مجتبی مقصودی

Teacher immunity as a novel construct, acts as a defense against the demands placed on teachers and the distressing experiences faced which result in emotional burnout. The main aim of this study was to draw attention to this overlooked dimension of teacher motivation and professional identity through exploring the immunity levels of the student-teachers at teacher education universities in Iran. Accordingly, a mixed method study was designed to which 175 Iranian student-teachers (98 males and 77 females) majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) were randomly invited to this study. Language Teachers Immunity Questionnaire (LTIQ) was used to collect quantitative data on teachers' immunity levels and a semi-structured interview was conducted to collect the qualitative data. After conducting coding and content analyses using MAXQDA and running one-way ANOVA and independent samples t-test, both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed. The results led to the identification of three immunity types, namely, negative (maladaptive), neutral and positive (productive) types. The results indicated that positive or productive immunity type was dominant among the student teachers. In addition the results of the study indicated that unlike gender, the years of education was a significant factor in terms of determining the immunity levels of the student teachers. Furthermore, the results of the study indicated that teacher immunity is a transient, dynamic and organic construct which fluctuates according to the reinforcement or deficiency of its comprising components such as efficacy and attitude, among others.

This study examined the association between teacher educators’ personality traits and their interpersonal behavior at Farhangian University (Teacher Education University in Iran). A sample of 148 student teachers majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at two branches of Iranian Teacher Education University evaluated their teacher educators’ interpersonal behavior by the questionnaire for teacher interaction (QTI). The teacher educators (N=17) also completed the QTI and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The results of correlational analyses indicated significant associations between educators’ personality traits and their interpersonal behavior. More associations were observed between educators’ personality and student teachers’ perceptions of interpersonal behavior while fewer associations were observed between educators’ personality and the educators’ self-perceptions. Moreover, the results revealed that all educators’ personality traits except for Openness were significantly correlated with the two interpersonal behavior dimensions of Influence and Proximity. When stepwise regression analyses were done for the Influence dimension, the strongest model for prediction included Neuroticism and Conscientiousness while for the second dimension, Agreeableness emerged as the sole, significant predictor of educator Proximity.

Understanding the policy cycle, as well as scrutinizing the text of hidden and obvious policies and rules, requires a model of discourse analysis based on which discursive ap-proaches of policy makers are understood and estimated. However, when it comes to presenting a policy model, we have to use the views of policy theorists to see how a problem as a "public goods" can be found in the policy agenda setting. Regarding public policy-making procedures, quantitative or descriptive approaches, in studies the state, are often used to pathologizing policies or to obtaining policy advice models. However, this paper attempts to show that studies the state is a discourse that is described by the dominant discursive signifiers in the target society in which policy-makers make mean-ing to concepts. If we assume that the policy making cycle is something other than a several stages, such as defining a problem, finding a solution to it, decision making and implementing, then it is clear that the definition of a problem, whether the presentation of solutions and the process of decision making and its implementation, cannot be out-side the discourse. Therefore, public policy at the macro level and studies the state, as one of its examples and functions, is a discursive, which its understanding is possible only if the dominant discourse and its relation to the realities of the society in question are well understood.