|
Article Excerpt
It is probably fair to say that the current interest in dispositions in teacher education has resulted from the mandate--by at least thirty states and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education--to incorporate dispositions along with knowledge and skills in the design of teacher education programs and in the assessment of teacher education candidates. It is also fair to say that a wide range of approaches have been developed to implement this mandate, which have led not only to some thoughtful work in exploring the nature of dispositions, their nurturing, and assessment, but also to less considered action, controversy, and legal challenge. In this reflective essay, I want to briefly outline the history of the emphasis on dispositions in teacher education, to examine three tensions that I see emerging in the professional discourse around teacher dispositions, and to advocate for specific ways to address those tensions.
EARLY REFERENCES TO TEACHER DISPOSITIONS
One of the earliest references to teacher dispositions is an article by Katz and Raths (1985) that includes a description of a teacher who refuses to re-explain a concept for a student as punishment for the student's not paying attention. They note,
whether or not he used the skill of explaining would not change the fact that he has mastery of it, but whether or not he used the skill would affect the disposition attributed to him. If, on the other hand, on most occasions of such request, the teacher is helpful and encouraging, providing clarification and assistance, then the teacher can be said to possess not only the requisite skills for teaching, but also the disposition to use these skills. (p. 301, emphasis in the original)
Katz and Raths make a distinction between the skill to explain and the disposition to use the skill, noting that they are using the term "dispositions to designate actions and characterize their frequency, for example, asking higher level questions, rewarding approximations, guiding classroom discussions, encouraging students' creativity, and planning worthwhile experiences in the classroom" (p. 303).
Katz and Raths also make a clear connection between dispositions and the ethos of a teacher education program, arguing that the ambiance of a program can have a critical impact on the development of teacher education candidates. They give as an example, "an intellectually oriented ethos ... in which staff and candidates exhibit, for example, dispositions to wonder, puzzle, reflect, explore, examine, study and analyze pertinent phenomena, in which the exhibition of such professional dispositions is encouraged and appreciated" (p. 304, emphasis in the original).
At about the same time, an interdisciplinary group of faculty at Alverno College were working to make explicit the expectation that dispositions would be integrated into the teacher preparation program. They set out to develop a conceptual framework for the redesign of the teacher education program that would extend the ability-based approach implemented in 1973 for general education outcomes at the liberal arts college. As described more fully in Diez (1990), the Alverno faculty define an "ability as including a complex integration of knowledge, behavior, skill, disposition, attitude, and self perception" (p. 6). In the advanced abilities that emerged from literature reviews, dialogue with practitioners, and a set of empirical studies, the group developed a picture of how teachers develop not only in their command of the discipline(s) and the integration of knowledge bases in psychological, social, and philosophical foundations of education, but also in their sensitivity to learners as individuals, their use of moral reasoning, and their sense of responsibility for meeting learning needs. (For maps of these advanced abilities, see Diez, 1990; Diez & Hass, 1997; Diez, et al., 1998; Diez, 1999; and Alverno College Institute, 2005.)
In the early 1990s, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium ([INTASC] 1992) convened a group of state education department leaders, teachers union representatives, and teacher educators, forming the INTASC standards writing group. I served as one of three teacher educators on this group, and the Alverno conceptual framework was one of the key resources used in the development of the INTASC principles, a set of model standards, designed to be a resource for states. In our work, the standards writing group decided to focus on "knowledge, skills, and dispositions," replacing the more typical formulation in state policy at the time of "knowledge, skills, and attitudes." The change was partially in response to a challenge from Lovely Billups, representing the American Federation of Teachers, who challenged the group, asking "When are you going to stop recommending candidates for licensure who are mean to kids?" Like Katz and Raths, the INTASC standards group recognized the problem of having the knowledge and skills required to be an effective teacher and yet not using them for good in the classroom.
In the decade that followed the release of the INTASC Model Standards (1992), many states used the document as input for their own standard setting and thirty adopted or adapted the standards into state code. The INTASC standards language also found its way into the NCATE standards, further influencing teacher education programs around the country. By the late 1990s, the phrase "knowledge, skills, and dispositions" was firmly a part of the fabric of teacher education policy, and both...
|
