Teacher educators’ professional learning: perceptions of Dutch and Chinese teacher educators

ABSTRACT

This survey study explores how teacher educators perceive relevant aspects of professional learning in their practice. These aspects were considered as important by teacher educators in a previous review study. A total of 583 Dutch and Chinese teacher educators completed a digital questionnaire regarding the content of teacher educators’ learning, their learning activities, and reasons for learning. Most teacher educators perceived all professional learning aspects as relevant for their practice. The professional learning scales showed correlations with several background variables, such as educational degree and how teacher educators perceive their identity in the teacher education institutes. When comparing Dutch and Chinese teacher educators, significant differences were only found in their perceptions of research-related scales and the scale “getting input from others”. It can be concluded that all aspects are essential for learning and functioning. The differences between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators were related to the contexts in which they work.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher educator
• professional learning
• survey study

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that professional learning by teacher educators is vital to cultivating competent (future) teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2003; European Commission, 2013). The last 15 years, this topic has become an increasing field of interest, particularly with regard to what constitutes teacher educators’ professional learning. Some researchers have tried to understand the areas on which teacher educators focus with their professional learning, such as specific types of knowledge that they find essential for their work (Goodwin et al., 2014; Kosnik et al., 2015), the pedagogy of teacher education (Berry, 2007; Loughran, 2014), and aspects of doing research by teacher educators (Griffiths, Thompson, & Hryniewicz, 2010; Harrison & Mckeon, 2010). Other researchers have begun to explore ways in which teacher educators engage in professional learning, such as self-study (Murray, 2010; Williams & Ritter, 2010), professional learning communities (Hadar & Brody, 2010), and organised professional development programmes (Koster, Dengerink, Korthagen, & Lunenberg, 2008; Shagrir, 2010).

In a previous study, we reviewed 75 research articles resulting in a comprehensive list of main categories and subcategories regarding the content of teacher educators’ learning, their learning activities, and their reasons for learning (Ping, Schellings, & Beijaard, 2018). We restricted our review study to teacher educators who work in higher education institutes (i.e. colleges and universities). We did not include teachers in schools who also play a role in educating student teachers, for example as a mentor, coach, or supervisor. In the current study, this list of (sub) categories has been used as a framework to empirically explore and validate how these previously found aspects of professional learning by teacher educators are recognised and perceived by them as being part of their work as teacher educators.

Teacher educators’ professional learning is challenging and demanding, because there are no formal routes to become a teacher educator and usually hardly any supportive induction programmes to learn from (Mayer, Mitchell, Santoro, & White, 2011; Reichenberg, Avissar, & Sagee, 2015). The majority of the teacher educators often enter teacher education institutes after having taught in a school setting for several years, such as in the UK and the Netherlands (Murray, Swennen, & Shagrir, 2009), or after having obtained a degree in their subject of study in a university setting as is the case in countries like China (Chao, 2015). Neither of these two routes is sufficient to address the challenges teacher educators face when starting their work, including the development of a (new) professional identity (Dinkelman, Margolis, & Sikkenga, 2006; Martinez, 2008). In a comparative study, Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail (2017) found that professional learning needs vary significantly for the two routes of becoming a teacher educator. Against this background, Dutch and Chinese teacher educators participated in this study to investigate the similarities and differences in their professional learning as a result of having followed different routes into the profession of a teacher educator. Although this survey is not set up to compare teacher educators across countries, it is also interesting to know whether the questionnaire applies to teacher educators who come from different national contexts. So, we briefly pay attention to the differences between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators’ perceptions of professional learning as well.

The main aims of this study are: (1) to confirm the aspects of professional learning found in our previous review study and (2) to explore the extent to which teacher educators consider these aspects as important for their work in practice. The general research question of this study is formulated as follows: how do Dutch and Chinese teacher educators perceive relevant aspects of professional learning in their practice? The answer to this question contributes to providing an empirical picture of what teacher educators value for their work in practice and what they find important for learning to do this work well.

Theoretical background

As mentioned above, we used the categories found in the review study regarding what teacher educators learn (content), how they learn (activities), and their reasons for learning as a framework for the current study (see Table 1). Below we briefly explain this framework (see Ping et al., 2018, for detail).

Table 1. Main professional learning categories as a framework for the current study

Focus	Main category
Content of professional learning	Pedagogy of teacher education
	Research and reflection
	Professional identity
	Knowledge base
Activities of professional learning	Learning through academic engagement
	Learning through collaborative activity
	Learning through attending professional development programmes
	Learning through reflective activity
Reasons for professional learning	External requirement
	Personal ambition
	Professional role transition

Content of professional learning

Four content areas were found in the previous study. The content area “pedagogy of teacher education” is a key for distinguishing teacher educators from teachers. It includes the knowledge and skills about explaining the underlying reasons, conceptions, or assumptions of teaching to student teachers, and about student teachers’ learning needs or concerns as well as teaching strategies to meet these needs (Loughran, 2014). This pedagogy also includes knowledge and skills about mentoring and supervision of student teacher practices (Montecinos et al., 2002) as well as supervising student teachers’ doing research (Roberts & Weston, 2014).

The content area “research and reflection” refers to the knowledge and capacities of conducting research and reflection on a wide range of practical experiences. Due to an increasing emphasis on teachers’ research capacities and the need to supervise student teachers doing small-scale research, teacher educators are also expected to develop a research profile (Griffiths et al., 2010). Reflective capacity, interrelated with research capacity, refers to the ability to systematically analyse and improve own teaching practices and supporting student teachers to do so as well (Selkrig & Keamy, 2015).

The content area “professional identity” pertains to the professional roles that teacher educators try to take. In our review study, we could distinguish a predominant role as a “teacher of teachers” and as a “researcher”. The development of a teacher of teachers is an ongoing process, closely connected with the ways in which they understand their work and changes therein (Dinkelman, 2011). The development of a researcher role sometimes conflicts with the role of teacher of teachers. Griffiths et al. (2010), for example, wrote about teacher educators’ intensive teaching load as a major barrier to developing a researcher identity. It appeared that teacher educators predominantly committed themselves to student teachers and their needs at the expense of doing research.

The content area “knowledge base” is essential for preparing student teachers for their future profession and for understanding the teacher education profession. The identified knowledge in our previous study includes subject or content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and the knowledge of curriculum design and curriculum materials (Cheng, Tang, & Cheng, 2014). The characteristics and culture of the profession or the specific context of teacher education are also content aspects that teacher educators seem to focus on (Patrizio, Ballock, & McNary, 2011). It can be concluded that a knowledge base for teacher educators and their work as teacher educator is not yet clear when compared, for example, with the knowledge base for teachers and their work in schools (Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001).

Professional learning activities

Four types of professional learning activities were distinguished in our previous study. “Learning through academic engagement” entails two kinds of activities. One of these refers to conducting both academic and practitioner research. Having the opportunity of working on a research project with experienced researchers or regularly receiving the professional guidance from supervisors during their PhD study are both highly valued by teacher educators to improve their research capacity (Tanner & Davies, 2009). Doing individual or collaborative self-study into teacher educators’ own practices is particularly seen by them as an effective way to improve their profession (Han et al., 2014). The other academic activities refer to reading and writing research papers or attending academic conferences (Kosnik et al., 2015).

“Learning through collaborative activity” can take place both formally and informally. We found two types of collaborative activities. One of these pertains to organising learning in learning communities, in which a group of teacher educators share a common interest and learn with and from each other in order to realise a common goal (Hadar & Brody, 2010). The other type refers to getting input from others by discussing or exchanging opinions about their work with immediate colleagues from the workplace, student teachers, mentors, or teachers at school (Sharplin, 2011).

“Attending professional development programmes” is another type of learning activities. Professional development programmes that support teacher educators’ expertise include educational and research-related programmes. The educational programmes generally comprise planned and structured activities aiming at supporting one specific aspect of teacher educators’ profession (Karagiorgi & Nicolaidou, 2013). The research-related programmes focus on specific research capacities, for instance, a programme about academic writing (White, Roberts, Rees, & Read, 2014).

Finally, “learning through reflective activity” includes collaborative and individual reflections by teacher educators on their teaching practices or after having undertaken a specific activity, e.g. co-teaching a lesson. (Capobianco, 2007).

Reasons for professional learning

Three types of reasons for professional learning could be distinguished in our review study. Meeting “external requirement” is the first type of reasons for teacher educators to engage in professional learning. For example, due to changes in teacher education policy or programmes that urge teacher educators to update or deepen their knowledge and skills (Timmerman, 2003), or as a response to the assessment of the research and/or educational performance of the institute one works in (Hadar & Brody, 2010).

“Personal ambition” is another type of reasons for professional learning and pertains to personal interest and responsibility. Personal interest refers to teacher educators’ desire to learn or improve relevant aspects of their work (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012), personal responsibility to their need to learn new professional knowledge and skills enabling them to better support their student teachers (Sharplin, 2011).

“Professional role transition”, the last type of reasons for professional learning, mainly focuses on new expectations and challenges teacher educators meet after their transition from a school teacher to a teacher educator in a higher education institute. These expectations and challenges motivate them to learn new capacities or develop a new professional identity (Williams & Ritter, 2010).

Research questions

The general research question of this study aims at answering how Dutch and Chinese teacher educators perceive relevant aspects of professional learning in their practice. Based on the distinctions made between the learning content, learning activities, and reasons for learning as elaborated above, this study will answer the following three sub-questions:

1. What are the Dutch and Chinese teacher educators’ perceptions regarding the learning content, learning activities, and reasons for their professional learning in practice?

2. How do these perceptions relate to relevant background variables?

3. What similarities and differences exist in Dutch and Chinese teacher educators’ perceptions of professional learning?

Method

Research contexts

Given the substantial differences in teacher education systems between the Netherlands and China, we briefly describe the institutes which provide pre-service teacher education programmes in both countries.

In the Netherlands, pre-service teacher education is part of the higher education system and is offered by two types of institutes: Research universities and Universities of applied sciences (Snoek, 2011). The two types of universities provide different teacher education programmes with distinct characteristics. Generally, Research universities offer research oriented teacher education programmes for upper secondary education. Universities of applied sciences offer practice and vocational oriented teacher education programmes for primary and lower secondary and vocational education.

In China, pre-service teacher education programmes are generally offered by four types of higher education institutes. The first type includes two kinds of institutes: Normal Universities under the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China and some Comprehensive Research Universities. They provide research-oriented teacher education programmes, mainly for educating senior secondary school teachers. The second type includes provincial Normal Universities. They emphasise research in their teacher education programmes, and they are mainly educating senior secondary school teachers in their own provinces. The third type consists of local Normal Colleges for training junior secondary school teachers. The fourth type includes Specialised Higher Education Schools and Vocational Higher Education Schools, mainly for the education of primary and preschool teachers.

Participants

Digital questionnaires were sent to both Dutch and Chinese teacher educators in the different types of higher education institutes. Teacher educators volunteered to fill out the digital questionnaire; by filling out the questionnaire, they approved that the results would be published; their anonymity was guaranteed.

With the support of 16 teacher education institutes in the Netherlands, an online questionnaire was administered among the teacher educators of these institutes from November 2017 to April 2018. In total, 274 respondents returned the questionnaire, of which 218 were appropriate for data analysis; 56 responses were deleted because of missing data. Among the 218 respondents, 29.8% came from the Research Universities, 67% from the Universities of Applied Sciences, and 3.2% from both types of universities.

With the support of the Centre for Teacher Education Research in China, the digital questionnaire was distributed among teacher educators working in the different types of institutes, from October 2017 to April 2018. In total, 373 teacher educators returned the questionnaire, of which 365 were appropriate for data analysis. Eight responses were deleted because of invalid data. Namely, they spent excessively minimal time on completing the questionnaire. Among 365 respondents, 23% worked in Normal Universities under the Ministry of Education, 4.4% worked in Comprehensive Research Universities, 40.8% in provincial Normal Universities, 26.8% in local Normal Colleges, 3.3% in Specialised Higher Education Schools and Vocational Higher Education Schools.

Table 2 displays the general characteristics of the Dutch and Chinese respondents. It shows that the Chinese respondents were younger than the Dutch. Most of the Chinese respondents hold a PhD degree as their highest educational degree; by contrast, most of the Dutch hold a Master degree. Chinese respondents had no or less working experiences as a school teacher than Dutch respondents. They combined more research tasks with educating teachers than the Dutch respondents.

Table 2. General characteristics of the Dutch (NL) and Chinese (CN) respondents

		NL (N = 218)		CN (N = 365)		Total (N = 583)
Characteristics	Categories	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender	Male	83	38.1	127	34.8	210	36.0
	Female	135	61.9	238	65.2	373	64.0
Age	≤ 24	3	1.4	1	0.3	4	0.7
	25–34	21	9.6	87	23.8	108	18.5
	35–44	61	28	182	49.9	243	41.7
	45–54	75	34.4	85	23.3	160	27.4
	≥ 55	58	26.6	10	2.7	68	11.7
Highest degree	Bachelor degree	12	5.5	48	13.2	60	10.3
	Master degree	141	64.7	140	38.4	281	48.2
	PhD degree	52	23.9	174	47.7	226	38.8
	Other	13	6	3	0,8	16	2.7
Type of teacher education programme involved in	Primary education	77	35.3	29	7.9	106	18.1
	Secondary education	114	52.3	120	32.9	234	40.0
	Both	2	0.9	85	23.3	87	14.9
	Other	25	11.5	131^a	35.9	156	26.7
Level of teacher education programme involved in	Bachelor level	115	52.8	171	46.8	286	48.9
	Master level	34	15.6	28	7.7	62	10.6
	Both	69	31.7	149	40.8	218	37.3
	Other	0	0	17	4.7	17	2.9
Days spent on educating student teachers	≤ 1 day per week	35	16.1	72	19.7	107	18.4
	2–3 days per week	106	48.6	155	42.5	261	44.8
	4–5 days per week	77	35.3	138	37.8	215	36.9
Working experience as a teacher educator	≤ 3 years	35	16.1	58	15.9	93	16.0
	4–6 years	40	18.3	43	11.8	83	14.2
	7–10 years	43	19.7	69	18.9	112	19.2
	> 10 years	100	45.9	195	53.4	295	50.6
Working experience as a school teacher	0 year	31	14.2	199	54.5	230	39.5
	≤ 3 years	47	21.6	68	18.6	115	19.7
	4–6 years	35	16.1	30	8.2	65	11.1
	7–10 years	36	16.5	21	5.8	57	9.8
	> 10 years	69	31.7	47	12.9	116	19.9
Combining teacher education work and research task	Yes, as an integral part of my job	53	24.3	103	28.2	156	26.8
	Yes, occasionally	55	25.2	240	65.8	295	50.6
	No	110	50.5	22	6	132	22.6
Main tasks (more answers)	Teach courses	179	82.1	308	84.4	487	83.5
	Mentor student teachers	115	52.8	235	64.4	350	60.0
	Supervise student teacher research	107	49.1	286	78.4	393	67.4
	Conduct research	3	1.4	264	70.8	267	43.8
	Visiting and guiding teachers at school	4	1.8	113	30.3	117	19.2
	Other	69^b	31.7	15	4.1	84	14.4
Label yourself	General educational teacher educator	73	33.5	63	17.3	136	23.2
	Subject-matter teacher educator	94	43.1	160	43.8	254	43.4
	Researcher	1	0.5	139	38.1	140	23.9
	Other	50^c	22.9	3	0.8	53	9.1

^aThis number is large because pre-school education is separated from primary education in Chinese education systems.

^bThis number includes answers, such as being engaged in the in-service teacher training and coordination tasks.

^cThis number includes answers, such as being a pedagogue or subject specialist.

The questionnaire

The development of the questionnaire consisted of the following steps:

Step 1: constructing the questionnaire

We used the main categories of what, how, and why of professional learning from the review study as a framework for the preliminary questionnaire scales (see Table 1). Text fragments selected from the research articles under each main category served as the input for the operationalisation of the scales into items.

Step 2: consulting experts

After this first construction of the questionnaire, we prepared two files to consult three experts (all being both researcher and teacher educator) for their comments. The two files consisted of: (1) the aim of the questionnaire and the scales and items and (2) the main categories of what, how, and why of professional learning and the corresponding text fragments from the articles analysed for our previous review study. These three experts independently evaluated all the scales and items and suggested to combine similar items across the scales and to delete similar-looking items within the scales.

Step 3: consulting experienced teacher educators

Based on the feedback from the experts, the questionnaire was improved and reorganised into a total of 35 content, 20 activity, and 23 reason items. We asked six experienced teacher educators to rate the items on a four-point Likert scale to the extent of what they have learned about the topics included, the learning activities, and the reasons for professional learning (1 = not at all; 4 = to a great extent). After completion of the questionnaire, we asked them to comment on the clarity and relevance of the items. They suggested to clarify the distinction between two items to avoid misunderstanding.

Step 4: piloting the questionnaire

A pilot study was conducted among 28 Dutch and 31 Chinese teacher educators to test and refine the questionnaire. We increased the reliability of scales in the questionnaire by deleting three items based on item-total correlation results. A final English version questionnaire consisted of 34 items for the content part, 19 items for the activity part, and 22 items for the reason part. After the adjustments made, the reliability of the scales improved to an acceptable level (α ranging from .63 to .91). During the pilot study, we received feedback to translate the English questionnaire into the native languages of the respondents. We consulted two other researchers in both countries about which language to use. It was decided to translate the questionnaire carefully. First, two authors separately translated the English questionnaire into Dutch and Chinese. Then the translated and the original English questionnaires were sent to two other authors (both being researcher and teacher educator) for a check on the correctness of the translations. They specifically focused on the comprehensibility and clarity of the native words used. This procedure led to some adjustments to the native words used in the translated questionnaires.

Step 5: collecting data and validating the questionnaire

The final digital questionnaire was sent to both Dutch and Chinese teacher educators. We first looked at the correlations between the nine scales and found a few relatively strong correlations between “pedagogy of teacher education” and “curriculum” (r = .69, p < .01), between “research” and “learning through academic engagement” (r = .66, p < .01), and between “learning through academic engagement” and “learning through reflective activity” (r = .60, p < .01).

Next, we did a principal component analysis (PCA) to explore the factors underlying the data, given that we developed a new instrument based on a review study, which had not yet been used in other research. For the PCA, we chose a direct oblimin rotation method to allow correlations between the underlying factors (Schmitt, 2011). Items were assigned to a component if they had a component loading of .40 at a minimum. The items below .40 were deleted. Several criteria for determining the number of the factors were used: Kaiser’s criterion to retain eigenvalues bigger than one and Cattell’s scree test.

The analysis showed that the sample size and the variables were appropriate (Field, 2009) for PCA _content (KMO = .95, Bartlett’s test of sphericity X² (496) = 9881.30, p = .000), PCA _activity (KMO = .92, Bartlett’s test of sphericity X² (171) = 6429.99, p = .000), and PCA _reason (KMO = .90, Bartlett’s test of sphericity X² (231) = 4926.44, p = .000). The PCA on the learning content resulted in 22 items for three components, which explained 51.6% of the total variance. After the PCA, 12 items were removed because of the lower component loadings and meaningless items within the same component. Of these three components, the Cronbach’s Alpha varied from .83 to .91. The PCA on the learning activity resulted in 17 items for three components, which explained 62.2% of the total variance. Two items were removed after PCA because of lower component loadings. For these three components, the Cronbach’s Alpha varied from .81 to .89. The PCA on the reasons for learning resulted in 21 items for three components, which explained 50.3% of the total variance. One item was removed because it did not match the meaning of the component and the other component “insufficient preparation” was renamed as “professional role transition”. For these three components, the Cronbach’s Alpha varied from .75 to .87. Table 3 presents the final scales, Cronbach’s alpha of each scale, number of items, as well as example items of the questionnaire (see Appendix for the complete English questionnaire).

Table 3. Focus, scales, Cronbach’s Alpha, number of items, and example items of the questionnaire

Focus	Scales	Cronbach’s α	Number of items	Example items
Content(n = 583)	Pedagogy of teacher education	.91	13	- the teacher educator as a mentor of student teachers - student teacher individual learning need
	Research	.86	4	- academic writing skills - how to conduct research
	Curriculum	.83	5	- the teacher educator as a curriculum developer - how to design course modules
Activity(n = 583)	Learning through academic engagement	.89	6	- attending scientific/professional conferences - participating in research projects
	Getting input from others	.86	7	- evaluating my course with student teachers - discussing with school teachers
	Learning through reflective activity	.81	4	- doing self-study on my own teacher education practice - keeping a reflective diary of my teaching practice
Reason(n = 576)	Personal ambition	.87	9	- desiring to model for student teachers - desiring to extend didactic knowledge
	Professional role transition	.82	7	- having had insufficient training in doing research - receiving insufficient training in teaching adult teachers
	External requirement	.75	5	- feeling obliged to learn due to the change of teacher education programme - feeling obliged to learn due to the teacher education policy

Data analysis

A frequency analysis was conducted to see how respondents rated on the professional learning scales. A MANOVA test with the post-hoc Hochberg’s GT2 test (Field, 2009) was performed to detect differences in the mean values of the nine professional learning scales between the background variables. An independent t-test was used to investigate the similarities and differences in scores on the scales between the Dutch and Chinese teacher educators.

Results

Teacher educators’ perceptions of the professional learning scales

Table 4 shows the Dutch and Chinese teacher educators’ means and standard deviations of nine professional learning scales. In general, respondents’ ratings are above the mean of the scales, namely 2.5, except for the “professional role transition”.

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of the professional learning scales

Focus	Scale	Mean	Std. Deviation
Content(n = 583)	Pedagogy of teacher education	3.11	.56
	Curriculum	2.94	.66
	Research	2.74	.79
Activity(n = 583)	Getting input from others	3.07	.62
	Learning through academic engagement	2.91	.78
	Learning through reflective activity	2.49	.82
Reason(n = 576)	Personal ambition	3.20	.56
	External requirement	2.55	.67
	Professional role transition	2.27	.69

Of the learning content scales, the mean scores of the three scales do not differ much. The respondents had learned to a large extent about these content areas. The “pedagogy of teacher education” was rated as the highest with a relatively small standard deviation. This indicates a certain consensus among the respondents in their view on learning about the pedagogy of teacher education. The standard deviation regarding “curriculum” also indicates similar opinions among the group of respondents. The “research” scale had the smallest mean score with a relatively large standard deviation, indicating that respondents learned less about research knowledge and skills and that they varied in their opinions regarding what they had learned about research.

Of the learning activities scales, the mean scores on “academic engagement” and “getting input from others” were somewhat higher than “reflective activity”. “Getting input from others” had the highest mean score and the lowest standard deviation, indicating that respondents agreed on interactive activities as their most common way of learning. The mean score on the “academic engagement” scale was less high but with a higher standard deviation, revealing that respondents actively engaged in academic activities but with diverse opinions about the frequency in which this takes place. “Reflective activity” had the lowest mean score and the highest standard deviation, showing that respondents were less engaged in this activity and with various views on it.

Of the reasons for learning, the mean score on the “personal ambition” scale was the highest one, indicating that respondents had a strong intrinsic desire to learn about their profession. The mean score on “external requirement” was a bit higher (mean = 2.55), showing that respondents to some extent agreed with it as a reason for learning. The mean score of “professional role transition” was the lowest one, indicating that most respondents disagreed with it as their reasons for their learning.

Related background variables

The results showed several significant differences between the background variables with regard to the professional learning scales (see Table 5). We illustrated a few important ones below.

Table 5. Mean differences for background variables regarding the professional learning scales (N = 538)

Background variables		Scales (mean, sd)
		P	R	C	LA	G	LR	PA	PR	ER
Highest degree	Bachelor	3.13 (.48)	2.71* (.80)	2.92 (.63)	2.65* (.72)	2.94 (.63)	2.58* (.70)	3.10 (.57)	2.41 (.67)	2.64 (.58)
	Master	3.08 (.54)	2.55* (.75)	2.93 (.65)	2.67* (.73)	3.06(.62)	2.31* (.81)	3.22 (.54)	2.26 (.64)	2.51 (.68)
	PhD	3.13 (.61)	3.00*(.78)	2.97 (.68)	3.30* (.70)	3.09 (.62)	2.69* (.82)	3.18 (.59)	2.27 (.75)	2.56 (.68)
Time spending on educating student teachers	≤ 1 day per week	2.86* (.63)	2.61 (.85)	2.61* (.68)	2.89(.81)	2.88* (.62)	2.34* (.81)	3.01 (.64)	2.18 (.70)	2.45* (.69)
	2–3 days per week	3.13* (.53)	2.75 (.78)	2.99* (.60)	2.95 (.75)	3.09* (.61)	2.48* (.81)	3.21 (.55)	2.25 (.68)	2.51* (.66)
	4–5 days per week	3.20* (.54)	2.82 (.77)	3.06* (.67)	2.88 (.80)	3.14* (.63)	2.59* (.84)	3.29 (.51)	2.35 (.69)	2.65* (.68)
Working experiences as a school teacher	0 year	3.03 (.59)	2.81 (.81)	2.86 (.66)	2.98 (.78)	2.93*(.63)	2.58* (.78)	3.14 (.60)	2.32 (.69)	2.61* (.65)
	1–3 years	3.14 (.64)	2.75 (.80)	3.07 (.69)	3.03 (.78)	3.14* (.61)	2.60* (.83)	3.26 (.59)	2.22 (.75)	2.69* (.67)
	4–6 years	3.18 (.51)	2.69 (.80)	3.04 (.59)	2.84 (.82)	3.10* (.67)	2.37* (.86)	3.18 (.60)	2.26 (.66)	2.38* (.69)
	7–10 years	3.11 (.45)	2.71 (.77)	2.94 (.69)	2.75 (.74)	3.10* (.56)	2.24* (.76)	3.22 (.44)	2.14 (.61)	2.38* (.62)
	> 10 years	3.18 (.53)	2.68 (.75)	2.96 (.64)	2.78 (.74)	3.26* (.57)	2.41* (.87)	3.27 (.47)	2.31 (.67)	2.50* (.71)
Working experience as a teacher educator	≤ 3 years	3.03* (.61)	2.74 (.91)	2.83* (.64)	2.82 (.83)	3.05 (.60)	2.56 (.89)	3.28 (.52)	2.30 (.72)	2.55* (.62)
	4–6 years	2.98* (.52)	2.54 (.81)	2.91* (.62)	2.88 (.78)	3.07 (.57)	2.32 (.84)	3.14 (.50)	2.26 (.65)	2.35* (.65)
	7–10 years	3.04* (.54)	2.71 (.75)	2.82* (.66)	2.89 (.79)	3.05 (.61)	2.45 (.77)	3.16 (.54)	2.24 (.62)	2.53* (.70)
	> 10 years	3.19* (.56)	2.83 (.76)	3.04* (.67)	2.96 (.76)	3.09 (.65)	2.54 (.82)	3.21 (.60)	2.28 (.71)	2.62* (.67)
Combing work with a research task	Yes, as an integral part	3.36* (.50)	3.07* (.80)	3.21* (.62)	3.38* (.67)	3.30* (.53)	2.78 (.95)	3.32* (.54)	2.27 (.77)	2.56 (.76)
	Yes, occasionally	3.05* (.55)	2.81* (.69)	2.87* (.63)	2.93* (.71)	2.94* (.64)	2.60 (.68)	3.17* (.57)	2.35(.65)	2.64 (.60)
	No	2.94* (.59)	2.24* (.75)	2.81* (.69)	2.31* (.65)	3.08* (.61)	1.92 (.68)	3.14* (.55)	2.11 (.63)	2.36 (.68)
Labelling	General TEor	3.13 (.51)	2.57* (.81)	2.84 (.64)	2.85* (.77)	3.12* (.59)	2.36 (.86)	3.19 (.52)	2.19 (.68)	2.52* (.73)
	Subject-matter TEor	3.09 (.58)	2.73* (.77)	2.97 (.66)	2.85* (.77)	3.05* (.63)	2.45 (.81)	3.20 (.58)	2.27 (.67)	2.53* (.64)
	Researcher	3.10 (.63)	3.06* (.71)	2.96 (.70)	3.24* (.71)	2.99* (.65)	2.87 (.71)	3.16 (.58)	2.39 (.72)	2.69* (.62)
	Other	3.17 (.44)	2.46* (.77)	3.08 (.58)	2.46* (.69)	3.28* (.58)	1.99 (.67)	3.35 (.49)	2.22 (.65)	2.38* (.75)

P = Pedagogy of teacher education; R = Research; C = Curriculum; LA = Learning through academic engagement; G = Getting input from others; LR = Learning through reflective activity; PA = Personal ambition; PR = Professional role transition; ER = External requirement.

*p < .05.

Participants with a PhD degree rated higher than respondents with a Bachelor or Master degree on the research-related scales: “research”, “learning through academic engagement”, and “learning through reflective activity”. Participants, who combined their work with research tasks scored high on “pedagogy of teacher education”, “research”, and “curriculum”, as well as on the learning activity scales “academic engagement” and “getting input from others”. Respondents who saw themselves as a researcher rated higher on “research”, “academic engagement”, and “external requirement” than those who saw themselves as a general (subject-matter) teacher educator or other.

The more days a week that respondents spent on educating student teachers, the more they seemed to focus on “pedagogy of teacher education” and “curriculum”, and the more often they engaged in the activity of “getting input from others”.

In summary, the research-related scales “research and academic engagement” related to three background variables, namely holding a PhD degree as the highest educational degree, combining teacher education work with a research task, and teacher educators seeing themselves as a researcher. The scales – “pedagogy of teacher education, curriculum, and getting input from others” related to one background variable of working days, namely the days spend on teacher educating.

Similarities and differences in professional learning between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators

Table 6 shows differences in the scores on the professional learning scales between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators. Chinese respondents focused more on “research” as their learning content than Dutch respondents. Correspondingly, Chinese respondents engaged in “academic activity” and “reflective activity” more often than their Dutch colleagues. By contrast, Dutch respondents engaged in the activity of “getting input from others” more often than Chinese respondents. Chinese respondents perceived “professional role transition” and “external requirement” as their reasons for learning more than Dutch respondents.

Table 6. Independent t-test results for Chinese and Dutch responses

Focus	Scales	CN^a Mean (sd)	NL^b Mean (sd)	t
Content	Pedagogy of teacher education	3.11 (.63)	3.11 (.45)	.07
	Research	3.00 (.69)	2.32 (.77)	10.71**
	Curriculum	2.96 (.67)	2.92 (.64)	.79
Activity	Learning through academic engagement	3.09 (.75)	2.59 (.74)	7.81**
	Getting input from others	2.96 (.67)	3.26 (.49)	−6.39**
	Learning through reflective activity	2.81 (.72)	1.95 (.70)	14.06**
Reason	Personal ambition	3.18 (.61)	3.24 (.47)	−1.28
	Professional role transition	2.39 (.71)	2.08 (.61)	5.29**
	External requirement	2.70 (.63)	2.30 (.67)	7.30**

^an = 365; ^b n = 218 for the content and activity; n = 211 for the reason.

** p < .01.

Discussion

The main aim of this survey study was to empirically explore how teacher educators recognised and perceived aspects found in a previous review study by the authors into their professional learning in practice. The results of the present study confirm, although to varying degrees that all these aspects are important for learning and functioning as a teacher educator.

Most respondents have extensively learned the different aspects of their profession. However, their perceptions of research in their practice varied. Further analysis showed that these variations were related to their highest educational background, the extent of combining teacher education with research tasks, and how they perceived their identity. This finding corresponds to results of a study by Hu, Van Der Rijst, Van Veen, and Verloop (2015) on perceptions of Dutch teachers in a research university and a university of applied science respectively about what the role of research in teaching should be. These researchers found that teachers’ various perceptions of research were related with their highest educational background, their research experience, and the time spent on doing research themselves, i.e. the similar related backgrounds as found in our study. Our study showed that some teacher educators perceived research as an important part of their professional identity while others did not or to a much lesser extent.

To learn content areas, the respondents indicated to have been engaged largely in the activity of getting input from others, normally taking place in their daily working settings. Being engaged in interactive activities with others as an important way of learning by teacher educators corresponds to similar research findings, such as consulting colleagues or exchanging ideas with colleagues (Czerniawski et al., 2017; Dengerink, Lunenberg, & Kools, 2015). Striking is that respondents in our study showed a relatively low score on being engaged in the reflective activity. This might be due to the four items that together formed the reflective activity scale in our study. It is very likely that the respondents scored low on the item of being engaged in keeping a reflective diary simply because of lack of time to do so. Similar counts for the item regarding making use of an induction programme, because such a programme might be hardly available for teacher educators (see also the introduction section). Conducting self-study of teacher education practice or doing action research appeared to be a popular and effective way of learning or improving the profession by teacher educators in our review study (Ping et al., 2018). However, respondents in our survey study indicated that they are not doing self-study or action research so often in their practice. Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Zwart (2011) reported that in the Netherlands, compared with other countries, conducting systematic research into one’s own practice (self-study) is rather new to most Dutch teacher educators. This is also shown in our study where only 24% of the Dutch participants reported that they combine their teacher education work with a research task as an integral part of their job. There might even be a smaller percentage of our participants who conduct a self-study. A possible explanation for this might be that great importance is put on teacher educators to contribute to knowledge development by publishing in scientific journals; this purpose is often seen as less important for research that primarily focuses on improving or changing one’s own practice. In fact, practitioner research including self-study or action research is often criticised as lacking methodological rigour and transparency (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). The wider context of higher education usually values research performance and publications more than teaching when it comes to promotion and tenure for teachers, including teacher educators (Van Lankveld, Schoonenboom, Volman, Croiset, & Beishuizen, 2017). This and the pressure to publish together make it difficult for teacher educators to find time for conducting self-study or action research. Lunenberg et al. (2011) furthermore concluded that supporting teacher educators in carrying out a self-study is an intensive and time-consuming activity. It takes time for teacher educators to accept a research stance and to learn doing research, but also the wider context in which they work needs to reconsider teacher educators’ work in this respect.

Respondents in the survey study showed a strong personal desire to learn. Teacher educators have more autonomy than school teachers in deciding on what and how to teach. As a consequence, they take responsibility for their own professional learning and development, which intrinsically motivates them to learn. This is also supported by the finding of Dickinson (1995) who wrote: “individual involvement in decision making in one’s own learning enhances personal motivation to learn” (p.165). Surprisingly, respondents in our study scored relatively low on the scale “professional role transition” (M = 2.27; SD = .69) as a reason for learning. Apparently, they do not see any urgent challenges that the transition to the profession of teacher educator entails in advance. The theory about teacher learning in higher education – particularly about self-regulated learning, may help to understand our respondents’ low recognition of role transition as a reason for learning. Van Eekelen, Boshuizen, and Vermunt (2005) found that higher education teachers tend to follow a non-linear learning pathway, i.e. they do not know beforehand what (no learning goals) and how (no learning routes) to learn to teach students in higher education. They seem to be directly triggered by the (unexpected) result of their working activities or situation. So in our case, teacher educators usually without formal professional preparation learn to become a teacher educator by doing their job, which triggers them to at least behave according to the new job (role). It is argued that they may not recognise such behavioural changes as a direct reason to learn due to their role transition. Besides, the role transition is particularly relevant to teacher educators in the period of changing job positions, i.e. when the transition is actually taking place.

Some significant differences in professional learning were found between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators. In general, Chinese teacher educators tend to be more active in conducting research than their Dutch colleagues. Similarly, they tend to see themselves more as a researcher instead of a teacher educator than Dutch respondents. This emphasis on research performance by Chinese teacher educators is confirmed, among other things, in a study by Lai, Du, and Li (2014). They found that “the new employment reform in China pressured academics (including teacher educators) to obtain more research funding and publish frequently” (p. 976). It seems that this difference closely relates to the contexts in which teacher educators work, including differences in reforms taking place in teacher education, ways in which their jobs are arranged, and performance assessments by their teacher education institutes. Analysing how contexts in different countries impact on teacher educator professional learning and, through that, influence their professional identity would enrich our understanding of this topic.

Chinese respondents scored higher on the “professional role transition” than Dutch respondents. This indicates that Chinese respondents seem to encounter more challenges after their role transition that motivate them more to learn new things about the profession than Dutch respondents. Generally, Chinese teacher educators follow an academic route from graduate student to teacher educator; Dutch teacher educators more frequently follow a practice route from school teacher to teacher educator.

There is only one scale “getting input from others” on which Dutch respondents scored significantly higher than Chinese respondents. This difference can be understood when from an organisational perspective, namely how teacher education institutes are organised in the two countries. In China, teacher educators generally work in departments of different subjects, for example, a mathematics teacher educator works in the department of mathematics. The drawback of such an organisation might be a problem of isolation: they probably lack the opportunity to share or discuss issues about their work with other teacher educators. In the Netherlands, more teacher educators work in one teacher education institute, which makes it easier for them to share relevant aspects of their professional identity by discussing or exchanging ideas about their profession.

Limitation and further research

Next to the analyses reported on, we explored whether we could categorise teacher educators into different clusters of professional learning. Such exploration aims at creating a benchmark for those who wish to design a professional development programme for teacher educators that also attune to the different professional development needs among teacher educators. However, the data in our survey were too interrelated to distinguish clusters.

Although based on a thorough review study (Ping et al., 2018), the survey study has some limitations. First, the participation in our study was on a voluntary basis and by teacher educators working in a limited number of institutes. So, we need to be careful about the generalisation of the results.

Second, the results are based on self-reported data. We are not certain about the extent to which the respondents understood the questionnaire items in the same way as we did. We suggest a follow-up interview study to gain a deeper understanding of their professional learning.

Third, the translated questionnaires (both Dutch and Chinese version) were not tested among teacher educators in practice. Though the questionnaire was reliable and valid and seemed generally applicable, for strict cultural comparisons, the questionnaire should be examined further on its validity regarding correct translations and cultural adaptions regarding meanings of the items in each country.

Implications and conclusion

The results of the survey study confirm the aspects of professional learning found in our previous review based on a large number of research articles: the aspects of professional learning are also empirically recognised and perceived as more or less relevant to their practice by teacher educators. As such, the questionnaire developed in the survey study can be used by teacher educators as a self-reflection tool to get an image of their positions of themselves with regard to those professional learning aspects. The questionnaire can furthermore be used by teacher education institutes to see to what extent the professional learning aspects apply to teacher educators, thus serving as a tool for discussing their work and professional learning with colleagues. Both the Dutch and Chinese teacher educators seem to have a genuine personal desire to learn their profession, which may be relevant to policymakers. Furthermore, the differences in professional learning between Dutch and Chinese teacher educators closely relate to the contexts in which they work. Taking the varying contexts into consideration, it is worth to explore how teacher educators in such different contexts can learn from each other, for example, by taking differences as a source to reflect on their work about what really constitutes their profession – and what is important for learning this profession in terms of content, learning activities, and reasons for learning.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cui Ping

Cui Ping is a current PhD student at Eindhoven University of Technology. She is now conducting a PhD research project about teacher educator professional learning.

Gonny Schellings

Gonny Schellings is an assistant professor at Eindhoven University of Technology. Her current research focuses on professional identity of (beginning) teachers, learning environment, and learning strategies.

Douwe Beijaard

Douwe Beijaard is a full professor at Eindhoven University of Technology. His research focuses on the professional identity, quality, and development of (beginning) teachers.

Juyan Ye

Juyan Ye is an associate professor at Beijing Normal University. Her teaching and research focus on teacher identity, teacher education, and policy studies in education.

Appendix

A Survey on Teacher Educators’ Professional Learning

1. Could you please indicate to what extent you have learned about the topics listed below during your work as a teacher educator? (4-point Likert Scale: 1 = Not at all; 4 = To a great extent)

Table

Scales	Alpha’s (N = 583)	Number of items	Items
Pedagogy of teacher education	.91	13	- the teacher educator as a mentor of student teachers - student teacher individual learning needs - how student teachers learn - how to be a teacher of teachers - how to relate my teaching to student teachers’ professional growth - how to create opportunities for student teachers to think about teaching in general - how to model my teaching to student teachers - being a role model for student teachers - how to mentor student teachers during their internship - how student teachers develop higher-order thinking - how student teachers develop an inquiry-oriented attitude - how to design assignments for student teachers - The knowledge and skills about reflection
Research	.86	4	- academic writing skills - how to conduct research - educational research methods - the teacher educator as a researcher
Curriculum	.83	5	- how to design course modules - How to contribute to developing teacher education curriculum - the teacher educator as a curriculum developer - didactic knowledge (e.g. teaching strategies) - how to choose appropriate learning materials for student teachers

2. Could you please indicate to what extent you have been engaged in the activities listed below during your work as a teacher educator? (4-point Likert Scale: 1 = Not at all; 4 = To a great extent)

Table

Scales	Alpha’s (N = 583)	Number of items	Items
Learning through academic engagement	.89	6	- participating in research projects - doing academic research - interacting with researchers - engaging in scholarly writing - attending scientific/professional conferences - reading scientific/professional journals
Getting input from others	.86	7	- discussing student teacher learning with colleagues - listening to ideas about teaching from student teachers - evaluating my course with student teachers - discussing with school teachers - trying out new ideas - exchanging ideas with school teachers - attending professional development workshops
Learning through reflective activity	.81	4	- doing self-study on my own teacher education practice - participating induction programme for beginning teacher educators - doing action research on my own teacher education practice - keeping a reflective diary of my teaching practice

3. Could you please indicate to what extent the following items have been the reasons for your professional learning during your work? (4-point Likert Scale: 1 = Not at all; 4 = To a great extent)

Table

Scales	Alpha’s (N = 576)	Number of items	Items
Personal ambition	.87	9	- feeling responsible to stimulate student teachers’ professional development - being interested in examining educational issues more in-depth - desiring to continuously develop myself as a teacher educator - desiring to improve my mentoring of student teachers - desiring to model for student teachers - desiring to extend didactic knowledge - desiring to understand the theory that underpins the practice - desiring to extend subject matter knowledge - feeling the need to integrate new technology into teaching
Professional role transition	.82	7	- feeling uncertain about the pedagogy of teacher education - feeling uncertain about the knowledge base for teaching about teaching - receiving insufficient training in becoming a teacher educator - receiving insufficiently capable in guiding student teachers conduct research - having had insufficient training in doing research - receiving insufficient training in teaching adult teachers - experiencing the change through my transition from teacher to teacher educator
External requirement	.75	5	- feeling obliged to learn due to the change of teacher education programme - feeling obliged to learn due to the teacher education policy - feeling the need to meet external standards for student teachers - experiencing contradictions between personal values and the reality of practice - feeling provoked by the gap of teaching perceptions between my student teachers and myself