is defined by the framework
used in this study, three-level teacher learning
model: with terms such as Gestalt, schematization,
and schema.
3

4. Experiences
with
concrete
examples
Gestalt
(holistic)
Schema
(network
of elements
& relations)
Theory
(a logical
ordering of
the relations
in the
schema)
Gestalt
formation
Schematization
Theory
formation
Reflection Reflection
Level Reduction
Theoretical Framework
(Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Korthagen, 2001; Korthagen, 2010)

5. 5
Teaching is a gestalt-
driven activity!

6. Research Design
•RQ: What factors contribute to preservice teacher
development of knowledge about teaching during the field
experience?
•Qualitative, case study. Participants: 2 teacher interns.
•Data collection: interview, supported by observation videos,
and observation notes.
•Each participant was observed twice, one in fall semester,
and one in spring semester. Each observation was recorded
on the video, and was followed by a post-observation
interview within three days after the observation.
6

7. 7
Findings (1): Gestalt
“I hate when I see my kids start to doze off. I
hate when I’m the boring teacher. I hate
when I feel that way….The culture of that
school is that my kids are always going to
pay attention. They are always going to be
taking notes….I was talking about the Royal
Road, and wanted to convey that it was so
much more efficient having these steps to
pass a message rather than having a person
travel the whole way, and I was like ‘I’m
going to show it. I’m going to do it. We’re
going to test it out.”
Participant A,
Observation 1
Sending
students to
the hallway to
simulate The
Royal Road

8. 8
Findings (2): Schematization
“…I do this a lot, I don’t think it is intentional,
but I like them to come in, get situated, get
their notebook, and then I like to move
them….I feel that when they are out of their
comfort, they tend to focus more because
they are not being distracted by their
personal belongings.“
Participant A,
Observation 2
Moving
students away
from their
belongings

9. 9
Findings (3): Schema
Group 

Work
Participant B. Observation 1 & 2
Social skills in
group work
Scaffolding 

(little manageable activities)
Grouping students

— academic achievement,

— student’s behavior,

— student’s relationships


10. 10
Table 1. Code Frequency
Participant A Participant B
Post obs.
Interview
1
Post obs.
Interview
2
Overall
Post obs.
Interview
1
Post obs.
Interview
2
Overall
Gestalt 660%233%850%00%00%00%
Schematization440%350%744%120%110%213%
Schema 00%117%16%480%990%1387%

11. Compare and
Contrast
•Subject matter knowledge
•The support from mentor
teacher
•More (diverse) coursework
•A disposition to focus on
students
11
Participant A Participant B

12. Structuring reflection
•Reflection is key.
•Structuring reflection in teacher education:

—-> triggering Gestalts, reflecting on Gestalts and
experiences to develop schemas
•Each pre-service teacher has a unique path in his
or her learning to teach.
12

13. The three-level
teacher learning
model
•Strengths: 

1. Could be useful in understanding teacher development.

2. Integrating a number of key concepts
•Weaknesses:

1. Coding issue (Gestalt or schema?)

2. Does not discuss student learning
13

14. Suggestions
•Teacher education program should be tailored to
student teachers’ Gestalts.
•Future studies:

More participants, more observations, following
student teachers to TE courses, longitudinal.
14

15. Questions?
15