|
Article Excerpt
In June 2002, with little or no input from the education community, the U.S. Department of Education published a major policy statement on preparation of new teachers (Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge, Office of Postsecondary Education). In the Executive Summary of this document, under the heading "A Broken System," it is alleged that "schools of education and formal teacher training programs are failing to produce the types of highly qualified teachers that the No Child Left Behind Act required." Criticism regarding the efficacy of university-based Teacher Education Programs is not new (Goodlad, 1990; Griffin, 1999). However, this federal document, and the private foundation report on which it was largely based, illustrates at least two relatively new trends in policy debates about the appropriate forms and functions of teacher education. First, and most striking, is the obvious fact that concerns about the effectiveness of traditional teacher education have seized such a central place in the public imagination--until recently, it would have been hard to imagine such a topic being taken up as it is now in newspaper editorials, television documentaries, and university public relations brochures. A second and related development concerns the ideological alignment of contemporary critiques of university-based teacher preparation programs with broader attacks on public education (Berliner & Biddle, 1995).
Debates about the appropriate purposes and methods of education are inherently political and ideological (Peck, 1991). That is, far from being reducible to the logic and methods of empirical science, the process of answering questions about the worth of Teacher Education Programs is inextricably wound around issues of competing values and struggles for political control (Cochran-Smith, 2001). Unfortunately, contemporary debates about the outcomes of teacher education have been largely defined in terms of outcome measures that grossly reduce what can be seen to measures that can be easily and inexpensively collected and that reflect strong ideological subtexts about the nature of teaching competence. For example, for the State of California 2000-2001 Federal Title II Report Card, comparisons among Teacher Education Programs were carried out on the basis of standardized subject matter tests taken before entrance to the program plus pass rates for a single (state-mandated) test of knowledge of phonics-oriented approaches to reading instruction. What are often termed objective measures in fact systematically occlude much of what is valued in the practice of teaching and teacher education by viewing outcomes through narrow methodological and ideological filters. Clearly, teacher educators must find ways of improving public understanding and appreciation of the richness of the work undertaken in many Teacher Education Programs.
Part of this challenge consists of developing more powerful programs of research that evaluate the impacts of Teacher Education Programs on effective teaching practice and, ultimately, on student achievement (Howey & Zimpher, 1999). However, another part of the task can be viewed as educational in the sense that it involves expanding the understanding of the public (including many university colleagues, practicing teachers, and administrators) regarding the nature of the work that is carried on within high-quality, university-based Teacher Education Programs. One goal of such efforts would be to inform these constituencies about the work of teacher education in ways that might lead them to raise questions about the adequacy of teacher and student test scores as measures of the value of such programs. For example, Brink, Laguardia, Grusham, Granby, and Peck (2001) conducted an evaluation of the contributions made by university student teachers to the professional development schools within which they carried out their preservice internship activities. Student teachers were observed working in their assigned classrooms, interviews were conducted with their cooperating teachers and building principals, and work samples from their public school students were analyzed to evaluate the impacts of their participation in the school. Results indicated that these university preservice students had clear and positive effects on many individual students, on the learning and development of their cooperating teachers, and on the general climate of the school. This study focuses attention on a broader spectrum of possible outcomes and effects of quality university-based Teacher Education Programs than are typically considered in contemporary policy debates. The data suggest that many discussions of the "value-added" aspect of university-based Teacher Education Programs may under-represent much of value about the work undertaken in such programs.
In the present study, we describe and evaluate another strategy for expanding public understanding about the complexities and richness of the work of teacher education. The context of the study is a preservice master of education (M.Ed.) in the Teacher Education Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In this program, the final phase of each candidate's M.Ed. project involves what is called a "Public Conversation." This Public Conversation was originally conceptualized both as a capstone process for the teacher preparation program at the university and as a rite of induction into the professional community of educators and schools to which the beginning teachers are transitioning. In conceptualizing the process as a conversation, we drew on several aspects of the literature on teacher learning. First, we acknowledged narrative story and dialogue as potentially valuable processes that support teachers to construct useful and meaningful interpretations of their experiences in the classroom (Cavazos, 2000; Clandinin & Connelly, 1990; Lyons & LaBoskey, 2002). Second, we accepted the importance of creating contexts in which student work samples and other rich artifacts of the daily practice of teaching were the focus of reflective conversation (Athanases, 1993; Richert, 1987). Finally, we recognized that for the process to contribute to public understanding of the work of teachers and teacher educators, the public had to be directly involved. What we created was a "stage" on which a very real piece of the work of teacher education could be presented, carried out, and extended. An analysis of the impacts of the Public Conversation on the beginning teachers themselves is presented elsewhere (Lippincott, 1999). In the project we report on here, our research questions concerned the effects of the Public Conversation on the community members, K-12 educators, and university faculty who participated as "critical friends" for the beginning teachers in this culminating event of the M.Ed. process.
METHOD
The M.Ed. Program and the Public Conversation
The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), offers a postbaccalaureate credential program. Approximately 120 graduate students each year earn either their elementary or secondary teaching credentials in a 13-month comprehensive program that includes, concomitantly, both rigorous university coursework and field experiences in local schools. In conjunction with their professional preparation program, they have the option to earn a M.Ed. degree and may opt to do so either during the preservice professional development year or after they have taught under contract. Typically, 80 of the credential cohort and 20 returning teachers complete the M.Ed. degree each year. For the M.Ed., candidates develop a portfolio around a self-generated teacher research project. As alluded to above, this M.Ed. portfolio is therefore the representation of an ongoing process that takes place over the course of the credential year and/or throughout the first years of teaching. The conceptual framing of the M.Ed. portfolio is based on the premise that teaching is a dynamic process that is socially constructed within the particular contexts in which the teacher is working (Lippincott, 1999; Tuyay, Jennings, & Dixon, 1995). Hence, the M.Ed. candidates pursue inquiries that are derived from, and grounded in, the work that they are doing in schools and classrooms.
M.Ed. candidates work in self-selected peer groups of four or five, with a teacher educator as a facilitator. In these groups, they design their research projects, analyze their data, and write their M.Ed. texts. This endeavor is supported by a course that addresses classroom research design. Once the M.Ed. work has been approved and the candidates have been recommended for the degree, they move into the Public Conversation phase of the degree. Because the Public Conversation occurs after a student has been recommended for the degree, it is not designed as a summative assessment (Snyder, Lippincott, & Bower, 1998). Rather, the Public Conversation is intended to provide the beginning teacher with an opportunity to engage in dialogue with "critical friends," who are community members and education professionals, about issues raised in the portfolio. The Public Conversation is a rich opportunity for professional development for the beginning teacher as well as for the critical friends who participate in the conversation.
Once the M.Ed. work has been approved and the candidate has been recommended for the degree, she invites five critical friends to participate in a Public Conversation. These critical friends represent different perspectives: a school-based educator who knows her work in the classroom and one who does not, a university-based educator who knows her work and one who does not, and a person representing either...
|
