Monday, January 29, 2007
Curriculum Theorists & Ed. Pysch Folks on Teacher Ed
I have come to realize that curriculum specialists view the problems of teacher education from a completely different lens as educational psychologists. Although they both of agree on several points, each views the process of teaching teachers from different standpoints.
The curriculum theorist approaches the issue of teacher education from a standpoint of philosophy. They ask the question "What is the value of teacher education?" As a perequisite of this question, curriculum theorists grapple with the purpose for schooling and the role and substance of the subject matter. The curriculum theorist might argue for social justice and curriculum relevance. The curriculum theorist will champion the teacher as the great curriculum decision-maker. Regardless of which curriculum theory the curriculum person takes, they all rise from a philosophical position depicting the value/purpose/essence of schooling and teaching, whether that be for social reproduction, cultural training, or social justice.
Whereas the theorist draws heavily on philosophical positioning, the educational psychologist begins with the most basic premise of schooling--that the student learns something. Educational pyschologists ask, "What is the function of teacher education?" As a perequisite, they ask what are the structures underlining the process of learning and teaching. The educational psychologist, in many cases, begins first with identifying a structural framework for learning. The educational psychologist might argue that students learn best when they are encouraged to construct their own understanding of the material; hence, teacher education ought to prepare teachers who create constructivist lessons or environments. The educational psychologist pointing to research may assert a set of prescriptives: The teacher ought to do this, do that... Educational psychologists may apply these concepts to adults and suggest that future teachers, like students, learn best when they create their own understanding of teaching.
When designing teacher education, the curriculum theorist will begin first with defining what is of value in teacher education, what aims (curricular and societal) should the teacher education program strive for? For instance, the teacher education might strive to promote social justice among teachers. The aims are almost always board and lofty, idealistic and hopeful. Something to strive toward, but maybe never obtain. (Yet, there is value in the striving!)
When designing teacher education, the educational psychologist will begin first with defining the stucture and process of learning. The educational program functions to prepare the teacher to work within that structure. The educational psychologist always start first with the student. How does the student learn best? What qualities or features does the teacher need to possess in order to bring about learning? What type of learning environment does the teacher need to create to bring about learning? How can teacher education instill these qualities and promote the creation of these environments?
A curriculum theorist will study the teacher education program for its substance, its internal coherence, its aims and goals. The educational psychologist might study the teacher education program for its adherence to learning principles, how it instills teacher qualities, and how its teachers perform as a result of a type of instructional technique.
Each perspective offers unique insights into our understanding of teacher education. Perhaps with the infusing of anthropology in both curriculum and learning theories, greater connections might be drawn between these two disciplines.
The curriculum theorist approaches the issue of teacher education from a standpoint of philosophy. They ask the question "What is the value of teacher education?" As a perequisite of this question, curriculum theorists grapple with the purpose for schooling and the role and substance of the subject matter. The curriculum theorist might argue for social justice and curriculum relevance. The curriculum theorist will champion the teacher as the great curriculum decision-maker. Regardless of which curriculum theory the curriculum person takes, they all rise from a philosophical position depicting the value/purpose/essence of schooling and teaching, whether that be for social reproduction, cultural training, or social justice.
Whereas the theorist draws heavily on philosophical positioning, the educational psychologist begins with the most basic premise of schooling--that the student learns something. Educational pyschologists ask, "What is the function of teacher education?" As a perequisite, they ask what are the structures underlining the process of learning and teaching. The educational psychologist, in many cases, begins first with identifying a structural framework for learning. The educational psychologist might argue that students learn best when they are encouraged to construct their own understanding of the material; hence, teacher education ought to prepare teachers who create constructivist lessons or environments. The educational psychologist pointing to research may assert a set of prescriptives: The teacher ought to do this, do that... Educational psychologists may apply these concepts to adults and suggest that future teachers, like students, learn best when they create their own understanding of teaching.
When designing teacher education, the curriculum theorist will begin first with defining what is of value in teacher education, what aims (curricular and societal) should the teacher education program strive for? For instance, the teacher education might strive to promote social justice among teachers. The aims are almost always board and lofty, idealistic and hopeful. Something to strive toward, but maybe never obtain. (Yet, there is value in the striving!)
When designing teacher education, the educational psychologist will begin first with defining the stucture and process of learning. The educational program functions to prepare the teacher to work within that structure. The educational psychologist always start first with the student. How does the student learn best? What qualities or features does the teacher need to possess in order to bring about learning? What type of learning environment does the teacher need to create to bring about learning? How can teacher education instill these qualities and promote the creation of these environments?
A curriculum theorist will study the teacher education program for its substance, its internal coherence, its aims and goals. The educational psychologist might study the teacher education program for its adherence to learning principles, how it instills teacher qualities, and how its teachers perform as a result of a type of instructional technique.
Each perspective offers unique insights into our understanding of teacher education. Perhaps with the infusing of anthropology in both curriculum and learning theories, greater connections might be drawn between these two disciplines.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Issues of Capacity with ACPs
As mentioned in the previous post, many ACPs suffer from problems of design. A lack of capacity forces several program directors to compromise the quality of their program. Here's a quote from the report by the Next Generation of Teachers:
"Charing little or no tuition means that programs may not have sufficient funds to hire a specialist in each subject for which they offer a license; to train or modestly compensate the mentors who supervise student teaching; or to offer meaningful follow-up support once candidates have begun their new teaching assignments."
Capacity refers to both human resource, or organizational, capacity as well as monetary capacity. From experience working in an ACP, I can tell you that limited capacity greatly affects the program's ability to strive for quality levels, especially when the program attempts to do more than its few employees are able to accomplish.
Here's how a lack of capacity impacts programming for many ACPs:
1. ACPs relied on recruitment and selection to ensure individuals are likely to succeed.
2. On-the-job support usually came from the school district rather than the program.
3. Many ACPs accepted more applicants, some underqualified, to reach a break even point or quota.
4. Organization staff juggled multiple tasks, unable to specialize or to complete specific projects to a level of quality.
5. Curriculum of program tended to be based on meeting certification requirements (test prep) rather than on teaching.
6. Some directors resorted to technology-based curriculum or e-mentoring as a way of cutting costs rather than employing unique features of computer-based learning.
7. Supervisors of new teacher received little or inadequate training.
8. Instructors lacked appropriate credentials.
9. Directors chose not to perform research or evaluation on the program results due to costs and/or time.
10. Many staff avoided suggesting innovations that required time and resources unavailable to the program.
I am sure that capacity issues have a greater impact than what I just listed here, but ten seemed like such a good number to stop at!
"Charing little or no tuition means that programs may not have sufficient funds to hire a specialist in each subject for which they offer a license; to train or modestly compensate the mentors who supervise student teaching; or to offer meaningful follow-up support once candidates have begun their new teaching assignments."
Capacity refers to both human resource, or organizational, capacity as well as monetary capacity. From experience working in an ACP, I can tell you that limited capacity greatly affects the program's ability to strive for quality levels, especially when the program attempts to do more than its few employees are able to accomplish.
Here's how a lack of capacity impacts programming for many ACPs:
1. ACPs relied on recruitment and selection to ensure individuals are likely to succeed.
2. On-the-job support usually came from the school district rather than the program.
3. Many ACPs accepted more applicants, some underqualified, to reach a break even point or quota.
4. Organization staff juggled multiple tasks, unable to specialize or to complete specific projects to a level of quality.
5. Curriculum of program tended to be based on meeting certification requirements (test prep) rather than on teaching.
6. Some directors resorted to technology-based curriculum or e-mentoring as a way of cutting costs rather than employing unique features of computer-based learning.
7. Supervisors of new teacher received little or inadequate training.
8. Instructors lacked appropriate credentials.
9. Directors chose not to perform research or evaluation on the program results due to costs and/or time.
10. Many staff avoided suggesting innovations that required time and resources unavailable to the program.
I am sure that capacity issues have a greater impact than what I just listed here, but ten seemed like such a good number to stop at!
Problems with Alternative Certification
Many find fault with Alternative Certification Programs and unfortunately for some very good reasons. A report by the Susan Moore Johnson and the Next Generation of Teachers Project (2005) pointed out that many ACPs suffered as a result of the incentives, such as low tuition and minimum time committment for participants. This report hilighted what I call the problem of design. Recent scholarship by Dan Humphreys and Diane Wechsler (2005, also in press) demonstrated that regardless of the background of the teacher and training that the ACP provided, the school context outweighs these other factors in determining teacher retention. Hence, I refer to this issue as the problem of context.
I do not deny that many ACPs fail to live up to the promises of recruiting and educating highly qualified teachers. However, I disagree with researchers who attack ACPs outright without acknowledging the problem of context. First, ACPs tend to recruit teachers for mostly urban school districts, which may lack resources for new teachers. Second, ACP candidates must teach prior to completing full requirements for certification. Unlike their traditional counterparts who student teach, the ACP intern must overcome obstacles associated with the lack school resources, lack of parental involvement, langauge issues, and many others more than simply teaching. Critics judge the ACP for its failure to prepare teachers appropriately but neglect to address the problem of context.
Kenneth Zeichner (2006) wrote "The research indicates that it is the characteristics of the programs rather than who sponsors them that matter in terms of influencing a variety of teacher and student outcomes." I think we ought to also look at what makes teacher education work.
Humphrey & Wechsler (2005). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record. Available from www.tcrecord.org.
Moore, S.J., Birkeland, S.E., Peske, H.G. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/balance.pdf.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a univeristy-based teacher education on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. JTE 57 (3), 326-340.
I do not deny that many ACPs fail to live up to the promises of recruiting and educating highly qualified teachers. However, I disagree with researchers who attack ACPs outright without acknowledging the problem of context. First, ACPs tend to recruit teachers for mostly urban school districts, which may lack resources for new teachers. Second, ACP candidates must teach prior to completing full requirements for certification. Unlike their traditional counterparts who student teach, the ACP intern must overcome obstacles associated with the lack school resources, lack of parental involvement, langauge issues, and many others more than simply teaching. Critics judge the ACP for its failure to prepare teachers appropriately but neglect to address the problem of context.
Kenneth Zeichner (2006) wrote "The research indicates that it is the characteristics of the programs rather than who sponsors them that matter in terms of influencing a variety of teacher and student outcomes." I think we ought to also look at what makes teacher education work.
Humphrey & Wechsler (2005). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record. Available from www.tcrecord.org.
Moore, S.J., Birkeland, S.E., Peske, H.G. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/balance.pdf.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a univeristy-based teacher education on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. JTE 57 (3), 326-340.
