In our work as lecturers, teachers, researchers, coaches or managers in a university of applied sciences, we do feel that the amount and variety of societal challenges on higher vocational education (HVE) is growing. Institutions in HE are in a process of transforming from traditional ‘either or’ research or education institutions into more complex hybrid knowledge institutions. Nowadays, universities of applied sciences (as institutions for HVE) in The Netherlands have three main objectives: providing education, conducting practice-oriented research to add to the professional knowledge base, and contributing to innovation in the professional fields of work. Education, research and innovation form the three pillars in the strategy of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences (Educational Council of The Netherlands, 2015). These changing societal demands form an impetus for educational reform and innovation at both organizational and individual employee levels (Cummings & Shin, 2014). Changes in context and roles lead to questions: As a teacher/lecturer/researcher, how do I relate to the different stakeholders? What is the real meaning of being a ‘good’ lecturer or researcher in creating added values, and for whom? Some propose that the new challenges concern everybody and thus should be everyone’s job. But when everything becomes everyone’s job, how can we really realize the required added values? Others promote a more differentiated approach of accurately fitting talents and tasks to create the flow and employee satisfaction that is needed to realize the desired outcomes. But then how do we work together and cooperate with such an individualistic approach? These opposing positions in the discourse concern the question of how to define the ‘professional me’ amongst the ‘we’. In other words, the challenge is how we define and navigate our professional identities within the context of a dynamic multiple-identity organization with increasing pressures for professional diversity (Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Aangenendt, 2015).
The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an interprofessional identity measurement instrument based on Extended Professional Identity Theory (EPIT). The latter states that interprofessional identity is a social identity superordinate to a professional identity consisting of three interrelated interprofessional identity characteristics: belonging, commitment and beliefs. Scale development was based on five stages: 1) construct clarification, 2) item pool generation, 3) review of initial item pool, 4) shortening scale length (EFA to determine top four highest factor loadings per subscale; 97 dental and dental hygiene students), and 5) cross-validation and construct validity confirmation (CFA; 152 students and 48 teachers from six curricula). Explained variance of the EPIS was 65%. Internal consistency of the subscales was 0.79, 0.81 and 0.80 respectively and 0.89 of the overall scale. CFA confirmed three-dimensionality as theorized by EPIT. Several goodness-of-fit indexes showed positive results: CFI = 0.968 > 0.90, RMSEA = 0.039 < 0.05, and SRMR = 0.056 ≤ 0.08. The factor loadings of the CFA ranged from 0.58 to 0.80 and factors were interrelated. The Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS) is a 12-item measurement instrument with high explained variance, high internal consistency and high construct validity with strong evidence for three-dimensionality.
As all professionals, teacher educators are expected to develop themselves continuously during their working life in order to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Smith (2003, p203) distinguishes three reasons for teacher educators to develop themselves: 1) to improve the profession (teacher education); 2) to maintain interest in the profession, to grow personally and professionally and 3) to advance within the profession, promotion. At the teacher education institute of the Fontys University of Applied Science, teacher educators are stimulated by the management to spend 10-15% of their working hours on professional development. Do teacher educators spend these hours and if they dos so, what purpose do they have in mind? What activities do they undertake to develop themselves? What topics do they choose for professional development? Are there differences between more experienced teacher educators and beginning teacher educators? To study these questions, a questionnaire was held by all 228 teacher educators working at the Fontys teacher education institute. At this institute, about 4000 student-teachers are educated to become a teacher in secondary or vocational education. First impressions of the results show that 33% of the teacher educators spend 10-15% of their time on professional development. A large group of teacher educators (42%) spends less then 10% and a small group (23%) spends more then 15% of their time on professional development. The main reason for teacher educators to professionalize themselves is to improve the quality of their teaching to students. This refers to the second reason Smith (2003) mentions. Improving the profession or advance within the profession (reason 1 and 3 in Smith's list) were much less often mentioned. The four activities most mentioned by teacher educators to develop themselves were reading of (scientific) literature (1), followed by collegial consultation (2), attending conferences or meetings (3) and trying out new approaches and systematically evaluating them (4). The topics teacher educators develop themselves in vary from didactical subjects to coaching skills, subject-specific topics and ICT-skills. Further analysis to reveal whether there are differences between experienced and beginning teachers is still in progress, but will be available at the conference in August 2011. References: Smith, K (2003). So, what about the professional development of teacher educators? European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 26, No2, pp201-215
