Teacher Efficacy and Culture: the start of a lit review

Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to support a comparative study of teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers from Malaysia and New Zealand. It seeks to answer the question, ‘Is the construct of teacher efficacy interculturally transferable?’ by exploring the contribution made by research in three areas: teacher efficacy, national culture, and the potential impact of national culture on teacher efficacy beliefs. Consequently, a number of sub-questions are posed: What is teacher efficacy? Why is it considered to be of importance? How might the construct of culture be conceptualised usefully? And how might culture impact on the measurement and understanding of teacher efficacy?
Both conceptual and empirical literature sources are considered. The literature for this review was selected after careful use of academic search engines and the use of reference lists of extensively cited papers. As teacher efficacy is a comparatively small field it was not necessary to set search limits. This was also the case when searching for ‘teacher efficacy and culture’, where very little research was evident. However, ‘culture’ is an extensively researched and theorised concept. Pragmatism guided the selection of literature exploring this area, with a focus on those sources supported by a functionalist methodology. Of these, Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) dimensions of culture was selected for discussion, due to its widespread use (Oettingen, 1995).
Teacher efficacy, a teacher’s belief about his or her ability to impact on student performance (Ho & Hau, 2004), is widely considered to be related closely to student success (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Much of the existing research about the efficacy beliefs of teachers has been conducted in Western countries, notably the United States (Ho & Hau, 2004). However more recently a number of studies have explored teacher efficacy in more diverse settings (Cheung, 2006; 2008; Gorrell & Hwang, 1995; Ho & Hau, 2004; Lin & Gorrell, 1998; Rich, Lev & Fischer, 1996). These studies have begun to investigate the impact of culture on this construct. Culture is defined by Hofstede (2007) as the: “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (p. 413). Hofstede’s model is used widely in empirical research on the effects of national culture (Williamson, 2002).
The remainder of this literature review is divided into three sections: 1. Teacher efficacy; 2. Research about culture; and 3. Culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. Each section address questions outlined above and concludes with a discussion. The review then closes with a brief general conclusion.

Section One: Teacher Efficacy

Why is Teacher Efficacy Important?

Teacher efficacy beliefs are a teacher’s beliefs about his or her own ability to bring about student engagement and success in both motivated and less motivated students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Empirical research appears to suggest that positive teacher efficacy beliefs lead to teachers who are: more committed (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Trimble, 1986); enthusiastic about their work (Allinder, 1994; Guskey 1984; Hall, Burley, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1992); less likely to leave the profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982); persistent, resilient, and less critical of failing students (Ashton & Webb, 1986); more likely to try innovative methods and be open to new ideas (Allinder, 1994; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Cousins & Walker, 2000; Guskey, 1988; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Smylie, 1988); use ‘hands on’ teaching methods more regularly (Riggs & Enochs, 1990); and show signs of more effective planning and organisation (Allinder, 1994).
Hoy and Spero (2005) have argued that the importance of research into pre-service teachers’ professional efficacy beliefs is underlined by the apparent resilience of these beliefs once they are formed. Moreover, research has found that the teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers are linked to attitudes towards children and classroom control (Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), and have been found to closely match external appraisal of pre-service teacher competency (Walker, 1992).
Furthermore, the literature indicates that students taught by teachers with high teacher efficacy beliefs: demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, Loewen, 1988); were more motivated (Midgeley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990); were higher achievers (Anderson, Greene & Loewen, 1988; Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox, King, McDonnel, Pascal, Pauly, & Zellman, 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992; Watson, 1991); and were more positive about their teachers and school (Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990).

What is Teacher Efficacy?
Over the last three decades, teacher efficacy (sometimes called teaching efficacy), has evolved from Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Wheatley, 2002). However, it could be seen to draw more heavily on Bandura’s (1977) study of self-efficacy, evident in his social cognitive theory (Wheatley, 2002). Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy (2002), argue that these two conceptual strands have resulted in confusion surrounding the term ‘teacher efficacy’. They point out that whereas some educators have presumed Bandura’s (1977) perceived self-efficacy and Rotter’s (1966) internal locus of control are for the most part corresponding, there are important differences: the former refers to belief about one’s own ability to bring about an outcome, while the latter refers to beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes. Bandura (1997) has used data to demonstrate empirically that there is at best a weak correlation between these two constructs. He argues that self-efficacy is a strong indicator of behaviour, whereas internal locus of control is not.
In response to this confusion, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy (1998) have developed a model of teacher efficacy that: “reconciles the two competing conceptual strands found in the literature” (1998, p.202). They look to Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory for context and task analysis. However, they assume that the most significant influences on teacher efficacy beliefs are the ‘attributional analysis’ and interpretation of Bandura’s (1977, 1995) four sources of information about efficacy: mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion.
According to Bandura (1995), the most powerful source of efficacy beliefs comes from what he terms mastery experience. Although failure can undermine self efficacy beliefs, success can lead to strong beliefs about one’s self efficacy. Bandura (1995) argues that negative mastery experiences are particularly damaging to self efficacy beliefs before they are strongly established. A second source are physiological and emotional states, though he argues that it is not the intensity of these that is significant in the formation of self efficacy beliefs, but rather how they are interpreted. They can be seen as either stimulating or debilitating factors. Bandura’s (1995) third source of self-efficacy belief comes in the form of vicarious experiences. He argues that when people see others like them succeed or fail it can have a powerful effect on their own self efficacy beliefs; the greater the similarity of the role model, the more significant their influence. Bandura (1995) states that social persuasion is more likely to convince people that they are not efficacious than it is to promote positive self efficacy beliefs. Once a negative belief is in place, behavioural validation often follows. However, he argues that realistic positive verbal persuasion can lead to greater, more sustained effort.
Two factors of teacher efficacy are commonly identified (Guskey, 1988; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), yet there has been much discussion as to their meaning. The least contested is that of personal teaching efficacy (PTE): “a teacher’s belief that they can facilitate learning” (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002, p. 936). However, the second factor, often called general teaching efficacy (GTE) is the belief that teachers in general can overcome external factors such as students’ destructive home backgrounds (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002). It is in this second factor that differences in Bandura’s (1977) and Rotter’s (1966) conceptual frameworks seem to be evident: Hickman (1990) preferred the term external influences which relates to Rotter’s (1966) construct of external control (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), whereas others such as Gibson & Dembo (1984); Emmer & Hickman (1990); and Soodak & Podell (1996), have looked to Bandura’s (1977) second component of social cognitive theory: ‘outcome expectancy’ (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model offers two different, but related dimensions: “self perceptions of teaching competence” and “teaching task and its context” (1998, p. 228). The former is similar to PTE, where an individual estimates their strengths and their weaknesses in a particular context and forms a self efficacy belief. The latter, like GTE, balances the positive and negative factors evident in the teaching environment. This model recognises that teacher efficacy beliefs are in fact context-specific.
Labone (2004) has suggested that a weakness of the research into teacher efficacy is that it has not considered the context sufficiently. She applauds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model for its inclusion. Furthermore, she points out that their model is more cogent of meaning perspectives.

Criticisms of Teacher Efficacy
There is evidence in the literature of a critical response to the theoretical frameworks that underpin teacher efficacy beliefs, the empirical research that supports them and the research paradigm within which much teacher efficacy research has been based. Wheatley (2002) has argued that much of the available research confuses correlation with cause: the fact that effective teachers are found to have high level of teacher efficacy does not, in itself, prove that it is the high levels of teacher efficacy that have led to the effective practice. Furthermore, he posits that self doubt is important, resulting in learning, reflection, collaboration and “responsiveness to diversity” (Wheatley, 2002, p.13). Walker (1992) cited research which suggested that student teachers had unhelpfully unrealistic views of their own abilities and were overly optimistic.
Labone (2004) notes that teacher efficacy research has been largely quantitative as a result of its roots in psychology. She heeds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s (1998) call: “to expand and enrich conceptions of teacher efficacy to include other perspectives and methodologies appropriate for their investigation” (1998, p. 203), by arguing that both interpretivist and post-structuralist paradigms have much to offer teacher efficacy research.

Discussion of Teacher Efficacy
Most of the literature reviewed here suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs are indeed important and result in better teacher and student experience. By grounding theory and research in Bandura’s theory of self efficacy, teacher efficacy can become a useful construct for supporting the development of pre-service teachers. However, the dissenting voices of Wheatley (2002) and others are important reminders of the dangers of falsely attributing causation when such conclusions are unwarranted.
Wheatley’s (2002) critique may suggest that further clarification of what is meant by teacher efficacy doubts is needed. He states that: “’Teacher efficacy doubts’ is used here to encompass everything from mild uncertainty to profound doubts about one’s efficacy...” (2002, p. 8). Such a broad definition would seem to be unhelpful. Some uncertainty may well lead to some of the benefits outlined previously; it resonates with Mezirow’s (1991, 2001) theory of transformational learning, where learning is triggered by a ‘disorientating dilemma’ when the learner finds their beliefs to be undermined by current circumstances. This leads to critical reflection and deep learning. However, ‘profound doubts’ may be more likely to result in paralysis. Hoy and Spero (2005) posit that self efficacy beliefs about learning to teach are needed to respond successfully to doubts.
This literature review supports Labone’s (2004) observation that research on teacher efficacy is largely quantitative. Her suggestion that interpretivist and critical theorist paradigms would both provide depth to the construct and educational reform are noted. Cheung’s (2008) mixed methods research may provide a way forward as it is capable of bridging the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, offering both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) to the study of teacher efficacy beliefs.


Section Two: Research about Culture
How Might ‘Culture’ be Usefully Considered?
Culture is explored extensively in the research literature, where functionalist (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992; and Trompenaars, 1993), interpretivist (Hammersley, 1992), and post-structuralist (Doherty and Singh, 2005; Prescott & Hellsten, 2005; and Singh, 2005) paradigms are evident. There is evidence that cultural research is problematic, contested, and reflects ideological conflict: Tuiha-Smith (1999) suggests that: “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” and Crozier asks: “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (2005, p. 95).
The word limit of this review allows only for a partial engagement with this wide-ranging topic. Therefore, this section will restrict its focus to research in the functionalist paradigm and in particular Hofstede’s (2001) research of dimensions of culture The functionalist paradigm is selected as a result of the credibility of the large scale studies focusing on limited variables, the comparability of findings, and what Williamson (2002) refers to as its ‘parsimony’, which enables more effective communication to both academics and practitioners. Hofstede (2001) is the primary focus of this review as his dimensions of culture have been cited extensively in the literature (McSweeney, 2002; Oettingen, 1995; Williamson, 2002) and offer a useful framework for examining the cultural impact of teacher efficacy beliefs (Oettingen, 1995). This section of the literature review begins with a brief summary of Hofstede’s (2001) research, it then considers McSweeney’s (2002) critique of Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) research, and finally it concludes with a discussion of the construct.

Hofstede’s (1980; 2001) Dimensions of Culture
Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 2007, p. 423).
Hostede’s (1980, 2001) research, originally comparing employees of IBM (a company with a global presence) from 40 nations, has now been extended to compare 74 nations (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Using matched data, Hofstede’s (2001) analysis resulted in four dimensions of cultural difference: power difference; uncertainty avoidance; collectivism/individualism; and masculine/feminine. Based on his findings he then speculated about how these dimensions would be likely to be manifest in a number of contexts including educational establishments.
1. Power Difference (PD)
According to Hofstede (2001), cultures which are high in power difference are more tolerant of inequality. He suggests that this is evident in education, where learning is likely to be more teacher-centred and students less likely to see their teachers as equals. Hofstede (2001) speculates that in high PD settings students would be expected to show respect when meeting teachers and not be seen to challenge their authority. Interviews of Chinese students conducted in New Zealand by Holmes would appear to support this. One explained: “It is very impolite to ask teachers questions... [one should] not challenge [the teacher] in class. If you have problems, you can ask the teacher after class, not in class, because that makes [the teacher] feel embarrassed” (2005, p. 299).
2. Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)
Societies rated as being high in UA are more likely to adhere to absolute truths and prefer the security of structured, clear and predictable situations. Strong codes of conduct are more evident. Hofstede (2001) suggests that such societies can also be more intolerant and more aggressive. In contrast, low UA societies are more comfortable with ambiguity and more tolerant of difference. In education, students in high UA settings are said to prefer structure and correct answers, learn that truth is absolute, and see teachers as having all the answers.
3. Individualism/Collectivism (IC)
This dimension is also identified in a number of other studies, including Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003); Triandis (1989); Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990), and is identified by Levine (2007) as the being the dominant theoretical perspective steering research in cross-cultural and inter-cultural matters. Collectivist societies might be defined as societies where people are likely to belong to ‘in-groups’ to which they owe considerable loyalty. This is contrasted with individualistic cultures where people are more likely to focus on their own needs and the needs of their immediate families.
Hofstede (2001) argues that in collectivist societies, the in-group/out-group distinctions developed within the family are transferred to schools where children from different ethnic backgrounds often form sub-groups. Conversely, individualist classrooms are more likely to aspire to meeting the unique needs of the student, and the ideal of critical engagement and discussion (Hofstede, 2001). Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003) and VonDrass (2005) have found links between learning success and IC orientation.
4. Masculinity/Femininity (MF)
Hofstede suggests that masculine societies are more aggressive, competitive, and place stronger emphasis on gender difference. Traditional parenting roles are advocated with a societal expectation that women will be caring and men will be professionally successful. He argues that academic failure or success is much more significant in the lives of people in masculine societies, where poor performance can even lead to suicide. In more feminine societies, social skills are seen as more important and friendly teachers are valued more than academically outstanding ones.

McSweeney’s Critique of Hofstede’s Research
McSweeney undermines Hofstede’s model by critiquing its research paradigm, premises and findings. Firstly, he joins Anderson (1991) in his claim that nations are ‘imagined communities’ and Wallerstein (1990), who claims to be: “sceptical that we can operationalise the concept of culture...in any way that enables us to use it for statements that are more than trivial’ (p.34, cited in McSweeney, 2002, p.89). Secondly he identifies five ‘flawed’ assumptions upon which Hofstede’s theory is based:
1. IBM employees share a company culture and an occupational culture, therefore difference is likely to be explained by national culture
2. National culture is identifiable at the micro-level
3. National culture creates questionnaire response
4. National culture can be identified by response difference analysis
5. Culture is the same in any circumstance within a nation
(McSweeney, 2002, p. 95-107).
Williamson (2002) has noted that McSweeney (2002) disputes the value of functionalist paradigm, but then critiques Hofstede’s research from within it; contesting both the reliability and validity of his findings. He argues that such an inconsistent approach results in McSweeney’s (2002) critique itself being ‘flawed’. Despite a robust rebuttal of McSweeney’s (2002) conclusions, he acknowledges that three significant warnings should be heeded: firstly, the danger of imagining that people within nations are homogeneous and all share cultural attributes; secondly, that individuals are not ‘cultural dopes’ whose values and behaviour are completely culturally determined; and thirdly, readers of Hofstede’s research should be wary “of confusing scores for cultural dimensions, for which they are but approximate measures” (2002, p. 1391).
Research about Culture: Discussion
Mason argues that the concept of culture is hugely problematic. Societies are comprised of diverse individuals and are situated in a world that is: “characterised by increasing degrees of plurality, multiculturalism, interdependence, hybridity and complexity” (2007, p. 169). He warns that researchers of culture can: “face accusations of stereotyping, treating culture as monolithic and overstating its influence in a hybrid world characterised by complex interactions and influences” (p. 166). Indeed, such criticisms have been addressed to Hofstede (2001) by McSweeney (2002), yet, Hofstede has stated:
We do not compare individuals, but we compare what is called central tendencies in the answers from each country. There is hardly an individual who answers each question by the mean score of his or her group: The ‘average person’ from a country does not exist” (1991, p. 253).
In the light of this, it is perhaps less likely that readers will interpret his dimensions as being absolute and evident in all the citizens of a particular nation. It may be that Williamson’s (2002) pragmatic approach is valuable to those who would use this model; he recognises Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions provide only a: “rough approximation... [of the] complexities of cultural worlds” (2002, p. 1384), yet he celebrates: “the great advances it has made in unbundling the black box of culture” (2002, p. 1392).


Section Three: Culture and Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
How Might Culture Impact on the Appraisal and Measurement of Teacher Efficacy Beliefs?
This section considers how culture affects teacher efficacy beliefs. Firstly, it reviews Oettingen’s (1995) analysis of how each of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions (power difference; uncertainty avoidance; individualism/collectivism; and masculinity/femininity) might affect the weighting, selection, and integration of Bandura’s (1977) sources of self efficacy beliefs (mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion). Secondly, it examines the findings of the limited number of empirical studies researching culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. This section then closes with a brief discussion of the topic.
Culture and Self Efficacy Appraisal
Oettingen (1995) suggests that sources of efficacy vary across cultures in their prevalence, forms, and value. Praise may be used more sparingly in some cultures, feedback might be given more readily to groups than individuals in others, and being ranked first in the class may be of more value in some cultures than others. Oettingen (1995) explores these ideas by using Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions.
Power difference (PD): drawing on Hofstede’s (1980) ideas that parents and teachers have considerable authority in high PD societies, Oettingen (1995) suggests that the importance of the beliefs of ‘superiors’ will take on much greater significance for social persuasion in high PD societies. In low PD societies, the teacher’s opinion is more likely to be dismissed as invalid and questioned by students and their families. She speculates further that negative emotional arousal resulting from the: “unquestioned authority of teachers” (1995, p. 154) might more readily affect self efficacy beliefs in high PD societies. She suggests that this authority extends to vicarious experience, where peers may be seen through the eyes of the teacher. Those in low power difference societies are presented as having more opportunity to: “become creators of their own performance history” (1995, p. 154), thus having greater control over the mastery experience information that they internalise.
Uncertainty avoidance: Oettingen (1995) claims that in high UA settings, self efficacy beliefs are built through regular performance feedback and peer ranking throughout one’s formal education. She suggests that verbal feedback from influential others is also likely to be direct and unequivocal. In contrast she presents low UA societies as being less influenced by such social appraisal and having more potential for self-appraisal, allowing for more ‘self-enhancing’ judgements.
Individualism/collectivism: The in-group places an important role in the formation of self efficacy beliefs for those from collectivist cultures according to Oettingen (1995). It is this in-group that is most likely to be socially persuasive in the formation of self efficacy beliefs and also to offer suitable role models allowing vicarious experience to become a significant source of such beliefs. It is further suggested that group identity plays a much stronger role in collectivist societies, with group feedback being an important source of mastery information
Masculinity/Femininity: Oettingen (1995) argues that people in masculine societies place greater emphasis on competition as a source for self efficacy beliefs. Mastery is confirmed by demonstrating greater success than one’s peers. Emotional states can carry considerable weight in self efficacy evaluation under these circumstances.
Oettingen (1995) theorises that Bandura’s (1989) claim that strong self-efficacy beliefs result in greater persistence in the face of difficulty, lessened fear of failure, improved thinking skills, and raised aspirations, is in fact applicable universally. However she does acknowledge that the public expression of strong efficacy beliefs can be costly in some cultures, although she notes that: “collectivist individuals should feel no qualms about showing a strong sense of efficacy to members of out-groups” (1995, p. 170). She argues that despite the expected difference between the group welfare promoting goals of collectivists and the self-actualising goals of individualists, self efficacy beliefs are likely to be a predictor of goal achievement for both groups.

Empirical Studies on Culture and Teacher Efficacy.
Ho and Hau’s (2004) study of Chinese and Australian teachers led them to conclude that the construct of teacher efficacy was cross-culturally valid. However, they also found that it contained culturally specific elements. Whereas student guidance efficacy and control efficacy dimensions were individually evident for Australian teachers, these were integrated in the data collected from the Chinese students. They suggest that this reflected the more parent-like responsibility accepted by Chinese teachers. They also found that the Australian teachers recorded higher levels of teacher efficacy than the Chinese teachers in all areas, including discipline. They attribute this to both the culturally expected self-effacing tendencies of people from collectivist cultures and the higher expectations of teachers evident in Chinese society.
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor have also claimed that teacher efficacy belief: “draws heavily on cultural differences from country to country” (2002, p. 37). They suggest further that the two factor approach may be insufficient to measure teacher efficacy beliefs in different settings. They report that although Rich, Lev and Fischer’s (1996) Israeli study found a two factorial structure similar to those in US studies, Gorrell, Ares, and Boakari (1998); Gorrell, Hazareesingh, Carlson and Stenmalm-Sjoblom (1993); Gorrell and Hwang, 1995; Lin and Gorrell, (1998); (1999), found that the concept of teacher efficacy is: “more differentiated than was previously found and is strongly influenced by uniquely cultural variables” (2002, p. 37). They also found that pre-service teachers from different cultures reported different degrees of teacher efficacy. This is evident in their research where U.S. pre-service teachers are recorded as reporting higher teacher efficacy beliefs than their Taiwanese peers (Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002) and is further supported by the research findings of Ho and Hau (2004).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor (2002), have highlighted important differences on individual efficacy items that may reflect both culture and context. Taiwanese pre-service teachers placed more emphasis on the need for successful relationships with parents and had an increased awareness of the difficulty of teaching large classes. Moreover, they also suggested that Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) instrument for measuring teacher efficacy beliefs may not be suitable for use in cultures with different perspectives about teaching.
Cheung (2006; 2008), used Kennedy and Hui’s (2006) Chinese version of Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSE). This Hong Kong Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (HK-TSE) was found to be valid and reliable in the Hong Kong context. Cheung (2008) extended this study by collecting further data from teachers in Shanghai for comparison. After further translation, the Shanghai Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (S-TSE) was developed. In this study qualitative data was also collected asking participants to identify the sources of their efficacy beliefs. Cheung (2008) noted that the Shanghai teachers recorded significantly higher scores in the survey. He suggested that this may in part be explained by: “a cultural preference for being modest” (2008, p. 119).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor’s (2002), Ho and Hau’s (2004), and Cheung’s (2006, 2008) research highlight differing cultural understanding of the role of the teacher, and how culture may obfuscate the meaning of answers given to the same question by those from diverse backgrounds.

Discussion of Teacher Efficacy and Culture
The reviewed literature acknowledges the intercultural validity of teacher efficacy research, yet it cautions that cultural factors must be considered if research findings are to be of value. Cheung’s (2008) study highlights that even within one nation, culture might distort answer selection. Oettingen (1995) drawing on Hofstede (1980), presents ideas of how culture might affect the selection, integration, and weighting of sources of self efficacy beliefs. She uses Hofstede’s (1980) framework and research as a warrant for her ideas, yet it would appear that extensive empirical research is needed to validate them further.
It is apparent that questions still need to be asked about what TE might mean in non-western cultures, about differences in understanding of the role of the teacher, how TE beliefs might be strengthened in a variety of settings, and how teacher education programmes influence the building of TE beliefs in culturally diverse cohorts of pre-service teachers. The reviewed literature suggest that intercultural studies investigating teacher efficacy beliefs are valuable, but complex.
Conclusion
This literature review has identified limited, yet credible empirical research that suggests that teacher efficacy is interculturally transferable (Lin, Gorrell & Taylor, 2002; Ho & Hau, 2004; Cheung, 2006; 2008). Furthermore, it has been able to identify a survey instrument that can be used in a range of settings: Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (Cheung, 2006; 2008). Further research is clearly needed to expand this body of knowledge as little is known about: how TE beliefs are formed in non-western cultures; how different understanding of the role of the teacher might impact upon TE beliefs; and how TE beliefs might be strengthened in a variety of settings. Such research is justified by the considerable work that suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs are important to teachers and students. However inter-cultural TE studies should take into account discussions of culture which recognise it as a powerful force in peoples’ lives, but also as a complex and often unsatisfactory construct that at best approximates shared beliefs and behaviour.

References
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, O., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York: Longman
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Pyschological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Burley, W.W., Hall, B.W., Villeme, M.G., & Brockmeier, L.L. (1991). A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Cheung, H.Y. (2006). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 435-451.
Cheung, H.Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: a comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai Primary School Teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103-121.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Cousins, J.B., & Walker, C.A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, (special issue), 25-53.
Crozier, G. (2005). Is ethnography just another form of surveillance? In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford, (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. London: Elsevier
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution and reasoned action. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Evans. E.D. & Trimble. M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self efficacy and commitiment to teaching among pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Glickman, C. & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first year, fifth year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558-562.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.E. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure and effect on student achievement. American Education research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Gorrell, J., Ares,N., & Boakari, F. (1998). Beliefs in school efficacy: An expansion of notions of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Gorrell, J., Hazareesingh, N.A., Carlson, H.L., & Stenmalm-Sjoblom, L.S. (1993). A comparision of efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in the United States, Sweden, and Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Canada.
Gorrell, J., & Hwang, Y.S. (1995). A study of self-efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in Korea. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 101-105.
Guskey, T.R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259.
Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self concept, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.
Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Ho, I.T., & Hau, K.T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313-323.
Holmes, P. (2005). Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand university [Electronic version]. Communication Education. 54(4), 289-311.
Hoy W.K., & Spero, R.B (2005). Changes of teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Hoy. W.K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research, 27, 279-300.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4), 411-420.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hwang, A., Francesco, A. M., & Kessler, E. (2003). The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 72.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the concept through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341-359.
Levine, T. R. (2007). Some conceptual and theoretical challenges for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 205-221.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs in Taiwan. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(1), 17-25.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1999). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 17(5), 623-635.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Education Research, 96(2), 37-46.
Mason, M. (2007). Comparing cultures. In Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds) Comparative Education Research (pp. 165-196). Hong Kong: Springer.
McSweeney, B. (2002).Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.
Meijer, C., & Foster, (1988). The effect of teacher self efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378-385.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2001). Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Midgeley,C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J., (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, and school climate: a desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross cultural perspectives on self-efficacy In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Social Research Methodologies, 8(5), 375-387.
Parker, M.J., Guarino, A.J. & Wade Smith, R. (2002). Self-efficacy in a sample of education majors and teachers. Psychological Reports, 91, 935-939.
Prescott, A., & Hellsten, M. (2005). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: The international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten, (Eds) Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy, (pp. 75-96). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Centre.
Rich, Y., Lev, S., & and Fischer, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 1015-1025.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education 74, 625-638.
Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of student coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 71, 51-65.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Saklofske,D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviours. Pyschological Report, 63, 407-414.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 1-65.
Singh, M. (2005). Enabling transnational learning communities: Policies, pedagogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30.
Soodak, L. & Podell, D. (1996).Teacher efficacy: Towards an understanding of a multi facetted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-412.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker,C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multi method probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 395-415.
Trompenaars. F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Economist Books.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A.E., (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A.E., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tuiha-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books: London.
VonDras, D. D. (2005). Influence of Individualism-Collectivism on Learning Barriers and Self-Efficacy of Performance Ratings in an Introductory Life-Span Development Course. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society in Los Angeles.
Walker, L. (1992). Perceptions of pre-service teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-system. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 31-55.
Wheatley, K.F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and teacher Education,18, 5-22.
Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s national culture. Human Relations, 55(11), 373-1395.
Woolfolk, A.E., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Woolfolk, A.E., Rossof, B., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and teacher Education, 6, 137-148.

Reseach Methodologies - Too many choices?

Introduction
In the first part of this post I will be using Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart as a framework for exploring a number of approaches commonly used in educational research. While Lather (2006) recognises that discussion of research paradigms involves “multiplicities and proliferations” (p. 35), with shifting permeable borders, she usefully categorises current research as being; positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, or deconstructivist. I will frame my own research question in an approach from each of these paradigms: quantitative ex post facto research (positivist); ethnographic case study (interpretivist); action research (critical theory); and poststructuralism (deconstructivist), and will then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of conducting my research in each of these ways. In the second part of this post, I will make a case for what Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) call ‘methodological pluralism’ and explore ‘mixed methods’ as my chosen approach, together with its paradigm, design and methods. Prior to engaging in these discussions I will define ‘methodology’ and contextualise my research.
Crotty (1998) defines methodology as: “the strategy, plan of action, process of design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (p. 3). Here, I have taken a slightly broader view to include ‘research paradigms, approaches, methods and instruments’. Research Context
I am currently employed by an institution preparing to provide a teacher education programme to New Zealanders and Malaysians; I believe that research into the culturally informed beliefs about the practice and purpose of primary education of these two groups could enhance the teaching and learning of both. This is supported in the literature where Korthagen (2004) has shown the importance of teachers pre-training beliefs, and Hofstede (2001) has found significant difference in beliefs about education between cultures. This is further underlined by Prescott and Hellsten’s premise that cultural difference can disrupt learning. It is my intention to be able to present colleagues with a valid and useful body of information with regard to this topic.
Part One: A brief exploration of four approaches to research
1. Positivism - Ex post facto research
Morgan (2007) has argued that what is often referred to as ‘positivism’ is in fact a construct devised by the opponents of quantitative research methods as an epistemological ‘straw man’ to knock down in order to legitimise a new research order. Similarly, Shadish (1995) has claimed it is used as a ‘rhetorical device’ aimed at discrediting opponents. Schrag (1992) has suggested that such use has resulted in, “the term long been emptied of any precise meaning” (p. 5). This issue notwithstanding, the label remains useful for exploring the themes associated with the paradigm which are often recognised by “friends and foes alike” (Schrag, 1992 p. 5). For the purposes of this essay I will follow Ary et al. (2006) in defining positivism as a philosophical view that posits that the social world is governed by principles which are ‘out there’ and discoverable by means of the “traditional scientific approach” (p. 25).
Exploring the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers within the positivist tradition would not lend itself to experimental or quasi experimental research; however, similar studies have used non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Hofstede’s (2001) landmark exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees is a good example of this. He adopted a realist ontology and with careful use of large questionnaire samples and statistical analysis, he portrayed dimensions of culture which he deemed to be universal (Williamson, 2002).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions could be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. A hypothesis might be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference as compared to New Zealand pre-service teachers.
Using standardised surveys administered to both populations of students measuring attitude, numerical responses such as on Likert scales would be used to generate data for statistical analysis (Burns, 1997). This would be used to test the hypothesis, and to check for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al. 2006).
This approach would, in some respects, lend itself to elements of this study, offering a number of advantages, but would also present a number of disadvantages. Lather (2006) reports a resurgence of positivist methodologies, reporting that the National Research Council see them as the ‘gold standard’. Indeed, Fairbrother (2007) has reported a shift away from “explanatory studies towards studies employing statistical information and quantitative data analysis procedures” (p. 45) within the field of comparative education. It is therefore likely that such an approach and its related methods would give greater credibility to its finding in the eyes of some audiences. Moreover, there is an academic security and wisdom in using an established model for examining culture which has been used in highly regarded studies such as those by Hofstede (2001), Schwartz (1992), and Trompenaars (1993).
The arguments against the use of such an approach for this study are significant both at an epistemological and a methods level. While the generated data may been viewed as a credible picture of the beliefs of the two cohorts of students, it may prove to be lacking in richness and inadvertently lead to a diverse group of students being seen as a homogenous unit and so labelled, perpetuating what Singh (2005) calls the, “psychosocial imaginings of absolute difference” (p. 10).
A further objection to my use of such a methodology could be its epistemological foundation of objectivity. In a study of this nature “there is no Archimedean point” (Guba, 1990, p. 19), as every stage of the process involves my subjective, culturally formed assumptions (Crotty, 1998) (It is not possible to fully engage with this complex and contested argument here).
Some of these ideas will be returned to at a later stage in this essay, where I will argue that mixed methods research could simultaneously take advantages of the strengths of this approach while compensating for some of its shortcomings.
2. Interpretivism - Ethnographic case studies
While it could be argued that quantitative methods are synonymous with positivism, qualitative methods are identified with interpretivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Interpretivism has been described as ‘anti positivism’ as it is antithical to positivism’s ‘normative paradigm’ (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Cohen and Manion (1994) argue that, “the central endeavour in the context of the interpretive paradigm is to understand the subjective world of human experience” (p. 37). Within this tradition ‘realities’ are multiple and created by discourse (Lather, 2006). Interpretivism offers a wide array of approaches. A popular choice amongst similar studies to mine is an ethnographic case study of a people group (Hammersley, 1992). A comparative investigation of the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers could be achieved by exploring both the convergence and divergence of groups. These case studies would employ non-participant observation as the method, ideally observing pre-service teachers and primary pupil interaction during initial practicums. Observations would be supplemented by semi-structured interviews (Burns, 1997).
Proponents of such an approach may argue that it offers a number of advantages over the previous one: firstly it makes no pretence at achieving objectivity. Acknowledging its subjectivity, it seeks to construct a picture of the beliefs of the two groups of pre-service teachers. Readers of the research are invited to interpret it as such and would be provided with autobiographical and bracketing material which would allow them to build a picture of the researcher as an instrument of data collection (Guba et al., 1994).
However, a number of practical issues could potentially reduce the success of this approach. Firstly, gaining access to classrooms in order to observe is likely to be difficult. Secondly, the volume of data collected in an ethnographic case study is large and requires significant time spent in observation and data processing (Burns, 1997).
Furthermore, such an approach has an unfortunate legacy, closely associated with colonialism and oppression. Consequently, Crozier (2005) has asked, “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (p. 95) Moreover, the history of white, middle class males investigating the ‘Other’ has led to Linda Tuiha-Smith (1999) to suggest that “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). While she argues that researchers must critique their own ‘gaze’ as they view the ‘Other’ through imperial eyes and then represent them, this approach, like the previous one, may still lead to the stereotyping of the exotic other and not acknowledging the potential heterogeneity evident amongst the populations examined.
3. Critical Theory - Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Critical theory builds upon the interpretivism’s key tenets of subjectivity, multiple truths and constructed reality by arguing that such truths are constructed politically (Lather, 2006). PAR is one of a number of approaches with an emancipatory agenda. (For a detailed discussion on an epistemology for PAR see Schӧn (1995)).
Carr and Kemmis (1986) have defined PAR as:
A form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understandings of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (p. 162).
Practitioner research has explicit intentions, and involves, “recursive cycles of plan, act, observe, and reflect” (Zeichner & Nofke, 2001, p. 159). These cycles present a way of systematically investigating aspects of practitioner experience, in a range of areas and levels of critique. The scope of action research is wide-ranging as are the multiple methods available for practitioners to investigate questions that are unique to their circumstances.
PAR warrants careful consideration as it is aligned to the purposes of my study and speaks directly to some of the weakness of the ethnographic method as the researcher becomes in a real sense the subject of their own research (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). Within this framework the research question would investigate an intervention.
The complexity of delivering a teacher education programme to Malaysian and New Zealand students presents lecturers with significant challenges; amongst these are overcoming potential cultural barriers, avoiding the seeing of difference as ‘deficit’ and encouraging interaction between the nationals of the two countries. In addressing these challenges PAR would present interventions which encouraged the challenging of current assumptions and facilitated efforts towards resolution and equity. A possible (PAR) hypothesis might be:
The formation of mixed culture study groups would facilitate integration and communication between the Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers.
If employed, Lewin’s recursive cycles of action and evaluation (Burns, 1995) could result in an ever improving model of education involving not just one lecturer/researcher, but a team of lecturers/researchers and the pre-service teachers themselves. The value of such has been established in the literature (Elliot, 2001; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998).
However, once again practical considerations present significant barriers to my effective employment of this approach. While I am indirectly involved with the Malaysian programme, I am not a member of the teaching staff and would not be in any position to engage with the programme while it was running. Furthermore, the Malaysian students will not be arriving at my university until 2010, whereas I intend to begin my research during 2009.
My own professional development issues have also been a significant factor in my decision to reject it. Despite valuing the tacit knowledge of educators found in the ‘swamps of practice’ (Schӧn, 1995), and finding agreement with the goal of a producing a localised study with the intention of improving practice (Ary et al. 2006), I believe it is important for me to engage with an approach more likely to, “produce knowledge that is testably valid, according to the criteria of appropriate rigor, ...(as) claims to knowledge must lend themselves to intellectual debate within academic (among other) communities of inquiry” (Schӧn, 1995, p. 27).

4. Deconstructivist- post structuralism:
Deconstructivism is based on the premise that ‘reality’ cannot be known and socially constructed ‘truths’ contradict themselves (Lather, 2006). Within this paradigm, post structuralism offers a highly subjective approach to research, which not only rejects the possibility of objectivity, but views its pretence as ‘violence’ visited on the marginalised ‘other’ (Davies, 1994). Thus ‘objectivity’ represents a hegemonic subjectivity. Based on the ideas of the French post-structuralists, notably; Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (Ninnes & Burnett, 2003), this approach challenges what might appear to be “common-sensical, obvious, natural, given or unquestionable” (MacLure, 2003, p. 12) by deconstructing the discourses, which according to the post-structuralists, create the ‘truths’ of which they speak.
My investigation of difference and similarity between two cohorts of students would need to be adapted to fit a post-structuralist approach such as critical discourse analysis. Luke (1995) argues that critical discourse analysis, “departs from much mainstream research with its focus on how power and identity are legitimated, negotiated, and contested toward political ends” (p. 12). In this guise my study could become an exploration of power relations and agency amongst Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers and their New Zealand lecturers, or perhaps could expand to critically examine globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education. However, in my opinion, neither meets my objective of providing colleagues with findings which can enhance their provision for pre-service teachers.
Researching the macro issues of globalisation and international issues, could create a fascinating study as previous work by Singh (2005), Ninnes (2005) and Doherty and Singh (2005) have shown. However it is unlikely to be of immediate value to colleagues and pre-service teachers participating in the teacher education programme. Researching power relations and, destabilising ‘authoritative discourses’ (Luke, 1995) in the micro context of my university would be arguably unethical and counter-productive. This degree programme is in its infancy and undergoing a time of construction, once it is established and running, deconstruction may prove to be of value in evaluating the programme, but not now. Even at that stage this approach may prove to be unwelcome as it would be examining colleagues, viewing them as ‘colonizers’ (Davies, 1994).
While the reasons for rejecting this approach for my study are robust, post-structuralism does offer up some valuable insights that will inform my research. These include the examination of teacher education “as an arena where dominant sociocultural discourses compete to construct and position teachers and students” Luke, 1995, p. 10). An awareness of culturally informed ‘discourses’ about effective primary education could enhance my study.
Part Two: My chosen approach- mixed methods
In the remainder of this essay I will explore my chosen approach: mixed methods, and justify my choice of it to engage with my research questions. I will begin by briefly discussing quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, next I will argue that pragmatism provides a robust philosophical framework that supports mixed methods. Following this, I will describe the mixed methods approach and how it is a rich resource for the educational researcher. Finally, I will consider how my choice of this method aligns itself to the approach and will be used to collect and process the relevant data.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research
In the first section of this essay I followed Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart in dividing research into four paradigms, while a simpler distinction could have separated quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative research has been briefly explored under positivism and qualitative research under the following three paradigms. For purposes of clarity the remainder of this essay explores mixed methods against a background of qualitative or quantitative research.
Mixed methods - paradigms
Lather (2006) has argued that: “paradigm talk is a good thing to think with” (p. 35). Indeed, Morgan (2007) makes good use of it in his justification of mixed methods research where he claims the ‘metaphysical paradigm’ is ‘exhausted’. Critiquing Lincoln and Guba’s iconic trilogy of concepts: ontology, epistemology and methodology, he questions both the boundaries imposed on different research paradigms and the interpretation of Kuhn’s ‘incommensurability’. He maintains that dialogue between paradigms is not nearly as problematic as ‘methodological purists’ would suggest. One such ‘purist’, Guba (1990) has written, “Accommodation between paradigms is impossible... we are led to vastly diverse, disparate and totally diverse ends” (1990, p. 81).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) respond to this by suggesting that there is now considerable agreement between many qualitative and quantitative researchers who share a consensus over the following seven points:
1. The relativity of the “light of reason” (reason is relative and varies among people)
2. The theory ladenness of facts (we attend to ‘facts’ according to our worldviews and experiences)
3. Underdetermination of theory by evidence (alternative theories may also fit the data)
4. The Dunhem-Quinne thesis (tests cannot be isolated from our assumptions)
5. The problem of induction (we are not able to prove something absolutely only suggest what is probable)
6. The social nature of the research enterprise (research communities impact on the beliefs of the researcher)
7. The value-ladenness of enquiry (objectivity is an impossible ideal as researcher values are present at all stages of an enquiry)
(p. 16. NB words in brackets my own paraphrases of original explanations)

Morgan (2007) posits that pragmatism offers a richer alternative to the ‘metaphysical paradigm’s’ ontologically driven enquiry, as practicality is more important than philosophy in educational research. He argues that the currently dominant use of ‘paradigm’ as an epistemological stance was not favoured by Kuhn and is less helpful than Kuhn’s preferred definition of ‘paradigm’ as the shared beliefs of researchers. He points out that the latter definition is easier to study by examining the work of researchers. Denscombe (2008) also favours this view and relates it to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) on communities of practice (COP).
The shared beliefs of researchers within a community of practice about what questions to ask and how to answer them would seem to be a more helpful starting point for the novice researcher than attempts to align their own ontological and epistemological beliefs with those of the major research traditions. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the latter view is commonly held by would be academics that are: “left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other” (p. 14).
In contrast, Bryman (2007) has suggested that “Mixed methods researchers seem not to dwell on epistemological and ontological issues and exhibit a clear pragmatism in their work” (2007, p. 17). While I acknowledge that as Denscombe (2008) has pointed out the use of the term ‘pragmatism’ here could well refer to ‘expediency’ rather than the philosophy, pragmatism is a philosophy which is seen as “an attractive philosophical partner for mixed-methods research” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and needs exploring here in terms of its justification and warrant.
In her ‘Revised Paradigm Chart’ Lather (2006) suggests that neo pragmatism may feature in the next wave of research paradigms. The precise nature of neo pragmatism is contested, though it is built on the work of the classical pragmatists; Dewey, Pierce and James (Sudin & Johannisson, 2005). While a focus on Neo-pragmatism would bring about a structural neatness for this essay with each approach grounded in Lather’s chart, I will follow Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Morgan (2007), Denscombe (2008), and others, by using the term pragmatism as it is an established and credible philosophy within social science (Morgan, 2007).
Denscombe (2008) argues that while positivism supports quantitative methods and interpretivism underpins purely qualitative studies, pragmatism is the preferred philosophical partner for mixed methods research. It should be noted that both the classical pragmatists such as Dewey and the neo pragmatists such as Rorty, espouse a view of the world that is not dissimilar from the interpretivists, critical theorists, and deconstructivists: “The world is not something found, but made by human kind” (Sudin & Johannisson 2005, p. 25). Yet, pragmatism rejects what Denscombe (2008) refers to as “sterile and unproductive dualisms” (p. 273) and seeks common ground between research traditions.
Pragmatism allows approaches to be seen as tools that can help us to understand the world and are driven by the research question rather than quests for ‘epistemological purity’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). This is consistent with both my needs as I attempt to seek answers to complex questions and my failed attempts to align myself with a range of ‘epistemological orthodoxies’, in the mistaken belief that this was the starting point of a novice researcher. I want to find a ‘workable solution’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) to a real problem and the mixed methods paradigm underpinned by philosophical pragmatism would allow me to do that with a methodological pluralism. It is reassuring that Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest that mixed methods present the opportunity: “for methodologists to describe and develop techniques that are closer to what researchers actually use in practice” (p. 15).


Mixed methods- approach
The mixed method approach is deeply practical and presents a number of advantages, not least in the fact that it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each, thus offering ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). Morgan (2007) argues that by rejecting the binaries of qualitative/ inductive/ subjective/ context specific research and quantitative/ deductive/ objective/ universal findings, a richer methodology becomes available that is pragmatic/ abductive/ inter-subjective/ transferable.
This approach allows abductive reasoning to create a dialogue between deduction and induction, each informing the other. Recognising the impossibility of objectivity, together with the “self refuting logic” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, p. 16) of subjectivity, the researcher is encouraged to be inter-subjective, that is to work back and forth between several ‘frames of reference’. Furthermore it presents findings that are transferable, denying the idea that social research tends to have findings which are applicable to every culture and circumstance and equally contesting the likelihood of research being so context bound that its findings cannot be related to other situations in some way (Morgan, 2007).


Methods
Since we have established in previous sections that by using a mixed methods approach we are subsequently released from the shackles of the metaphysical paradigm, we are permitted to explore methods in the spirit of methodological pluralism. The research question now becomes the driver of the methods (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Based on the premise that a research design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods is best placed to answer my questions by offering both an accurate overview and individual detail, I need to answer two questions posed by Johnston and Onwuegbuzie (2004). The first is if I intend to favour a dominant paradigm (qualitative or quantitative). I don’t, rather I intend to place equal emphasis on both in order to bring about a synthesis in my findings. Their second question relates to the order of data collection; I intend to first conduct a quantitative survey and then qualitative semi structured interviews.
Quantitative phase:
A mixed methods methodology and philosophy allows me to return to my discussion about non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Compensated for by the qualitative element of the design, its weaknesses in regard to my study no longer represent a barrier to using it, while it allows me to “systematically measure certain factors considered important in the relevant research literature” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 19). Literature relevant to my study such as Hofstede’s (2001) exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees in over 70 countries is of great importance because it presumes to make generalisations about the implications of national culture on schooling in both New Zealand and Malaysia. Key areas for study in which Hofstede (2001) found significant difference were individualist/collectivist approaches and tolerance of inequality (power difference).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions would be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. As already mentioned a possible hypothesis could be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference than their New Zealand peers.
A second might be:
Malaysian pre-service teachers place more emphasis on the needs of society than their New Zealand peers.
Data would be collected using questionnaires administered to both populations of students (after being piloted) involving numerical responses on a likert scale. Statistical analysis would then be used to test the hypothesis, as well as testing for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al, 2006).
Qualitative phase:
In order to complement and potentially critically examine the survey findings, interviews could be used which while following a semi-structured interview guide (Bryman, 2007), allow the interviewer to “probe and clarify” (Bell, 1987, p. 70). Hence, a deeper understanding of the different beliefs of students can be ascertained, telling both a richer story and allowing the heterogeneous voices of diverse students to disrupt any notions of uniformity. Pre-service teachers would be asked to share their beliefs about issues including; the role of the teacher, characteristics of an excellent/ poor teacher, and the purpose of primary education. Pilot interviews would be used beforehand to establish the effectiveness of questions in addressing key themes.
This approach has a number of advantages for a study such as mine including: increased rapport; a reduced risk of imposition of researcher’s opinion; interviewee using their own language; together with equality of status of interviewer and interviewee (Burns, 1997).


Data analysis in mixed methods research
In analysing my data I will be using Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003) seven stage conceptualisation of the mixed methods data analysis process involving: data reduction, display, transformation, correlation, consolidation, comparison, and integration.
All stages of the research process will involve checking of the validity and trustworthiness of the research. While the discussion and debate surrounding these concepts are beyond the scope of this essay (see Burns, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), the credibility of my research finding will need to be explored. Onwuegbuzie and Johnston (2006) have argued that this is complicated in mixed methods research. They suggest that the term ‘legitimation’ be used as it speaks to both quantitative and qualitative research traditions. I will evaluate my research using a legitimation frame work such as Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2006), or Onwuegbuzie and Johnston’s (2006).

Conclusion
In this essay I have used Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart to explore how my research question might be answered from within a variety of research traditions. I have argued that mixed methods research is better aligned to my research needs than the considered alternatives, as it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each. Thus, it offers both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
This approach is also of significant value to me as a novice researcher as I find its philosophical underpinning by pragmatism a more effective starting point than the pursuit of ‘epistemological purity’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Moreover, it allows me to become familiar with both quantitative and qualitative research. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, (2004) have argued:
Today’s research world is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, complex and dynamic; therefore, many researchers need to complement one method with another, and all researchers need a solid understanding of multiple methods used by other scholars to facilitate communication, to promote collaboration and provide superior research (p.15)

References

Ary, D. Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Bell, J. (1989). Doing your research project. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 8-22.
Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Sydney: Longman
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Christofi, V., & Thompson, C. (2007). You cannot go home again: a phenomenological investigation of returning to sojourn country after studying abroad. Journal of Counselling and Development, 85, 53-63.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research, methods in education (4th ed.), London: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage
Crozier, G. (2005). Is ethnography just another form of surveillance? In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford, (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. London: Elsevier
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Victoria: Deakon University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: a research paradigm for mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (3), 270-283.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. London: Sage.
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elliot, J. (2001). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fairbrother, G.P. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative Approaches to Comparative Education. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: approaches and methods (pp. 39-62). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed), The Paradigm Dialog. (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park. CA: Sage
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). London: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks, (Eds.), Action research in practice. London: Routledge.
Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (1), 77-97.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19 (1), 35-57.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48.
Morgan. D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48-76.
Maclure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Buckingham: Open University press.
Ninnes, P., & Burnett, G. (2003). Comparative education research: poststructuralist possibilities. Comparative Education, 39, (3), 279-297.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 48-63.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Social Research Methodologies, 8 (5), 375-387.

Prescott, A., & Hellstén, M. (2004). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: the international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 37-52). Hong Kong: Springer.
Schӧn, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: the new scholarship of requires a new epistemology. Change, Nov/Dec, 27-34.
Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21 (5), 5-8.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 1-65.
Shadish, W.R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 18 (1), 63-75.
Singh, M. (2005). Enabling transnational learning communities: Policies, pedagogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Sundin, O., & Johannisson, J. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural theory. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 23-43.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 12-8.
Trompenaars. F. (1993). Riding the Waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.
Tuiha-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books: London.
Williamson, D. (2002). Critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 53 (11), 1373-1395.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (14th Ed.), Washington DC: American Education Research Association.

Research Methodologies

I haven’t posted anything for a month! For some of that time I’ve been wrestling with an essay that I need to write in the next few weeks which should prove to be really important for my doctoral research. The purpose of the assignment is for me to show that I have a good understanding of research methodologies used in educational research and in particular the one that I plan to use for my thesis (a comparative study considering the beliefs about the purposes and practices of primary teaching held by Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers).
It sounds easy enough, but once again it has left me exploring the meaning of life – well, the nature of reality. I have figured that I need to align my methodology with a consistent world view. So I went back to all my readings on the ‘paradigm wars’ and the various research paradigms: positivism (post-positivism); constructivism; subjectivism and poststructuralism. The problem is the readings are messy and the authors all seem to disagree on just about everything!
However, they have brought me to a position where I recognise that while I do believe in realist ontology – (reality does exist out there) - I would side with the critical realists and agree that because we are limited by our humanity, we can never truly perceive reality. Consequently, I sympathise, but disagree with the relativists who see reality as being multiple and existing in people’s minds (For anyone not used to the jargon, ignore the paragraph and read, ‘I’m sitting on the fence’!).
The problem with me assuming a critical realist ontology is that leads to an objectivist epistemology and a positivist or post-positivist theoretical framework, which I think is deeply flawed as it assumes that I can be objective as a researcher – I can’t; I bring all sorts of baggage with me and will design the study and interpret the results in the light of such theory. Even with the use of quantitative data, that data will be selected and interpreted subjectively.
So at this epistemological level, I find constructivism (we construct meaning through engaging with the object) more reasonable. The other alternative, subjectivism (meaning is placed on the object by the subject) is still less convincing – it seems to imply that we create meaning independently of the essence of the subject – mmm!
Just in case anyone is still reading... having ruled out positivism, I am left with a choice between interpretism and critical inquiry in their many guises. The nature of my study lends itself to the former rather than the latter as I intend to collect and interpret data rather than emancipate anyone (though I do hope that the research will benefit people in a number of ways).
Within this constructivist perspective, a number of research methodologies are open to me including ethnography and phenomenological research. However, I have been most impressed by the theoretically impure, but pragmatic mixed methods methodology. If I build a study using both quantitative and qualitative instruments, it might prove to be richer and convincing to a wider audience. Using data from questionnaires I might be able to portray a bigger picture of attitudinal difference between New Zealanders and Malaysians in regard to their beliefs about teaching. However by using semi-structured interviews, I should be able to provide a richer account of those differences. As I begin to write the essay I will explore all the alternatives in more detail, framing my study in each of them – it will be interesting to see if I change my mind!

A Pedagogy of Hope

I have been thinking a bit more about this idea of what a good teacher is, does and seeks to achieve. I’ve talked about it a little in the comments in response to Dave Peters. It seems that however hard I try to explore a question, I keep coming back to the meaning of life. This week has seen me reading up on existentialism and nihilism and finding hope in psychology and potentially a partial answer to the question.

In the last posting, I talked about Korthagen’s work on belief and teacher education, with an emphasis on the importance of key values and not just the topical key skills. This led me to think about likely beliefs of pre-service teachers, be they explicit or implicit. Starting with the worst-case scenario, what if people hold a nihilistic view that there is no meaning to life? Why would you even get out of bed in the morning, never mind teach? But then there is a deterministic view that we are merely the result of DNA or our social conditioning, which is also a bit depressing as it can also be devoid of hope and potentially damaging in the classroom. The existentialist promise of man defining himself seems to be a much healthier starting place and is inclusive of both theists (Kierkegaard) and atheists (Jean-Paul Sartre). Following in this tradition, Victor Frankl’s, Man’s Search For Meaning teaches, that while we cannot always control what is done to us, we can indeed control our response. Frankl’s experiences as a prisoner in Dachau, add authenticity to his arguments (his book really is a must read!)

So I would argue that in order to teach we should be possession of a belief that there is meaning to life and that we as teachers and learners have the power to engage with our own destiny and make meaning.

This then provokes the next question, teach what? What do we want to achieve? A simple answer might be framed in economics; we want a skilled workforce, which is competitive in the world. This is clearly important, but it is only part of the picture. To measure everything in terms of the mighty dollar is hugely shortsighted. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has written some wonderful papers exploring happiness. He has argued against the focus of his fellow psychologists on pathologies and called for exploration of the positive attributes that make life rich and worthwhile. He identifies these as being, “hope, wisdom, creativity, future-mindedness, courage, spirituality, responsibility, and perseverance”. Perhaps educators should be enaging with these themes. While there are economic realities that dictate that we need to have the potential to earn a living, Csikszentmihalyi has argued there is a deeply ambiguous relationship between happiness and income. We might better serve our children by preparing them to live rich and abundant lives as well as providing for themselves materially.

Such an approach may also prove to economically worthwhile as it may act as a preventative medicine for the countless souls who end up shipwrecked into hopelessness and despair in our societies – offering them a pedagogy of hope

What makes a good teacher?

Consciously, we teach what we know; un-consciously, we teach who we are.
Hamachek (1999, p.209) cited in Korthagen (2004).

Occasionally, I read something that really strikes a chord with my thinking and my experience; Professor Fred Korthagen’s (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education, is such an article. It has inspired me in a number of ways. Firstly, it has helped me further focus and justify my doctoral study which was aiming to compare the New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers’ beliefs as to the purpose and practice of primary education. I am consequently considering asking what it means to be a good teacher to those groups of people. Secondly, it gave a voice to concerns I have about the focus on ‘core competencies’ that I have experienced in the UK and New Zealand, and instead calls for more attention to be paid to ‘core values’ – amen! Thirdly his exploration of the power of Gestalts (“an unconscious body of needs, images, feelings, values, role models, previous experiences and behavioural tendencies...” (p.85) and how it these rather than a teacher’s training that often are triggered when responding to a classroom situation, resonated with both my experience as a teacher and teacher educator. Finally, I found his model for reflection extremely practical. I could see myself using it in a number of ways.
So – why not read the article?

Maybe, I should broaden my study, perhaps instead of focussing on just pre-service teachers, I should ask teachers, children, principals, parents and teacher trainers in these two countries, “What makes a good teacher?” Would there be a marked difference between the nations? Or would the roles mark the bigger difference?
By the way, what does make a good teacher?

Power Difference (PD) in Schools

Hofstede (2001) argues that the parent/ child relationship is continued in schools where the teacher/student relationship replaces it. He suggests that this is evidenced in the emphasis on respect in high power difference societies and equality in low power difference societies, suggesting the position and role of the teacher are culturally driven and not universal.

In the New Zealand/UK contexts (a low PD societies), teachers may consider themselves as equals to their students and be comfortable with students disagreeing with them. Students typically might see their teachers as equals and see no need to show respect when meeting them, be comfortable about questioning them and free to disagree with them (Hofstede 2001).

In contrast, high power difference countries might suggest a more typically teacher centred and ordered classroom environment, where pupils are expected to show more respect and not to contradict teachers. Hofstede (2001) also points out that in high power difference societies, education is highly personalised, with the wisdom of the teacher being transferred. This is starkly contrasted by notions of the teacher as facilitator and students as constructors of knowledge as are prominent in the West.
I am currently wondering how transferable the western theoretical frameworks that underpin the content of much that is taught to international students; is there such thing as a universal understanding of what it means to be an effective school teacher and if there is, is she an equal or deserving of special respect?

Michael Wesch’s Presentation to Library of Congress

Will Richardson posted this on his blog saying it was one of the "must views for the year" Michael Wesch explores the cultural significance of You Tube. For those of us interested in education/and or culture, I think we would do well to engage with what he is saying.