Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Professional Competence of Teachers: Which Qualities, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge Contribute To A Teacher's Effectiveness?
The Professional Competence of Teachers: Which Qualities, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge Contribute To A Teacher's Effectiveness?
T terna
Spec
tional
ial IsJsue
ournal
on Cofomm
Huemran
ceiti
andes and
SociSalocSicalienSceience Vol. 1 No. 21
©C [Sepnec
treialfor
IssPue
romot
- Dece
ingmIdbeas,
r 2011]
USA
66 66
c) Do teachers use their pedagogical knowledge and skills in order to improve their pedagogical and
didactic work?
Teachers also recognise pedagogical knowledge as a significant qualification. The pedagogical subjects they
consider important have to do with a better understanding of a student’s specific profile and needs, interaction
issues, as well as interpreting and solving student problems. Secondly, they feel their training in areas
related purely to teaching methodology is essential. It must be pointed out that older and more experienced
teachers in particular consider their training in subjects related to their role in the contemporary school to
be useful. Curriculum training (understanding, evaluation, use and amendment) is deemed less important, a
result that was expected, given that in Greece, the curriculum is decided by the State. Their training in
intercultural and special needs education, matters related to school life and educational administration, as well as
education and learning theories is considered even less significant (Tables II & III).
4.3 Do teachers apply their pedagogical knowledge and skills in order to improve their pedagogical and
didactic work?
At times, teachers’ needs are “discernible” and can be expressed, i.e. the teachers themselves are in a position to
identify the qualities deemed necessary for their success as teachers, whilst at other times they cannot
be discerned or when they are discerned, they cannot be expressed. In this last case, an indirect evaluation of
the needs is required (McGehee & Thayer 1961, Knowles 1980) in order to record: a) the aims and
demands stemming from school; b) the knowledge, skills and attitudes required as a result of their professional
role; and c) an analysis of the way the professional performs his duties along with the qualities he possesses.
That is why an indirect recording of teachers’ needs was carried out in this research. Specifically, participants
were asked to what extent they can carry out the basic duties and activities related to their role, in an attempt to
answer the following question: “Do teachers apply their pedagogical knowledge and skills in order to improve
their pedagogical and didactic work?”
Half of the teachers questioned stated that they rarely organise activities outside the classroom. Moreover, a
large percentage stated, with regard to teaching methodology, that they do not make use of indirect forms of
teaching, that is the project method and teaching in groups. Generally, the number of teachers using innovative
teaching methods barely touched 50%. What is interesting is that teachers do not feel at ease using new
technology. From the data, we can assume that there is no significant or regular co-operation between teachers
and students’ parents.
As far as their relations with students are concerned, teachers often allow students to speak (only 12%
refrain from doing so), and 3 in 4 discuss problems arising in the classroom with their students; however, it
would seem that they fail to discuss with them either their performance or personal problems. In terms of the
curriculum and school textbooks, it emerged that they tend to amend the existing curriculum and textbooks with
the addition of extra material, but they rarely seem to incorporate contemporary issues. As far as educational
evaluation is concerned, one in three stated that they do not do any form of self-assessment. Moreover, 42% of
teachers do not discuss school performance with their students, whereas 65% do not provide a descriptive
evaluation of their students (Table IV).
It also emerged that 66% of teachers often face difficulties whilst performing their duties. With regard to
teaching methodology, 3 out of 4 teachers find it difficult to use new technology when teaching, to organise
activities outside the classroom, or to adopt pedagogical theories. They seem to have less difficulty in
drawing up homework tasks and assigning them to students, as well as in planning lessons. However, even with
these tasks, more than half of them said that they experience some kind of difficulty. In terms of understanding
students, their special needs and how to assist with those needs, they seem to encounter many difficulties, the
greatest being inciting motivation. They seem to find it easier to cope with behavioural problems, and they cope
easily when dealing with students’ personal problems, when they co-operate with them and when building
solid relations. Even though they seem to enjoy good relations with them, it is quite difficult for them to adapt
both teaching content and methodology to their students’ special requirements. Also, the study revealed that 1 in
4 teachers find it difficult to co-operate with parents, and a smaller percentage has problems co-operating with
colleagues (Table V).
A significant conclusion is that they do not possess the necessary qualifications to manage certain
challenges faced in modern schools – for example, lack of homogeneity in the school population, lack of student
motivation, behavioural problems, learning difficulties and problems of co-operation with students, parents and
colleagues. They therefore opt for actions that are not founded on theories, or they try, through discussions with
the students, to overcome these difficulties, a fact that leads certain teachers to failure, disappointment and
ultimately, resignation. The information provided in Table VI reveals that only half of all teachers deal with
such challenges by making use of pedagogical theories, research, practices, techniques, etc. A slightly smaller
percentage deals with these situations intuitively and does not seem to have the relevant theoretical
knowledge or the r equired skills. It should also be mentioned that a large percentage of teachers cite discussion
as the only way to deal with these challenges. Nevertheless, the fact that even a small percentage of teachers
take on challenges with the help of a variety of pedagogical and teaching techniques should not be overlooked.
5. Discussion –
Conclusions
The tools teachers consider essential for their work confirm their holistic approach to the job and the
qualifications that make them effective. Similarly, competence presupposes the personal competency of teachers
and the knowledge and skills which become necessary as a result of the job (For more information on the
holistic approach to teachers’ competence, consult Ingvarson 1998 a & b, Conczi et al. 1990, Oser et al. 2006: 1-
7). Teachers seem to believe that their effectiveness cannot only be secured through the acquisition of knowledge
and skills, but that it also depends on their personality.
What must be underlined is the fact that the teachers themselves cite personality traits as being a dominant
contributing factor to their effectiveness. Certain traits, such as their commitment to their duties, their love
for their students, patience and a sense of humour coincide with the findings of related research (Murphy 2004,
White
& Roesch 1993, Macconi 1993, Ramsay 1993). When facing modern challenges though, such as classroom
heterogeneity, a lack of motivation, behavioural problems, etc., they seem to make little use of their personality
traits. This leads to the conclusion that these challenges cannot only be dealt with by means of
individual personality traits, but also with the help of specialized knowledge.
Α number of teachers recognise both the acquisition of knowledge on the subject taught as well as pedagogy as
necessary tools, a conclusion matched in data deriving from other research, according to which
pedagogical studies have a significant impact on the way teachers do their work (Ferguson & Womack 1993,
Valli with Agostinelli 1993). Indeed, the following conclusion may be drawn: pedagogical studies have a greater
impact on the way teachers do their work than simple studies on the subject (Monk 1994). As for pedagogical
knowledge, they seem to consider knowledge that contributes to the “better understanding of students” more
important.
It is true that a teacher is called upon to plan his teaching and pedagogical actions according to the way students
learn, i.e. students’ prior knowledge and experiences, the way students usually receive and organise new
information, their cognitive needs, their motivation to learn, the way they learn and interact with their families
or in society and the acquisition level of the official linguistic code. Consequently, the mere knowledge of
human development is not sufficient; a teacher needs the kind of knowledge that will enable him to observe his
students, evaluate their behaviour and performance so that he can choose t hose techniques and strategies
that are most suitable (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden 2005: 7-14). The participants in the study also
emphasised the necessity of a pedagogical approach to the subject, as explained by Shulman (1986, 1987).
The fact that the teachers who participated in the study do not seem to consider knowledge on multicultural
education and special needs education significant could be attributed to their opinions and ideological
assumptions regarding “different” students and their own r ole in school, or that, given that basic
pedagogical training is lacking, more specialised knowledge is considered insignificant. The fact that they do not
see the importance of training in matters related to school life and school management possibly stems from the
perception they have of their role and the ranking of their duties originating from that role. Finally, the fact that
the majority does not deem knowledge on education and teaching theories a must is an indication that they may
very well have a technocratic outlook regarding their work and that they do not believe the acquisition of
specialised knowledge to be particularly crucial.
With regard to the question “Do teachers apply pedagogical knowledge and skills in order to improve their
pedagogical and didactic work?”, we can presume that they rarely develop the pedagogical skills and
knowledge that research has proven to be effective teaching tools. Specifically:
a) As for the “knowledge of students”, it has been shown that teachers have no problem communicating with
their students. However, the majority of teachers do not adapt their teaching methods and content to the needs of
their students;
b) With regard to the curriculum and school textbooks, they seem to enrich them with extra material a
nd
information, but they do not have the tools to adapt them to the needs of their
students;
c) As far as teaching methodology is concerned, they have difficulty adopting indirect teaching methods, making
use of modern teaching means, as well as carrying out a detailed performance evaluation on students.
Similar facts are revealed in related research, according to which teachers do not seem to intervene, in a
significant manner, in the curriculum and the content of school textbooks, they do not seem to adopt
indirect teaching methods on a regular basis and opt for a numerical rather than a descriptive evaluation of
students’ performance (Brower 2005);
d) In terms of the greater context of teaching, teachers do not seem to be familiar with administrative
activities and seem to have difficulty working together with students’ parents. What is particularly
interesting is that teachers struggle to formulate their pedagogical and teaching work and, at the same time,
draw upon a variety of knowledge resources – what Shulman refers to as “pedagogical content knowledge”,
and Turner-Bisset as an
”amalgam” of pedagogical
knowledge.
The findings of this research verify the conclusions reached in related literature regarding a holistic approach
to the tools making up the profile of a “good teacher”, as most teachers seem to associate their effectiveness at
work with both personal traits and “didactic and pedagogical skills”, as well as the possession of certain types of
pedagogical knowledge. These particular findings contributed to a systematic and analytical description of the
content of professional knowledge and to an indicative classification of the tools required for the successful
performance of a teacher’s pedagogical and didactic work, based on his needs. These data lay the foundation for
interventions at educational reform level, including:
a) Planning of teachers’ preparation programmes: the recording of teachers’ needs may, to some degree,
ensure that the study programmes for initial training are designed according to the needs of the teachers, as these
are shaped through their pedagogical and didactic work.
b) Design of in-service training programmes, taking into consideration teachers’ specific needs. Findings
show that teachers’ needs vary according to their personal characteristics (years of experience, age, gender,
specialisation). The relevant findings could, therefore, be used for a more effective planning of in-service
training programmes on pedagogical matters, based on their diverging needs.
c) Creation of a system of assessment criteria so that the professional competence of teachers can be
evaluated.
d) Configuration of a framework for the evaluation, and self-evaluation, of the professional training of teachers.
These data contribute to teachers’ understanding of themselves, regardless of the context in which they work,
because basic qualifications that contribute to their effectiveness are sketched out.
The fact that those participating in the research remained anonymous guaranteed, to a large extent, sincere
and interesting answers from the teachers. However, it is likely that some of these answers do not
correspond to reality, in that they do not express the real perceptions of teachers, but are, instead, the result of
the respondents’ intention to give the answers expected and in the form expected by the academic community.
Some data could be investigated further through the systematic and diachronic observation of teachers in
the classroom. Also, a different methodological approach to the subject, such as a case study featuring
teachers or the biographical method, would enrich the data resulting from this research and would develop
further on the conclusions reached. Apart from a different methodological approach to the same questions,
numerous interesting aspects arose which could be analysed further. Firstly, both the related debate and research,
as well as the opinions of the teachers who participated in the study, lead to the conclusion that the effectiveness
of teachers is an inter-weaving of attributes, pedagogical skills and knowledge. Consequently, what arises is a
complex question about the way in which this holistic approach can be used in the education of teachers. That is
to say, what pedagogical knowledge and which pedagogical training practices could contribute to the
cultivation of those qualifications teachers refer to as a prerequisite for success in their work? By means of
which objects and which pedagogical practices can the pedagogical and didactic skills favoured by teachers
be guaranteed? Moreover, something else which needs to be examined is to what extent the traits cited by
teachers as success factors truly contribute to their effectiveness as teachers.
References
ANDERSON, L.W. (2004). Increasing teacher effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational
Planning.
ASKEW, M., BROWN, M., RHODES, V., WILIAM, D. & JOHNSON, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy.
Final report of a study carried out for the Teacher Training Agency, 1995-96 by the School of Education,
King’s College, and London.
BEYER, L. (2002). The politics of standards and the education of teachers. Teaching Education, 13, 3, pp. 305-316.
BIRMAN, B.F., DESIMONE, L., PORTER, A. C. & GARET, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development
that
work. Educational Leadership, 57, 8, pp. 28-33.
BROUWER, N. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42, 1, pp. 153-
224.
CHEN, W. & ROVEGNO, I. (2000). Examination of expert and novice teachers’ constructivist-oriented teaching
practice using a movement approach to elementary physical education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 71, pp. 357-372.
CHRISTENSEN, D. (1996). The professional knowledge-research base for teacher education”. In: J. SIKULA, TH.J.
BATTERY & E. GUYTON (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 38-52). New York:
Prentice Hall.
CLANDININ, D.J. & CONNELLY, M.F. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as personal in studies
of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 6, pp. 487-500.
COLADARCI, T. (2002). Is it a house . . . or a pile of bricks? Important features of a local assessment system.
Phi
Delta Kappan, 83, pp. 772-774.
CONZI, A., HAGER, P. & OLIVER, L. (1990). Establishing competency-based standards in the professions.
NOOSR Research paper No1. Department of employment, education and training: Canberra..
CORRIGAN, D.C. & HABERMAN, M. (1990). The context of teacher education. In: R. HOUSTON (Eds.).
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 195-211). London: Mc Millan.
DARLING- HAMMOND, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence.
Educational Policy Analysis Archive, 8,1.
DARLING-HAMMOND, L. & BARATZ-SNOWDEN, J. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom. USA: Jossey Bass.
ERNEST, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the Mathematics teacher: a model. Journal of
Education
for Teaching, 15, 1, pp. 13-33.
EVERSTON, C.M. & RANDOLPH, C.H. (1999). Perspectives on classroom management in learning-centered
classroom. In: H.C. W AXMAN & H.J. WALBERG (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research.
Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
FEIMAN-NEMSER, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: structural and conceptual alternatives. In: W.R. HOUSTON (Eds.).
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 212-229). New York: McMillan.
FERGUSON, P. & WOMACK, S.T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching
performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 1, pp. 55-63.
HARSLETT, M. ET.AL (2000). Teacher perceptions of the characteristics of effective teachers of Aboriginal Middle
School students. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 25,2, available at: ajte.education.ecu.edu.au
HAWLEY, W.D. & VALLI, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. A new consensus. In: L.
DARLING-HAMMOND & G. SYKES (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 127-179). San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
IMIG, D. & SWITZER, T. (1996). Changing teacher education programs, restructuring collegiate-based
teacher education. In: J. SIKULA, TH.J. BATTERY & E. G UYTON (επιμ.) (1996), Handbook of Research on
Teacher Education (pp. 213-225). New York: Prentice Hall.
INGVARSON, L. (1998a). Professional development as the pursuit of professional standards: the standards-based
professional development system. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 2, pp. 127-140.
INGVARSON, L. (1998b). Teaching standards: Foundations for professional development reform. In: A.
HARGREAVES, A. LEIBERMAN, M. FULLAN, & D. HOPKINS (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational
change (pp. 1006-1031). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
JASMAN, A. (2002, 3-7 February). Initial teacher education: Changing curriculum, pedagogies and assessment. Paper
presented at the Challenging futures: Changing agendas in teacher education, Armidale.
KAGAN, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 62, pp. 129-169.
KENNEDY, M. (1990). A survey of recent literature on teachers’ subject matter knowledge. (Research Rep. No 90-3).
E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
KNOWLES, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood cliffs:
Prentice- Hall.
LAMPERT, M. (1984). Teaching about thinking and thinking about teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 1-18.
MACCONI, C. (1993). Teacher quality project: Italian case study. Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione Generale
Scambi Culturali, Rome.
MALIKOW, M. (2005). Effective teacher study. National Forum of Teacher Education-journal electronic, 16,3,
available at: www.nationalforum.com/ Archives.htm.
MCBER, H. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: a model of teacher effectiveness. Research report 216. DfEE.
MCGEHEE, W. & THAYER, D.W. (1961). Training in business and industry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MEDWELL, J., WRAY, D., POULSON, L. & FOX, R. (1998). Effective teachers of Literacy. A report of a
research
project commissioned by the Teacher Training Agency. Exeter: University of Exeter.
MEIJER, P.C., VERLOOP, N. & BEIJAARD, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about
teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, pp. 59-84.
MEIJER, P.C., VERLOOP, N. & BEIJAARD, D. (2001). Similarities and differences in teachers’ practical
knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 3, pp. 171-184.
MONK, D.H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student
achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, pp. 125-145.
MURPHY, K. (2004). The good teacher and good teaching: comparing beliefs of second-grade students. Preservice
teachers, and in-service teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 2, pp. 69-92.
NEWTON, D.P. & NEWTON, H.D. (1998). Knowing what counts in history: historical understanding and the non-
specialist teacher. Teaching History, 92, pp. 42-45.
OSER, F. Κ.Α. (2006). Competence- oriented teacher training: old research demands and new pathways. In: F. OSER, F.
ACHTERHAGEN & U. RENOLD, (Eds.), Competence oriented teacher training: old research demands and
new pathways( pp. 1- 7). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher,.
PERRONE, V & R. TRAVER (1996). Secondary education. In: SIKULA J. / TH.J. BATTERY/E. G UYTON (Eds.) (1996),
Handbook of research on Teacher Education (pp. 392-409). New York: prentice Hall.
RAMSAY, P. (1993.) Teacher quality. In: A case study prepared for the Ministry of Education as part of the OECD
study on teacher quality, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand (1993).
SCHÖN, D.A. (1983). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
SHULMAN L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, pp. 4-14.
SHULMAN L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57,
1,
pp. 1-22.
TURNER- BISSET, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert Teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25,
1, pp. 39-55.
TURNER- BISSET, R. (2001). Expert teaching: knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession. London: David
Fulton.
VALLI, L. WITH A. AGOSTINELLI (1993). Teaching before and after professional preparation: the story of a
high school mathematics teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, pp. 107-118.
WANG, M.C., HAERTEL, G.D., WALBERG, H.J. (1999). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. In: H.C.
WAXMAN & H.J. WALBERG (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research. Berkley,
CA: McCutchan.
WHITE, J.J & ROESCH, M. (1993). Listening to the voices of teachers: examining connections between student
performance, quality of teaching and educational policies in seven Fairfax County (VA) elementary
and middle public schools. University of Maryland, Baltimore County (1993) Fairfax (VA) County Public
Schools, United States.
WHITTY, G. (1996). Professional competences and professional characteristics: the Northern Ireland approach to the
reform of teacher education. In: D. HUSTLER & D. MCINTYRE (Eds.), Knowledge and
competence.
London: David Fulton.
ZEICHNER, K. & LISTON, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: an introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Table I: Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of teachers (How important do you consider the
contribution of the following to the success of teachers in their role? / Closed-ended question)
Table II: Pedagogical Knowledge (In your opinion, how important is the contribution of the following to
the success of teachers? / Open-ended question, Ν= 374)
%
Knowledge / Teaching Models 60
Pedagogical psychology / Knowledge of learners 46.9
General pedagogical knowledge 42.6
Knowledge of contexts 8.9
Knowledge of curriculum and school textbooks 4.6
Knowledge of “self” 4.3
Syntactic knowledge 0.6
Table III: Pedagogical Skills and Knowledge (In your opinion, how important is the contribution of the following
to the success of teachers? / Closed-ended question)
Table IV: Teaching and Pedagogical Training (How often do you …? / closed-ended question)
Ν Very Rarely Occasionally Frequently / Very
/ Rarely Frequently %
% %
TEACHING METHODOLOGY
Allow students to speak 705 0.6 11.8 87.7
Adopt innovative teaching methods 693 7.6 45 47.4
Opt for group teaching 673 22.7 42.4 34.9
Give descriptive assessments 647 22.6 42.6 34.8
Use new technology 667 38.1 36 25.9
Use the project method 653 44.5 36.3 19.2
Organise activities outside the classroom 679 45.2 38.3 16.5
CURRICULUM AND SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS
Add to basic content with new information 693 3.3 25 71.7
Use extra material 695 3.3 28 68.7
Incorporate contemporary issues into the lesson 694 5.3 29.6 65.1
“KNOWLEDGE” OF LEARNERS
Allow students to speak 705 0.6 11.8 87.7
Discuss classroom problems with students 696 2.4 26.2 71.4
Discuss student performance with students 694 7.3 35.5 57.2
Discuss the personal problems of students with 689 21.8 41.7 36.5
students
“KNOWLEDGE” OF CONTEXTS
Co-operate with colleagues 698 5.9 28.5 65.6
Involve parents in the learning process 686 29.6 45.3 25.1
“KNOWLEDGE” OF SELF
Do a self-assessment 698 2 23.2 74.8
Table V: The Difficulties Encountered by Teachers (How often do you face difficulties in the following activities? /
closed- ended question)
Ν Very Rarely / Occasionally Frequently /
Rarely Very
% % Frequently %
TEACHING METHODOLOGY
Use of new technology 673 27.2 36.5 36.3
Organising activities outside of the classroom 660 32.9 32.7 34.4
Adoption of contemporary pedagogical theories 679 20.8 47.5 31.7
Teaching in multicultural environments 639 39.4 32.7 27.9
Adaptation of teaching to students’ needs 676 38.2 36.3 25.5
Formulation and assignment of homework 683 45.2 33.5 21.3
Evaluation of student performance 669 44.8 34.3 20.9
Use of different teaching models 681 32.7 48.3 19
Lesson planning 690 45.8 36.6 17.6
Self-assessment 675 53.2 30 16.8
CURRICULUM
Relating course content to students’ lives and needs 678 38.8 37.7 23.5
Planning and amendment of course content 674 35.8 43.8 20.6
“KNOWLEDGE” OF LEARNERS / CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
Promoting motivation amongst students 678 24 49.5 26.5
Adaptation of teaching procedures to students’ needs 676 38.2 36.3 25.5
Relating course content to students’ lives and needs 678 38.8 37.7 23.5
Promoting co-operation between students 683 38.4 39.8 21.8
Helping students experiencing personal problems 677 48.7 32.3 19
Problem solving in the classroom 675 41.2 40 18.8
Communication and good relations with students 682 61.8 21.7 16.5
Use of rewards and punishment 672 43.2 41.5 15.3
GENERAL PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
Use of pedagogical theories 679 20.8 47.5 31.7
Problem solving in the classroom 675 41.2 40 18.8
Use of rewards and punishment 672 43.2 41.5 15.3
“KNOWLEDGE” OF CONTEXTS
Co-operation with parents 667 39.3 36 24.7
Communication and good relations with students 682 61.8 21.7 16.5
Co-operation with colleagues 675 55.1 28.9 16
Undertaking administrative duties 650 54.8 30.3 14.9
“KNOWLEDGE” OF SELF
Self-assessment 675 53.2 30 problems Behavioural 16.8
Lack of co-
(If you encounter any one of the challenges below, how do you deal with them?/ open-ended question)
Classroom
Learning
learning motivation
operation
difficulties
heterogeneity
Lack of
% % % % %
Refer to qualities and personality traits 2.8 1.6 12.9 8.7 12.3
Refer to pedagogical and didactic skills and techniques 53 55.1 40.4 41.2 9
Refer to professional development practices 1.4 0.4 4.1 9.2 2.3
Discussions / Conferences 1.8 12.6 55 6.2 24.9
General references, actions with no prior theoretical basis,
40.6 31.8 17.3 31.5 46.4
wrong actions
Lack of action / Do not consider to be their problem / Refer
3.8 3.8 3.1 16.2 19.5
problem to others