Primary school teacher education leaders’ concern for prospective teachers’

desirable affective dispositions development:

In case of Amhara region
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to crosscheck whether Amhara region primary school
teacher education leaders are strategically concerned about prospective teachers’
Desirable Affective Dispositions (DADs) development or not and to explore the reasons
behind. To achieve these purposes a mixed research approach and concurrent nested
design were used. Data were collected from purposively selected leaders, teacher
educators, prospective teachers and prospective teacher representatives using interview,
and focus group discussion (FGD). The data were analyzed and interpreted qualitatively.
To analyze the qualitative data thematic analysis was employed by supporting with
frequency percentage. The qualitative analysis results revealed leaders are not
strategically concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development because of
different reasons. These reasons are themed as hidden, societal and official curriculum
factors. The qualitative findings lead to recommend that leaders should make DADs
development their strategic concern in their planning, implementation, evaluation,
reporting and resource allocation process.
Key terms: Leaders, Desirable affective disposition development, Strategic concern

1. Introduction
The issue of prospective teachers’ DADs development should be an area of priority in
teacher education (Prooyen, 2013).Similarly, Mohan and Subashini (2016) stated that
development of DADs should be the central mission of teacher education institutions
(TEIs) at the heart of their philosophy. National Council Accreditation of Teacher
Education [NCATE],2008) also declared that DADs should be the third dimension of
teachers’ quality standard in teacher education system. In the same vein, Katz (1993)
strongly asserted that leaders have to pay more deliberate attention to development of
prospective teachers’ DADs and weakening of undesirable affective dispositions (UADs).
Furthermore, King, Hilber and Engley (2007) contended that teacher education leaders
should be strategically aware and be concerned in designing teaching strategies and
assessment instruments to encourage the development of prospective teachers’ DADs.

Prooyen (2013) strongly claimed that prospective teachers’ DADs development should be
focal area of teacher education programs because it is the heart of teacher effectiveness.
Garcia (2014) added that since DADs matter greatly in all parts of our future life, their

1
development should be an explicit goal of public education. Moreover, Sherman (2006)
claimed that establishing high standards for the moral dispositions of prospective teachers
is an important mandate for teacher preparation programs. Similarly, Gulati and Pant
(n.d.) stated that there must be clearly defined and explicit focus, direction and
commitment for fostering DAD of students in every educational institution including
primary school teacher education colleges. Likewise, Hughes (2017) contended that
teacher education leaders should be concerned not only about and pedagogy of teaching,
but also about professional attitudes, dispositions, and character ,therefore ,they should
take advantage of opportunities to nurture relationships with students, listen intently to
students, and build on students’ strengths

Being cognizant of the aforementioned scholarly professional claims, teacher preparation

accrediting bodies declared that prospective teachers’ dispositions should be a strategic
concern in teacher preparation program (Kennedy &Goodwin, 2016). Moreover,
Rakich(n.d.) explained that NCATE(2008) mandated teacher education programs to
develop and evaluate DADs of teacher candidates. Consequently, some TEIs seriously
took prospective teachers’ DADs development as their strategic concern which is evident
in the development of lists of dispositions included in their conceptual framework which
are aligned to national guidelines, state standards, institutional mission and guidelines
(Baldwin, 2007).

Prospective teachers’ DADs development is said to be a strategic concern in teacher

education system if it is an area of priority in the planning, budget allocation,
implementation, evaluation and reporting system of the teacher education program. To
make prospective teachers’ DADs development a strategic concern in TEIs, leaders
should establish a valuation, cultivation, and assessment systems about these issues at a
college, department and instructional level. If these systems are well established,
monitored and evaluated by leaders, leaders are playing positive role for the development
of prospective teachers’ DADs. Therefore, development of prospective teachers’
disposition is a demanding, multi-year task that requires much thought, effort investment
and commitment on the part of leaders (Wasicsko, Callahan &Wirtz ,2004). However, for
different reasons leaders might fail to make prospective teachers’ DADs development

2
their strategic concern. For instance, Kennedy and Goodwin(2016) noted that the abstract
and ambiguous nature of defining correct teacher dispositions would make some leaders
to be negligent of prospective teachers’ DADs development in their teacher education
program.

All the aforementioned scholarly claims about the importance of DADs development in
teacher education program remind us that prospective teachers’ DADs development
should be area of strategic concern on the part of leaders. Furthermore, from the above
reviewed literature it is also possible to deduce that TEI leaders might not to be at equal
footing in making prospective teachers’ DADs development their strategic agenda for
different reasons. The reasons might be related to formal, hidden and societal curriculum
because these three forms of curricula have the power to negatively or positively affect
the quality of leadership at personal and institutional level at any level of education
(McCain-Reid,1994; Pierre,2013). The concept official curriculum refers to curriculum
framework, syllabuses, course modules, worksheets and exam papers (UNESCO,2013)
International Bureau of Education). On the other hand, hidden curriculum is unintentional
process that is transmitted through the teacher education leaders’ every day normal
activities or actions that greatly influence student’s attitudes towards knowledge, skills,
practices and values (Pierre, 2013). Societal curriculum is "massive, ongoing, informal
curriculum of family, peer groups, neighbourhoods, churches, organizations, occupations,
mass media, and other socializing forces that "educate” all of us throughout our lives"
(Cortes, 1981, p.24).

School principals (teacher education leaders) are the sum total of all of their educational
or schooling (formal & hidden curriculum), home, and life (societal curriculum)
experiences, i.e. the sum total of all of their schooling, individual and social intentions
and interactions (Pierre,2013). Moreover, consistent with this claim McCain-Reid(1994)
asserted that "societal messages [societal curriculum] influence individuals on local,
national, and worldwide levels, and affect one's self-image and understanding or
misunderstanding about others--even one's vision about the nation and the world, and
hopes for the future"( p.5). Pierre and McCain-Reid’s arguments imply that teacher
education leadership about prospective teachers’ DADs development could be taken as

3
the function of these three curricula types or intrapersonal, interpersonal and extra-
personal factors.

2. Statement of the problem

Ideally, it is believed that prospective teachers’ DADs development should be the
strategic concern of primary school teacher education leaders. Consistent with this claim,
Carroll(2007) pointed out that development of dispositions should be the most concern in
teacher education. Likewise, Hughes (2017) stated that prospective teacher dispositional
development should be area of priority in teacher preparation programs; leaders should
integrate the issue in their planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting system;
they should be models in demonstrating DADs; they need to support the overall DADs
cultivation process. This seems to imply that TEI leaders have the responsibility for and
must be alert to the affective dimension that is transmitted to students through the hidden
curriculum (Semper & Blasco, 2018).

However, because of different reasons prospective teachers’ DADs development mightn’t

be a strategic concern for teacher education leaders like deans and department heads. For
instance, Singaravelu (2010) contends that affective domain is neglected by all levels of
education leaders including teacher education. Similarly, Wasicsko et al. (2004) found
that there were no set standards regarding the inclusion, instruction, and assessment of
dispositions in teacher education programs on the part of leaders. In Ethiopian context,
Melese(2018) found out that cultivation of preschool prospective teachers’ DADs is not
strategic concern for leaders in one of primary school teacher education colleges found in
Amhara region.

If teacher education leaders consider development of prospective teachers’ DADs as their

strategic agenda , they could have a positive impact on all college communities whereas
if DADs are not their strategic concern, the valuation, teaching, assessment and
cultivation practices of DADs might be minimal at classroom, department and college
level. More specifically, the negligence of teacher education leaders about prospective
teachers’ DADs cultivation negatively affects the concern of teacher educators for the
issue. However, as far as the researcher’s knowledge is concerned, what reality is there in

4
Amhara region’s primary school teacher education is unaddressed educational issue via
research. This initiated the researcher to study the issue. The objective of the study were
to crosscheck whether prospective teachers’ DADs development is a strategic concern or
not for leaders of primary school teacher education colleges in Amhara region and to
investigate the reasons behind this reality. To achieve this objective the following
research leading questions were formulated.

1. Are primary school teacher education college leaders in Amhara region

strategically concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development?
2. Why primary school teacher education college leaders in Amhara region are or
aren’t strategically concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development?

3. Research method
The present study was conducted in three primary teacher education colleges coded as
X,Y& Z found in Amhara region by employing a qualitative method. The primary data
sources for this study were deans and department heads but for triangulation purpose
teacher educators, prospective teachers and prospective teacher representatives were also
used as sources of data. Sample vice-deans, teacher educators and prospective teacher
representatives were selected purposively because they are supposed to have rich
information about the issues under investigation whereas prospective teachers were
selected using convenience sampling technique. Consequently, three vice deans, six
teacher educators, six prospective teachers and 18 prospective teacher representatives
were participated in the study. To gather the required data interview, FGD and close
ended questionnaire were employed.

3.1. Trustworthiness
To maximize the trustworthiness, reliability and validity of measuring instruments the
first drafts of closed ended interview and FGD question items were commented by the
researcher’s advisors, Curriculum, English ,Amharic, Measurement and Evaluation
professional and their comments were considered in revising and finalizing the data
gathering tools. These professionals were asked to check for content coverage, clarity of
questions, briefness, biases, and relevance of questions to the subject of disposition

5
development as a strategic concern for leaders. After incorporating the comments the
instruments were piloted at Debre Markose College Of Teacher Education to maximize
its validity and reliability.

3.2. Data analysis and interpretation

Data from closed ended questions, interviews and FGD were organized to check their
completeness and to systematize them. The qualitative data were screened, read, reread,
transcribed and coded using a theme-based approach consistent with the research leading
questions. The transcriptions were then analyzed for emerging themes, patterns,
similarities, and differences in the responses across all three colleges. Reasons behind the
concern of leaders regarding the development of prospective teachers’ DADs were
analyzed using themes like hidden, societal and official curriculum related factors..
Different codes were used for the sake of confidentiality for study cites and participants.

4.Results of the study

Selected participants of study were asked to confirm whether prospective teachers’ DADs
development is a strategic concern or not for teacher education leaders with their own
justifications. All the participants including leaders themselves asserted that leaders are
not strategically concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development because of
different reasons. The sample reasons forwarded by leaders themselves and other
respondents are presented in Table 1.

6
Table 1: Sample of reasons for the negligence of leaders about DAD development

Data Reasons
source
lack of attention, awareness and commitment, biased attitude towards affective deposition, our
emphasis is on cognitive dimension, perceiving teaching profession with cognitive lens , it is exit
exam that is a priority area of our college, course coverage, pass and fail, and number of "F" and
"D" grades which are our strategic concerns, majority teacher educators don’t perceive DAD as
their main agenda, valuation ,cultivation and assessment of DADs is not cultured, teacher
educators associate teaching profession with subject matter knowledge ,if we try to make it our
Leaders

strategic concern, no followers, academic achievement >50% is the strategic agenda of Regional
Education Bureau(REB) , it is exit exam that is priority area for REB ,DAD development is not
taken as a criteria in ranking college performance on the part of REB, no accountability system
is established by REB, no external encouraging system to assess DADs, REB didn’t give
attention for it ,the issue is not evaluated and supervised by the REB, no forcing policy
framework to make it strategic agenda ,cultural orientation problem, our societal culture is
cognitive driven ,our assessment culture is cognitive achievement driven ,our educational
orientation , our parenting style is cognitive driven ,etc
Teacher educators &

Being engaged in daily routine tasks, assuming that AD change is time taking, assuming that
DAD development is the by-product of cognitive development, experiences problem, focusing
on administrative issues like class wastage, module distribution reporting, assemble, planning,
hopelessness of leaders, lack of attention, lack of awareness, lack of commitment, lack of sense
of ownership, needing to keep the statuesque, pushing the issue to professional course teacher
educators, lack of leadership skill , absence of external pushing factor, de-professionalization of
teacher education leadership system, nation system orientation problem, presence of cognitive
driven education policy , politicization of DADs, resource shortage , etc
prospective Teachers

Table 2: Recurring frequency of themes of reasons for the negligence of leaders about
DADs development
Subthemes Colleges Total
themes
Major

Z Y(f X(f) f(%)

(f) )
1. Lack of attention 9 10 13 32(26.45)
2. Lack of awareness 7 3 2 12(9.92)
3.Cognitive mentality 4 6 1 11(6.61)
curriculum
Hidden

4. Wrong perception 5 4 12 21(17.36)

5.Lack of commitment 2 3 4 9(7.44)
6. Lack of leadership skill 3 2 1 6(4.96)
7. Resources constraint 2 2 2 6(4.96)
Subtheme total 32 30 35 97(80.17)
Societal

1.Absence of external accountability system 1 2 5 8(6.61)

2. REB’s lack of attention - - 5 5(4.13)
3.Cognitive driven educational system - 1 2 3(2.48)
4.Unmeritocratic leader appointment - 2 - 2(1.65)
Subtheme total 1 5 12 18(14.88)

7
 Curriculum
Official 1..Cognitive driven nature of official curriculum 2 1 3 6(4.96)
curriculu Subtheme total 2 1 3 6(4.96)
m
Major theme total f(%) 35 36 50 121(100)
As indicated in Table 2, through the analysis of the total 121 specific reasons 12
subthemes and three major were emerged. The major themes are articulated as hidden,
societal and official curriculum related factors. The hidden curriculum major theme
consisted of seven subthemes. The societal curriculum major theme consisted of four
subthemes whereas the official curriculum consisted of only one theme. Of the total 121
specific reasons, 97(80.17%), 18(14.88%) and 6(4.96%) of them were accounted by
hidden, societal and official curriculum themes respectively. Hidden curriculum theme
refers to reasons related to micro or personal and meso level factors that are related to
teacher educators and leaders themselves and their interaction with the college
communities whereas the societal curriculum theme refers to macro level factors (society,
media, REB ,MOE, etc) which are external to the college system. On the other hand,
official curriculum theme refers to the very nature of the stated/written/overt/curricula
experiences related with the course syllabus and modules.

4.1. Hidden curriculum related reasons

Under this major theme seven subthemes which are coined as lack of attention,
awareness, commitment and leadership skill, cognitive mentality, wrong perception and
resource constraint were emerged.

Lack of attention

Based on the analysis of the specific justification reported by leaders for their negligence
about prospective teachers’ DADs development, lack of attention on the part of leaders
and teacher educators was one of the most recurring emerged subthemes that are
explained by the three leader interviewees in different fashion but having the same
essence. For instance, interviewee DX3 from college X responded that:

Prospective teachers’ DADs development is not a strategic concern for us. We

are not working strategically about the issue. Rather, we attempt to cultivate them
haphazardly. Overall, my contribution as a leader in making DADs to be the
strategic agenda of the college is insignificant and minimal.

8
Furthermore, DX3 mentioned that negligence of majority of teacher educators about
development of DADs (e.g.by passing prospective teachers when they are insulting other
teacher educators), presence of only few number of teacher educators who are concerned
about DADs and tolerance of teacher educators for UADs demonstrated by prospective
teachers are some of the reasons that forced leaders to be negligent about prospective
teachers’ DADs development.

Likewise, interviewee DY3 from college Y reported that:

Prospective teachers’ DADs development is not strategic agenda for we as

leaders .We overlooked ethical and moral dimensions of prospective teachers
rather we overemphasized on UADs and we are eager to punish unethical and
immoral prospective teachers. We never reward ethical and morally sounding
prospective teachers as a college. But there are personal commitments on the
part of few leaders. We give recognition for those who are unethical and immoral
by punishing them. In our higher education institution including teacher
education colleges it is believed that ethics and morality are concerns of
primary and secondary schools but not higher education institutions .We never
talk about DADs as a teacher education leader let alone establishing an
institutional reward system to value them. For instance, whatever students are
ethical and morally sounding like God we never appreciate them. DADs
development is never addressed in our academic commission minutes. Honestly
speaking, we are negligent about prospective teachers’ DADs development.
In the same manner, interviewee DZ3 from college Z stated that:

Prospective teachers’ DADs development is not our strategic agenda. It is not

institutionalized even though its cultivation doesn’t demand too much resource.
No official valuation, cultivation and assessment system for the issue .This is an
indicator of DAD development negligence as a college. We never plan and do
things deliberately to cultivate prospective teachers DADs. We did it haphazardly
and incidentally. We didn’t incorporate it in our teacher education program. We
didn’t make it part of our main duty. We didn’t systematize it. It is a systemic
problem.
Moreover, absence of official DADs valuation, teaching and assessment established
system. being engaged in daily routine tasks and failing to integrate the issues with
profession, focusing on administrative issues like class wastage, module distribution,
reporting, assembling and planning, setting cognitive issues like exit exam, course
coverage and testing as their priority areas and making themselves busy by routines

9
activities were mentioned as explanations by teacher educators and prospective teachers
to show leaders’ lack of attention for prospective teachers’ DAD development.

Lack of awareness
Lack of awareness was emerged as one reasons for leaders’ failure to make DADs
development their strategic agenda. For instance, DZ3, TE6, PT6, TE4, TE4, PT4 and
PT2 reported that lack of knowledge and awareness about ADs are the reasons for
leaders’ failure to take DADs development their strategic agenda. TE6 added that "since
leaders lack of knowledge about the importance of the DADs, they are not strategically
concerned about DADs development."

Wrong perception
Wrong perception was the other most recurring emerged subtheme when the specific
reasons reported by the interviewees were analyzed. It is explained by the three leader
respondents using different explanations. To cite few, DX3pointed out that :

Failure of majority teacher educators to perceive prospective teachers’ DADs

development as their main agenda , associating teaching profession with only
subject matter knowledge mastery but not with dispositions development by
teacher educators , failure of leaders to perceive the integration of DADs with
teacher education , leaders’ personal assumption i.e. we will not have followers
if we try to make it our strategic concern, presence of biased attitude towards
affective deposition among leaders and disbelieving of leaders that DADs
development is one of the critical quality dimensions of teaching profession
were some of the specific reasons related to wrong perception.
Furthermore , assuming affective dispositional change as time taking, believing that
DADs are known by prospective teachers, believing that DADs development is the by-
product of cognitive development and assuming that prospective teachers are adults
who never misbehave were some the specific reasons reported by TE2, BD3, BD4 and
PT4 respectively. Likewise, TE4 pointed out that:

Politicization of DADs i.e. if somebody focuses on affective issues, he /she would

be labelled politically by leaders and leaders believe that no need to worry about
prospective teachers’ DADs development because prospective teachers are adults
who are very much aware about the wrongness of being unethical and immoral
and never be unethical and immoral are indicators for the wrong assumption held
by leaders.

10
Similarly, TE6 from college Z explained the wrong perception held by leaders using
ideas like they never think out of the box, lack sense of ownership, need to keep the
statuesque, push the issue to professional course teachers and believe that DADS are
subjective issues in their nature to value, cultivate and assess.

Cognitive mentality

Cognitive mentality is the other most recurring subtheme emerged through the analysis of
specific reasons forwarded by leader respondents. For example, DX3 declared that
prospective teachers’ DAD development is not our strategic agenda because “we perceive
teaching profession with cognitive lens." DY3 added that " prospective teachers’ DADs
development is not our strategic issue because our societal culture, our parenting style
and our educational orientation are cognitive driven and we don’t have the culture to
value, cultivate and assess DADs." In the same manner, DZ3 pointed out that "we didn’t
consider prospective teachers’ DADs development as our strategic area because our
cultural orientation and our assessment trend is cognitive achievement
driven."Furthermore, TE5 declared that "our leaders are cognitively oriented." TE4 added
that "leaders don’t have affective mentality rather they have cognitive mentality."

Lack of commitment

This subtheme was the other subtheme emerged through the data analysis as a reason for
the negligence of leaders about DADs development. It was reported as lack of
commitment by TE1, FGDs and DZ3, lack of commitment to work at grass root level by
TE4 and lack professional commitment by TE6.

Lack of Leadership skill

Lack of leadership skill was emerged as one cause subtheme for the negligence of leaders
about prospective teachers’ DADs development. This subtheme was reported differently
by participants from the three colleges. For instance, respondents from the three colleges
confirmed that lack of leadership skill is one cause for the negligence of leaders regarding
prospective teachers’ DADs development. More specifically, BD3 stated that “leaders are
negligent of prospective teachers’ DADs development because they follow traditional

11
way of leading.” TE6 shared this argument by underscoring that "leaders are not
strategically concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development because they are
traditional managers but not instructional leaders. Likewise, TE4 from college Y pointed
out that "prospective teachers’ DADs development is not leaders’ strategic issue because
teacher education leadership system is de-professionalized I said it is de-professionalized
because college top leaders’ appointment is governed by political facilitation but not
professional quality."

Resources constraint

This subtheme was emerged as one reason for leaders’ negligence for DAD development.
This is because the reasons were reported as “resource shortage" by BD2, "time
constraint" by PT2, PT6 & PT6 and “shortage” of budget by TE3 and "lack of budget" by
PT5 as factors for leaders’ failure to take DADs development as their priority area.

4.2. Societal curriculum related reasons

Under this major theme four subthemes which were coined as absence of external and
institutional accountability system, REB’s lack of attention, cognitive driven educational
system and un-meritocratic leader appointment. In relation to these four subthemes
participants from the three colleges reported many reason for their failure of leaders to
consider prospective teachers’ DADs development as their strategic agenda.

Absence of external accountability system

With regard to absence of external accountability system interviewee DX3 asserted that:

We leaders are not in a position to consider prospective teachers’ DADs

development as our strategic concern because there is no accountability system
established by REB, no enforcing policy framework to make it our strategic issue
especially for assessment ,no external encouraging system to assess DADs and
the issue is not evaluated and supervised by the REB. Because of the absence of
this external enforcing framework we are not in a position to delay prospective
teacher who are unethical and immoral but fulfilled the cognitive criteria such as
no "F” ,taking all the courses and having GPA 2.00 and above. Consequently, we

12
 approve their graduation even though we know that they are unethical and
immoral.

Similarly, DY3 noted that "there is no enforcing policy framework, cultural system and
parenting style to make prospective teachers’ DADs development area of priority." DZ3
mentioned that "There is no encouraging external system that forced us to take the issue
as a strategic agenda at college level."Likewise, FGD discussant BD4 stated that "leaders
are negligent of prospective teachers’ DADs development because there is no external
pushing factor that forced them to take it as their strategic agenda."In addition, FGD
discussants from college Y pointed out that leaders are not concerned about prospective
teachers DADs development because "there is no an established system that could make
them accountable when they fail to do so."

REB’s lack of attention

Lack of attention on the part of REB was also reported as one reasons for leaders’ failure
to make prospective teachers’ DADs as their strategic issue in their teacher education
program from college X and Z. For instance, DX3 reported that:
we are not committed to take prospective teachers DADs development as our
strategic concern because it didn’t get attention from REB, it is not taken as a
criteria in ranking colleges based on their performance on the part of, it is
academic achievement of >50% which is the strategic agenda of , it is college
exit exam that is the priority area for and it is cognitive achievement of
graduates which the very concern of REB but not their DADs development.
Cognitive driven educational system
Concerning this subtheme, DY3 contended that since our educational orientation, that is
to mean that the official curriculum we passed through in our school and higher education
is cognitive driven we became negligent of affective quality. Similarly, BD1 noted that
leaders are negligent of DADs because of the nation education system cognitive
orientation problem. Moreover, FGD discussant BD2 stated that "leaders are not
concerned about prospective teachers’ DADs development because our national
education system is cognitive oriented and our educational policy is cognitive driven."
Unmeritocratic leaders’ appointment
It was the other subtheme emerged through the data analysis. With respect to this
subtheme, TE4 pointed out that:

13
 De-professionalization of teacher education leadership system as the result of un-
meritocratic primary school teacher education leaders (deans and college board
members) appointment by considering only their political affiliation is one of
reasons for the negligence of prospective teachers’ DADs development on the
part of leaders because since they are politically assigned by the so called
"political commitment" by regional education bureau and the zone and political
structure but not based on their professional competence they failed to consider
the issue as their strategic issue.

4.3. Official curriculum related reasons

One sub theme was emerged under this theme which was coined as cognitive driven
nature of official curriculum. Regarding this subtheme, DX3 responded that prospective
teachers’ DADs development is not our strategic issue because much of our effort is
invested on cognitive and pedagogical skill issues hence academic achievement of 50%
and above and exit exam are the very concern of the official curriculum. In the same
manner, DY3 reported that valuation, cultivation and assessment of DADs is not our
strategic agenda rather it is course coverage, pass and fail and number of "F" and "D"
grades which are our strategic concerns.. Similarly, DZ3 pointed out that we fail to make
DADs development our strategic concern by being focused on skill and subject matter
knowledge development and cognitive pedagogy because primary school teacher
education curriculum focused on it. Likewise, BD2 and TE5 stated that since primary
school teacher education curriculum is focusing on cognitive dimension, leaders focused
on course coverage, test result analysis ,exit exam and class wastage.

5. Discussion of results
Prooyen (2013) pointed out that the issue of prospective teachers’ DADs development
should be an area of priority in teacher education .In the same vein, Semper and Blasco
(2018) asserted that higher education institution leaders are professionally responsible for
and must be alert to the socialization of prospective teachers which is the function of
hidden curriculum. However, these theoretical assumptions are incongruent with the
qualitative findings. This is because the overall qualitative data from all participants
uncovered that prospective teacher’ DADs development is not a strategic concern for
primary school teacher education leaders for a number of different reasons. Some of the
reasons investigated were lack of attention, awareness and commitment, cognitive
mentality, wrong perception, lack of leadership skill on the part of leaders, resources
14
constraint, absence of external accountability, cognitive driven educational system and
lack of attention on the part of REB. These justifications were themed as hidden, societal
and official curriculum related factors. This result is in harmony with Singaravelu (2010)
who contended that affective domain is neglected at all levels of education including
teacher education but it is inconsistent with what scholars recommended in the area
because Hughes (2017), Katz (1993), King et al. (2007), Mohan and Subashini (2016)
claimed that prospective teachers’ DADs development must be one of the strategic
concerns for teacher education leaders.

The overall qualitative findings imply that the level of leaders’ strategic concern for
prospective teachers’ DADs development is the function of hidden, societal and official
curriculum or intrapersonal and extra-personal or macro, meso and micro level related
factors because the reasons investigated were related to either of these factor classes.
However, more specifically the results seem to imply that leaders failed to take
prospective teachers’ DADs development as their strategic agenda mainly because of
hidden curriculum related or intrapersonal or micro level factors such as lack of attention,
lack of awareness, cognitive mentality, wrong perception and lack of commitment and
lack of leadership skill. Consistent with this claim, Pierre(2013) argued that a hidden
curriculum is a social act that place severe restrictions on an individual leader, leaders as
group or institution. Moreover, societal curriculum related reasons (macro level factors)
like absence of external accountability system, cognitive driven educational system, lack
of attention on the part of REB and un-meritocratic assignment of college leaders were
reported by participants as reasons behind the negligence of leaders for prospective
teachers’ DADs development.

The justifications would remind us that the level of primary school teacher education
leaders’ concern for prospective teachers’ DAD development is primarily the function of
hidden curriculum factors followed by societal curriculum. The results also suggests that
most of the investigated reasons are affective dispositional in their very nature because
they are more or less the function of hidden curriculum.

15
 6. Conclusions and implications
Leader, teacher educator and prospective teacher interviewees confirmed that prospective
teachers’ DADs development is not a strategic concern for primary school teacher
education program leaders (deans and department heads) for different reasons. The
reasons were themed as hidden ,societal and official curriculum. This implies that
negligence of leaders about prospective teachers’ DADs development is the function of
these three curriculum forms. However, the qualitative data confirmed that leaders’
negligence about the development of DADs is primarily the function of hidden
curriculum or micro level factors.

The findings of this research have a number of implications. The first implication is that
leaders should value DADs of prospective teachers because if they value them they will
be in a position to be strategically concerned about the cultivation of these qualities.
second, if development of these affective qualities of prospective teachers is leaders’
strategic matter they will take the issue as their area of priority in their planning,
execution, evaluation, planning and resource allocation practices. Third , if leaders are
strategically concerned about the process of developing prospective teachers’ DADs, they
can mobilize the whole college communities and the nearby society to play a positive role
in nurturing and inculcating DADs and weakening UADs. Fourth, if leaders consider
prospective teachers’ DADs development process as their strategic agenda they will have
better awareness about , give due attention for, be committed for, have proper perception
for, establish an institutional accountability system about, develop affectionate mentality
concerning and develop appropriate leadership skills regarding the issue.

At all, to make DAD development a strategic agenda in their leadership endeavour,

leaders should have first affectively revolutionize themselves because individuals’
professional, social and personal life success is primarily the function of their affective
qualities.

References
Baldwin, A.M.(2007).The curriculum, instruction, and assessment of
dispositions in preservice teacher education( Doctorial Dissertation).Retrieved
from http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations
Banga, C.L.(n.d.).Value crisis in present scenario and status of training in value

16
 education in TEIs and schools.
Carroll, D. (2007) .Developing Dispositions for Ambitious Teaching . Journal of
Educational Controversy, 2 ( 2) ,1-8.
Cortes, C.E. (1981) .The societal curriculum: Implications for multiethnic educations. In
Banks, J.A (ed.). Education in the 80's: Multiethnic education. National
EducationAssociation,24-32. ERIC.
García, E.(2014). The need to address non-cognitive skills in the education policy
agenda. Economic policy institute. Epi briefing paper ,december 2, briefing paper
#386.
Gulati, S.,& Pant, D. (n.d.).Education for Values in Schools – A Framework.
Hughes. M. C. (2017). Elevated dispositions for teacher leadership. Servant leadership:
Theory & practice. 4 ( 2), 85-97.
Katz, L .G.(1993).Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood
practices. Urban IL:ERIC cleaning house on elementary and early childhood
education.
Kennedy,V.,& Goodwin, V. (2016). Building new teacher dispositions and aptitudes.
.Academic exchange quarterly, 20, (1).
King,N. M. ,Hilber, C. B.,& Engle, E .(2007). Developing Professional
Dispositions in the Preservice Teacher: Raising Standards.International Forum
of Teaching and Studies , 3(3),14-21.
McCain-Reid, E.(19194). Seeds of Change: A pilot study of senior pre-Service
teachers' responses to issues of diversity in one University Course. ERIC.
Melese Negash. (2018).Preschool Prospective Teachers’ Affective Dispositional Quality
Valuation and Cultivation Practices in Begemidr College Of Teacher Education.
Presented at 36th may conference of Bahir Dar University.
Mohan, S.A.,& Subashini. S., A.E. (2016).Role of Teachers in inculcating
Values among Students . National Conference on “Value Education Through
Teacher Education 1(2),23-28.
NCATE.(2008).professional standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation
Institutions.
Pierre, K. B.(2013). How School Principals' Perspectives of Hidden Curriculum Affect
Title I Middle Schools. Education Doctoral. Paper 163.
Prooyen,T .L. V .(2013). Examination of a dispositional system in a teacher
education program: a mixed methods case study(Doctorial Dissertation).
Rakich ,S. S. (n.d.). Educator Perceptions about Teacher Dispositions and Practices.
(Doctorial Dissertation).
Semper , .V. O.,& Blasco,M. (2018). Revealing the Hidden Curriculum in Higher
Education.
Sherman, S.(2006.) Moral Dispositions in Teacher Education: Making Them
Matter .Teacher education quarterly, 41-57.
Singaravelu ,G. (2010).A study on unheeded affective domain affects the affection on
neighbourhood. i-manager’s Journal o Educational Psychology ,3(4), 38-42.
UNESCO. (2013). Glossary of curriculum terminology. Geneva, Switzerland.
Wasicsko,M. M, C., Callahan,C. ,J .,&Wirtz ,P.(2004).Integrating Dispositions
into the Conceptual Framework: four a priori questions . KCA Journal Fall 2004
23 ( 1) ,1-8.

17