|
The Power of
Words: The Language of Experience A paper presented during the Experience and Reform in Teacher Education Session. A Division K Symposium AERA Conference, New York, April, 1996
This paper questions and analyzes the role of experience and the need for the reformation and the reexamination of teacher education. Specifically, I review one teacher education program - my program. First, I provide a brief historical discussion to set the context for the examination of experience. Next, I describe our process of creating a conceptual framework that outlines our teacher education program. As I do this, I expressly focus on the language of the faculty and the language of the document created. Third, I look at our students' perceptions of our program and the language they use to describe it. At this point, I also look at the similarities - if they exist - among the faculty language, the document language, and the student language. Next, I review the present and absent information in the conceptual framework, the faculty language, and student language. Here I discuss the emergent themes that raise questions about the nature of the teacher education program. Finally, I connect this information with the notion of experience and discuss the need to reform teacher education programs with this in mind. Historical View of Experience Experience in teaching? Teacher education has often been criticized with calls for more skills, more research-based practices, and better teachers, but experience has only recently received attention. In the late 19th century, most teaching involved the presentation of content-related information. Teachers learned about practice through observation, or not at all. In the time of Thorndike, that is - early 20th century, most teacher education focused on learning and understanding the conditions in which it occurred Learning, they believed, would occur when the correct responses to a stimulus received rewards. As a result, teachers had to identify the unit of study and select the appropriate reinforcement. From this perspective, behavior was controllable and shaped by teachers and their strategies. Taylor's notion of scientific management where individuality and creativity received little encouragement echoed this perspective. These approaches to teacher education suggest that practices are both directed by scientifically derived rules and standardizable. Moreover, this orientation asserted that knowledge acquisition was a process of acquiring a standardized body of information, like a cultural dictionary. Although initiated almost a century ago, these theories remain current. Back then, the acquisition of the pertinent knowledge base corresponded to good teaching. Conversely, less than adequate teaching (as determined by whom?) occurred as a result of scant usage of that knowledge base. Not so long ago, Shulman (1986) noted that most teacher education programs defined successful graduates as those students with a high proportion of content area knowledge, a familiarity with curricular and teaching models, and time to practice with both. It would seem, therefore, that teacher education programs believed then and believe now that theory about good teaching can easily be transposed into practice. Yet, evidence suggests that these programs have been less than successful. In an extensive review of the literature available on the professional growth of preservice teachers, Kagan (1992) found that most studies indicated that "university courses fail to provide novices with adequate procedural knowledge of classrooms, adequate knowledge of pupils or the extended practica needed to acquire that knowledge, or a realistic view of teaching in its full classroom/school context (p. 162)." While the world of teacher education is quite conservative and resistant to change (Zeichner, 1995), some teacher education programs are making changes. Although there is little discussion in the literature about what occurs in teacher education programs (Zeichner & Gore, 1990), we can read about the programs that emphasize reflection (Russell.....) and narrative (Clandinin.....) and deemphasize the development of specific skills. Britzman (1991) encourages a move away from the skill-orientation of teaching, identifying the restrictive nature of that view. With a greater focus on practice comes an emphasis on reflection - a tool to help teachers reconceptualize their own public school experiences. New programs emphasize reflective teaching, action research, journals. There has been a transition form the implementation of the more traditionally described formal knowledge to a recognition of practical knowledge. In fact, there appears to be, in some more innovative programs, a relative joining of theory and practice into praxis. Often in teacher education programs, prospective teachers equate their in-the-classroom experiences as the most beneficial aspect of their program (Munby & Russell, 1995). They define their university work as overly theoretical and unrelated to the lives they anticipate as teachers. In turn, this can develop into the research/theory/practice triad of resistance in future years. Why we have denied the value of experience may have more to do with knowledge ownership than reality. Experience may be a powerful teacher, but it reinforces or contradicts private, not public theory. Further, students need guidance in the reflective process and navigating through the information gathered from both experience and coursework. Teacher educators must nurture and encourage the development of experience for prospective teachers. they must recognize the limitations of programs that do not recognize the value of teacher/student research......but can they do that? I have just offered you alot to consider. Are teacher education programs approaching teacher education from the best possible perspective? Are they offering prospective teachers what they need? It might be helpful to review the program within my institution and its experience with teacher education. With the impetus of reorganizational push from our Board of Regents, my School of Education had to sit down and reconsider our notions of teacher education. We had to identify the elements we found important for teachers to think about and know. In the next few pages I explore that process. First, I present a discussion of the creation of our conceptual framework. Second, I present our students' perspectives from words captured on questionnaires and in focus groups. With each, I offer the language used by the participants. Creating Our Teacher Education Program's Conceptual Framework For your information, KU is a five-year teacher education program. Our students graduate with a bachelor's degree in education and then move into there fifth year that includes 22 weeks of teaching (8 weeks of student teaching in the fall semester and 14 weeks of internship in the spring semester). They are competitively accepted into the School of Education at the end of their sophomore year and prepare for a rigorous 2 more years of coursework. (They can only take 3 hours of education classes prior to their acceptance into the school.) Once accepted into the School, our students identify by subject matter majors and/or minors as well as by a grade level focus (elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/secondary, secondary). Many of our minor areas include at least 32 hours of coursework. For example, our elementary students must all take the multidisciplinary minor who includes 15 hours of science, 9 hours of humanities, 12 hours of social sciences, and 15-18 hours in English. In the 5th year, along with their student teaching experiences, our students take a series of graduate level courses focused on research, school law, and counseling. When the students complete their internship in the spring, they have 15 hours of graduate level work. For several years now I have written about standing on the outside looking into the academy. As a tenure-track assistant professor I struggled to develop my voice and my place within the institution, but I never felt welcomed. Having received tenure, I now have my place within academia.....and I wonder why. Why do I want a place within an institution that does not seem to foster the ideas I hold so strongly - like collaboration, practice, teacher knowledge, constructivism. Why do I want to be in a place little interested in the reform or reexamination of teacher education? Of course, my colleagues would not agree. I think they would locate themselves along the cutting-edge of teacher education, but is that true? And what does it mean to be interested in a reexamination or reformation of teacher education? I certainly have my notions, but who is to decide whose notions are of most value? Does the voice of teaching experience count? For what? Or, are we really talking about the voice of position and status? Do we listen to teachers or simply ourselves? Should we make a distinction like that? When do you listen to the authority of experience? Is there a "right" way of being reflective? When do you know you are listening to the voice of experience and not the voice of position? Do my colleagues say to themselves "Oh I think I'd like to be traditional, just now?" Do they decide that recalcitrance should be the mood of the moment? Do they think of themselves as being reflective about their ideas? I bet they do. I bet they consider themselves quite forward thinking . (And I do not even want to think about what they think about me.) I am sure that as they participate in discussions about practice, they reflect upon their notions of teaching. Further, I am sure that they believe that their ideas are innovative and valuable. Can I be the one to cast the first stone about the quality of their reflection? And because I question their thinking, does that make my ideas of greater value? These are important, but not easy, questions to answer. Within months of receiving tenure, I was asked by the Dean to serve as the School's NCATE coordinator. Never one to support anything of a standardizing nature, and certainly never one to be on the inside-track within my School of Education, I was surprised by the invitation. I was also flattered. True, I should have realized that I would be undertaking alot of work - but this was the first time anyone within the School had recognized my abilities - let alone someone with recognized authority. Plus, I was promised a voice in the reform of our teacher education program. That promise alone was enough to spur me into acceptance. Or would it better if I acknowledge that I was seduced? However, since taking on this task, I have been doing anything but reforming teacher education! Instead, I have been listening to my colleagues complain about NCATE and criticize the demands of the requirements. I have not heard people state how things could be different. I have not heard people suggest that we now have an opportunity to reexamine our program. Nor have colleagues suggested alternatives when I invite them to view this as an opportunity. They simply complain. Do they see value in the NCATE review? I can not say that they do. Interestingly, I have begun to see value in the process of examining our teacher education program, to do a self-study. While I have been reexamining the KU teacher education program, I have also been forced to reexamine my own notions about teacher education. What do I view as important to teaching? What is teaching? How do you know when you are doing it? How do you know when you are experiencing it? Should there be set standards? My response would be a qualified yes........but who sets the standards? Whose standards are they? What are the motives behind the standards? (Like the mad cow scare.....is this simply a devious conservative plot?) Yes, I support standards that sustain a critical inquiry into teaching and the teacher education program. No, I do not support a standardizing program that takes bureaucratic whimsy to its illogical absurdity. How do you know the difference? I am not sure. Anyway, here we are - a group of colleagues brought together to generate the conceptual framework for our School of Education. Since KU's last review in 1990, the NCATE Standards have changed and now require a conceptual framework that outlines the School's view of its teacher education program. Seems simple enough, yes? Think again. The group (the Teacher Education Council or TEC), has representation from every department with the School. We also have colleagues in attendance from other licensure programs within the University as well as delegates of the College of Liberal Arts. As a believer in consensus, collegiality, and collaboration, I promoted meetings where we would ponder and discuss aspects of our program. Early into the discussions, we agreed that we would NOT invent new aspects of teacher education, but would describe what we thought existed within our teacher education program. Because NCATE specifically calls for a shared language about the program among students, faculty and others, we did not want to stretch beyond what currently existed. Interestingly, however, trying to draw program descriptions out of my colleagues became quite a struggle. We even had one meeting where some people refused to talk, one person frequently left the room to copy non-essential items, and few people took concrete notes. Why did that happen? Why could they not describe the program within which they worked? Obviously we had a teacher education program in place, but there seemed to be an inability to depict it in conversation at this meeting. Let me step back. It is not accurate to say that nothing transpired. At this particular meeting I became considerably frustrated - to the point where I wanted to resign my position as reformer. In addition, at this meeting several colleagues claimed that our program was based on the process-product paradigm where we promoted only the direct instruction model of teaching. Finally, at this meeting, I realized that I was residing in the bastion of the traditional, dominant paradigm of teacher education - and I felt captured by it. While not accurate to say that nothing occurred, it is accurate to say that I was not satisfied with what happened. In response, I wrote the conceptual framework myself, reframing things that had already been written. I also followed the agree-upon modus operandi - to write a framework without invention. Often, I reminded myself that I was not writing my own conceptual framework, but the program's framework. Although I functioned within our teacher education program, I could not say that ascribed to our program. Rather, I fought against it with my course outlines and course plans. Consequently, I had to remember whose work I was describing. As I wrote the framework, I chanted the mantra of non-invention...over and over and over again. I succeeded. At the next meeting with my colleagues, they expressed delight with the creation. They felt that I had represented the program that they knew. They felt that they saw themselves and their teaching summarized within the few short pages of text. They thanked me for my fine work. I had taken old documents and, following a format modeled by another colleague, simply translated information they presented over the course of our discussions. Why did I feel so downhearted? I suppose my disappointment originated from my desire to reexamine our teacher education program. Truthfully, we did not do that. Truthfully, we simply described where we were. However, truthfully, that was the agreement. My colleagues had not agreed to do anything else. They had agreed to describe our program, such as it was. My disappointment came from my desire to create more. True, for NCATE we needed to describe the current program because NCATE wants to see the ways in which our program can be reflected among the faculty, the documents, the students, and the community. Yet, I wanted to generate discussions about views of teaching, issues of practice, and understandings about experience. My colleagues, on the other hand, seemed quite satisfied with traditional descriptions. This raised my curiosity. Some literature about faculty - specifically teacher education faculty - suggests that they are prone to resisting institutional pressures to conform. Why were my faculty colleagues not resisting these pressures. Yes, they engaged in complaining, but they were, in fact, conforming to the demands of the system. Frankly, I was also conforming to the system.....learning the NCATE party line to a dizzying degree.......but I was asking questions about what we were doing. They were not. They offered no alternatives. Instead, they saw this NCATE task as something to complete with no questions asked. Language Of The Faculty During the meetings prior to the one just mentioned, my colleagues used a variety of descriptors to generally describe our program. They portrayed our program as a knowledge and skills program with a strong liberal base. They defined the curriculum as a spiral. They asserted that with a strong general education component, our students could write, understand, and do quantitative "sorts of things." Further, they felt that our students not only knew ideas, but had the ability to apply what they knew. They also viewed our teacher education program as a developmental process. In one meeting, we discussed students. Colleague A found a lack of integration of theoretical and philosophical issues with pedagogy. This person stated that the students are "not interested in why things work.......they are not interested in theory." In response, Colleague B stated that "we've heard this before....about the lack of integrated aspects.....students don't make leaps to transfer and generalize ideas." Supporting that statement, Colleague C maintained that students "want a menu......but they need to make connections." Colleague B affirmed that, declaring "that is what they need to do....they need to know about philosophies, etc......and that is what we are collectively trying to do." Other colleagues also supported this, because students need to gain an "understanding of why it works as well as how it works." These beliefs were affirmed throughout our meetings. Over and over colleagues stated that "we deliver knowledge and skills. We teach theory and work to help students apply this." Interestingly, in one meeting, we talked about how we could provide evidence for such an assertion and someone mentioned reflective logs. Excerpts from reflective logs - over time - could document the developmental process and rationalize "why we do what we do." Would the students realize this developmental process? Do we talk about this process with them? At the meeting where they reviewed the conceptual framework I had written, various colleagues stated that the document was an honest representation, "not post-modern", but rational and clearly laid-out. They also found it brief, consistent, and to-the-point. (I am saying "they" because I did not identify speakers in my notes and they all seemed to agree which they indicated with head-nodding.) They did express concern about the use of liberal arts and liberal education. From their perspective, they wanted to insure that those descriptors do not simply indicate students taking liberal arts courses. Perhaps I should have been happy by their acceptance of my work. Instead, I found myself curious about their assent of it. I wanted to know why they did not question certain aspects, but, again, I had to remind myself that we were there to create and approve a document, not challenge the status quo. They saw themselves reflected in those pages and found our program strong. Language Of The Document The language of the document reflects the language of the faculty as well as already written program documents. To write the conceptual framework, I listed descriptors used in our meeting discussions and I reviewed previously written documents. My only ripple of inventiveness occurred when trying to describe our model. We had bantered about Berliner's expert-novice work and Shulman's content-pedagogy work, and Cruckshank's reflective teaching work, but none of these truly described the direction of our program. Because we seemed eclectic -- to some degree -- I decided to use Feiman-Nemser's orientations because they at least slightly mirrored the work done within our program. Below please find an (edited) version of our conceptual framework. In emboldened print I indicate which line I will discuss. I will also make general statements about the nine outcomes. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The goal of the our Professional Teacher Preparation Program (PTPP) is to prepare exemplary professionals who provide the best education possible for children in diverse settings. With this in mind, our program combines our students' strong liberal education with a field-based pedagogical program that, together, fosters thoughtful inquiry about classroom, students, and schooling. At the completion of our PTPP, our students know what they are teaching, know how they should teach it, have an understanding of who they are teaching, and have the tools to consider the complexities of teaching. Our conceptual framework can be found at the foundation of our program. The PTPP framework recognizes the strength of a diverse liberal education rooted in the university community, encourages areas of concentration, and builds upon that liberal education to develop a solid, field-based pedagogical study that blends theory and practice. The PTPP is designed to produce graduates from our program who have a basic belief in the uniqueness, dignity, and worth of the individual, a liberal education, a comprehensive understanding of subject matter, skills in methodology that enhance their ability to impart knowledge and guide the development of children and youth, and an understanding of the school as an institution in society that helps guide children. Specifically, our PTPP is rooted in pedagogy and research focused on facilitating and promoting the educational and social development of the children they serve and contributing to improving learning environments. Because our goal is to prepare exemplary teaching professionals, we believe that our program can best be described as a Professional Teacher Preparation model. We developed this model in response to the needs of the profession as well as the expert findings within the field. While this is not a model formally described within the pages of the educational research literature, the tenets of our Professional Teacher Preparation model are embedded within a research tradition. In fact, our model combines components of the academic, practical, personal, and technological conceptual orientations in teacher preparation as described by Feiman-Nemser (1990, pp. 220-229). THE ACADEMIC CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION views teachers as subject matter specialists, yet recognizes that they will not gain the necessary knowledge through academic preparation alone. Within this orientation, the work of Shulman (1986), which identifies the importance of pedagogical content knowledge, represents one aspect of our PTPP. THE PRACTICAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION emphasizes the importance of experience as a foundation for professional knowledge and as a means to learning about the profession. Situational and contextual aspects of teaching are recognized as important yet varied by events and personal understandings. Within this orientation, the work of Schon (1983), which describes reflection-in action and knowledge-in-action as relevant elements of teaching, depicts another aspect of our program. THE TECHNOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION concentrates on the tasks of teaching. From this orientation, teachers use the latest research findings to provide the foundation for the learning-to-teach process. The works of Brophy & Good (1986) and Joyce, Weil, & Showers (1992) exemplify this orientation. THE PERSONAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION identifies personal development as the core of teacher preparation. Within this context, prospective teachers engage in a developmental process where their learning is facilitated. Belief in the contribution of prospective teachers' viewpoints and input characterizes another aspect of our program. Rather than align with one orientation, we incorporated the most valuable aspects of these four orientations into our conceptual framework. Importantly, reflective teaching has been identified as a shared characteristic rather than a distinct emphasis. Consequently, reflection threads through each of these orientations. The PTPP aims to prepare exemplary teachers who can practice all elements of our model. Specifically, it is the goal of the PTPP to prepare our graduates
The PTPP conceptual framework outlines the anticipated outcomes for our graduates and provides the rationale for our coursework and evaluation. Coursework, field experiences, and student outcomes have been aligned with this conceptual model. 1. Graduates possess self-understanding. Self-understanding is a critical element in making effective career choices and choices that lead to specialization in the teaching profession. Self-understanding is also a powerful tool when developing cultural sensitivity as well as a teaching repertoire. 2. Graduates have knowledge of human growth, development, and learning and apply it to teaching children and adolescents. The acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the development and learning of children and adolescents is a basic concern of the PTPP. Recent emphasis on teaching effectiveness has stressed the importance of psychological foundations for good instructional decisions. We introduce prospective teachers to current ideas and theories through course work and related scholarly activities, as well as field experiences. 3. Graduates are skilled in human relations. Effectiveness in teaching depends on knowledge of subject matter, use of appropriate techniques and technology, awareness of principles of applied learning, and skill in classroom management. Interpersonal communications skills (human relations) are of primary importance in effective teaching, as well as effective living. 4. Graduates understand curriculum planning and are skilled in choosing and adapting instructional strategies to implement varying curricula. A teacher must constantly make instructional decisions based on a complex set of factors. These decisions are made in naturally occurring settings with multiple and simultaneous events taking place. Consequently, the professional teacher must be well grounded in the bases of sound decision-making in educational settings. Knowledge of and skill in applying these skills are acquired by the student via a developmental sequence of courses correlated with a series of field experiences. 5. Graduates manage a learning environment effectively. Student behavior in schools is a focus of increasing magnitude. Consequently, prospective teachers need to know how to manage the learning environment and students' behavior to facilitate learning for all children. The knowledge required to meet this outcome comes through careful study and practical application of a variety of theoretical approaches to classroom management. 6. Graduates evaluate student learning and use educational research methodologies to improve instruction and student learning. People preparing to become teachers need to develop skills in designing instructional objectives, constructing tests, and using several different types of assessment to plan instruction and evaluate student performance. Insightful feedback that increases instructional effectiveness is the cornerstone of effective professional practice. Schon (1983, 1987) and Shulman (1986) have written about the importance of reflection in teaching. Students in the PTPP are assisted throughout their programs to evaluate their effectiveness as teachers....As students progress through our Program, they have the opportunity to reflect upon the act of teaching and to develop their own personal philosophy of teaching. 7. Graduates understand the scope of the teaching profession and the school as a social-political organization. The study of education relies on the resources and methodologies of the humanities, law, and current research findings in the social and behavioral sciences. Its primary objective is to sharpen prospective teachers' abilities to examine and explain educational proposals, arrangements, organizations, and practices. It develops in students a disciplined sense of ethical, policy-oriented educational responsibility and sound professional practice. 8. Graduates have a liberal education. The complexity of today's society demands that teachers know about many issues, disciplines, and topics that affect children and that arise in the classroom and in life. To make reasoned judgments requires not only intellect and pedagogy, but also the wisdom that comes from a background in the arts and sciences. 9. Graduates have thorough knowledge of the aspects of at least one subject matter area that is included in the public school curriculum. Our graduates master the content of their teaching fields. The requirements for each teaching field are developed cooperatively by the faculties of the School of Education and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and other academic units. Licensure programs meet the requirements of the Kansas State Board of Education and the recommendations of many of the learned societies. As I read through the conceptual framework, I think several issues catch the reader's attention. First, I think the focus on liberal education is quite evident. Several times throughout the text, the terms liberal education are used. But, what is a liberal education? What does that mean? I would suggest that if I reviewed definitions with committee colleagues, I would discover some variations on the theme. However, I think the point of using the term is to indicate that content-area studies are held in high regard.
...our program combines our students' strong liberal education with a field-based pedagogical program that, together, fosters thoughtful inquiry about classroom, students, and schooling. In the first emboldened segment, liberal education is combined with field-based pedagogical program to describe our program. This suggests that our students have a detailed discussions in the field pedagogy approach for use in their selected subject areas. Continuing through the quote, we indicate that students are engaged in inquiry about classrooms and schooling. This would suggest that we have coursework that fosters such discussion. While I do not doubt that our students engage in discussions about classrooms and students, I do wonder about the implication that this is done in a deliberate fashion. I would also propose that the field-based nature of the coursework, although evident, does not develop student conversation and learning over time. Rather, the field-based courses are random placements with attention only to diversity issues and subject matter choice. The PTPP framework recognizes the strength of a diverse liberal education rooted in the university community, encourages areas of concentration, and builds upon that liberal education to develop a solid, field-based pedagogical study that blends theory and practice. Again, we return to the liberal education and the field-based study. This time, we add the blending of theory and practice. There is considerable evidence that our faculty engage in presentation or theoretical and research-based information. There is some evidence that they offer pedagogical discussions. How this is done, however, is not evident. In fact, there is little evident that the content area faculty visit students in the field - expect when they are students teaching. (Not that they have the time to do that!) What does it mean to have a develop a field-based pedagogical study from a liberal education? How is that done? Do the students recognize that? How would they recognize it? The PTPP is designed to produce graduates from our program who have a basic belief in the uniqueness, dignity, and worth of the individual, a liberal education, a comprehensive understanding of subject matter, skills in methodology that enhance their ability to impart knowledge and guide the development of children and youth, and an understanding of the school as an institution in society that helps guide children. In this quote, we indicate that our students have certain moral bearings as well as a liberal education, an understanding of subject matter, a selection of appropriate methodological skills, and a grasp issues beyond the classroom walls. How do we offer this information and these ideas to our students? What coursework actually addresses this? Do the students recognize the flow of the coursework? Frankly, I must admit that on paper our program has an outline of study that carefully describes an order. Unfortunately, the reality is that students fit courses in where they can. We have no cohort or enforced order to our work. THE ACADEMIC CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION ....THE PRACTICAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION...THE TECHNOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION....THE PERSONAL CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION While these orientations offer interesting elements to incorporate within a teacher education program, there is little contained here of a specific nature. How will these orientations be presented? Which aspects are of most value? An important aspect of linking these orientations is developing a strong cohesive program where these orientations blend together. Knowing what I know of our program, I can say that our program does not coalesce in that fashion. Rather, we are a collection of individual courses. These issues and topics may be addressed but they are not connected in ways that might build a strong foundation for students. For example, we pride ourselves on our students' strong content-area work, but how will they link that content with pedagogy? In the field? Do we have field-work that focuses on that? Not much? And, we only offer one course in subject-specific pedagogy. Importantly, reflective teaching has been identified as a shared characteristic rather than a distinct emphasis. Consequently, reflection threads through each of these orientations. Ah, reflection! I have had many, many students tell me that they are sick of reflection. "If I reflect one more time", they will say, "I think I'll gag" or some variation on that theme. I think that we engage our students in the reflective process. What I am not sure about, however, is how we engage the students and whether we employ reflective strategies in productive, developmental ways. If the student comments, like the one above, are indicative of what is occurring, I would say we are not doing that. Why would that happen? I think the key is in the cohesive nature (or lack of it) of the program. The teacher educators do NOT work together to achieve and support the developmental process. Graduates possess self-understanding, have knowledge of human growth, development, and learning and apply it to teaching children and adolescents, are skilled in human relations, understand curriculum planning and are skilled in choosing and adapting instructional strategies to implement varying curricula, manage a learning environment effectively, evaluate student learning and use educational research methodologies to improve instruction and student learning, understand the scope of the teaching profession and the school as a social-political organization, have a liberal education, and have thorough knowledge of the aspects of at least one subject matter area that is included in the public school curriculum. These are the students we produce, or say we produce, in our program. Again we see the liberal education, the focus on pedagogy, subject matter specialty, and an understanding of the skills needed in the classroom. Do the students see themselves as possessing these outcomes? I suggest that they do not. The next section, which briefly looks at student comments about teaching and the profession, provides some insight about the students' interpretations about their experiences in our program. Students' Perceptions Of Our Program In the Fall, 1995 I had our fifth-year students fill out a questionnaire about teaching (approximately 115 students filled-out the forms). I also had them describe what they had learned and define teaching as a profession. In addition, I asked them to describe what they wanted to learn during student teaching. Overwhelming, they stated that they wanted to practice teaching methods, to learn to plan, how to develop as teachers, how to devise effective teaching strategies and how to practice behavior management, and how to work collaboratively, how to facilitate learning environments, and how to facilitate student learning. They also wanted to observe teaching strategies. Discipline and the maintenance of order were also key words used in the questionnaire. During their student teaching assignment, they wanted to "experience all I can", to learn about motivation, to learn classroom management techniques, to gain practical experience, to learn new teaching strategies and teaching designs, and learn about curriculum. They also stated that "I want to see good practice....", "I want to test all of the theories I've been studying....", "I want to learn the ins and outs of teaching", "I want hands-on experience", and "Experiences". Further, they also described their concerns: "My main concern is that I get experience just being in front of the class....", "...I got too much theoretical information and won't know what to do with it....", "To add to and to exercise my expertise in my field....", and "to use some different styles of teaching..." While not a list of all student comments, these comments are representative of what the students discussed. Clearly, the students are interested in developing their experience in the field. Although our teacher education program claims to cover all of the information the students wanted to learn, the students did not feel that they had learned about strategies, curriculum, and discipline. From their perspectives, they had not yet learned those elements in their work. What had they learned? Theories -- and they wanted to test them out This, of course, is interesting because the faculty members found that their students did want to know theory. Yet, from the student standpoint, that was much of what they had learned. Similarities Among Faculty/Document/Student Language Key among the language used by the faculty and the students is the absence of unity. The faculty never talked about experience, the students focused almost entirely on it. Additionally, the faculty discussed theory and the students wanted to see the theory put into action. Most telling is the suggestion by faculty that students were not interested in theory and the students' assertions that maybe they got too much. Present And Absent Information In The Conceptual Framework Certain themes became apparent and seemed valued within the document. These included the notion to work hard, value a liberal education, and develop a strong pedagogical foundation. These ideas, however, seemed to represent a wish list because they seemed to include generalizations, rather than specifics. Further, it seems that we expect our students to be masters of teaching when they graduate rather than the novices that they are. What messages does this convey to our students? There is no doubt that our students work hard. Additionally, they do have a liberal education, but often they talk about not knowing what to do with the information they have in their heads. Sometimes I hear questions about "now what?" What am I supposed to do with this information, they ask me. Absent from the text is a specific discussion about reflection and how it will fit into those various orientations. If students have self-understanding, does that mean that they simply know how to reflect? What I find missing from the text are discussions related to the value of experience or the value of teachers, or description of field based elements, or the voice of students. If we want to encourage them to be teachers, shouldn't we provide evidence about the value of the profession? Additionally, there are no specifics provided that detail how all of these desires and requirements will be enacted. Faculty And Students' Language Do the languages of the faculty and the students have shared elements with the conceptual framework? Surprisingly, I think there are some shared qualities. Certainly between the language of the faculty and the document. Each talk about the value of a liberal education and the need for practical application. The students also talked about the value of their broad education. They did not, however, talk about receiving practical practice. Instead, their language indicates that they need it and want it, but are looking to their student teaching experience for it. From that information, one can extrapolate that they did not think they got that experience in their previous field work. Emergent Themes That Raise Questions About Nature Of Teacher Ed Program: In reviewing the faculty language and the document, five themes emerge:
Faculty discussions and the documents indicate that teaching is something that is achieved, mostly likely at the end of our five-year program. There is a knowledge base to be learned and the students must work hard to develop that. Additionally, through there coursework they will be able to learn to teach. Although suggesting that teaching is a developmental process, that process seems to end - at least its most important part - upon completion of the program. Teaching is a thing to do As I reviewed the information presented in the document and the language used be the faculty, the theme of teaching as a thing to do became evident. There are skills for students to learn and strategies for them to use. Further, it would seem as if we are indicating that students will learn this doingness through work in the field. Teachers need a learned set of skills There is some evidence in the language of the faculty and the language of the document that set of skills will best prepare students to be good teachers. Teachers must have great general knowledge With the often mentioned liberal education, we seem to value general knowledge about the world far more than pedagogy. Connecting Information With Notion Of Experience So, where are we? Munby & Russell (1994) identify reflective classroom experience as critical to the development of good teachers. Bullough, Knowles, & Crow (1991) suggest that past experience is an important and neglected aspect of teacher education. Others, for years now, have underscored the importance of experience. Yet many researchers and teacher educators have resisted this information. Interestingly, there is evidence that teacher education programs only focused on skills and knowledge are less-than-successful (Kagan, 1992) - but that information seems cast aside. So, what have I learned? While students talk in language that may reinforce the conceptual framework, they do not address issues related to reflection an they do believe that they need to be in the field. In fact, their discussion of the field indicates that they view student teaching as the field and that they discount other field experience. Why might that be? I suggest that because we do not believe a cohesive field program with development discussions about the field, they do not know how to hold the information they have learned. To better evolve our program from a decent program to an exemplary program we need to develop a web of experience. We need to help our students discuss their "take" on what they are learning and help them build connections between the university classroom theory to their private theories. And we must do that without empowering public theory over private theory. How can we do that? Zeichner (1995) and others have suggested for some time the need for teacher educators to view themselves are teachers and think of their work as teaching -- reflective teaching. As reflective teacher educators we must model for our students the best practice and talk openly about the conflicts (living contradictions) between our beliefs and our actions. We must bring ourselves into the studentÕs web of experience and position ourselves as learners as well as teachers. It would be easy here to rest of the authority of position (Russell.....) as professors in the program, but it is the authority of experience that will be of most use to our students. Our students need to see their own ideas against our ideas without concern for issues of power and control. Consequently, I advocate a reform of teacher education - at a national level - that includes a respect for practice and practical knowledge at much greater levels. And here, the strength of the reflective teacher educator can empower the budding strength of the prospective teacher. References: Britzman, D.P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany NY:SUNY Press. Bullough, R. V., Knowles, G., & Crow, N. A. (1991). Emerging as a teacher. London: Routledge. Clandinin, J. Kagan, D. (1992). Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods course. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 86-95. Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62, 1-36. Russell, T. Shulman, L. (1986). Tabachnick, R., & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education. London: Falmer. Zeichner, K. (1990). Zeichner, K. (1995). Zeichner, K. & Gore, J. (1990).
|
©2001 Mary Lynn Hamilton. All rights reserved. Website content questions? Mary Lynn Hamilton. Website design questions? Janel Hinrichsen