Home and away ‘hybrid practicum’. Pre-service teachers experiencing the ‘class-academy’ programme during the ‘COVID-19 year’ in Israel

ABSTRACT

This article examines the contribution of the ‘classacademy’ programme to the practical training of preservice teachers in Israel during the COVID–19 pandemic. Based on a sample of 51 graduates from 19 colleges and six universities who completed their studies in June 2020, the study used a questionnaire and indepth interviews to describe students’ experience in an academic year with a ‘hybrid’ home and away practicum: a regular first semester and a second semester with remote learning and teaching. The findings point to challenges, achievements, and complexities. Despite the situation, students perceived their practical experience and the contribution of the ‘class academy’ programme to their teacher training in a positive light. They saw training teachers and pedagogical instructors as important for their training and viewed the school system as an important support both emotionally and professionally. Students’ peer groups helped provide the support mechanism for creating a sense of ‘togetherness’ in a state of uncertainty. The main conclusion is that thanks to the solid foundations laid by the ‘class academy’ programme in the first semester, the experience of remote teaching and learning greatly contributed to students’ professional coping with the teaching challenges during the emergency.

KEYWORDS:

• Israel
• teacher education
• class academy
• practical training
• preservice teachers
• COVID-19
• schools
• colleges

The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented disruption to all aspects of the education sector: from employment, to teaching and learning methods, to the adoption of distant and virtual learning as a response to the educational challenges.¹ The educational system was temporarily on hold due to the lockdowns, affecting millions of students worldwide. One of the challenges in addressing the learning problem was the availability of technology.²

Many studies addressed the implications of the pandemic for learning and teaching under the transition of all educational sector to ERT and distance learning. Lecturers and students experienced disruption in the familiar processes of teaching and learning for almost two years. Schools and educational institutions across the world closed their gates, but continued to teach in a different form. For the first time remote teaching became a technological necessity imposed by the situation.³

In Israel, the educational system was closed for more than 188 days (from March 2020 to September 2021). Academic institutions for teachers training continued their work in a remote format with teacher-training processes completely changed due to lockdowns and restrictions. Pre-service teachers had to learn to teach remotely and carry out a different practical experience.⁴

Worldwide studies explored the impact of practical training during the pandemic on teacher training in an extensive range of aspects.⁵ Yet there is room for further studies on students’ perceptions of the disruption in teacher-training processes in light of their own experiences during the pandemic. Especially how they perceived their practicum under the dramatic changes that occurred overnight, wreaking havoc on traditional processes. Examining that period from the students’ viewpoint can shade light on teacher-training processes and lead to significant insights for institutions of higher education in this field. As such, this article examines the practical experience (Practicum) during the pandemic as reflected in the views expressed by students in the ‘class academy’ programme.

The structure of teacher training in Israel

Teacher training in Israel is based on a four-year academic programme, which includes practical training in schools and kindergartens, during which students undergo developmental processes, forming a personal and a professional identity alongside teaching and observing.⁶ The students teach in classes, receive feedback and evaluations, and experience professional development on the way to becoming teachers. Studies emphasise that multiple exposure to teaching experiences, in conjunction with a training teacher and a pedagogical instructor, is decisive for preparing students for their tasks as teachers.⁷

In Israel, there are three models of practical training:

• The tradition model: The students’ own practicing is marginalised; they mainly learn by imitating the training teacher’s way of teaching.⁸

• The participatory-collegial model, such as the one of the Professional Development School (PDS), aimed at learning, internalisation and knowledge building. Groups of students are exposed to different levels of teachers’ work at school and participate in learning communities.⁹

• The clinical model, in which clinical practical experience is gained alongside academic training and the centre is the class and the school.¹⁰

Established in 2014, the ‘class academy’ programme is based on the clinical model. It provides an intensive practical experience for two days a week for one year, with high involvement of the students in school life and co-teaching with the training teacher. The co-teaching model helps students to bridge the gap between theory and practice and enables them gradually to integrate into the educational field, while creating a supportive learning environment.¹¹ The ‘class academy’ programme creates a professional framework that accompanies the students in the schools and develops a meaningful reciprocal connection between the schools and the academy that trains teachers.¹² In comparison to the other models of practical training, the ‘class academy’ programme has been found to be very effective with regard to both students’ acquisition of knowledge (knowledge of the subject, teaching methods, adaptation to students, and contact with parents) and pedagogical benefits (e.g. acquisition of work habits, better acquaintance with colleagues in the team, etc.).¹³ Other advantages have been found as well, as for example a sense of belonging to the team; learning and professional development (through exposure to various situations); improving lesson-planning skills; independence and involvement in school activities; and improvement in teaching skills. Students in the programme take part in all educational activities and constitute additional teaching staff. Accompanied by the training teachers, they teach lessons and function as full partners in class and school activities. Their presence reduces the teacher-student ratio in class, which allows to foster meaningful learning and professional development of the trainee teachers.¹⁴ Students in the programme see their practical experience as the most significant component in the teacher training and report that the programme greatly contributes to their preparation for the profession.¹⁵

Practical training in the Corona year

In the first semester, before the outbreak of the pandemic, students received a full support practical training: they regularly came to schools for two days a week. During that time, they watched the training teacher, learned from him/her, integrated into co-teaching, and practiced teaching under the guidance of the training teacher. In the ‘class academy’ programme, students were closely accompanied by a school liaison who took care of their integration into school life. In addition, there was a pedagogical instructor from the college who visited schools, watched and guided students, and even met with them at the college once a week.

In mid-March 2020, all educational institutions in Israel closed their doors and switched to remote teaching and learning. The move was meant to ensure continuity. Practical teacher training became complex and challenging. Students got their practical training in schools that were closed for most of the time, while experiencing the transition to remote teaching together with the teachers, who were supposed to accompany and train them. The principals and teachers themselves faced instability, uncertainty, health issues, and technological challenges, saturated with apprehension and resistance when they had to implement remote teaching while managing a framework that frequently changed in accordance with the national health guidelines.¹⁶

Teachers had to offer remote teaching in an active and varied format when they only partially mastered these skills. Before the pandemic, most of them rejected or felt insecure about innovative methods or only used remote teaching technologies partially and superficially.¹⁷ The outbreak of the pandemic gave rise to a sense of loneliness among some teachers and highlighted their own and their students’ insufficient digital skills. On the emotional level, the need for contact, personal relations, attention and inclusion of students under stress increased. Educational institutions had to find creative solutions to deal with the situation. Some chose to focus on core subjects alone, while others gave preference to emotional issues over academic ones.¹⁸ The challenging time was also a catalyst for the development of techno-pedagogical skills, assessment, treatment of attitudes and beliefs, and concern for the emotional, social, identity aspects of the learners.¹⁹

In mid-March 2020, students moved to practical training by remote learning and teaching, including teaching Zoom classes together with the training teacher; teaching groups of students or individuals via Zoom; preparing asynchronous lessons, such as videos, games, and online assignments; checking assignments and answering students via WhatsApp, emails or school portals. The students worked in coordination and collaboration with the training teachers and met with them from time to time for guidance, planning, and feedback sessions. The pedagogical instructors, together with training teachers, coordinated the way students were integrated into remote teaching. When schools reopened, students in practical training taught in ‘capsules’ (fixed small groups). For a long time, pedagogical instructors were not allowed into schools due to COVID-19 restrictions, which meant that student tutorials had to be given via Zoom. In the pedagogical guidance, special emphasis was placed on pedagogy of remote teaching and suitable teaching practices.²⁰

The pandemic’s effect on practical teacher training has been examined in several studies, especially the concerns about the changes imposed by the pandemic and the opportunities for creativity created by these constraints.²¹ To a considerable degree, students in practical training during the time of remote teaching were exposed to new technologies in education. They developed useful skills that will serve them as future teachers, such as adaptation, flexibility, and interaction with students in online settings and efficient use of time.²² In addition, the students displayed a high level of self-efficacy in terms of teaching strategies, student involvement, and class management.²³ This field of research is still at its initial stages. The present article seeks to make a modest contribution to that endeavour by examining how students experienced their practical training in the ‘class academy’ programme during the hybrid academic year (one routine semester and one of remote teaching and learning) and how they assessed the programme’s contribution to their professional training as future teachers.

Methodology

Research design

The research method is interpretative qualitative. The study seeks to present a complex bricolage of the voices of future teachers.²⁴ It is supplemental to our previous study that was based on a quantitative questionnaire distributed to graduates of the ‘class academy’ programme in Israel in 2020.²⁵ The questionnaire was distributed in a one-step manner through the email system of the national coordinator for the programme. The questionnaire included an open question at the end, asking students to describe their feelings about the ‘class academy’ programme and its contribution to their practical training during the pandemic.

Research population

There were 51 respondents (N = 51) to this part of the questionnaire, graduates of the ‘class academy’ programme from 19 colleges and six universities in Israel, who completed their studies in June 2020. Of these, 88.2% were women, the rest men; the average age was 26. It was a random sample of respondents.

Research tools

• A questionnaire with an open question.

• In-depth interviews with eight students.

Data analysis

There were two stages of data analysis:

• Analysis of the open question: Each researcher read the answers several times individually and then together. The content analysis of the text included a holistic examination and the conversion of data into content categories, enabling comprehensive observation of the phenomenon under investigation.²⁶ Next, we created categories, while looking for salient common elements between the theory and our research material and coding recurring ideas and topics.²⁷

• In-depth interviews. A random sample of eight students from five different colleges was selected: seven women and one man; average age 26; with a bachelor’s degree. At the time of the interviews, seven of them worked as teachers in the internship year (see Appendix). Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the interviews were conducted via Zoom; they lasted between half-an-hour and an hour and were recorded and transcribed. The questions were prepared in advance and dealt with students’ perception of their practical training prior to and during the pandemic. The question also addressed their sources of support, their sense of readiness for teaching and their integration as teachers in the following year. The interviewees were given the opportunity to elaborate in a free conversation.

  The interviews were examined according to the principles of qualitative analysis,²⁸ based on the understanding that the analysis constitutes “a series of encounters between researchers’ world and their subject’s perception of reality, which support and change each other.’²⁹ The interviews were read several times. Primary and secondary coding into content categories was performed; they were sorted and classified into inclusive categories and sub-categories, as they emerged in the interviews. The categories were checked and consolidated. The process was conducted by each of the researchers separately, and then jointly. For validation, the findings and the analysis were submitted to examination by another scholar with a doctorate in Education. Four categories were found, as shown in Table 1.

  Table 1. Main categories and samples.

  Categories	Examples	N =
  Benefits of the ‘class academy’ programme	‘I would say that the class academy has prepared me 100% for the field. I am sure the entire experience in the class academy was significant; only thanks to that I have such self-confidence in being a teacher. All the support and learning they gave to me in the field, the teachers in the field, the many hours in the field trained me profoundly for what I do today; without it, I would not have such high [self-] confidence. The class academy trained me in the skills I need, the skills a teacher needs; instead of learning them while working, I learn them beforehand, experimenting, polishing them and then going into the field with much more confidence; that I checked exams together with the teachers, for example, helped me a lot; not everything is new to me’. (P1) ‘I have a lot of confidence thanks to the intense professional practical training I received. The “class academy” programme strengthened the students’ confidence in their self-efficacy’. (P2) ‘The class academy makes the transition from college to teaching much easier; it’s a real steppingstone, that’s the image. A steppingstone that helps preparing you for the next stage. I really think it’s very important and it’s not clear to me why they did not do it earlier’. (P3)	7
  Contribution of the educational staff: training teachers, pedagogical instructor,s academic supervisors	‘I had two [training] teachers; they were just excellent, constantly sharing [things] with me and helping me learn the profession, being a teacher. They showed me everything, class teaching, checking exams, individual lessons; I really taught thanks to them. The person in charge on behalf of the college [i.e. the pedagogic instructor] was really nice and kindly [responded] to every request of ours; we met via Zoom every week; it helped us to stay a team’. (P3) ‘The pedagogical instructor answered all our questions; he was there for us all the time; no matter when I asked him, he was there for me’. (P-5). ‘The pedagogic instructor helped us together; a feeling of all of us being together in this situation and together we’ll get through it; and it really made it easier for me’. (P-2) The pedagogic instructor and the training teacher served as significant supportive frame. They gave the feeling that ‘we are all together’. (P5) ‘I was in the class academy [programme] before the COVID-19 [pandemic] broke out. It is wonderful. I got to the high school, and it was amazing. From the first moment on, I was a partner in the processes, in the classes, both individual one-on-one [sessions] and face-to-face classes. I really felt part of the team; I met them every day, a full partnership. They gave me a sense of belonging and being part of the team right from the beginning. It affected me all year long because I felt [being] part [of the team]’. (P8)	6
  The differences between the first and second semester: regular practical training versus remote teaching and learning	‘It was a change of perception that just because of the class academy [programme] it was different for me, and I was helped by the lessons of the pedagogic instructor. I was taught the difference between a zoom class and a regular class; last year I had a regular semester and a corona semester. It helped me get to know the two different forms of teaching. It prepared me very well. Thanks to the class academy [programme] I was ready this year for [teaching] via Zoom and afterwards for the return to regular classes’. (P8) ‘At first everyone was in shock, really; they didn’t know what remote teaching meant; and it was not clear to us at all, what they wanted from us, how they intended us to learn. My [training] teacher was really stressed by all the technology. Luckily, I understand [the technology] a bit, so I could help her a little. She really couldn’t manage; there were also a lot of Zoom [sessions], a lot of assignments on the school’s website; therefore I couldn’t be connected to everything – [access] permission was required and the staff alone had that. Also, the [training] teacher often forgot to tell me that there was a meeting and assessments, or that the system had changed again. I felt that I was really a bother. I tried very hard; there were periods that if I didn’t call [her], I had no contact with the [training] teacher, even for two weeks. She was very stressed from the situation and all the changes. The pedagogic instructor helped me’. (P1)	8
  Impact on integration into teaching	‘After such a year, I felt very well prepared. I had a wonderful year, essential for the training of a future teacher. It gave me lots of tools for real work. I had both a good start of the year with an entire, really normal and meaningful semester and practical training during Corona, which prepared me to work as a class educator in a year that started with remote teaching’. (p2)	5

The study’s limitations: The research population was not a representative sample, with no control group of students who did not participate in the ‘class academy’ programme. Findings are only based on evaluation of the content and data collected in interviews and surveys among programme participants.

Findings

Part 1: Analysis of the answers to the question

‘Please elaborate on the impact of the class-academy programme on your training during the Corona year’.

In the content analysis, a primary distinction was made between statements expressing a positive assessment and those with a negative or critical one. In addition, the following main categories were found among the issues addressed by the students: emotional aspects; teaching skills in general; skills of remote teaching and using technological tools; the role of training teachers and school staff; and the role of the college (see Table 1). The process enabled the creation of credibility and validity, consensus, and dialogical cooperation between the researchers.³⁰ The findings provide an answer as to the effect of the ‘class academy’ programme on students’ practical training during the pandemic.

Part 2: qualitative analysis of the interviews

To strengthen and validate the above findings, in-depth interviews were conducted with eight students who had participated in the ‘class academy’ programme. The students studied at five different academic institutions for teachers training in Israel. Analysis of the interviews revealed four main categories (some including sub-categories), which are presented below, using examples from the interviews, in the students’ own words.

All in all, the main findings point to challenges, achievements and complexities. Despite the exceptional situation, the students perceived their practical experience and the contribution of the ‘class academy’ programme to their teacher training in a positive light and saw the training teachers and pedagogical instructors as important for their training. They perceived the school system as important, supporting their training both emotionally and professionally. The peer group, the student body, also assisted providing the support mechanism for creating a sense of ‘togetherness’ in a state of uncertainty. The main conclusion, thus, is that thanks to the solid foundations laid by the ‘class academy’ programme in the first semester, the experience with remote teaching and learning greatly contributed to students’ professional coping with the teaching challenges during the emergency.

Discussion and conclusion

This article presented a bricolage of the voices of students who underwent a hybrid experience, face-to-face and remote teaching and learning during the ‘hybrid’ academic year: one routine semester, one of remote teaching and learning under the COVID 19 restrictions. Their practical training was mostly perceived positively, with school and college described as providing continuous support and stability despite the crisis. Yet, when there were problems in the support framework, the students perceived the period as negative and frustrating.

The study’s main findings are as follows:

• Student felt a kind of resilience and belief in their own abilities grew in tandem with the difficulties. The pandemic did not affect the practical training in remote teaching and the programme’s principles conveyed in the first semester. Hence, students’ coping with the changes in the second (COVID-19) semester was based on their formative experience in the first (regular) semester. The key components of the ‘class academy’ programme, such as intensive practicing, close connection to training teachers, co-teaching, comprehensive inclusion in the school and its staff, with the support framework provided by the college that created a close partnership between college and school, were particularly significant for the students. These findings are consistent with previous studies on the programme prior to the pandemic.³¹

  Dealing with the difficulties and the adjustments required by the pandemic enabled some students to grow, as the difficulties and unique experience attending the pandemic helped them integrate into teaching during the internship year. In the words of one student:

  It was a decision to jump into the deep water, and I was glad that the school trusted me. Thanks to this, it was relatively easy for me to become part of the team and make good connections. The school very much believed in me from the beginning, and it is still my feeling along the way … it gives you a lot of confidence in your ability to bring yourself and your ideas to fruition (P-3).

• Students saw the training teams on behalf of the schools and the colleges as an anchor providing stability. The training teachers were perceived as decisive, providing professional and emotional support and enabling students to get a sense of belonging to the school staff. The school became a centre of professional and emotional affinity and a social support network in the face of the uncertainty and complexity created by the pandemic. In addition, it was important for students to belong to their peer group and feel support from fellow students. These findings are consistent with previous studies demonstrating that those who actively engaged in teacher training during the pandemic felt a sense of belonging and control and experienced an orderly supportive framework; they experienced less stress and their overall feelings were more positive.³²

• The support framework provided by school/college/university training staff was perceived as important and significant. The more training teachers and pedagogical instructors showed willingness to accompany the students and support them during this complex period, the more positive trainees perceived the training. This finding are in line with previous studies examining existing clinical models of teacher training before the pandemic.³³ They all emphasise the importance of the connection between the training academic institution and the schools and the practical training. These insights reinforce the significance and need for choosing qualified personal for support frameworks of practical training.

• Overcoming difficulties through profound acquaintance with the school and teaching. This is a function of students’ sense of readiness and efficacy described in the findings. Students were apparently able to overcome the challenges of the period in a way that did not adversely affect, and perhaps even strengthened, their ability to find employment the following year. This finding is similar and in line with another study we conducted on students’ attitudes to their practical training during the pandemic, which showed that most students succeeded in finding work and integrated well into schools and kindergartens in the following year.³⁴

• Despite the optimistic description of the practical training during the pandemic, the students noted one major difficulty, namely uncertainty and confusion. The unpreparedness of some institutions of higher education and schools led to a lack of clarity about what was expected of the students.³⁵ Some students felt the difficulties faced by the veteran teaching staff, which affected the way they could accompany, train and support students. Moreover, the opening and closure of the institutions on short notice in accordance with state guidelines, and the ambiguities of those guidelines, created a complex situation, giving rise to many difficulties.

• There was a discrepancy between the first semester, which was conducted in the regular format and provided a solid basis for practical training according to the principles of the ‘class academy’ programme, and the second semester, mostly conducted by remote teaching and learning under the COVID-19 restrictions.

All in all, the present study strengthens existing research on the role of the ‘class academy’ programme in the optimal practical training of future teachers, which is perceived as a significant component in teacher training.³⁶ Despite the complex and challenging year, students’ responses indicate that the solid foundations that were laid in the first semester by the ‘class academy’ programme served as a good basis for the practical training during the huge uncertainties of the second semester. The unique practical training experienced by the students strengthened their professional ability to cope with teaching challenges as future teachers, who are also able to teach remotely and in complex situations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yonit Nissim

Yonit Nissim is Head of the Education and Learning Department, Tel- Hai Academic College, Israel.

Edni Naifeld is Head of the Unit for Practical Experience in Teaching, Tel- Hai Academic College, Israel.

Notes

1. Paguio, Mendoza a Asio, “Challenges”; Mikuls et al., “American College”; and Nissim and Simon, “From Disruption to Comfort.”

2. Asio et al., “Internet Connection”; and Aboagye, Yawson and Appiah, “COVID-19.”‏

3. Nissim, and Simon, “Agility”; Gadia et al., “Learning Preferences”; Bartuseviciene et al., “Building”; Singh et al., “SARS-CoV-2 Variants”; and Alfadda and Mahdi, “Measuring Students.”

4. Naifeld and Nissim, “From Uncertainty to Self-Efficacy.”

5. Moyo, “COVID-19”; and Nasri et al., “Mitigating.”

6. Orland-Barak and Wang, “Teacher Mentoring”; and Naifeld and Nissim, “From a Triangular to a Pentagonal Model.”

7. Maskit and Mevurach, “It could be Different”; Whitford and Barnett, “The Professional Development”; and Nissim and Naifeld, “Co-Teaching.”

8. Zilberstein et al., “The Instruction Triangle”; Lehavi, “First and Foremost.”

9. Ariav, “Practical Experience”; Ariav and Smith, “Creating Partnerships”; and Maskit and Mevurach, “It could be Otherwise.”

10. Ariav, “Practical Experience”; Ran, “Field-based Teacher Residency”; and Kriewaldt and Turnidge, “Conceptualizing.”

11. Arviv-Elyashiv and Zimmerman, “Dropout”; Rytivaara and Kershner, “Co-Teaching”; and Forbes and Billet, “Successful Co-Teaching.”

12. Naifeld and Nissim, “From a Triangular to a Pentagonal Model.”

13. Ronen et al., “Experience.”

14. Ministry of Education, “Academy Class”; Ran, “Field-based Teacher Residency”; and Sperling “Review.”

15. Naifeld and Nissim, “Co-Teaching”; and Sasson et al., “The Role.”

16. Huber and Helm, “COVID-19”; and Oktaviani et al., “Developing.”

17. Buda, “Stumbling Blocks”; Selwyn, “The Digital Native–Myth”; and Warnich and Gordon, “The Integration.”

18. Eickelmann and Gerick, “Learning”;‏ Reimers and Schleicher, “Schooling Disrupted.”

19. Orland-Barak et al., “Teacher Training.”

20. Ministry of Education, “School-practice.”

21. Moyo, “COVID-19”; Flores and Gago, “Teacher Education”; Nissim, and Simon, “Agility.”

22. Brinia and Psoni, “Online Teaching”; and Korucu-Kış, “Preparing.”

23. Kidd and Murray, “The COVID-19 Pandemic”; Celik, “The Intervention”; and Naifeld and Nissim, “From Uncertainty to Self-Efficacy”.

24. Denzin and Lincoln, The Landscape.

25. See note 4 above.

26. Lieblich et al., “Between the Whole and its Parts”; and Babbie, “Concepts.”‏

27. Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, Qualitative Research; Stuckey, “The Second Step.”

28. Shkedi, Words of Meaning.

29. Hazan, “Another Voice.”

30. Polkinghorne, “Validity Issues.” ‏

31. Ministry of Education, “Class Academy”; Ran, “Field-based Teacher Residency Programs”; Sperling, “Review”; and Naifeld and Nissim, “From a Triangular to a Pentagonal Model.”

32. Zacher and Rudolph, “Individual Differences and Changes.”

33. Ariav, “Practical Experience”; Ran, “Field-based Teacher Residency Programs”; and Kriewaldt and Turnidge, “Conceptualizing.”

34. Naifeld and Nissim, “From Uncertainty to Self-Efficacy.”

35. Lederman, “Will Shift to Remote Teaching Be Boon”; Dietrich “Attempts”; and Reimers et al., “Supporting.”

36. Sasson et al., “The Role”; and ‏Naifeld and Nissim, “Co-Teaching.”