Studying Teacher Education

The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education

Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Kenneth M. Zeichner, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Kenneth M. Zeichner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9780805855920
• eBook ISBN: 9781135184391
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Published for the American Educational Research Association by Routledge

This landmark volume presents the work of the American Educational Research Association's Panel on Research and Teacher Education. It represents a systematic effort to apply a common set of scholarly lenses to a range of important topics in teacher education.

The Panel's charge was twofold:
*to create for the larger educational research community a thorough, rigorous, and even-handed analysis of the empirical research evidence relevant to major policies and practices in pre-service teacher education in the U.S., and
*to propose a research agenda related to teacher education that builds on what is already known and that identifies the research directions that are most promising for the future.

Members of the Panel were appointed from various sectors of the educational research community and with different areas of expertise, including teacher education, policy, assessment, research design and methods, liberal arts, multicultural education, and school reform. Building on their diverse perspectives, they ably translated their charge into a series of questions that became the framework for this volume. The questions illuminate many of the issues that have been most contested in past and current discourse about teacher education reform. Studying Teacher Education examines research about the current pool of prospective and entering teachers and about local, institutional, state, and federal preservice teacher education policies and practices. The book includes three general chapters and nine research syntheses.

*The AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education: Context and Goals
*Researching Teacher Education in Changing Times: Politics and Paradigms
*Teacher Characteristics: Research on the Demographic Profile
*Teacher Characteristics: Research on the Indicators of Quality
*Research on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and Sciences and in the Foundations of Education
*Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences
*Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education
*Research on Preparing Teachers for Diverse Populations
*Research on Preparing Teachers to Work with Students with Disabilities
*Research on Accountability Processes in Teacher Education
*Research on Teacher Education Programs
*A Research Agenda for Teacher Education

Each chapter reviews the empirical literature and proposes a research agenda that builds on and extends what is known about a topic. A chart at the end of each chapter provides summary information for each of the empirical studies synthesized and two reference lists--one for all of the studies reviewed in the chapter and one for additional references used. The volume includes an introductory chapter on the Panel's context and goals, and an accessible Executive Summary of the book as a whole.

Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education is a timely, indispensable reference for all researchers and professionals in the field.

1
The AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education: Context and Goals

Marilyn Cochran-Smith

Boston College

Kim Fries

University of New Hampshire

This book reports the work of the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA’s) Panel on Research and Teacher Education,¹ which began preliminary discussions in 1999. At that time, there was growing concern in the educational community about the vagueness of much of the research claimed to support certain policies and practices related to teacher preparation. Sometimes the same research was cited to support conflicting positions. Sometimes close scrutiny revealed that particular studies provided no clear evidence for the claims being made. Often it was apparent that quite different assumptions were operating about what constituted good research, what research questions ought to be addressed, and what role research could be expected to play in policy and practice. It was clear to the panel that careful and unbiased analysis of the empirical evidence supporting various practices and suggesting new directions for research in teacher education was needed.

The situation has changed somewhat since this project began. Debates about research and teacher preparation have intensified. Major federal education legislation has been implemented with far-reaching implications for how we define well-prepared teachers and appropriate professional development; how we recruit, prepare, support, retain, test, certify, and license teachers; how we evaluate and accredit teacher preparation programs and providers; and how we make judgments about the effectiveness of teachers, schools, and the overall enterprise of teacher education. Since we began, there have been dozens of new reports, surveys, research syntheses, policy reviews, and empirical studies about teacher preparation. Blue ribbon panels have weighed in about the future of teacher preparation, and foundations and professional groups have pursued new initiatives. Notwithstanding the considerable debate about the meanings of “teacher quality’’ and “highly qualified teachers,’’ it is no exaggeration to say that the national focus on these issues is more intense now than ever. There are also more claims than ever before about the relationships that do and do not exist among teacher qualifications, the policies and practices governing teacher preparation, teaching performance, and educational outcomes.

Having said all this, we want to make a point of noting that the work of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education is situated within but also outside of the contemporary policy and political scene. In other words, as discussed in the following section, it is clear that the panel’s work has been influenced by and responsive to the contentious policy context of the time, and that our choice to evaluate the empirical evidence about some of the teacher education issues that are of most interest to decision makers has to a great extent been determined by current policy debates. There is no question that we took on the current task in the interest of providing a dispassionate and careful rendering of fairly traditional forms of empirical research that speak to educational outcomes and are responsive to current demands for accountability in teaching and teacher education.

On the other hand, our analyses look and feel quite different from many contemporary policy reviews, which often use research to forward policy and political arguments that have already been made by their authors. Reviews of this kind are likely to conclude with definitive recommendations for policies, positions, or practices with the claim that they are drawn from the research literature. Our reviews are decidedly different. They are intended to provide balanced, thorough, and unapologetically honest descriptions of the state of research on particular topics in teacher education as a field of study. In many areas this means that our analysis includes the considerable inconsistencies and even contradictions that characterize some aspects of the field. Our reviews are designed not simply to note that this is the state of the field in some areas, but to explain why this is so and to evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of different questions and approaches as we simultaneously identify promising lines of inquiry. The panel’s analyses also differ from typical policy reviews in that we have stood back from the current prevailing viewpoint that the right kind of research can definitively guide policy by determining the “winners’’ in the teacher education horse race. Implicit in our analyses and explicit in the panel’s stated working assumptions is a critique of the current policy focus and considerable skepticism that there will be definitive answers about teacher preparation unless they are driven by sophisticated theoretical frameworks, built on empirical work from rich qualitative and quantitative perspectives, and designed to take into account the varying social, organizational, and intellectual contexts and conditions of schools, universities, and communities.

TEACHER EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
POLICY AND POLITICS

This chapter offers an analysis of the complex policy, political and professional issues that constrained and supported teacher education research during the mid- to late 1990s and into the mid-2000s. Next, the chapter provides background about the work of the panel, including a rationale for the major questions and an overview of procedures. (See the “Executive Summary’’ for an overview of the specific findings and recommendations of each chapter.) The chapter also describes the panel’s charge, outlines working assumptions, describes criteria used to select and critique empirical research, and comments on how the panel constructed its research agenda.

During the latter years of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st, momentous changes occurred that affected teacher education research, policy, and practice. These included shifting population patterns, major swings in the political pendulum, the growth of a complex global economy, and a number of educational and political movements. Among them were the standards movement, the accountability movement, initiatives to privatize education and other public services, the press for market-based education reform, and the emergence of access to quality education as a civil rights issue. Contemporary research on teacher education is affected by and connected to all of these.

As the 21st century began, there was wide agreement that teacher quality is essential to educational reform but disagreement about what teacher quality is and which teacher characteristics are linked with desirable outcomes. Acknowledgment of the importance of teachers coupled with widespread concern about low standards in the schools prompted criticism of “traditional’’ teacher education and multiple agendas for reform. Exacerbating these difficulties is the fact that the 1,300 colleges and universities that prepare teachers in the United States face difficult financial times with rising tuitions, diminished resources, and increased competition for enrollments.

In most states, many alternate providers of teacher preparation have emerged, including school-based teacher preparation projects, computer-based distance learning programs, and alternate entry and certification routes. Some are attached to universities, whereas others bypass them altogether. In addition, for-profit teacher preparation is a growing trend in higher education, wherein proprietary, degree-granting, and accredited institutions offer occupational training for entry-level positions in a variety of areas rather than simply offering training in specialized trades, which was previously the case. With market demand for teachers strong and the number of traditional college students interested in teaching declining, proprietary institutions are keen on developing the market for adult teacher preparation. All providers face mounting pressure to demonstrate that the teachers they produce can prepare all members of the school population to pass standardized tests. We suggest that the contemporary scene is characterized by five major trends: heightened attention to teacher quality, the changing demographic profile of the nation’s schoolchildren coupled with growing disparities in educational resources and outcomes, criticism of traditional teacher preparation coupled with pressure to demonstrate impact on pupil learning, multiple agendas for teacher education reform, and the ascendance of the science of education as the presumed solution to educational problems.

Teacher Quality Matters

Nationwide there is an emerging consensus that teacher quality makes a significant difference in schoolchildren’s learning and in overall school effectiveness. Politicians, policymakers, and researchers of all stripes increasingly use the term “teacher quality’’ to emphasize that teachers are a critical influence (if not the single most important influence) on how, what, and how much students learn. Recent polls suggest that the public agrees (Hart & Teeter, 2002; Rose & Gallup, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107–110, 2002) cemented into law the assumption that teacher quality matters by guaranteeing that all schoolchildren have “highly qualified teachers’’ who receive “high-quality’’ professional development. As pointed out in chapter 4 (this volume), researchers have traditionally investigated proxies for teacher quality such as college entrance test scores, college majors and grade point averages (GPAs), status of college or university attended, scores on teacher tests, and teacher certification status. These have been used to assess the presumed strength of the teaching force, for example, by comparing how the test scores of teacher candidates compared with those of other college graduates or those entering other professions.

Since the late 1990s, however, the phrase “teacher quality,’’ has taken on new meaning and is increasingly attached to an array of purposes. Nevertheless, educational researchers and policymakers do not agree on a single definition of teacher quality. Within the general guidelines mandated by NCLB, the states are defining teacher quality differently from one another and putting different policies into place. In the research community, there are two broad approaches to conceptualizing teacher quality with different implications: teacher quality defined as student achievement and teacher quality defined as teacher qualifications. Although these are not necessarily mutually exclusive from one another, they represent different relative emphases.

When teacher quality is defined as student achievement, the premise is that although there is measurable variation in effectiveness across teachers, this variation is not captured by the common indicators of quality, such as teachers’ preparation, experience, and test scores, but is captured in pupils’ performance. For example, based on 2 decades of research on the impact of school inputs on students’ achievement (Hanushek, 1996, 1997; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 1998), Hanushek (2002) defined teacher quality quite simply: “good teachers are ones who get large gains in student achievement for their classes; bad teachers are just the opposite’’ (p.). The work of William Sanders and colleagues (Rivers & Sanders, 2002; Sanders, 1998; Sanders & Horn, 1994, 1998) is consistent with this approach. Sanders concluded that individual teachers are the single largest factor that adds value to student learning, overshadowing students’ previous achievement, class size, and ethnic and socioeconomic status (Rivers & Sanders). What the work of Hanushek and Sanders have in common is defining and operationalizing teacher quality in terms of pupil performance. With this approach, the point is to identify major differences in student achievement gains that are linked to teachers and then suggest implications regarding incentives, school accountability systems, and policies regarding the placement of teachers and students.

The second approach defines teacher quality in terms of teacher qualifications. The point is to determine which (if any) of the characteristics, attributes, and qualifications generally considered indicators of teacher quality are actually linked to student achievement or other outcomes, such as principal evaluations of teachers or teachers’ sense of efficacy. For example, based on multiple analyses of the impact of teacher preparation policy (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2000b; Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002), Darling-Hammond (2000b) concluded that pupil learning “depends substantially on what teachers know and can do’’ (p), most importantly on teacher preparation and certification. This approach was also evident in Rice’s (2003) recent analyses of the impact of teacher characteristics on effectiveness, which concluded that despite gaps in the literature, many teacher characteristics do have an impact on performance. In a related review that examined the relationship between teacher characteristics and pupil achievement, Wayne and Youngs (2003) concluded that pupils learn more from teachers with certain characteristics, including certain college characteristics and tested skills and knowledge, although results were inconclusive about the impact of coursework, degrees, and certification. As with the first approach, there is an emphasis here on pupil achievement. However, with this second approach to teacher quality, the point is to identify which characteristics of teachers impact pupil achievement and then to suggest policy implications.

The Demographic Imperative

The phrase “the demographic divide’’ (Gay & Howard, 2000; Hodgkinson, 2002) has been used to refer to the marked disparities in educational opportunities, resources, and achievement among student groups that differ from one another racially, culturally, linguistically, socioeconomically, and geographically. Others have used the phrase “the demographic imperative’’ (Banks, 1995; Dilworth, 1992) to draw attention to these sharp disparities and emphasize that the educational community must take action.

Hodgkinson (2001) drew on Census 2000 data to point out that 40% of the school population came from racially and culturally diverse groups. Although this varies by state (Hodgkinson, 2002), it is strikingly different from the school population 30 years ago when nearly 80% were White (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). If projections are accurate, children of color will constitute the majority of the student population by 2035 and account for 57% by 2050 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Meanwhile, the nation’s teaching force has quite a different profile, with White teachers accounting for 86% of the teaching force and teachers of color only 14% (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997), a pattern that reflects a modest increase in minority teachers since a low of 7% in 1993. Information about who is currently preparing to teach indicates a pattern that is generally similar to the current teaching force (American Association...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• FOREWORD
• PREFACE
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 1. THE AERA PANEL ON RESEARCH AND TEACHER EDUCATION: CONTEXT AND GOALS
• 2. RESEARCHING TEACHER EDUCATION IN CHANGING TIMES: POLITICS AND PARADIGMS
• 3. TEACHERS’ CHARACTERISTICS: RESEARCH ON THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
• 4. TEACHERS’ CHARACTERISTICS: RESEARCH ON THE INDICATORS OF QUALITY
• 5. RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF COURSEWORK IN THE ARTS AND SCIENCES AND IN THE FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
• 6. RESEARCH ON METHODS COURSES AND FIELD EXPERIENCES
• 7. RESEARCH ON PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES IN TEACHER EDUCATION
• 8. RESEARCH ON PREPARING TEACHERS FOR DIVERSE POPULATIONS
• 9. RESEARCH ON PREPARING GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS TO WORK WITH STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
• 10. RESEARCH ON ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES IN TEACHER EDUCATION
• 11. TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
• 12. A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
• BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES