Teacher Quality and Teacher Education Quality

Accreditation from a Global Perspective

Nicholas Michelli, Robin Dada, Deborah Eldridge, Rana Tamim, Karen Karp

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781138948716
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317364276
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Accreditation of teacher education programs is increasingly embraced internationally and is being modeled after the American experience, despite criticisms from some in the field of teacher education in the United States. This book examines the transformation of accreditation and the interest and perception of nations and regions choosing to use the model in their own culture, including the Middle East and Gulf Region, South America, and the United Kingdom. Its distinctive edge is the juxtaposition of three sectors: quality assurance/accreditation, teacher preparation, and global/international experiences. The authors address how the adoption of a universal requirement for accreditation embraces a particular view of what teacher quality means. The emphasis on the development of teacher preparation in concert with accreditation is of academic interest to scholars in the United States and abroad. The experiences and voices of teacher educators as international colleagues in a global climate of accountability brings a fresh perspective on shared challenges.

PART I

Accreditation as a Theory of Change and a Basis for Quality Assurance

The United States Model

1

HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS FOR HIGH-IMPACT LEARNING

Rana M. Tamim, Linda K. Colburn, and Karen Karp

Ongoing technological progress and innovation has brought unmatched changes in many aspects of our lives. Few would disagree with the argument that one of the most prominent changes is the social connectedness among communities across the globe. These links have increased overall expectations of educational systems worldwide and have led to numerous calls for educational reform with the objective of keeping up with the fast-paced changes in participatory citizenship requirements and work force needs. However, regardless of geographical location, educational paradigm, and curriculum framework, the teacher remains the most influential contributor to the success of any academic program (Goe, 2007; Kaplan & Owings, 2001; Rice, 2003). This emphasis on the importance of the teacher has been affirmed by numerous research studies with an extensive review of educational meta-analyses revealing that among various school-factors, teacher quality accounts for the highest variance in students’ achievement levels (Hattie, 2013). Such findings about the impact of teacher quality on students’ learning and performance support the need for a stronger focus on preparing high-quality teachers for high-impact student learning and performance.

In the quest to establish programs conducive to the preparation of high-quality teachers, it is important to recognize that education programs cannot effectively work in isolation from the various stakeholders (parents, students, policy makers, administrators, in-service teachers, business leaders, etc.). The current competition for global educational and workplace opportunities affects the behavior of all who strive to develop effective instructors to educate learners of all ages. As such, educational societies and organizations are stressing the need to move from local to global with an increasing focus on international relevance and applicability of teacher preparation programs. However, while nations are moving to greater agreement on benchmarks in curricular goals and outcomes, there is still a need to internationally match that emphasis with practical approaches and improved instruction for high-quality teacher preparation (OECD, 2011; UNESCO, 2012).

The creation of teacher professional standards that cross disciplines is a worthy starting point. Examples of such standards in the United States include the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); and in Australia, the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards (BOSTES). Yet, there remain challenges, limitations, and perceived restrictions, especially as faculty members raise concerns that their academic freedom is under fire by the implementation of common performance criteria.

Accreditation, accrediting bodies, and the ongoing process involved in applying, acquiring, and maintaining accreditation for teacher preparation programs will be discussed throughout this book from both national and international perspectives. Yet, an issue that needs to be addressed—prior to formalization of the discussion within the context of standards—is the significance and meaning of teacher quality. As such, this chapter addresses high-quality teaching from a global perspective while highlighting issues related to the current understanding of teacher quality as reflected by the extant literature.

Teacher Quality and Student Learning

Research findings have consistently confirmed the impact of teacher quality on student learning. This has led to calls stressing the need to enhance classroom instruction through a stronger focus on the teacher (Hiebert & Morris, 2012; Lampert, 2012; Lewis, Perry, Friedkin, & Roth, 2012). Upon conducting an extensive review and synthesis of available meta-analyses in the educational literature, Hattie (2003) identified six major sources of variance in students’ achievement, namely (1) students, (2) home, (3) school, (4) principals, (5) peer effects, and (6) teachers. The analyses revealed that students’ characteristics and traits account for as much as 50% of the variance, with a high correlation between ability and achievement. The second substantive source of variance was teachers’ attributes, accounting for almost 30% of the variance, with the remaining four sources cumulatively accounting for approximately 20%.

Similarly, using records from the databases of different states in the United States, researchers have been able to support the hypothesis that teacher quality has a strong correlation with student learning while offering further indication that it is more influential than class size and heterogeneity (Rivers & Sanders, 2002; Sanders, Wright, & Horn, 1997). A 4-year-long study that made use of random assignment of teachers and students showed that teacher quality had a substantial and significant effect on students’ performance gains, particularly within reading and mathematics (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004).

Research has also revealed that teacher quality variables were more influential than the student demographics that were previously thought to be of high impact on their achievement, namely poverty, minority status, and language background (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rowe, 2003). Teacher quality variables ranged from holding full certification and a major degree in their teaching field to receiving ongoing support through strategic professional development.

While qualifications and formal training are contributing factors, further investigations have indicated that high-quality teaching is not merely linked to academic credentials and can be attributed to many other variables (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). Of particular relevance, according to Palardy and Rumberger’s (2008) work, are teachers’ attitudes and instructional practices, which were revealed to have an even more significant impact on students’ performance than their qualifications. This further highlights the importance of identifying pedagogical knowledge and dispositions for high-quality teaching, and supports the need to uncover the most important components of teacher quality in our connected world.

Components of Teacher Quality

Teacher quality is one of those elusive terms that everyone believes they understand, and yet are challenged to define clearly. Depending on the context, individual understanding of components of teacher quality can be influenced by a number of variables, including (1) personal experiences, (2) individual perceptions of educational objectives, (3) local community needs and values, (4) cultural norms and religious beliefs, (5) socio-economic status, and (6) national political and economic agenda (Shulman, 1987). The task of reaching a common operational definition of teacher quality is further complicated by the presence of a number of approaches (e.g., bachelor of education, alternative certification, apprenticeship models, 5-year programs) for preparing teachers with the needed qualifications for successful teaching and learning.

As teacher educators, the definition should be guided by the answer to the bigger question of Why do we educate? Granted that personal responses may be influenced by the same variables that may affect the definition of teacher quality listed previously; the focus should be on the commonality that transverses all the differences in our perceptions. All educators would agree that they educate with the hope of improving the quality of life for future generations. Add to that, and in light of the fast-paced, technology-driven societies that we are living in, the common goal is to prepare students to be informed local and global citizens capable of succeeding in an unknown future.

With a focus on this shared vision, and guided by research in the field, this chapter argues that common components for teacher quality include the following:

• Content knowledge (CK) and skills
• Pedagogical knowledge—including pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK)
• Professional dispositions

As such, the following sections of this chapter will holistically address both theory and application in relation to these three essential ingredients of teacher quality in today’s educational climate. Technological literacy and skills are considered in an integrated manner taking into account the technologically rich environments that we are living in, and the ongoing evolution of classrooms into more connected and wired spaces.

Content knowledge and skills

Shulman argued that teachers should understand the content knowledge as “the teacher need not only understand that something is so, the teacher must further understand why it is so” (1986, p. 9). As teachers prepare for working with students, a background in the subject matter is uniformly expected as part of the process of acquiring a license or certification. Teachers can gain this subject-matter expertise through their own P-12 schooling, in teacher education programs or through actual teaching experiences in school or informal settings (Friedrichsen et al., 2009; Kleickmann et al., 2013).

For a long time, being a “bright person” was a highly desirable quality of an effective teacher, sometimes to the exclusion of teacher preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, 2008). This idea of a teacher with a strong background of content knowledge has even become the centerpiece of the structure of programs—some within university preparation and others outside of the traditional paths. For example, in 1987, a consortium of US schools of education, largely housed in research universities, developed the Holmes Partnership which was a movement based on several ideas to professionalize the field. One of the main premises was that prior to entering teacher preparation programs, candidates should be armed with a broad-based and rigorous background in their content knowledge through a foundation in the liberal arts. They believed that prospective teachers should enter masters-level programs with their undergraduate degree in an academic subject major in hand.

Another US program based on the assertion that content knowledge is essential is Teach for America, whose mission is to gather the “nation’s most promising future leaders to grow and strengthen the movement for educational equity and excellence” (TFA, 2016). This nonprofit group recruits and selects candidates from the most highly regarded institutions in the United States who commonly graduate with majors in areas other than education and then after a summer residential institute they agree to serve for 2 years in public schools in urban areas. Similar to the previous case, a strong background in content-area knowledge was one of the cornerstones of the conceptualization of this program.

But we know the “bright person myth” (Darling-Hammond, 2000) in isolation is just part of the picture we would like to paint of the essence of teacher quality and sections that follow in this chapter will provide details of the full design. But, like these two groups who focus on content knowledge as a key ingredient, schools of education and accrediting bodies also recognize that the substance of effective teaching relies on teachers’ profound understanding of the topics they will teach (Allen, 2003; Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Ma, 1999; Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). A deep reservoir of content background gives teachers the flexibility needed to respond to students’ questions, interpret student work and generate multiple ways to present concepts. This includes the relationship of the ideas within a discipline and the common misconceptions that a learner may exhibit. When thinking about for example the area of a polygon, when you have a rich background in the mathematics then teachers know that the area of a rectangle can be used to derive the areas of an array of other two-dimensional shapes. Only in this way, can a teacher point to this connection, which develops useful relationships and ties a whole group of formulae to a single starting point. This is the very knowledge students need to link ideas and relationships in meaningful ways.

However, there are concerns when content knowledge—especially as measured by number of courses taken—is the sole emphasis of a program review. For example, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) in the United States ranks schools of education’s ability to produce an effective teacher based substantially on how many courses in content areas a given teacher preparation program requires.

The challenge also arises when we consider the teacher preparation at different grade levels. Content knowledge is particularly salient at the elementary level where prospective teachers must have considerable knowledge in multiple disciplines, and be tested on them. With individual US states requiring different passing rates for each particular area (mathematics, social studies, etc.) elementary teacher candidates are no longer able to pass teaching tests required for certification by excelling in one area without mastery of another.

There are three basic types of studies that look at the role of course taking on teachers’ content knowledge (Floden & Meniketti, 2005). First, some studies look at the amount of content courses taken and compare that to the ratings of teacher performance including their students’ achievement. Second, research investigations of the subject matter knowledge of candidates reaching completion of their program of studies. Last, there are studies that look at specific courses and how they improve the teacher candidates’ knowledge in that area. Here we will focus on the teachers’ subject matter knowledge as derived from the specific requirements for their degree programs. A major trend that emerged from the examination of thirteen studies by Floden and Meniketti (2005) revealed that there is more than just mastering the basic skills required in particular academic areas. For example, course taking in college level mathematics did not expand the teachers’ abilities to teach how to divide fractions or explain algorithms that students carry out. They also found that although English teachers may emerge from their program with many of the desired components of the study of the discipline they lacked knowledge of grammar that would allow them to do more than merely share a rule with students.

With all the background described, it is clear that strong content knowledge is essential for all prospective teachers. However, theory and practice have long supported the argument that content knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for high quality teaching. As such, the following section will focus on pedagogical knowledge, argued by academics, and supported by research, to be a key ingredient for preparing high quality teachers.

Pedagogical knowledge

It would be safe to assume that the majority of academics involved in teacher preparation are familiar with Shulman’s framework for pedagogical knowledge (1986, 1987). Nevertheless, it would serve the purpose of the current discussion to offer a brief overview of the major premise put forth by Shulman, particularly with regards to pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK). Shulman defined PCK as the

special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding … [or] the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is the category that most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue.

(Shulman, 1987, p. 8)

As for GPK, Shulman defined the construct as the “broad principles and strategies of classroom management and organization that appear to transcend subject matter” (1987, p. 8). Grossman and Richert further expanded the definition to include “knowledge of theories of learning and general principles of instruction, an understanding of the various philosophies of education, general knowledge about learners, and knowledge of the principles and techniques of classroom management” (1988, p. 54).

Research findings have consistently supported the importance of the PCK construct based on numerous investigations in different subject matter areas, especially science (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 2001; Loughran, Berry, & Mulhall, 2012; Loughran, Mulhall, & Be...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• PART I: ACCREDITATION AS A THEORY OF CHANGE AND A BASIS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE: THE UNITED STATES MODEL
• PART II: TEACHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS: THE EXAMPLE OF ZAYED UNIVERSITY, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
• PART III: TEACHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS: EXAMPLES FROM AROUND THE WORLD
• PART IV: LESSONS LEARNED
• Contributors
• Index