ctp Center for the Study of Teaching and PolicyU N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N

Teacher Preparation Research:Current Knowledge, Gaps,

and Recommendations

Suzanne M. WilsonRobert E. Floden

Joan Ferrini-MundyMichigan State University

February 2001(Document R-01-3)

A Research Reportprepared for the

U.S. Department of Educationby the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy

in collaboration with Michigan State University

ctp Center for the Study of Teaching and PolicyA National Research Consortium

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N (lead institution)

S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y

T E A C H E R S C O L L E G E / C O L U M B I A U N I V E R S I T Y

U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Other active participants in CTP’s research and dissemination program include researchersaffiliated with Indiana University, Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University,the University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of North Carolina, and EducationMatters, Inc.

CTP studies the way policies and conditions in schools, districts, states, and the nation shape thequality of teaching and learning in our nation’s elementary and secondary schools. The Centerpays particular attention to the ways these policies and conditions interact with each other toinfluence the teaching profession and its practice.

The Center’s program of research is carried out in collaboration with various other researchorganizations, among them other OERI-funded research centers, including the Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education (CPRE), the Center for Research on Education, Diversity,and Excellence (CREDE), and the Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA).The Center is affiliated with a variety of professional and advocacy organizations thatrepresent teachers, teacher educators, state and local policymakers, disciplinary groups,and educational reform interests.

The work reported herein was supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award NumberR308B970003, as administered by the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, Officeof Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily representthe positions or policies of either national institute, OERI, or the U.S. Department of Education, or the endorsement of the federalgovernment.

The authors prepared this report through a subcontract from the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Courtney Bell, Dawn Berk,Marco Meniketti, and Lisa Morgan located and reviewed candidate research reports. Many people provided helpful advice and critiqueduring the report’s production, including the members of the Technical Working Group (Bruce Alberts, Adam Gamoran, Kenji Hakuta,Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, Judith Warren Little, and Kenneth Zeichner), as well as Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Linda Darling-Hammond,Sharon Feiman-Nemser, Pamela Grossman, Mary Kennedy, and Gary Sykes. Four other anonymous reviewers read the draft andresponded with detailed feedback. The report was substantially improved due to their critical, careful gaze.

Technical Working Group

A technical working group advised authors of this report throughout the process, critiquing both thecriteria used for selecting research and several earlier drafts. The advisors were selected for theirresearch expertise, and the purpose of their reviews was to provide candid and critical feedback.We wish to thank them for their thorough and thoughtful participation despite their busy lives andour short timeline. Their participation was proof positive of the critical role that peer review plays inscholarship.

Bruce Alberts, National Research CouncilAdam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Kenji Hakuta, Stanford UniversityEllen Condliffe Lagemann, The Spencer Foundation

Judith Warren Little, University of California – BerkeleyKenneth Zeichner, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Teacher Preparation Research:Current Knowledge, Gaps,

and Recommendations

Suzanne M. WilsonRobert E. Floden

A Research Reportprepared for the

U.S. Department of Education and theOffice for Educational Research and Improvement

by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policyin collaboration with Michigan State University

February 2001(Document R-01-3)

Center for the Study of Teaching and PolicyU N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N

ctp

Joan Ferrini-MundyMichigan State University

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Methods Used for this Report ................................................................................................................................... 2

Framework for Synthesizing Reasearch on Teacher Preparation ...................................................................... 4

Existing Research on Teacher Preparation ............................................................................................................. 6

Question 1: What kinds of subject matter preparation, and how much of it, do prospective teachers need? ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Question 2: What kinds of pedagogical preparation, and how much of it, do prospective teachers need? .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Question 3: What kinds, timing, and amount of clinical training (“student teaching”) best equip prospective teachers for classroom practice? ........................................................................... 17

Question 4: What policies and strategies have been used successfully by states, universities, school districts, and other organizations to improve and sustain the quality of pre-service teacher education? ................................................................................................................................... 23

Question 5: What are the components and characteristics of high-quality alternative certification programs? ................................................................................................................................................. 26

Recommendations for Future Research on Teacher Preparation ..................................................................... 31

Research Design Principles ......................................................................................................................... 32

Domains of Future Research in Teacher Preparation .............................................................................. 35

Investment Opportunities ........................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A: Elaboration of Criteria for Rigorous Research ............................................................................... 38

Appendix B: Summary of Reviewed Research ...................................................................................................... 39

References: Research Reviewed in this Report ...................................................................................................... 77

Other References ......................................................................................................................................................... 81

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

All children in the United States—no matter where they live or who they are—deservequalified teachers. Yet many do not have them. Why?

There are serious disagreements about what it means for teachers to be wellqualified and about what it takes to prepare teachers well. Opinions and exhortationsabout these questions abound, and decisions about teacher preparation are made ona variety of bases. The purpose of this report is to summarize what rigorous, peer-reviewed research does and can tell us about key issues in teacher preparation.Questions about subject matter and pedagogical preparation, clinical training, policyinfluences, and alternative certification have been examined through research, andthe results can provide directions as we work to improve teacher preparation nationally.

Across the country, teachers are prepared in more than 1,300 large and small,public and private colleges and universities, as well as through alternative programsoffered by districts and states. Program designs and teacher preparation vary widely.Although the population of U.S. school-age children is becoming increasingly diverse,our pool of potential teachers is not, furthering the need to prepare teachers to workwith students different from themselves. The challenges in improving teachereducation programs and practices in the U.S. are enormous, and a qualified teachingforce is an unquestionable necessity. Research can help us make these improvementsand build this qualified teaching force.

We examined more than 300 published research reports about teacherpreparation and found 57 that met our criteria for inclusion in this summary. Reducingthe complex findings of research studies to simple conclusions is risky business, andso our report is full of caveats. Individual studies cannot tell us definitively how toproceed with the improvement of teacher preparation—and only sometimes can theaccumulated work in an area give clear direction for future action. Nonetheless, inthis review we have found individual studies that identify important areas to bepursued and some collections of work that point toward how we can improve. Theknowledge available from research, though uneven in some areas, lays promisinggroundwork for rigorous research to come.

What Answers Does Research Give To Critical Questions About Teacher Preparation?

This summary is organized around five major questions that address key aspects ofteacher preparation. Overall, the research base concerning teacher preparation isrelatively thin. The studies we found, however, suggest that good research can bedone, but that it will take the development of more refined databases, measures, andmethods, as well as complementary research designs that collect both qualitative andquantitative data.

Question 1: What kinds of subject matter preparation, and how

much of it, do prospective teachers need?

It is no surprise that research shows a positive connection between teachers’preparation in their subject matter and their performance and impact in the classroom.Subject-specific methods courses in education are useful too. But, contrary to thepopular belief that “more subject matter study is always better,” there is someindication from research that teachers can acquire subject matter knowledge fromvarious sources, including subject-specific academic coursework and study in anacademic major. However, there is little definitive research on the kinds or amount ofsubject matter preparation; much more research needs to be done before strongconclusions can be drawn.

i

Some researchers have found serious problems with the typical subject matterknowledge of preservice teachers, even of those who have completed majors inacademic disciplines. In mathematics, preservice teachers’ knowledge of proceduresand rules is often sound, while their knowledge of concepts and their reasoning skillsmay be weak. Lacking such deep understanding of fundamental aspects of the subjectmatter can impede good teaching, especially given the high standards called for incurrent reforms. Research suggests that changes in teachers’ subject matter preparationmay be needed, and that the solution is more complicated than simply requiring amajor or more subject matter courses.

Question 2: What kinds of pedagogical preparation, and how

much of it, do prospective teachers need?

By “pedagogical preparation” we mean the various courses that teachers takein such areas as instructional methods, learning theories, foundations of education,and classroom management. The content and arrangement of such courses inprograms of teacher education varies widely. Studies that have looked across severalof the pedagogical parts of teacher preparation programs reinforce the view that thepedagogical aspects of teacher preparation matter, both for their effects on teachingpractice and for their ultimate impact on student achievement. Some evidence suggeststhat coursework in content methods matter for teacher effectiveness. But since manystudies use a weak proxy for pedagogical preparation—possession of a teachingcredential—the results give little insight into which aspects of pedagogical preparationare most critical.

Question 3: What kinds, timing, and amount of clinical training(“student teaching”) best equip prospective teachers

for classroom practice?

Experienced and newly certified teachers alike see clinical experiences as apowerful—sometimes the single most powerful—element of teacher preparation.Research documents significant shifts in attitude among teacher candidates who workunder close supervision in real classrooms with children. Whether that powerenhances the quality of a teacher’s preparation seems to depend on the specific intentand characteristics of the field experience. Field experiences are sometimes intendedto show what the job of teaching is like, sometimes to help teachers learn aboutclassroom management, and sometimes to give practical opportunities to applyconcepts encountered in university coursework. Some are offered early in the program,others late. Duration, supervision arrangements, and settings vary dramatically.

Research shows that field experiences too often are disconnected from, or notwell coordinated with, the university-based components of teacher education.Sometimes the field experiences are limited to mechanical aspects of teaching. Findingplacements is challenging, and identifying schools that share educational perspectiveswith teacher education programs can be an issue. The norms of the schools in whichprospective teachers are placed are crucial to shaping the experience. Yet researchshows some promising practices can be developed: prospective teachers’ conceptionsof the teaching and learning of a subject matter can be transformed though theirobservations and analysis of what goes on in real classrooms. Stereotypical viewscan shift when student teachers work in classrooms that enable this to happen. Infield experiences with focused, well-structured activities, more significant learningcan occur. Cooperating teachers have a powerful influence on the nature of the studentteaching experience.

ii

Question 4: What policies and strategies have been usedsuccessfully by states, universities, school districts,and other organizations to improve and sustain the

quality of preservice teacher education?

Too few research studies have been conducted to make confident conclusionsabout the effects of policies on the quality of preservice teacher education. The studieswe examined suggest a basis for examining questions about revised certificationsystems, state approval mechanisms, and national accreditation and their desiredeffects on the preparation of teachers. In addition, research-based examinations ofaccountability systems, collaborative partnerships with K-12 schools, involvement ofarts and science faculty as part of program policy, and school district incentives allmight hold promise for the improvement of teacher-education program quality.

Question 5: What are the components and characteristics of high-

quality alternative certification programs?

Until the early 1990s, most people who wanted to teach in the public schoolsneeded to complete an undergraduate program of teacher preparation. By 1993, 40states had created postbaccalaureate alternate routes into teaching, as a way of reducingshortages in critical areas such as mathematics and science, attracting non-traditionalentrants, and finding staff for urban and rural schools. Recent data suggest that moststates now have alternative routes firmly in place, although these differ dramaticallyin their designs.

Research indicates that alternative route programs have been successful inrecruiting a more diverse pool of teachers. However, the research shows thatalternative routes have a mixed record in attracting the “best and brightest,”challenging one rationale for the existence of alternative routes. The small number ofinterpretive studies available suggests that background in subject matter alone is notenough to prepare new teachers for the exigencies of contemporary classrooms.Alternative routes that have high standards for entry and require substantialpedagogical training, mentoring, and evaluation may be quite similar to traditionalcollege-based teacher education and tend to be successful in their production ofqualified teachers.

Future research will need to include more detailed descriptions of the variousalternative route program structures and content before conclusions can be drawnabout characteristics that make for quality programs. Research that compares thecharacteristics and performance of traditionally and alternatively prepared teachersover time will help clarify the complex issues around alternative programs.

Where Should Teacher Preparation Research Head?

The research we examined provides a starting point for efforts to better understandwhat would make for good teacher preparation. Most studies to date have looked atparticular programs, courses, and students in single institutions. We now need toundertake studies that are designed to look across institutions, so that more generalconclusions can be reached. As a beginning, studies that describe what goes on in thecourses and programs of the more than 1,300 institutions that prepare teachers wouldbe useful.

iii

We need more studies that relate specific parts of teachers’ preparation (subjectmatter, pedagogy, clinical experiences) to the effects on their teaching practice, andperhaps on student achievement. Studies that compare the relative importance ofspecific parts of teacher preparation could be useful to those designing and revisingteacher education programs.

We recommend that future studies be designed to include more sensitivemeasures that describe specific features of program content and quality. Researchprograms should include comparisons among plausible alternatives. The interplaybetween research about particular contexts and research that seeks general conclusionsacross programs needs to be stronger. Teacher preparation research must be explicitabout connections to the improvement of student achievement and about the contextsin which graduates of teacher preparation are working. Future research should alsoinclude longitudinal studies that examine the impact of teacher preparation over time,as well as the connections between teacher preparation, induction programs, andprofessional development opportunities.

Our review also suggests several potentially fruitful domains for future research.The subject matter preparation of teachers needs more attention, with close looks atboth content and quality and at differences across subject areas. We do not yet knowenough about the effects of close, long-term connections between K-12 schools andteacher preparation programs. Research could help us see how policies that aredesigned to influence teacher education actually affect program components and whatprospective teachers learn. And, we need to know more about the effects of “educationmethods” and “education foundations” courses.

Strategic investment in research initiatives might also move us toward answersto the key questions more quickly. The educational research community has greatinterest in careful examination of local programs. Through funding for multi-siteresearch programs, these individual efforts can be assembled into more powerful andcrosscutting approaches to understanding teacher education. A small number ofcoordinated, large-scale studies could help provide a clearer picture of the nationalsituation and increase the potential for linking features of teacher preparation programswith outcome data such as scores on teacher examinations. And, key for policymakerswill be studies that help us learn about the conditions under which teacher educationaccountability systems lead to increases in teacher quality.

The potential of research to lead the ongoing reform and improvement of teachereducation in the United States is enormous. By building on what we have done, andby conducting rigorous studies of important questions, the research community cando its part to ensure that a well-qualified teacher is available for every child, in everyclassroom.

iv

INTRODUCTION

All children in the U. S.—no matter where they live and who they are—deservequalified teachers. Few would disagree with this commitment. Yet many children donot have them. Why?

There are many answers to this question. Some would say that external forces—low salaries and status for teachers, for example—create the problem. Others arguethat how we prepare and certify new teachers contributes to the problem. While noone argues for teachers who are less qualified, there are serious disagreements aboutwhat it means to be well qualified and what it takes to prepare teachers well.Commissions and professional societies are issuing an increasing number ofrecommendations concerning the practices and policies of teacher preparation, andsuch recommendations are also debated in scholarly circles. Groups as diverse as theNational Research Council, the Fordham Foundation, and the American Federationof Teachers have issued reports concerning the future of teacher preparation in theUnited States.1 Considerable debate has ensued concerning both how much we knowabout teacher preparation and what we should do.2

The U. S. Department of Education commissioned this report to summarize theexisting research—empirical studies, conducted with rigor and critically reviewed byother researchers—on teacher preparation.3 For the purposes of this report, we focuson the preparation of prospective teachers, both in traditional teacher preparationprograms and in alternative routes. We do not consider questions about the earlyyears of inducting new teachers (after certification) or questions concerningprofessional development.

We should note here that research on teacher education is a relatively new field.The development of a sustained line of scholarship that examines the content, character,and impact of teacher education programs only began in the 1960s and gainedmomentum in the 1980s. In fact, with the exception of a brief period of time when thefederal government supported teacher preparation research in the 1970s, there hasbeen very little sustained funding for such research. A related problem concerns thelack of sufficiently rich databases to support high-quality research on teacherpreparation. As will become clear, while the field does not lack exhortations aboutwhat teacher preparation should look like, there is much left to learn.

1 See, for example, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Marci Kanstoroom, and Michael J. Petrilli, The Quest for Better Teachers: Grading the States (TheThomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, D. C., 1999); What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (National Commissionon Teaching and America’s Future, New York, 1996); Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Technology: New Practices for theNew Millennium (Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, National Research Council, National AcademyPress, Washington, D. C., 2000); Building a Profession: Strengthening Teacher Preparation and Induction (Report of the K-12 TeacherEducation Task Force, American Federation of Teachers, April 2000); and Investing in Teaching (National Alliance of Business,Washington, D. C., 2001).

2 See, for example, Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky, “The Case Against Teacher Certification,” (The Public Interest, 132, pp. 17-29, 1998); Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky; “Reforming Teacher Preparation and Licensing: What is the Evidence?” (TeachersCollege Record, Volume 102, pp. 28-56, 2000); and Linda Darling-Hammond, “Reforming Teacher Preparation and Licensing:Debating the Evidence,” (Teachers College Record, Volume 102, pp. 5-27, 2000).

3 We recognize, of course, that research is not the only basis upon which decisions are made, especially in the matter of schoolingwhere the future of U. S. children is at stake.

1

METHODS USED FOR THIS REPORT

The U. S. Department of Education commissioned this review on a short timeline—four months. We identified candidate studies by database searches, using relevantkey words and searching ERIC, FirstSearch, Linguistic and Language BehaviorAbstracts, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and theScience Citation Index. We located additional studies by examining the referencelists of relevant meta-analyses, literature reviews, and reports. We also examined thetables of contents of prominent educational research journals and contacted researchersand teacher educators for their recommendations. We examined all handbooks ofeducational research for relevant chapters and reviewed the analyses, as well asreference lists. We consulted web sites related to teacher preparation—sponsored byadvocates and critics alike—for relevant resources. We reviewed the references citedby teacher educators and critics of teacher education and the educational establishment.We asked scholars to review drafts of this report and to note studies that were missing.We also reviewed scholarship concerning educational research.4

Selection Criteria

With the advice of our Technical Working Group, we developed the following criteriafor selecting research to include in our review. Research must be:

• Directly relevant to the five questions posed by the U. S. Department ofEducation—We were asked to focus on research concerning fivequestions, which we explain in the next section.

• Published in a scientific journal—We examined research published injournals that use independent peer review in deciding what researchmerits publication.5,6

• Published within the past two decades—Some relevant research wasconducted in the 1970s or earlier, but many audiences are concernedthat the research would not apply today.

• Studies of United States’ teacher education—Differences in how teacherpreparation is structured and conducted across continents andcountries made it difficult to synthesize across international studiesin this review.

4 See, for example, Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of EducationResearch (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000) and Ellen Condliffe Lagemann and Lee S.Shulman (Eds.), Issues in Education Research: Problems and Possibilities (Jossey Bass and the NationalAcademy of Education, San Francisco, 1999). For a view on the specific problems faced institutionallyand historically by teacher education researchers, we looked to Kenneth Zeichner’s “The NewScholarship in Teacher Education” (Educational Researcher, Volume 28(9), 1999, pp. 4-15) and MaryKennedy’s “The Problem of Evidence in Teacher Education” (in R. Roth (Ed.), The Role of the Universityin the Preparation of Teachers, Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Pennsylvania, 1999, pp. 87-107).

5 Our category of “scientific journals” included all journals listed as “peer reviewed” by the EducationAbstracts. We also considered publications from the National Center for Education Statistics, theelectronic journal Education Policy Analysis Archives, and several organizations with explicit and well-established peer review processes (Educational Testing Service, RAND Corporation, and the NationalAcademies of Science).

6 Our review may have missed some research studies that were rigorously conducted but never reportedin a peer-reviewed publication because journals are more likely to accept results that show someeffect. As a consequence, some studies demonstrating little difference between programs orapproaches might have been omitted by our selection process.

2

Once we located articles that fit these criteria, we used two other criteria to evaluatethem:

• Empirical—offering evidence (quantitative, qualitative, or both) forconclusions, rather offering opinion, theory, or principles.

• Rigorous—meeting generally accepted standards in relevant researchtraditions. (See Appendix A for a description of the specific standardswe applied to each of six traditions of research.)7

In short, we searched for research that would conform to what scholarscharacterize as “disciplined inquiry,” presentations of research that describe themethods of investigation and analysis, as well as the findings, well enough that otherscan assess its validity.8

Because we checked for empirical findings and evidence of rigor, many articleswere not included in the final review. In the end, we looked carefully at 313 references,of which 57 are included in this review. Studies were discarded for four reasons: (1)they were not directly related to the questions; (2) they lacked sufficient rigor; (3)they consisted of arguments based on opinion or principles without empirical evidence;or (4) they were based on a single course in a particular teacher education program.9

Using these strict criteria meant that several important categories of literaturewere left out. For one thing, purportedly rigorous research published before ourtimeframe or in other sources were not included. Furthermore, research reviews andmeta-analyses were excluded, since the original work on which these were based didnot uniformly meet the criteria for inclusion in this review. For similar reasons,commission reports, articles in newspapers, and conference papers were also notconsidered. We also did not include essays on teacher preparation, which thoughthey often offer important conceptual insights, are not relevant to a review focusedexclusively on empirically grounded research. However, our review includes mostof the rigorous empirical studies cited by authors of literature in these categories.10

We also did not include books, book chapters, monographs, and dissertations.We took this course reluctantly given that such writing occupies an important placein the literature on teacher preparation and often includes empirical work that hasbeen carried out according to rigorous scientific standards.11 We left these out for tworeasons. First, books and dissertations are unevenly reviewed; some publishing housesand universities subject manuscripts to rigorous review approximating that of scientificjournals, while many others do little or no review of the material’s scientific rigor.Second, a thorough and scientific review of such sources must consider all possiblebooks, chapters, and dissertations, not just those that are the most well known, andmust determine the nature of each publisher’s review process and the work’s rigor. A

7 Work on teacher preparation falls into six broad research traditions: experimental and quasi-experimental studies, correlationalresearch, surveys (e.g., follow-up studies), interpretive studies (including case study investigations and other qualitative research),longitudinal change studies, and comparative population studies (e.g., comparing credentialed and non-credentialed teachers).

8 See, for example, Lee S. Shulman, “Disciplines of Inquiry in Education: An Overview” (In Richard M. Jaeger (Ed.), ComplementaryMethods for Research in Education, American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., 1988, pp. 3-17) and Lee J. Cronbachand Patrick Suppes, Eds. Research for Tomorrow’s Schools (Macmillan, New York, 1969).

9 This last category of study was discarded because it was difficult to synthesize studies that were that idiosyncratic. We discussthis issue when we consider Questions 2 and 3.

10 As we looked at other reviews of research on teacher preparation, we were struck by the relatively small number of citations topeer-reviewed reports of research. Many citations in such reviews were to conference papers, book chapters, committee reports,dissertations, position statements, and other research reviews. Given our criteria, we did not search out and read any citationsthat were listed as conference presentations, position statements, or dissertations.

11 We also chose not to include reports that were sponsored by agencies with an obvious conflict of interest associated with theresults. We were not questioning the validity of such work, but simply holding to our criteria that there had to be establishedprocesses for high quality peer review.

3

careful review of such sources is an enormous undertaking and well beyond the four-month scope of this effort. While a broader review is well worth doing, we areconfident that our conclusions based on peer-reviewed sources would not differsubstantially from the results of a broader review that included books and otherreports.12

Furthermore, other bodies of research—on teacher recruitment, for example, oron preparing teachers to teach diverse students—are relevant to discussions of teacherpreparation but do not answer the specific questions covered in this review. We didnot include research on the relationship between teachers’ basic literacy and studentachievement; teachers’ basic literacy is typically not part of a teacher preparationprogram per se.13 Teacher induction (which usually takes place in the first or secondyear of a new teacher’s career) and work on expert-novice contrasts are researchdomains that also have implications for teacher preparation but are not included here.Future research reviews ought to expand their focus to include some of these relatedareas, as well as a thorough review of relevant books.

12 Although we did not include books in our findings, we did examine several books that are widely cited as significant reportsabout teacher preparation. Two of these books, John Goodlad’s Teachers For Our Nation’s Schools (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1990)and Michael Fullan, Gary Galluzzo, Patricia Morris, and Nancy Watson’s The Rise And Stall Of Teacher Education Reform (AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1998, Washington, DC) are addressed in a footnote in the discussion of Question4 and compared to the work that did meet our criteria. Two other books, Rita Kramer’s Ed School Follies: The Miseducation ofAmerica’s Teachers (Free Press, New York, 1991) and Kenneth Howey and Nancy Zimpher’s Profiles of Preservice Teacher Education(State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1989), focused on description of programs, rather than presenting evidenceabout program effects. Thus, they did not address our focal questions.

13 See, for example, Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Dominic J. Brewer, “Did Teachers’ Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s: ColemanRevisited,” (Economics of Education Review, Volume 14, 1995, pp. 1-21); and Ronald F. Ferguson, “Paying for Public Education:New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters,” (Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 28, 1991, pp. 465-498).

FRAMEWORK FOR SYNTHESIZING RESEARCH ON TEACHER PREPARATION

There are many ways to think about teacher preparation. For this review, we wereasked to consider five questions posed by policymakers, educators, and the public.The first two questions concerned critical components of teacher preparation: subjectmatter study and education coursework We posed a central question in each domainand elaborated each with sub-questions.

Question 1: What kind of subject matter preparation, and howmuch of it, do prospective teachers need? Are theredifferences by grade level? Are there differences bysubject area?

Question 2: What kinds of pedagogical preparation, and howmuch of it, do prospective teachers need? Are theredifferences by grade level? Are there differences bysubject area?

Beside these program “content” areas, there are also significant questions toask about program structures and policies. Teacher preparation programs, for example,also include “student teaching,” clinical or field experiences in real schools prior tocertification, and so a question about this area is included. Given the heightenedinterest in proactive strategies that state departments of education, higher educationinstitutions, and school districts might use to attract, educate, and retain qualifiedteachers, we also asked two other questions: one about research on successful policies,the other about research on alternatives to college-based teacher preparation, oftencalled “alternate routes”:

4

Question 3. What kinds, timing, and amount of clinical training(“student teaching”) best equip prospective teachers

14 Harold Wenglinsky, Teaching the Teachers: Different Settings, Different Results (Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service,Princeton, N. J., 2000). See also C. Emily Feistritzer, The Making of a Teacher: A Report on Teacher Preparation in the U. S. (NationalCenter for Education Information, Washington DC, 1999).

15 See, for example, Kenneth M. Zeichner, “Traditions of Practice in U. S. Preservice Teacher Education Programs” (Teaching andTeacher Education, Volume 9, 1993, pp. 1-13).

for classroom practice?

Question 4. What policies and strategies have been usedsuccessfully by states, universities, school districts,and other organizations to improve and sustain thequality of pre-service teacher education?

Question 5. What are the components and characteristics of high-quality alternative certification programs?

A Cautionary Note

We begin with some cautions. First, as a recent report issued by the EducationalTesting Service reiterates, teachers are prepared at widely varying institutions: largeand small, public and private, colleges and universities. There is no singlephenomenon, no monolith called “teacher preparation.”14 So while the phrase “teacherpreparation” seems familiar to us all, it is falsely so, for teacher preparation meansmany different things across the United States. The same is true of alternativepreparation programs, for they too vary in their content and complexity, length andstructure.

Second, the goals of teacher education are contested, and there are multipletraditions within teacher preparation across the U. S. with different philosophies andemphases.15 We assumed that one crucial goal of teacher education is that teachersshould be able to help all students meet academic standards, and we reviewed theliterature accordingly. This is not the only goal of teacher preparation, and otherreviews of the literature might take a very different perspective on the goals of teacherpreparation and the questions researchers should investigate.

Third, this review focuses on high-quality teacher preparation. Judging qualityinvolves judging effectiveness and impact. Researchers, teacher educators, andpolicymakers continue to wrestle with the question, “How should or can we measurethe effectiveness of teacher preparation?” Some argue that we should use measuresof student achievement to assess the quality of teacher preparation. While studentlearning is the ultimate goal of teacher preparation, many factors intercede, includingschool resources and students’ backgrounds. Researchers have made progress ondeveloping methods that control for such variables, but much more progress needsto be made. Another way to answer the questions of quality involves consideringmeasures of teacher performance. The relationship between teacher preparation andteacher behavior is less problematic to explore. Yet assessing teacher performance isalso difficult, and researchers continue to wrestle with appropriate measures: teachers’self report, supervisors’ ratings, and independent observations are among the measuresused. Each measure is limited and future research will require the development ofbetter databases, as well as more reliable measures.

5

Fourth, as will become clear, the research base concerning teacher preparationis limited. We are, of course, not the first scholars to make this observation.16 The lackof depth of research on teacher preparation poses challenges for a review. With alimited number of studies, we cannot discuss trends. Yet descriptions of individualstudies do speak to larger themes. In this report, we aim for a middle ground, offeringsummaries of some of the existing research, along with strategically selected studiesthat we describe in more depth to illustrate the complexities of answering each focalquestion. Specifics about the particular studies cited are available in Appendix B.

We conclude this introduction with an important and pressing need. As thepopulation of U. S. school-age children becomes increasingly more diverse, our poolof potential teachers remains less so. We need to consider policies that increase thediversity of the teacher pool, and we need to prepare all teachers to teach childrenwhose backgrounds are different than their own. Researchers have had littleopportunity to investigate the implications of this shift in students and their teachers,and while a question concerning the preparation of teachers to teach diverse studentswas not a focal one in this review, we argue (in our recommendations for futureresearch) that it ought to be central in the next generation of research on teacherpreparation.

EXISTING RESEARCH ON TEACHER PREPARATION

Question 1. What kind of subject matter preparation, and how much of it, doprospective teachers need? Are there differences by grade level andsubject area?

Findings

We reviewed no research that directly assessed prospective teachers’ subject matterknowledge and then evaluated the relationship between teacher subject matterpreparation and student learning. To date, researchers conducting large-scale studieshave relied on proxies for subject-matter knowledge, such as majors or coursework.The research that does exist is limited and, in some cases, the results are contradictory.The conclusions of these few studies are provocative because they undermine thecertainty often expressed about the strong link between college study of a subjectmatter area and teacher quality.

We found seven studies related to Question 1 that met our selection criteria.17

Four concerned mathematics and science teachers; one concerned secondary teacherswithout specifying subject matters; one concerned elementary and middle school

16 See, for example, Carolyn Evertson, Willis Hawley, and Marilyn Zlotnick, “Making a Difference in Educational Quality ThroughTeacher Education,” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 36(3), 1985, pp. 2-12) and Daniel C. Humphrey, Nancy Adelman, CamilleEsch, Lori M. Riehl, Patrick M. Shields, and Juliet Tiffany, Preparing and Supporting New Teachers: A Literature Review (U. S. Departmentof Education, Washington, D. C., September 2000).

17 Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence (Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 8, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ 2000). Patrick Ferguson and Sid T. Womack, “The Impact of Subject Matter andEducation Coursework on Teaching Performance” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 44, 1993, pp. 55-63); Dan D. Goldhaberand Dominic J. Brewer, “Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status and Student Achievement”(Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2000, Volume 22, pp. 129-145); Edith Guyton and Elizabeth Farokhi, “RelationshipsAmong Academic Performance, Basic Skills, Subject Matter Knowledge, and Teaching Skills of Teacher Education Graduates”(Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 38, 1987, pp. 37-42); Parmalee P. Hawk, Charles R. Coble, and Melvin Swanson, “Certification:It Does Matter” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 36(3), 1985, pp. 13-15); David H. Monk, “Subject Area Preparation of SecondaryMathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement” (Economics of Education Review, 1994, Vol. 13, pp. 125-145); andBrian Rowan, Fang-Shen Chiang, and Robert J. Miller, “Using Research on Employees’ Performance to Study the Effects of Teacherson Students’ Achievement,” (Sociology of Education, 1997, Volume 70, pp. 256-284). While there is other research that examinesrelationships between teacher knowledge and teaching performance or student achievement, we focused here on studies that hadsome direct relationship to teacher preparation.

6

mathematices and reading teachers; another studied program graduates who hadtaken subject matter knowledge tests. One study involved 36 teachers; the othershad sample sizes ranging from 200 to 3,000 to 65,000 teachers. Measures of teachersubject matter knowledge ranged from self-reports of majoring in a relevant subjectmatter to the number of courses taken to National Teachers Examination (NTE) scores.(Brief descriptions of the studies mentioned in this report are available inAppendix B.)

√ Consistent with common belief, several studies showed a positiveconnection between teachers’ subject matter preparation and bothhigher student achievement and higher teacher performance onevaluations,18 particularly in mathematics, science, and reading.19 Inanother study, however, researchers found that NTE scores and gradepoint averages (GPAs) in the major accounted for only smallproportions of the variance in teaching performance of prospectivesecondary teachers (by contrast, education coursework accounted for48 percent and 39 percent of the variance when performance was ratedby education supervisors and subject matter specialists, respectively).20

In another study, the researcher found that states with a higherproportion of well-qualified teachers (full certification and a major intheir field) had higher mathematics and reading test scores in gradesfour and eight. The same study found a negative relationship betweena state’s proportion of teachers with less than a minor in the field thatthey teach and student achievement.

√ Undermining the view that the ideal preparation is a subject mattermajor, three relevant studies had complex and inconsistent results.One study found a positive relationship between teachers’ degrees inmathematics and their students’ test scores21 but did not find thisrelationship in science. Using the same data set, other researchersfound a positive relationship between student achievement inmathematics and teachers’ majors in mathematics, but the effect sizewas quite small.22 The third study found no effect of having a fullmathematics major, though having coursework in mathematics didmatter.23 In the same study, there was a significant positive relationshipbetween teachers’ coursework in the physical sciences and studentachievement gains for high school sophomores and juniors. Teachers’undergraduate coursework in the life sciences had no discernibleimpact on student performance.

√ Contrary to the belief that “more is better,” when it comes to subjectmatter courses, one study found that subject matter study beyondfour to six courses had little effect on student achievement.24 The samestudy found different relationships between amounts of preparationfor life science teachers and physical sciences teachers and the effectstheir preparation had on student performance.

18 Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; Guyton and Farokhi, 1987; Monk, 1994. These results are supported withadditional research that did not fall within the scope of this review, most notably D. H. Monk and J. King, “Multi-level teacherresource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science” (in R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary PolicyIssues: Choices and Consequences in Education, 1994, pp. 29-58, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press).

19 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; Monk, 1994.; Guyton and Farokhi, 1987; Rowan, Chiang, and Miller, 1997.20 Ferguson and Womack, 1993.21 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000.22 Rowan, Chiang, and Miller, 1997.23 Monk, 1994.24 Monk, 1994.

7

Several studies addressed the question of the relative merits of studying subjectmatter in the context of teaching (for example, subject matter methods courses) versusstudying it as a distinct course (for example, majoring in a subject matter).

√ Several studies found that education coursework, including subject-specific methods courses, is useful.25 One study found educationcoursework to be a better predictor of teaching performance than GPAin the major or National Teachers Examination Specialty score.26 Inanother study, the researcher found that courses in undergraduatemathematics education contribute more to student gains than docourses in undergraduate mathematics.27 However, other researchersfound that having a degree in education had no impact on studentscience test scores.28

Consider one study that illustrates the complexity of studying prospectiveteachers’ subject matter preparation. In this study, the researcher found positiverelationships between teachers’ subject matter preparation and student achievement.29

However, there was evidence of a “threshold effect”; that is, there was minimaladditional effect of teachers’ study of mathematics beyond five undergraduatemathematics courses on pupil mathematics performance. Having a mathematics majorhad no bearing on student performance. The results were different in science. Whilethere was no impact on student achievement with teacher undergraduate courseworkin life sciences, there was a strikingly positive relationship between undergraduatecoursework in physical sciences and student achievement. Again, there appeared tobe a threshold effect. After having taken four courses in physical sciences, there wasless of a payoff in terms of student progress.

It is also important to note that the researcher found positive effects ofmathematics education courses. Courses in undergraduate mathematics educationcontributed more to student achievement gains than did undergraduate mathematicscourses. There was a similar relationship between coursework in science educationand student achievement. After exploring a number of interaction effects, theresearcher concludes that it is “risky” to make any generalizations about thesignificance of teacher subject matter knowledge.

While there is no definitive research that helps us understand this confusingfinding, several possible explanations bear further investigation, including thepossibility that a teacher needs to understand subject matter from a pedagogicalperspective. Lee Shulman has called this form of professional teaching knowledge“pedagogical content knowledge.”30 We should be cautious here, however, in makingstrong claims, for “pedagogical content knowledge” remains more hypothesis thanfact. We will return to this issue when considering related research concerningQuestion 2.

The research base tells us relatively little about differences across the subjectareas or grade levels for which prospective teachers are preparing.

√ The results in these few studies showed some differences betweenmathematics and science, as well as differences among areas of scienceas noted above. No conclusions can be drawn about other subject

25 Ferguson and Womack, 1993; Guyton and Farokhi, 1987; Monk, 199426 Guyton and Farokhi, 1987.27 Monk, 1994.28 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000.29 Monk, 1994.30 Lee S. Shulman, “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching” (Educational Researcher, Volume 15(2), 1986, pp. 4-14).

8

areas, because the only subject-specific research we found was inmathematics, science, and reading.

√ There is very little information that sheds light on variations acrossgrade levels because studies did not generally investigate grade-leveldifferences.

In addition to the seven studies of the effects of subject-matter preparation, wefound 11 studies concerning the typical subject-specific knowledge and beliefs ofpreservice teachers, at both the elementary and secondary levels.31 Research such asthis bears indirectly on what teachers should know, for it helps illuminate the challengesfaced in teacher preparation by pointing out what teachers do not know about thesubject matter they will teach.

Three studies were based on one large-scale investigation that involvedpreservice teachers at universities across the country.32 The other studies wereinterpretive, with samples ranging from one teacher to more than 100. Two studiesmade comparisons between elementary and secondary teacher education candidatesin mathematics,33 and another looked at the growth of a student’s understandingduring a mathematics pedagogy course.34 One study looked at the variations inhistorical knowledge of social studies teachers.35

Although limited in number and scope, the studies suggest that the subjectmatter preparation that prospective teachers currently receive is inadequate forteaching toward high subject-matter standards, by anyone’s definition. It appearsthat prospective teachers may have mastered basic skills, but they lack the deeperconceptual understanding that is necessary when responding to student questionsand extending lessons beyond the basics. The research suggests that the limitedknowledge of prospective teachers is acquired in coursework across a prospectiveteacher’s K-12 and university experience—in high school, in general (liberal) educationundergraduate requirements, and in relevant university subject-matter departments.

√ In mathematics, both prospective elementary and high school teachershad relatively sound procedural, or rule-dominated knowledge ofbasic mathematics, especially in arithmetic but had difficulty whenpushed to explain why an algorithm or procedure works. This wastrue of both education majors and mathematics majors.36

31 Thomasenia Lott Adams, “Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Subject Matter Knowledge: The Real Number System”(Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Volume 20, 1998, pp. 35-48); Deborah Loewenberg Ball, “Prospective Elementaryand Secondary Teachers’ Understanding of Division” (Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1990a, Volume 21, pp. 132-144);Deborah Loewenberg Ball, “The Mathematical Understandings that Prospective Teachers Bring to Teacher Education (ElementarySchool Journal, 1990b, Volume 90, pp. 449-466); Hilda Borko, Margaret Eisenhart, Catherine A. Brown, Robert G. Underhill, DougJones, and Patricia C. Agard, “Learning to Teach Hard Mathematics: Do Novice Teachers and Their Instructors Give Up TooEasily?” (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1992, Volume 23, pp. 194-222); Anna O. Graeber, Dina Tirosh, and RoseanneGlover, “Preservice Teachers’ Misconceptions in Solving Verbal Problems in Multiplication and Division” (Journal of Research inMathematics Education, 1989, Volume 20, pp. 95-102); G. Williamson McDiarmid and Suzanne M. Wilson, “An Exploration of theSubject Matter Knowledge of Alternate Route Teachers: Can We Assume They Know Their Subject?” (Journal of Teacher Education,1991, Volume 42, pp. 93-103); Martin Simon, “Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Knowledge of Division” (Journal for Research inMathematics Education, Volume 24, 1993, pp. 232-254); Trish Stoddart, Michael Connell, Rene Stofflett, and Donald Peck,“Reconstructing Elementary Teacher Candidates’ Understanding of Mathematics and Science Content” (Teaching and TeacherEducation, 1993, Volume 9, pp. 229-241); Dina Tirosh and Anna O. Graeber, “Preservice Teachers’ Explicit Beliefs about Multiplicationand Division” (Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1989, Volume 20, pp. 79-96); Melvin (Skip) Wilson, “One Preservice SecondaryTeacher’s Understanding of Function: The Impact of a Course Integrating Mathematical Content and Pedagogy” (Journal forResearch in Mathematics Education, 1994, Volume 25, pp. 346-370; Suzanne M. Wilson and Samuel S. Wineburg, “Peering at Historythrough Different Lenses” (Teachers College Record, Volume 89, 1988, pp. 525-539).

32 Ball, 1990a, 1990b; McDiarmid and Wilson, 1991.33 Ball, 1990a and 1990b.34 M. Wilson, 1994.35 Wilson and Wineburg, 1988.36 Adams, 1998; Ball, 1990a, b; Borko, Eisenhart et al., 1992; Graeber, Tirosh, and Glover, 1989; McDiarmid and Wilson, 1991; Simon,

1993; Tirosh and Graeber, 1989; M. Wilson, 1994.

9

√ One study demonstrated that prospective elementary teachers havelimited understanding of science, and another showed that prospectivesocial studies teachers’ knowledge of history varied considerably.37

√ One study found that a prospective teacher ’s mathematicalunderstandings of function concepts could develop in a speciallydesigned mathematics education course.38 However, another studyfound that, despite the good intentions of a mathematics methodsinstructor, the teacher education program did not create the conditionsfor a new teacher to overcome the limitations of her own knowledgeof mathematics.39

√ One study found that prospective social studies teachers had varyingdegrees of historical knowledge, despite the fact that they were allresponsible for teaching history courses.40

Recent interpretive research suggests that prospective teachers arrive in teachereducation courses with limited subject matter knowlege. Several studies, as well asmuch of the public policy discussion, suggest that subject matter knowledge matters,yet—given the current research base—the question of “how much?” goes unanswered.

Weaknesses

All research is not created equal. Even published research continues to be scrutinizedand debated.41 The research reviewed here is no different. Three weaknesses of theresearch regarding the subject matter preparation of prospective teachers are importantto note.

First, as we have already said, the proxies for subject matter knowledge used inmost current research are unsatisfying. Given the wide variation in what constitutesa “course” or a “major” across U. S. institutions of higher education, large-scale studiesthat investigate teacher knowledge are limited in how much they can tell us usingsuch measures. We need more refined databases that include more accurate andsophisticated measures of teacher knowledge. Several studies used mathematics itemsto measure teacher knowledge.42 Future research needs to explore the developmentof these and other measures of teachers’ subject matter knowledge.

The same is true of measures of teacher effectiveness. The studies vary in howthey measured teacher effectiveness, using measures as wide-ranging as studentachievement on standardized tests, supervisors’ ratings, teacher self-reports, andindependent observations. All of these measures have limitations. Studentachievement is affected by many forces, not simply teacher preparation. Furthermore,

37 Stoddart et al., 1993; Wilson and Wineburg, 1988.38 M. Wilson, 1994.39 Borko, Eisenhart, et al., 1992.40 Wilson and Wineburg, 1988. This result resonates with other research on teacher misassignment. See, for example, Richard M.

Ingersoll, Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Quality, (U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1996).41 See, for example, the exchange of Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky, “Reforming Teacher Preparation and Licensing: What Is

the Evidence?” (Teachers College Record, 102(1) pp. 5-27, 2000) and Linda Darling-Hammond, “Reforming Teacher Preparation andLicensing: Debating the Evidence” (Teachers College Record, Volume 102, pp. 28-56, 2000).

42 Ball, 1990a, 1990b; Borko, Eisenhart et al., 1992; McDiarmid & Wilson, 1991; Rowan, Chiang, and Miller, 1997; and Simon, 1993.Many of the mathematics items were originally developed by Deborah L. Ball and her colleagues in the National Center forResearch on Teacher Education. See Mary M. Kennedy, Deborah L. Ball, & G. Williamson McDiarmid, A Study Package For ExaminingAnd Tracking Changes In Teachers’ Knowledge (National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, College of Education, MichiganState University, East Lansing, MI, 1993).

10

student achievement measures are often not well aligned with the curriculum andlimited in how well they measure complex knowledge and understanding. Controllingfor these variables poses considerable challenges to researchers.43

Measures of teacher behavior are also flawed. Supervisors’ ratings, which wereused in one study, and teachers’ self report, used in another study, are highly unreliablemeasures.44 We included these studies, flawed as they are, because they are suggestiveof the range of methodologies available to researchers interested in teachers’ subjectmatter knowledge. Future research, we would hope, would aim to use more stable,sophisticated, and reliable measures.

Gaps

There remains much to discover about the subject matter preparation of teachers.

√ We need to know more about how much subject matter knowledge,and of what type, prospective teachers need in order to ensure studentlearning.

√ We need to know more about what course requirements are necessaryto ensure the acquisition of that subject matter knowledge. Inparticular, we need to know more about the efficacy of combiningsubject matter learning with pedagogical preparation.

√ We need to know more about the nature and quality of subject matterpreparation, including the impact on teacher learning of variousinstructional methods in high quality, undergraduate and graduatediscipline-based education.

Currently, there is little documentation and critique of teaching in highereducation. This means that we know next to nothing about high-quality teaching inthe subject matter courses that are part of the preparation of teachers. Several reportsissued by the National Research Council suggest that there is concern for the qualityof undergraduate teaching more generally in mathematics and the sciences.Specifically, there is concern about the steady diet of lecture-based teaching reportedin many undergraduate mathematics and science classes.45

√ We need to know more about the content of subject-specific pedagogyclasses across those institutions and about the instructional practicesand curricula used in those courses.

√ In addition to more research in mathematics and science, we needresearch on the subject matter preparation of teachers in otherdisciplines. Elementary teachers are responsible for teaching allsubjects, and the nature of their subject matter preparation needs tobe considered carefully. The subject matter preparation for teachingmiddle and high school English and history, as well as other subjectareas, needs to be investigated with equal enthusiasm and rigor.

√ Research about the nature and depth of subject matter preparationand its relationship to teaching practice needs to take into accountdifferences in the subjects, including such things as student

43 See, for example, the complex analyses of Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; and Monk, 1994.44 Ferguson and Womack, 1993; Guyton and Farokhi, 1987.45 See, for example, Moving Beyond Myths: Revitalizing Undergraduate Mathematics (National Research Council, National Academy

Press, Washington, DC, 1991); Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook (National Research Council, National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 1997.); Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).

11

characteristics as well as school and university contexts. In particular,research needs to attend to the differences in how directly academicdisciplines connect with school subjects.

Question 2. What kinds of pedagogical preparation, and how much of it, doprospective teachers need? Are there differences by grade level andby subject area?

Findings

There is no research that directly assesses what teachers learn in their pedagogicalpreparation and then evaluates the relationship of that pedagogical knowledge tostudent learning or teacher behavior. Research on pedagogical preparation hasremained at a high level of aggregation, giving little information about possibledifferences across grade level or subject area. At this level, results suggest some benefitof pedagogical preparation, but the measurements used make it difficult to see clearassociations.

Conducting research about pedagogical preparation is complicated. Onecomplication is that “pedagogical preparation” means many things. Prospectiveteachers take courses in instructional methods: sometimes those courses are subject-specific; sometimes they are generic. They also take courses in learning theories,educational measurement and testing, and in educational psychology, sociology, andhistory. Teacher education programs also offer courses in responding to diverse studentpopulations, creating assessments, and managing classrooms. Furthermore, thesecourses are offered in different sequences across programs.

Compounding the problem is the fact that pedagogical preparation variesconsiderably across institutions. We found a number of studies in which researchersexamined what prospective teachers learned in specific teacher education courses—instructional methods, for example, or educational psychology. Course content varies,as does sequencing, so that even when courses share the same title, they can bequalitatively different. This makes it nearly impossible to generalize across researchstudies that focus on a particular teacher preparation class.

For this report, then, we focused on research that explores the impact ofpedagogical preparation across several components of a teacher preparation program.Our logic was that, even if individual courses might vary, there is more chance thatoverall teacher preparation programs might be somewhat comparable. We found twotypes of relevant research: research on certification and research on the value-addedof education coursework.

Research Comparing Certified and Uncertified Teachers—One way to examinethe overall effects of pedagogical preparation is to compare certified teachers withtheir uncertified colleagues. We found five studies that shed light on this contrast:three large scale studies, one study of 18 pairs of teachers who were matched onhaving students of the “same general ability,” and one interpretive study.46 Samplesizes ranged from three to 36 to over 3,000.

√ One study found that the students of certified mathematics teachersscored higher on standardized mathematics tests than those ofuncertified teachers, and that certified teachers also scored higher on

46 Darling-Hammond, 2000; Mark Felter, “High School Staff Characteristics and Mathematics Test Results” (Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 1999, Volume 7, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html); Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; Pamela L. Grossman, “Learningto Teach Without Teacher Education” (Teachers College Record, Volume 91, 1989, pp. 191-207); Hawk, Coble, and Swanson, 1985.

12

mathematics and teaching knowledge tests.47 Likewise, another studyfound a negative correlation between percent of teachers withemergency certification and student mathematics achievement.48 Inanother study, the researcher found a positive relationship between astate’s percent of fully certified teachers and student achievement inmathematics and reading (two-thirds of the results were statisticallysignificant; all of them were positive).49 The same study found anegative relationship between student achievement and threeindicators of a state’s less-than-fully certified teachers: (a) percent ofall less-than-fully certified teachers; (b) percent of new entrants toteaching who were uncertified (excluding transfers); and (c) percentof newly hired uncertified teachers. However, another study foundno difference in the achievement of students who had teachers withcertification versus those with temporary emergency credentials.50

√ One interpretive study found that secondary teachers with nopedagogical preparation were limited in their ability to engage highschool students in the subject matter, and that those new teacherstaught as they had been taught (in high school and college).51

A teaching credential is admittedly a crude indicator of professional study, and,unfortunately, these studies offer little insight into the specific aspects of pedagogicalpreparation that are critical.

The situation is complicated by variations across states in certification practices.Consider an analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.52

Researchers found that certified mathematics teachers and teachers with temporaryemergency certification have a positive impact on student test scores relative to teacherswith either private school certification or who are not certified in mathematics.

What accounts for this? First, the sample size of emergency-certified teachers isquite small (in both mathematics and science), which makes the findings related toemergency certification less robust.53 Second, 24 percent of the emergency-certifiedmathematics teachers and 32 percent of the emergency-certified science teachers heldbachelor’s degrees in education. Twenty nine percent of both groups had master’sdegrees in education, and most were experienced teachers with preparation in bothpedagogy and subject matter.54 This suggests that those teachers might have beentraditionally prepared teachers working on temporary licenses while changing statesor teaching fields.

Unfortunately, large-scale research that uses certification status and degrees asindicators for teacher preparation does not help us understand what aspects of subjectmatter and pedagogical preparation matter. This problem is exacerbated by the widevariation in certification practices across states. Research that uses complementarymethods has potential for shedding light on this murky area. In the interpretive study,

47 Hawk, Coble, and Swanson, 1985.48 Felter, 1999.49 Darling-Hammond, 2000.50 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000.51 Grossman, 1989.52 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000.53 This is a problem that the researchers themselves note when they caution readers about jumping to conclusions about certification

based on their analysis.54 See Linda Darling-Hammond, Barnett Berry, and Amy Thoreson, “Does Teacher Certification Matter? Evaluating the Evidence”

(Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, in press), as well as Dan D. Goldhaber and Dominic J. Brewer, “Evaluating the Evidenceon Teacher Education: A Rejoinder,” (Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, in press).

13

for example, the researcher found that secondary English teachers were unable totranslate their knowledge of English into something that their students couldunderstand and use. Future research will need better databases and more research(using complementary and sophisticated analytic tools) to help clarify these confusingresults.

Research on the Value Added by Teacher Education Coursework—Anotherapproach to understanding whether pedagogical preparation has an impact is toexamine the value-added of education coursework in teacher preparation programs.We found one multiple regression, two correlational studies, and six interpretivestudies.55,56 Sample sizes ranged from one to six teachers in case studies to over 1,000.Although the number of studies is limited, in general, the research suggests that thereis a value added by teacher preparation. However, the research methods used andlimited sample sizes in the interpretive research make it difficult to determinespecifically what prospective teachers are learning in education coursework.

√ In the two correlational studies, researchers contend that educationcoursework was a better predictor of teaching success than subjectmatter major or GPA prior to entering the teacher education program.57

In the multiple regression, which we discussed in the context ofQuestion 1, the researcher found that undergraduate mathematicseducation coursework contributed more to student gains than docourses in undergraduate mathematics coursework. A similar result,albeit weaker, was found between graduate science educationcoursework and student achievement in science.58

√ In the interpretive studies, researchers found that teachers attributedtheir knowledge of a range of instructional strategies, classroomdiscipline and management, and classroom routines to their educationcoursework.59

√ In three studies, researchers found that new teachers learned to re-organize their knowledge of the subject matter in their subject-specificeducation coursework.60 In two other studies, researchers found,however, that the entering beliefs and knowledge of prospectiveteachers act as powerful predictors of what they learn in educationcourses.61

55 We found many more studies that examined teacher learning within a particular course, but, given both the limited time frame forthis report and the difficulties in comparing specific courses across institutions, we did not include those course-specific studies inthis review.

56 Paul E. Adams and Gerald H. Krockover, “Beginning Science Teacher Cognition and its Origins in the Preservice Science TeacherProgram,” (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Volume 34, 1997, pp. 633-653); Ferguson and Womack, 1993; Julie Gess-Newsomeand Norman G. Lederman, “Preservice Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Structures as a Function of Professional Teacher Education:A Year-Long Assessment,” (Science Education, Volume 77(1), 1993, pp. 25-45); Pamela L. Grossman and Anna E. Richert,“Unacknowledged Knowledge Growth: A Re-examination of the Effects of Teacher Education,” (Teaching and Teacher Education,Volume 4, 1988, pp. 53-62); Pamela L. Grossman, Sheila Valencia, Kate Evans, Clarissa Thompson, Susan Martin, and Nancy Place,“Transitions into Teaching: Learning to Teach Writing in Teacher Education and Beyond,” (Journal of Literacy Research, in press);Guyton and Farokhi, 1987; Sandra Hollingsworth, “Prior Beliefs and Cognitive Change in Learning to Teach,” (American EducationalResearch Journal, Volume 26, 1989, pp. 160-189); Monk, 1994; Linda Valli with Andrew Agostinelli, “Teaching Before and AfterProfessional Preparation: The Story of a High School Mathematics Teacher,” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 44, 1993, pp.107-118).

57 Ferguson and Womack, 1993; Guyton and Farokhi, 1987.58 Monk, 1994.59 Adams and Krockover, 1997; Grossman and Richert, 1988; Grossman, et al., in press; Valli and Agostinelli, 1993.60 Gess-Newsome and Lederman, 1993; Grossman and Richert, 1988; and Grossman et al., in press. This finding may help explain

the research results described in Question 1 concerning subject matter preparation.61 Adams and Krockover, 1997; Hollingsworth, 1989.

14

Although the research is limited, it is nonetheless suggestive, for it appears thatprospective teachers need to reorganize their subject matter knowledge into knowledgeabout how to teach subject matter to diverse students. Consider one interpretivestudy.62 In a yearlong study of prospective biology teachers, the teachers reportednever having thought about the individual topics of biology or the interrelationshipsamong those topics. That is, the teachers—all biology majors—could only list coursesthey had taken. They appeared to have little understanding of the field writ large.They knew little about how various ideas were connected to each other, nor couldthey readily explain the overall content and character of biology. Over the course ofa year’s worth of pedagogical preparation and field experiences, the new teachersbegan to reorganize their knowledge of biology according to how they thought itshould be taught. While these results are limited, they resonate with other researchon secondary English teachers where—in two separate studies—researchers foundthat education coursework provided new English teachers with a conceptualframework for teaching writing, a practice that is distinct from that of being a writer.63

Together, these studies suggest the necessity of further research into the rolethat education coursework plays in assisting new teachers in applying their subjectmatter knowledge to the work of teaching. Furthermore, one study suggests thatresearch on the impact of teacher preparation ought to include longitudinalinvestigations, for the researchers found that the impact of teacher preparation beganto emerge in the second year of the new teachers’ practice, rather than in the firstyear.64

Weaknesses

Most research on teacher preparation is not funded by outside agencies. This typicallyhas meant that the research is limited to a single institution where teacher educationresearchers can use the data generated by their local teacher education efforts; onlytwo studies compared graduates of different programs. Thus, the sample populationsof teachers who participated in the research are limited. It is difficult to know, forexample, how representative of the larger population of newly prepared teachers arethe graduates of such institutions as the University of New Hampshire or East CarolinaUniversity, or how the two groups might compare to one another.

Further, without knowledge of the “treatment,” that is, what the pedagogicalpreparation entailed, it is impossible to replicate the research. For this reason, futureresearch will need to tightly link rigorous qualitative work that documents the contentof education coursework with rigorous and refined quantitative measures to trackprogram impact.

62 Gess-Newsome and Lederman, 1993.63 Grossman and Richert, 1988; Grossman et al., in press.64 One longitudinal study found effects of teacher education by tracking prospective teachers from entry into teacher education

until they completed their programs. The study, reported in Mary Kennedy’s Learning to Teach Writing: Does Teacher EducationMake a Difference? (New York: Teachers College Press, 1998), was a multi-investigator, longitudinal study of eight teacher educationprograms—a mix of college-based preservice, alternate route, and inservice. Kennedy reports on these programs’ effects onprospective teachers’ knowledge about writing and writing instruction. She characterized the programs according to their“substantive orientation.” Looking at both the education coursework and subject matter courses in the programs, Kennedycharacterized three programs as having a traditional, management orientation, with little intent to impart knowledge aboutwriting or writing instruction. The other five had a reform orientation, attempting to help prospective teachers learn about whatresearch on writing had concluded about the importance of learning writing strategies and linking writing to the author’s purposes.Using questionnaires and interviews focused on specific aspects of writing instruction, Kennedy found that students in the reform-oriented programs tended to change their ideas about writing over the course of the program, learning to see writing and writinginstruction as strategies to be used than prescriptions to be followed. She thus concluded that “the substance of teacher educationmakes a difference” (p. 21), while structural features like the number of required courses had little effect. For the case of writinginstruction, this study gives some evidence that the overall program can have a measurable effect prior to independent practice.

15

The research on pedagogical preparation suffers from many of the samelimitations that characterize the research on subject matter preparation. The indicatorsthat are used for “education major” and “certification” are vague, unreliable, andsometimes inaccurate. Large-scale surveys do not have sufficiently sophisticated itemsto assess what teacher education graduates actually know or can do. Future researchneeds to include the development of more refined measures, for all research traditions.

Finally, because much of the in-depth research is done locally by teachereducators (who, as teacher educators, have an investment in the enterprise), resultsare sometimes suspect. This issue is a complicated one. On the one hand, researchersneed to have knowledge of the phenomenon they are investigating. Teacher educatorsknow a great deal about the content and character, challenges and complications ofteacher education. On the other hand, critics have the right to raise questions aboutthe obvious conflict of interest involved in teacher educators doing research thatvalidates the need for teacher education. Future research can address these questionsin multiple ways. First, teacher educator-researchers ought to aim for publishing inthe most rigorously reviewed journals in education, as well as in journals outside ofeducation related to their disciplinary perspectives (e.g., history, mathematics,economics, psychology, sociology, and the like). Second, research designs shouldinclude serious consideration of alternatives to traditional teacher education. Weelaborate on these suggestions when we conclude this report with recommendationsfor future research.

Gaps

Future research on the pedagogical preparation of teachers should be designed to fillseveral major gaps in the literature:

√ We need to know more about the actual knowledge and skill that newteachers acquire in their education coursework and associatedexperiences.

√ We need systematic and comparative research on the content ofpedagogical preparation (beyond lists of course titles) and on theinstructional methods best suited for professional teacher prepar-ation.65, 66

√ We need to know more about what teachers learn in subject mattereducation courses and how that professional knowledge compares tosubject matter preparation of an academic major.

√ We need to know more about the preparation of teachers to teachdiverse student populations.

65 We found several studies that described the content of particular teacher education courses and some in which researchers thenalso attempted to examine the connection between those courses and what new teachers learned. See, for example, Tom Bird,Linda M. Anderson, Barbara A. Sullivan, and Stephen A. Swidler, “Pedagogical Balancing Acts: Attempts to Influence ProspectiveTeachers’ Beliefs,” (Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 9, 1993, pp. 253-267); Pamela L. Grossman, “Overcoming theApprenticeship of Observation in Teacher Education Coursework,” (Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 7, 1991, pp. 345-357);M. Wilson, 1994. Most of these studies, however, did not include thorough descriptions of the research methods used to collectand analyze the data used in the analyses.

66 Promising new research also has been conducted, but the length of the reports (often including in-depth descriptions) excludes itfrom peer-reviewed journals. Consider, for example the three-volume series, Linda Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of Excellencein Teacher Education (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, American Association for Colleges of TeacherEducation, Washington, DC, 2000). While this research was not included in this review, it warrants attention by future researcherswho are searching for models of how to accurately and systematically document, describe, and analyze the content and quality ofpedagogical preparation.

16

√ We need to know more about the relative importance of particularcomponents of pedagogical preparation. In particular, we need toknow more about the relationship between components of pedagogicalpreparation and teacher effectiveness.

Question 3. What kinds, timing, and amount of clinical training (“student teaching”)best equip prospective teachers for classroom practice?

Findings

Research on clinical training in teacher preparation consists mainly of relatively smallinterpretive studies. They suggest that clinical experiences vary widely, but manyfocus on a relatively narrow range of teaching skills and are disconnected from othercomponents of teacher preparation. Individual studies of clinical training provideideas about how clinical experience might have more uniform positive effects.

Research on clinical training does not focus on the same kinds of outcomes thatare studied in research on subject matter and pedagogical preparation. Rather thanfocusing on what prospective teachers learn, or how they apply their knowledge fromsubject matter and education coursework, research on clinical experiences hastraditionally focused on attitude shifts.

Learning to teach typically involves spending considerable time in schoolsparticipating in field experiences of varying lengths, the staples of teacher preparationprograms. Study after study shows that experienced and newly certified teachersalike see clinical experiences (including student teaching) as a powerful—sometimesthe single most powerful—component of teacher preparation. Whether that powerenhances the quality of teacher preparation, however, may depend on the specificcharacteristics of the field experience.

What constitutes “field experience” varies—both within and across institutions.Its intent is sometimes to show what the job of teaching is like, sometimes to developskills in instruction and classroom management, sometimes to give practical realityto concepts encountered in university coursework. Some field experiences occur earlyon and are limited in their range and varied in direction, purpose, or structure. Otherfield experiences are connected to specific university courses. In recent years, therehas been growing variation in the length of the final, culminating “student teaching”experience: with some new teachers having an eight-week stint in a classroom andothers participating in full-year internships. Finally, the settings for clinical experienceare sometimes haphazardly selected according to the number of “placements” neededfor the current semester; more recently some universities have worked with schooldistricts to create “professional development schools” in which teacher learning—both for prospective and practicing teachers—was an explicit and central mission ofthe school.

Here we present summaries of research on the problems associated with typicalfield experiences, on promising practices, on the factors that shape the quality of fieldexperiences, and on the difference in impact between traditional (typically 8-12 week)student teaching experiences and the yearlong internship included in the five-yearmodel of teacher preparation.

Problems Associated with Field Experiences—First, there is considerableagreement about the problems of typical field experiences. Many studies we founddocument what typically happens in student teaching experiences: Field experiencesare often limited, disconnected from university coursework, and inconsistent. Because

17

this review was intended to focus only on what we know about high-quality teacherpreparation, we did not exhaustively review the literature on what typically happenswhen field experiences are not carefully crafted and monitored.

The integration of experiences in the field with university coursework is complexwork. Universities want to honor the knowledge of experienced teachers, yet thereare often differences in views across schools and universities that are difficult to resolve.Further, teacher education programs—especially ones at large public institutions—must place hundreds of student teachers in schools. The need to find enoughplacements is sometimes in tension with maintaining standards for the quality ofthose placements.

We found 10 studies in the interpretive tradition, which, with one exception,involved sample sizes ranging from one teacher to between 10 and 18 teachers.67 Theexception was an interpretive study involving 93 student teachers in two differentteacher education programs. The news about typical experiences is quite sobering.

√ Several studies found that field experiences were often disconnectedfrom other components of teacher preparation, and prospectiveteachers had difficulty applying what they had learned in those othercomponents when they entered their practica.68

√ In one study, researchers found that student teachers’ experiences inclassrooms were limited in range, tending to focus on mechanicalaspects of teaching and dominated by worksheets and workbooks.69

√ Some university programs do not coordinate student teachingexperiences with the university coursework.70 Other researchers havefound that university courses and student teaching experiences canwork together to maintain the status quo.71

√ In one study, researchers found that when the student teachers becomeoverwhelmed with the challenges of learning to teach, they revert tothe norms of the schools in which they were taught, which sometimesmeans that they teach in ways quite different than those envisionedby university instructors.72

In describing what prospective teachers actually learn through their clinicalexperiences, the research is scant. Several studies found that student teachers’ enteringbeliefs about teaching, learning, and subject matter are difficult to change.73

67 Borko, Eisenhart, et al., 1992; Renee Clift, “Learning to Teach English-Maybe: A Study of Knowledge Development,” (Journal ofTeacher Education, Volume 42, 1991, pp. 357-372); Margaret Eisenhart, Hilda Borko, Robert Underhill, Catherine Brown, DougJones, and Patricia Agard, “Conceptual Knowledge Falls Through the Cracks: Complexities of Learning to Teach Mathematics forUnderstanding,” (Journal for Research in Mathematics, Volume, (24), 1993, pp. 4-40); Margaret Eisenhart, L. Behm, and L. Romagnano,“Learning to Teach: Developing Expertise or Rite of Passage?,” (Journal of Education for Teaching, Volume 17, 1991, pp. 51-71); JesseGoodman, “What Students Learn From Early Field Experiences: A Case Study and Critical Analysis,” (Journal of Teacher Education,Volume 38, 1985, pp. 42-48); Gary A. Griffin, “A Descriptive Study of Student Teaching (Elementary School Journal, Volume 89,1989, pp. 343-364); Sandra Hollingsworth, 1989; Judith Shulman, “From Veteran Parent to Novice Teacher: A Case Study ofStudent Teacher,” (Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume X, 1987, pp.); B. Robert Tabachnick, Thomas S. Popkewitz, and KennethM. Zeichner, “Teacher Education and the Professional Perspectives of Student Teachers,” (Interchange, Volume 10(4), 1979-1980,pp. 12-29); and B. Robert Tabachnick and Kenneth M. Zeichner, “The Impact of Student Teaching Experience on the Developmentof Teachers’ Perspectives,” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 35, 1984, pp. 28-36).

68 Borko, Eisenhart, et al., 1992; Clift, 1991; Eisenhart, Behm, and Romagnano, 1991; Goodman, 1985; Griffin, 1989; Hollingsworth,1989; Shulman 1987.

69 Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner, 1979-1980.70 Eisenhart, Behm, and Romagnano, 1991; Griffin, 1989.71 Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner, 1979-1980.72 Eisenhart, Behm, and Romagnano, 1991.73 Griffin, 1989; Tabachnick and Zeichner, 1984.

18

Promising Practices in Field Experiences—Yet there is hope. We found eightinterpretive studies that suggest that field experiences and student teaching can bedesigned to be more educative. These studies involved sample sizes ranging fromfive to 15.74 We also found two interpretive studies in which researchers compareddifferent “treatments”—or kinds of clinical experiences. The samples in each of thesestudies were 26 and 37 preservice teachers.75 Although the research base is limited,the studies suggest some potentially promising practices:

√ In one study, when prospective elementary teachers were given anopportunity to observe and interview students learning to write duringtheir field experiences, their conceptions of the teaching and learningof writing began to change.76

√ Another study demonstrated that a practicum designed to helppreservice students learn to understand the caregivers of childrencaused beginning interns’ initial stereotypic view about poor, inner-city parents to change to the belief that parents and caregivers playeda significant role in literacy while the school was partly to blame forretarding improvements.77

√ In a third study, researchers found that new teachers learned mostfrom clinical experiences when they were required to do actionresearch in the classroom.78 Given the multiple interpretations of“action research,” it would be important to know more about thenature of these action research projects used in this research.

√ In yet another study, researchers found that student teachers couldlearn as much (if not more) about how to reflect on teaching, organizeinstruction, and teach from laboratory experiences (as opposed to fieldexperiences).79

√ Across several studies, one theme that emerges is that field experienceslead to more significant learning when activities are focused and wellstructured.80

√ Cooperating teachers have a powerful influence on the nature of thestudent teaching experience. In two studies based on the same researchproject, the researchers found that student teachers who were pairedwith cooperating teachers whose ideas and practices were somewhat

74 Susan Florio Ruane and Timothy Lensmire, “Transforming Future Teachers’ Ideas about Writing Instruction,” (Journal of CurriculumStudies, Volume 22, 1990, pp. 277-289); Dana L. Grisham, Armando Laguardia, and Beverly Brink, “Partners in Professionalism:Creating a Quality Field Experience for Preservice Teachers,” (Action in Teacher Education, Volume 21(4), 2000, pp. 27-40); Grossmanand Richert, 1988; Grossman, Valencia, et al., in press; Hollingsworth (1989); Althier M. Lazar, “Helping Preservice TeachersInquire About Caregivers: A Critical Experience for Field-Based Courses,” (Action in Teacher Education, Volume 19(4), 1998, pp. 14-28); John L. Shefelbine and Sandra Hollingsworth, “The Instructional Decisions of Preservice Teachers During a Reading Practicum(Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 38, 1987, pp. 36-42); Janell D. Wilson, “An Evaluation of the Field Experiences of the InnovativeModel for the Preparation of Elementary Teachers for Science, Mathematics, and Technology (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume47, 1996, pp. 53-59).

75 Kim K. Metcalf, M. A. Ronen Hammer, and Pamela A. Kahlich, “Alternatives to Field-Based Experiences: The ComparativeEffects of On-Campus Laboratories (Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 12, 1996, pp. 271-283); Mark Y. Schelske and Stanley L.Deno, “The Effects of Content-Specific Seminars on Student Teachers’ Effectiveness,” (Action in Teacher Education, Volume 16,1994, pp. 2-28).

76 Florio Ruane and Lensmire, 1990.77 Lazar, 1998.78 Grossman et al., in press.79 Metcalf, Hammer, and Kahlich, 1996.80 Florio Ruane and Lensmire, 1990; Grisham, Laguardia, and Brink, 2000; Grossman et al., in press; Lazar, 1998; Metcalf, Hammer,

and Kahlich, 1996; J. D. Wilson, 1996.

19

different than those of the student teacher learned more from theirfield experiences.81 However, other researchers have found thatstudent teachers tend not to “rock the boat” in the classrooms in whichthey are placed for student teaching.82

These studies share the limitations of the research on pedagogical preparation—for example, the research has investigated methods for guiding field experiences thatare local, that is, often unique to a particular program at a particular institution.Generalization, at this stage, would be unwise. Nonetheless, such qualitative workdoes hold promise for informing future research.

The Factors that Shape What Happens in Student Teaching—Disentanglingthe impact of coursework, fieldwork, and other factors on learning to teach is complex,for it is inadequate to simply rely on participants’ self reports to determine where andwhat teachers learn. Furthermore, since prospective teachers are often simultaneouslytaking university courses and participating in clinical experiences, identifying theeffects of separate program components is difficult. Finally, other factors significantlyshape what new teachers learn in their field experiences. Across the research that wehave already described, several critical factors emerged:83

√ Student teaching experiences are interpreted in varying ways byprospective teachers, even teachers in the same teacher educationprogram. Student teachers’ beliefs and knowledge, as well as thoseof their cooperating teachers, play an important role in how they thinkabout and learn from their field experiences.84

√ Cooperating teachers work with novice teachers in a wide variety ofways.85 Some focus on subject matter and strategy, others assume thatnovice teachers know the subject matter they will teach, and othersfocus more on principles and maxims of teaching. Some cooperatingteachers offer little by way of advice or support.86 Some collaboratingteachers interpret their job as one of socializing the student teacherinto the status quo of the school87 or into the practices of the cooperatingteacher.88 Sometimes cooperating teachers see their role as enablinginnovation and independence on the part of the new teachers.89

√ In one study, the researcher found that general managerial routineshave to be in place before prospective teachers can focus on teachingsubject matter. Regardless of their subject matter preparation,prospective teachers who failed to routinize discipline, management,and instruction are often unable to focus on what students werelearning.90

81 Hollingsworth, 1989; Shefelbine and Hollingsworth, 1987.82 Eisenhart, Borko, et al., 1993; Griffin, 1989; Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner, 1979-1980.83 In addition to the studies already summarized, we found one additional study that informed this part of the analysis: Kathy

Carter and Luz E. Gonzalez, “Beginning Teachers’ Knowledge of Classroom Events” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 44, 1993,pp. 223-232).

84 Carter and Gonzalez, 1993; Griffin, 1989; Eisenhart, Borko, et al., 1993; Tabachnick and Zeichner, 1984; Hollingsworth, 1989;Shefelbine and Hollingsworth, 1987; Tabachnick and Zeichner, 1984;

85 Eisenhart, Borko, et al., 1993; Grossman, Valencia, et al., in press; Hollingsworth, 1989; Shefelbine and Hollingsworth, 1987.86 J. Shulman, 1987.87 Goodman, 1985.88 Grossman, Valencia et al., in press.89 Grossman, Valencia, et al., in press; Grishman, Laguardia and Brink, 2000; Eisenhart, Borko, et al., 1993.90 Hollingsworth, 1989.

20

√ In one study, the researchers documented the myriad factors that shapea prospective teacher’s field experiences, including: the teacher’ssubject matter knowledge, the openness of the cooperating teacher tocertain kinds of instruction, as well the norms and expectations of theschool and the school district.91

Consider one careful analysis that illuminates the complexities of understandingthe relevant impact of field experiences. Researchers examined interview andobservational data from prospective secondary teachers in two different universityprograms.92 When asked, prospective teachers cited fieldwork more than courseworkas a source of knowledge. Yet when the researchers examined interviews andobservational notes, they found significant, complementary influence of coursework.From field experience, the prospective teachers reported acquiring “survival skills,”learning about students and their understanding, and recognizing that their students’understandings vary, are complex, and differ from the teachers’. Coursework, on theother hand, taught the prospective teachers about theoretical principles such asmainstreaming and grouping, as well as giving them “an image of the possible.” Thus,in this study, both coursework and field experiences had an impact on the acquisitionof professional knowledge, even though the program participants better recognizedthe value of the field experiences.

Comparisons of Five-Year and Four-Year Programs—One final area of researchthat sheds light on the question of appropriate field experiences concerns differencesin the graduates of four- and five-year teacher preparation programs. We found twostudies that examined this question, one large-scale study and one small interpretivestudy.93

√ In the large-scale study, the researcher found that teachers who wentthrough a fifth-year program which included a yearlong internship(and took the same courses as their peers who went through a fouryear program with a shorter, more traditional student teachingexperience) were more satisfied with teaching and with their teachereducation program. They also had a higher retention rate andconsistently rated their teaching abilities (e.g., planning instruction,conferencing with parents) higher.94

√ In one interpretive study of five elementary preservice teachers whodid their student teaching in a professional development school, theresearchers report that the year long experience was a significant factorthat contributed to the quality of what the new teachers learned.95

Weaknesses

The research on clinical experiences is weak in several ways. First, much of the earlyresearch on clinical experiences has focused on cooperating teachers’ and prospectiveteachers’ attitudes about field experiences. Although it is important to know howteachers feel about the benefits of field experiences, such attitude surveys do not answer

91 Eisenhart, Borko, et al., 1993.92 Grossman and Richert, 1988.93 Michael D. Andrew, “Differences Between Graduates of 4-Year and 5-Year Teacher Preparation Programs” (Journal of Teacher

Education, 1990, Volume 41, pp. 45-51); Grisham, Laguardia, and Brink, 2000.94 Andrew, 1990.95 Grisham, Laguardi, and Brink, 2000.

21

questions about what prospective teachers actually learn in those experiences. Futureresearch should attempt to develop measures of what teachers actually learn throughtheir field experiences.

Second, the measures that are used are relatively unreliable; self-report data ingeneral are suspect. We need more measures of teacher learning, knowledge, andskill that do not rely on teachers’ and administrators’ self-reports or ratings.

Finally, the research done is interpretive and small scale. While this researchsheds light on the factors that make field experiences complicated, the limited samplesizes and local “treatments” make it impossible to generalize from the research.Furthermore, the majority of this research is not published in the most competitiveeducation journals; rather, the research typically appears in two teacher education-specific journals.96 We need more rigorous research in this area that includes multiplemethods, large scale and comparative designs, and is peer-reviewed by broaderaudiences.

Gaps

What we know about the typical clinical experience is sobering. The researchdemonstrates that traditional field experiences are often disconnected fromcoursework, focused on a narrow range of teaching skills, and reinforce the statusquo. We also know that a number of more innovative programs have been developed,and that a few small-scale studies have shown positive effects of high-quality clinicalexperiences on knowledge of pedagogy, insights about children and community, andteachers’ ability to reflect on and revise instruction. We now need more research inseveral domains.

√ We need to know more about the impact of innovative field experiences(including collaborations like professional development schools) onnew teachers’ effectiveness.

√ We need to know more about the relative impact of various types offield experiences: early field experiences, field experiences integratedinto particular university courses, student teaching, and yearlonginternships.

√ We need to know more about the effects of varying lengths of clinicalexperiences, as well as practices and structures that enable teacherlearning in those experiences.

√ We need to know more about the relative contributions of courseworkand fieldwork to a teacher’s progress in learning to teach, more aboutthe ways in which the coursework integrates into the fieldwork, andunder what fieldwork conditions the novice teachers are most likelyto continue to learn productively.

√ We need large-scale studies to evaluate the effects of variousinnovations in clinical experiences.

96 We are not suggesting that the Journal of Teacher Education and Action in Teacher Education do not publish high-quality research.However, we do believe that research on clinical experiences would be enhanced if researchers aimed to publish research on fieldexperiences in a wider array of peer-reviewed journals.

22

Question 4. What policies and strategies have been used successfully by states,universities, school districts, and other organizations to improve andsustain the quality of pre-service teacher education?

Findings

There is almost no research that directly bears on this question. Several strategies,however, have captured the attention of policymakers: requiring programaccreditation, strengthening state program approval, mandating additionalcoursework (especially on reading instruction), setting limits on the number of creditsrequired in education coursework, increasing the amount of teacher testing andholding teacher education programs accountable for results of teacher testing, requiringa subject matter major, changing the duration of teacher preparation from four yearsto five, and establishing professional development schools. Other policies currentlyin use may have important implications for teacher preparation, among them changingteacher certification and creating or mandating induction programs. While enthusiasmfor these policies is high, the research base is quite thin.

We searched for research on the effectiveness of policies, either describing theeffects of policies on desirable characteristics of teacher preparation programs ordescribing the effects on students enrolled in those programs.97 We found only fourstudies, two that used large samples to compare the certification test scores of teachersin different policy contexts,98 one that compared characteristics of teachers from four-year and five-year programs,99 and one that looked intensively at the effects of policyinitiatives on a single program.100

The two larger studies used scores from a set of tests widely administered forteacher certification as a measure of teacher quality. The researchers compared averagecertification test scores from different teacher preparation programs as a means togauge the success of different policies. One study, for example, used data on 300,000prospective teachers who took the teacher certification tests between 1994 and 1997.101

For most of those prospective teachers, the researchers also had college entranceexamination (SAT or ACT) scores, so that they could take account of initial differencesamong students attending different programs. In a comparison of accredited andnon-accredited teacher preparation programs, the researchers found that, in theaccredited programs, a higher proportion of teacher certification test takers got scoreshigh enough to meet state requirements. This difference cannot simply be explainedby a difference in a program’s ability to attract “better” students, since the collegeentrance scores were actually lower in the accredited programs.

97 We note that our focus here was policy effects on teacher preparation programs and the students in those programs. Much of thepolicy research has looked instead at effects of policies on the characteristics of teachers employed in schools, asking, for example,about effects of policies on the proportion on teachers with full certification. Although the causes of changes in the teacherpopulation might be due to changes in teacher preparation, they might also be due to changes in hiring practices. We did notinclude studies unless they explicitly looked at effects on preparation programs or the students in those programs.

98 Drew H. Gitomer, and Andrew S. Latham, The Academic Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of Admissions and LicensureTesting (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. J., 1999); Harold Wenglinsky. Teaching the Teachers: Different Settings, DifferentResults (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. J., 2000).

99 Andrew, 1990.100 N. A. Prestine, “Political System Theory as an Explanatory Paradigm for Teacher Education Reform” (American Educational Research

Journal, Volume 28, 1991, pp. 237-274).101 Gitomer and Latham, 2000.

23

Overall, in these two large studies, researchers found that teachers did betteron the certification tests if they attended institutions that:

√ had been approved by the national accrediting association,102

√ had a low proportion of education majors/minors at the institution anda low proportion of the institutional budget devoted to education, or 103

√ had a relatively high proportion of traditional (i.e., full-time, under25 years of age) students.104

While these results suggest what might be learned from large-scale comparisonsof teachers who graduated from programs with varying characteristics, more researchis needed to have much confidence in these initial results and to ascertain the linkbetween certification test scores and teaching practice.105 Moreover, research is neededto make sense of the findings about the effects of the proportions of education majors/minors in the student body and of budget allocations in education. Does thisassociation reflect differences not fully accounted for in entering student bodies? Doesit represent institutional practices common in colleges with small teacher preparationprograms, and capable of being adopted in colleges largely devoted to teacherpreparation?

A policy currently under discussion involves changing teacher preparationprograms from a four-year to a five-year design. The study that compared graduatesof four-year and five-year programs at the University of New Hampshire is an exampleof research on field experience because the policy largely affects that teacherpreparation component. There was a significant difference in retention and careersatisfaction favoring five-year program graduates.106 Generally five-year graduatesshowed increased interest in teaching and satisfaction with their teacher educationcoursework. The study suggests that different institutional policies about the structureof teacher education programs can lead to different characteristics of teachers. More

102 Gitomer and Latham, 2000.103 Wenglinsky, 2000.104 Wenglinsky, 2000.105 Two well-known books about teacher education devote some time to the policy effects question. Although these books were

beyond the scope of our review, their prominence in recent discussions of teacher education is reason for a brief commentary. Inthe 1980s, John Goodlad and his team visited 19 teacher education institutions, gathering information through interviews,observations, and surveys. The results, published in Teachers For Our Nation’s Schools (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1990), describethe institutional contexts of teacher education, based on accounts from those engaged in it. The institutions visited were selectedto represent the variety of programs in the U. S., in the sense that they included most of the major types of four-year institutions:public major research universities, public major comprehensive universities, private comprehensive universities, public and privateregional institutions, and private liberal arts colleges. Because the study did not look at what prospective teachers learned in theirprograms, it offers no new research on the focal questions in our review. It did, however, use interviews with faculty andadministrators to look at the effects of state policies and NCATE accreditation on their programs. Goodlad found that mostpeople interviewed saw the state as an important regulatory force, with more resistance to change among the major universitiesthan among the other institutions. In the eyes of the administrators and faculty, the changes made tended to be piecemeal,eroding, rather than enhancing, program quality. Participating in the NCATE accreditation process was seen to be of assistancein identifying serious problems but also seen as deflecting faculty energy from other planning, which Goodlad believes crucial tolong-term improvement. Goodlad’s conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of Prestine’s Wisconsin case study but addthe suggestion that the effects of state policies may vary across institutional types, and may push in the direction of piecemealprogram change. They suggest a less positive impact of NCATE than the other study we found, perhaps because of the differencein evidence used (administrator and faculty interviews, versus scores on teacher examinations), or perhaps because the positiveeffect of identifying serious problems outweighs the negative effect on other planning efforts.

Another study on teacher education policy is reported in Michael Fullan, Gary Galluzzo, Patricia Morris, and Nancy Watson,The Rise And Stall Of Teacher Education Reform (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1998, Washington, D. C).Michael Fullan and his colleagues conducted interviews to assess the effects of the Holmes Group, an organization of colleges ofeducation that attempted to promote improvements in teacher preparation through changes in policy, creation of professionaldevelopment schools, and changes in colleges of education. They conclude that the Holmes Group had an effect on the nationaldebate about teacher education and, concretely, led to an increase in minority representation in schools and colleges of education.As with the Goodlad study, they rely on interviews with faculty and administrators, giving information on perceptions of policyeffects, rather than on the effects themselves.

106 Andrew, 1990.

24

research that examines these issues could guide institutions in program design. Forexample, are we correct in attributing most of the effect to changes in the fieldcomponent or would similar effects come from using the extra year for subject matterstudy?

The other, single-program study described the University of Wisconsin-MadisonSchool of Education’s attempt to resist new program requirements developed by theWisconsin Department of Education.107 Drawing on interviews and analysis of meetingminutes, the investigator depicts the school of education’s beliefs that it could maintainits autonomy, followed by its administrators’ realization that the WisconsinDepartment of Education did have the authority to dictate and enforce change. Thereport does not include an examination of subsequent changes in program courses,but it does present convincing evidence of the state government’s ability to producechange, even in an institution with a well-defined and strong teacher educationprogram. This finding runs against a belief sometimes expressed (and apparentlyheld by the University of Wisconsin prior to this incident), that state policies were tooweak to have any substantial effect on what goes on within higher education.

We found no other rigorously conducted studies that focused on the directrelationship between policies and the quality of teacher preparation. However,provocative evidence offered by one investigation suggests a direction for furtherinvestigations and offers one model for doing such research.108 With evidence fromnational databases, this study demonstrated a statistically significant correlationbetween the percentage of colleges in a state that were NCATE accredited (a functionof institutional and sometimes state policies on accreditation) and the percentage ofteachers in the state who are well qualified (that is, have full certification and a majorin their field). This research demonstrates the use of nationally representative data toexamine policy effects but also illustrates the limitations of currently available nationaldata on teacher preparation. The correlation indicates that some set of circumstanceslinks the proportion of NCATE-accredited institutions to the proportion of well-qualified teachers. In the absence, however, of more detailed data about teacherpreparation programs, the performance of their graduates, and the way preparationinfluences hiring and retention, research cannot show whether teacher quality is aneffect of state policies about program approval, state mechanisms to facilitate hiring,widespread support for improving teacher quality, or some other set of factors. Theassociation between program accreditation and patterns of teacher employment callsfor further exploration. If national surveys began to collect more information aboutteacher preparation, large-scale research might help establish the link between stateor institutional policies and teacher preparation variables.

Weaknesses

The major weakness of this research domain is the lack of literature. Given theheightened interest in using policies to enhance the quality of teacher preparation,there is much opportunity for significant comparative research that contrasts the impactof various policies currently being implemented.

Gaps

Research is needed on the effects of policy tools now being employed, as well as onother tools being considered. At present, there is little solid empirical research tosupport the adoption of policies intended to raise the quality of teacher preparation.The need is more urgent for research that looks at the conditions under which anarray of policy levers helps improve teacher preparation. Those levers include:

107 Prestine, 1991.108 Darling-Hammond, 2000.

25

√ accountability programs,

√ revised certification systems (e.g., multi-tiered, performance-basedcertification),

√ collaborative partnerships between colleges and K-12 schools,

√ college policies to encourage greater participation of arts and sciencefaculty in collaboration with education faculty,

√ school district incentives for teachers to give more attention to teacherpreparation,

√ state approval mechanisms, and

√ national accreditation.

Future research needs to be designed to compare the relative impact of theselevers, as well as different kinds of policies in each of these domains.

Question 5. What are the components and characteristics of high-qualityalternative certification programs?

Findings

The research we reviewed indicates that alternative routes have been successful inrecruiting a more diverse pool of teachers but have a mixed record in terms of thequality of teachers recruited and trained. Despite the heightened interest in alternativecertification, research about its impact is limited and has produced decidedly mixedfindings.109 This may be in part because programs vary from one- or two-yearpreservice models (e.g., MAT programs) to programs offering a few weeks of trainingbefore placement as teacher of record.

We found 14 papers reporting on 11 studies that shed light on issues of alternativecertification.110 One study was an in-depth analysis of one program;111 threecomparative studies involved the evaluation of the alternative routes in Dallas andHouston (sample sizes ranged from 69 to 110).112 Three papers report various aspectsof an analysis of a large-scale national survey of over 14,000 teachers.113 Four other

109 The work of C. Emily Feistritzer at the National Center for Education Information provides helpful data on the prevalence ofalternative routes. See, for example, C. Emily Feistritzer and David Chester, Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-StateAnalysis 2000 (National Center for Education Information, Washington, DC, 2000).

110 Goldhaber and Brewer, 2000; Grossman, 1989; Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991; W. Robert Houston, Faith Marshall, and TeddyMcDavid, “Problems of Traditionally Prepared and Alternatively Certified First-Year Teachers,” (Education and Urban Society,1993, Volume 26, pp. 78-89); Jerry B. Hutton, Frank W. Lutz, and James L. Williamson, “Characteristics, Attitudes, and Performanceof Alternative Certification Interns” (Educational Research Quarterly, 1990, Volume 14, pp. 38-48); James Jelmberg, “College-BasedTeacher Education Versus State-Sponsored Alternative Programs,” (Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 47, 1996, pp. 60-66; FrankW. Lutz and Jerry B. Hutton, “Alternative Teacher Certification: Its Policy Implications for Classroom and Personnel Practice”(Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1989, Volume 11, pp. 237-154); McDiarmid and Wilson, 1991; John W. Miller, Michael C.McKenna, and Beverly A. McKenna, “A Comparison of Alternatively and Traditionally Prepared Teachers” (Journal of TeacherEducation, 1998, Volume 49, pp. 165-176); Ruth A. Sandlin, Beverly L. Young, and Belinda D. Karge, “Regularly and AlternativelyCredentialed Beginning Teachers: Comparison and Contrast of Their Development, (Action in Teacher Education, Volume 14, 1992-1993, pp. 16-23); Jianping Shen, “Has Alternative Certification Policy Materialized its Promise? A Comparison Between Traditionallyand Alternatively Certified Teachers in Public Schools” (Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1997, Volume 19, pp. 276-283);Jianping Shen, “Alternative Certification, Minority Teachers, And Urban Education” (Education and Urban Society, Volume 31,1998a, pp. 30-41); Jianping Shen, “The Impact of Alternative Certification On The Elementary And Secondary Public TeachingForce,” (Journal of Research and Development in Education, Volume 31(1), 1998b, pp. 9-16); Trish Stoddart, “Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District Intern Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an Urban Context” (Peabody Journal of Education, 1990,Volume 67, pp. 84-122).

111 Stoddart, 1990.112 Hutton, Lutz, and Williamson, 1990; Houston, Marshall, and McDavid, 1993.113 Shen, 1997, 1998a, 1998b.

26

studies compared graduates of alternate routes to traditionally prepared first-yearteachers in New Hampshire,114 Georgia,115 and California.116 One interpretive studyinvolved in-depth case studies of three new teachers who had no prior preparation;117

another study compared alternate route teachers’ knowledge and beliefs with anational sample of graduates from teacher preparation programs.118

The research supports several important results:

√ Alternative routes are attracting a more diverse pool of prospective teachersin terms of age and ethnicity.119

√ Alternative routes have a mixed record for attracting the “best and brightest.”In one analysis involving a national sample of over 14,000 teachers,3.3 percent of the alternatively certified teachers did not have BAs. Inthat same analysis, the researcher found that more alternativelycertified teachers were teaching out of field in mathematics andscience.120 In a case study of Los Angeles Unified School District,however, prospective teachers in alternate routes had grade pointaverages that met or surpassed national averages of traditionallycertified teachers (however, the study also found that alternativelycertified teachers’ GPAs were lower than traditional recruits inmathematics and science).121

In two reports based on the same database, researchers contrastedthe knowledge of alternatively certified interns with that of a nationalsample of teacher candidates from programs across the U.S. Theresearchers found that the secondary and elementary teachers sufferedfrom the same weak mathematical knowledge described in Question1 concerning traditional teacher candidates.122 An analysis of Englishteachers suggested that traditionally prepared English teachers weresignificantly more knowledgeable about specific instructionalstrategies for teaching writing.123 This result resonates with anotherstudy, in which the researcher found that three English teachers whohad no teacher preparation prior to teaching had no formalunderstanding of how to represent the subject matter to their studentsand fell back on instructional strategies that had worked for them asstudents in high school or college. These strategies were largelyidiosyncratic and ill suited for the students.124

√ There are higher percentages of alternatively certified teachers teaching inurban settings or teaching minority children. In two studies, researchersfound that high percentages of alternatively certified teachers wereteaching in urban settings or in schools where the majority of the

114 Jelmberg, 1996.115 Miller, McKenna, and McKenna, 1998.116 Sandlin, Young, and Karge, 1992.117 Grossman, 1989.118 McDiarmid and Wilson, 1991.119 Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991; Houston, Marshall, and McDavid, 1993; Hutton, Lutz, and Williamson, 1990; Lutz and Hutton,

1989; Stoddart, 1990. The three articles by Shen (all based on the same data analysis) also support this claim.120 Shen, 1997, 1998a.121 Stoddart, 1990.122 McDiarmid and Wilson, 1991.123 Stoddart, 1990.124 Grossman, 1989.

27

students were from minority populations.125 In their evaluation ofthe Dallas alternative route, however, researchers found no significantdifference in the SES of the schools in which alternatively certifiedand traditionally prepared teachers taught.126 While it is hearteningthat alternate routes might be fulfilling their promise of placing moreteachers in high need and urban settings, the fact that two studiesshowed that higher percentages of those teachers were teaching outof subject is worrisome.127 This raises the possibility that poorlyconceptualized or administered alternative routes may simplyexacerbate inequities in schooling that already exist. One study didfind that alternatively certified interns in one city held highexpectations for low-income and minority students and attempted todevelop curriculum and instruction responding to the needs of diverselearners.128

√ Evaluations of the performance of alternate route and traditionally preparedteachers produce mixed results. In two studies of the same alternativeroute, researchers found that—when rated by their mentors—thealternatively certified teachers got high evaluations on theirperformance as teachers; they also had higher mean passing scoreson the statewide certification test.129 However, principals rated acomparison group of traditionally prepared first year teachers higherthan alternately certified interns on reading, discipline, management,planning, and instructional techniques. The alternatively certifiedteachers, we should note, had gone through an extensive programwith high entry standards. Of the 691 applicants who took basic skillsexams, only 110 interns were admitted to the program after anevaluation of an entrance essay and a structured interview. They alsoparticipated in professional coursework, planned and taught practicelessons, and were closely supervised and mentored. Only 59 wereeventually certified after their first year in the program; others droppedout or were categorized as “pending” until their files were completeor their performance improved.

In another study, the researcher found the opposite: Principalsrated teachers from the college-based teacher education programs asbeing better prepared in teaching methods and educationalfoundations than the alternatively certified teachers. The teachersthemselves concurred.130 In two other studies, no difference was foundin teaching behaviors or difficulties encountered by the new teachers.131

We found one study that examined the effects of alternativeprogram status on student achievement.132 This study of a university-based alternate route featuring extensive coursework and intensive

125 Houston, Marshall, and McDavid, 1993; Shen, 1997, 1998a, 1998b.126 Hutton, Lutz, and Williamson, 1990; Lutz and Hutton, 1989.127 Houston, Marshall, and McDavid, 1993; Shen, 1997, 1998a, 1998b.128 Stoddart, 1990.129 Hutton, Lutz, and Williamson, 1990; Lutz and Hutton, 1989.130 Jelmberg, 1996.131 Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991; Miller, McKenna, and McKenna, 1998.132 Miller, McKenna, and McKenna, 1998.

28

supervision and mentoring found no differences in the average studentachievement of matched pairs of alternatively and traditionallycertified teachers on their students’ performance on the Iowa Test ofBasic Skills.

√ Teachers who have come through high-quality alternative routes and teacherstraditionally certified show some similarities. On some dimensions,traditionally and alternatively prepared teachers are similar. Severalstudies found no significant difference when comparing alternativeroute teachers and traditionally certified teachers on a number ofcharacteristics. For instance, alternatively certified and traditionallycertified teachers tend to be more alike than different in terms ofsocioeconomic status and gender.133 In several studies, especially afterthe induction year, observers rated alternatively and traditionallycertified teachers similarly in terms of their performance, particularlywhen alternatively certified teachers came from structured alternateroutes.134 And, in two studies alternatively certified and traditionallycertified teachers’ attitude profiles concerning self-efficacy andconfidence were similar.135 However, in others, alternate route teacherswere less confident about their knowledge and practice.136

√ Successful alternate routes appear to be resource- and labor-intensive. Manyprograms have high drop-out rates. In her study of the Los AngelesUnified School District’s alternative route, one researcher reported that,of the 1,100 recruited alternatively certified teachers in a six-year timeframe, 29 percent had left the district (and may have left teaching) inthat same time frame.137 In the Dallas program, 11 of 110 internsdropped out within the first year, while another 24 were recommendedto be placed in a “pending” category due to deficiencies in theirpreparation or materials. The minority alternatively certified teachersin another study indicated they did not plan on staying in teaching.138

In another study, traditionally prepared teachers were found to bemore positive about staying in the profession, and five of 23alternatively certified teachers had dropped out of the program beforethe end of the year.139 On the other hand, in one study the researchersfound no differences in alternatively certified and traditionally certifiedteachers, after eight months of teaching, in terms of their job satisfactionor their intentions to be teaching in the next five years.140

These contradictory findings seem puzzling. Clearly, alternative certificationvaries across contexts.141 To begin with, some states treat all post-baccalaureateprograms as “alternate”, whether they include preservice coursework and studentteaching or offer little structured traing. Moreover, some alternate routes have high

133 Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991; Lutz and Hutton, 1989; Shen, 1997.134 Lutz and Hutton, 1989; Miller, McKenna, and McKenna, 1998; Sandlin, Young, and Karge, 1992.135 Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991; Miller, McKenna, and McKenna, 1998.136 Jelmberg, 1996; Lutz and Hutton, 1989.137 Stoddart, 1990.138 Shen, 1997, 1998a, 1998b.139 Guyton, Fox, and Sisk, 1991.140 Houston, Marshall, and McDavid, 1993.141 See, for example, Karen Zumwalt, “Alternate Routes to Teaching: Three Alternative Approaches” (Journal of Teacher Education,

Volume 42(2), 1991, pp. 83-92).

29

standards for entry, and some require substantial coursework and mentoring. In fact,in some contexts, alternative certification may be more similar to traditionalcertification than different. For example, the Dallas Independent School DistrictAlternative Route Program was initially the product of a collaboration between theschool district and East Texas State University. In this instance, the alternativelycertified interns might have gotten more support in the form of supervision andmentoring than the typical teacher education student. However, their courseworkand study might otherwise have been very similar to traditional teacher education.The number of credit hours required for courses in Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict’s alternate route is comparable to that required in California teacherpreparation programs, and analyses of transcripts suggest that the content of thosecourses is similar to college-based teacher preparation.142 That is, alternativecertification programs in some of these studies, while they might be packageddifferently or be offered on a different timeline, might have key aspects in commonwith traditional teacher education programs. Yet all do not. For example, in onestudy of a district alternative route, the researcher found that attendance was the solecriterion for passing all program requirements. Teacher candidates were not heldaccountable for learning any of the material offered by the school district in its carefullydesigned curriculum.143

We found one extensive description of the content and character of an alternativeroute that met the criteria for this review.144 Since the research literature seldomincludes descriptions of the content and components of these alternative routes, it isdifficult to determine whether the variation in the research results is due to differencesin program quality. Given the literature that does exist, however, it appears that severalfeatures may be important to high quality alternative certification, including:145

√ high entrance standards,

√ extensive mentoring and supervision,

√ extensive pedagogical training in instruction, management,curriculum, and working with diverse students,

√ frequent and substantial evaluation,

√ practice in lesson planning and teaching prior to taking on fullresponsibility as a teacher, and

√ high exit standards.

Weaknesses

The research in this domain suffers from weaknesses similar to those we have alreadynoted, including a reliance on supervisors’ ratings, problematic proxies for subjectmatter knowledge, and the like. We will not reiterate them here. An additionalweakness that arises in research on alternate routes concerns a problem with the datathat three studies are based upon. As one critic suggests, teachers’ responses wereinaccurate. Specifically, teachers might have been confused about their certification.146

For example, 52 percent of the teachers who reported that they completed an alternative

142 Hutton, Lutz and Williamson, 1990; Lutz and Hutton, 1989; Stoddart, 1990.143 Stoddart, 1990.144 Stoddart, 1990.145 Hutton, Lutz, and Williamson, 1990; Lutz and Hutton, 1989.146 Dale Ballou, “Alternative Certification: A Comment” (Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Volume 20, 1998, pp. 313-315).

See also, the response of Jianping Shen, “Alternative Certification: A Complicated Research Topic,” (Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, Volume 20, 1998, pp. 316-319).

30

certification program also said that their undergraduate major was in education. Thisconfusing finding might be due to the fact that some traditionally prepared teachersgo through alternate routes when they apply for licensure in another state; it mightalso be due to the fact that teachers were confused about their certification. Whateverthe source of the confusion, these concerns reiterate an earlier point we made: Futureresearch must include more sophisticated and accurate databases.

Furthermore, much of the early research on alternative routes was conducted whenthose programs were first being created. Because the programs themselves were underdevelopment, the “treatments” involved in those programs were relatively unstable,changing as the programs changed. Now that more states have programs, and manyof the programs are more established, it is time for new research.

Gaps

There are significant gaps in the research on alternative certification. Specifically, weneed to design lines of investigation that:147

√ Describe the content and components of high-quality alternativecertification programs.

√ Document and analyze the professional knowledge (both of subjectmatter and of teaching) that graduates of alternate routes acquire, andhow they acquire it, and relate that knowledge to teaching practice.

√ Compare matched pairs of traditionally prepared and alternativelycertified teachers to shed light on the impact of high-quality alternativeroutes into teaching versus traditional preparation. Longitudinaldesigns would be useful in this area.

√ Examine the effects of components of alternate routes (mentorshipprograms; university- or school district-based coursework; admissionsstandards, including grade point averages, and the like, on teachingpractice.

√ Strengthen the objectivity of studies of alternatively and traditionallycertified teachers. Currently, the biases of the researchers (pro or conalternative routes) are often reflected in their analyses.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ON TEACHER PREPARATION

Although limited, the existing research on teacher preparation suggests that there isimportant research to be done. Furthermore, research summarized here, as well asresearch—in the form of books, meta-analyses, conference presentations, and researchreports—that was not included in this review, has the potential for serving as animportant foundation for the next generation of teacher preparation research.

Our recommendations take three forms. First, we list a set of research designprinciples to ensure that future research offers well-grounded findings. Second, werecommend domains of further inquiry where research seems likely to produce

147 See Willis D. Hawley, “The Theory and Practice of Alternative Certification: Implications for the Improvement of Teaching”(Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 67, pp. 3-34, 1990.)

31

trustworthy results to important questions of policy and practice. Third, we makesuggestions about investment opportunities that might be strategic in furthering ourknowledge.

Research Design Principles

The findings we have discussed suggest what might be learned, but somecharacteristics of the studies limit their ability to give a strong foundation for policyand practice. To ease interpretation and accumulation of findings, we recommendseven considerations in the design and conduct of future research.

√ Data collected about teacher preparation should describe specific features ofthe content and quality not merely counts of courses and vague terms suchas “alternate route.” We need better analytic and descriptive tools forcharacterizing teacher preparation programs and their policies, as well asmore refined and stable measures of teacher knowledge and teacher behavior.

Simplistic and vague variables obstructed our interpretation of results in thestudies we identified. The value of alternate routes, for example, was difficult toassess because the label was applied to too wide an array of programs. The meaningof differences between regularly certified and emergency-credentialed teachers wasuncertain because some emergency-credentialed teachers had degrees in education,while others had no education background. Apparent contradictions about the valueof lengthy subject matter preparation might be explained by differences in what ismeant by a subject matter “major” or by variations in course quality.

Research would be improved by basing studies on features of teacher preparationthat are less ambiguous and more likely to be related to what teachers actually learn.Some ways of describing program content and quality do exist and can be more widelyused. For example, the frameworks and survey tools used to describe mathematicsand science content in the Third International Study of Science and Mathematics mightbe adapted for these purposes. But it will also be necessary to map the domain bystudying teacher preparation curriculum materials and practices at a variety ofinstitutions. To avoid constraining research to current practice, some comparison toforward-looking views of what teachers need to know will also be needed. Wheneverpossible, researchers should use similar instruments to facilitate comparisons acrosssettings.

√ Programs of research must include or facilitate comparisons among plausiblealternatives.

As we noted, research around each focal question is limited because it describeswhat prospective teachers have learned in a particular course or program but doesnot address the question of how their learning would have been different under othercircumstances. Since the policy or program decision is usually a choice betweendifferent ways of preparing teachers, not a choice of whether to prepare them or not,comparative work is necessary and possible.

Some comparisons might examine teacher preparation components or programsalready in use. Design of these comparisons could build on prior studies of multipleprograms, making modifications to strengthen them where needed. The TeacherEducation and Learning to Teach study,148 for example, which was the basis for somestudies included in this review,149 described the features of several teacher preparationprograms and tracked what students in the programs learned. While this study was

148 Described in Kennedy, 1998.149 For example, Ball, 1990a, b; McDiarmid & Wilson, 1991; and Stoddart, 1990.

32

intended to describe a broad range of program types, further research should comparethe effects of teacher preparation that uses competing approaches with roughlycomparable student bodies. The recent studies published by the American Associationof Colleges of Teacher Education150 should also be reviewed to see what inferencestheir designs support and how those designs might be extended in new research.

Other comparisons could set up “design experiments” by creating new programelements, perhaps using promising practices described in interpretive studies of singleprograms or instructors, and then carry out disciplined inquiry on those new programelements. For example, given prospective elementary teachers’ inadequate subjectmatter knowledge for mathematics teaching, university faculty in mathematics andmathematics education might collaboratively design new rigorous subject mattercourses meant to prepare new teachers. Simultaneously, researchers could investigatethe impact of those courses on teachers’ knowledge and behavior, looking for changeslikely to improve student achievement.

√ Research that seeks general conclusions across programs must inform researchthat looks closely at particular contexts, and vice versa.

Studies that use national samples have yielded findings that give informationabout teacher preparation across the country, but sometimes these studies use suchgeneral questions that the results are hard to interpret. Among studies of policies, forexample, we cite one that showed a negative connection between teachers’ testperformance and the proportion of institutional expenditures on teacher preparation.151

The finding is of interest because it describes a generalization across many institutions,but the connection between institutional variables and the quality of teacherpreparation is unclear. Without additional questions about how funds are spent, sucha study gives little guidance to an institution that wishes to improve its teacherpreparation. In-depth studies of how a few institutions allocate resources to teacherpreparation would be a promising basis for designing additional questions, whichcould then be used in further broad surveys.

Studies of the local effects of particular courses and programs provide ideasabout ways to give teachers important knowledge and skills but leave questions abouthow similar approaches would work in other contexts. The value of these studiescould be enhanced if their collection of information included variables found inimportant broad-scale studies.

What is needed, then, is interplay between studies that have samples chosen tosupport broad generalization and studies that take a close look at particular cases.The case material can help in identifying promising variables to be included in broadsurveys. The surveys can aid in locating and interpreting results in particular cases.

√ Design and reporting of research on teacher preparation must be explicitabout connections to improving student achievement.

Research on teacher preparation, like other education research, should contributeto our understanding of how to improve student achievement. Most teacherpreparation research makes a contribution by identifying the features of teacherpreparation that improve the quality of those being prepared. To help practitionersand policymakers see the contributions of the research, reports should make theconnections to student achievement explicit, using measures of teacher know-ledge, skill, and practice that are thought important for effective teaching. Becausethe effects of teacher preparation on student achievement are distant in time andcomplicated by other intervening events, it is seldom practical to gather student

150 Darling-Hammond, 2000b, 2000c, and 2000d.151 Wenglinsky, 2000.

33

achievement data as part of teacher preparation research. But improving studentachievement remains the ultimate goal. From the design of studies to the interpretationand reporting of results, that connection should be obvious.

√ Research should include explicit attention to teacher outcomes that areparticularly important for teaching in urban and poor rural settings.

Very little research has paid careful attention to the question of preparing teachersto teach in urban and poor rural areas. The extant research on alternative certificationsuggests that a more diverse teaching force is appearing in those schools, but it istroubling to find that less qualified teachers (for example, out-of-field teachers or, inthe case of one analysis, teachers without a BA) are also teaching in those schools. Weneed to know much more about how to prepare teachers for those schools and how tocreate policies that ensure that those children get highly qualified teachers. In thebest of all possible worlds, research would include design features that shed light onthe challenges of preparing teachers to teach diverse student populations, includingthose in urban and poor rural settings.

√ We need research designs and analytic methods that control or test for otherimportant variables.

Research that attempts to examine the relationships between studentachievement and teacher preparation must be designed for and sensitive to the factorsthat make that relationship tenuous at best. For example, if less prepared teachers aremore likely to be in low-performing schools, we do not know whether the school’sperformance is due to the teachers’ lack of preparation or whether the low performanceof the school made it difficult to attract well-prepared teachers. Or the effects of aparticular aspect of teacher preparation may depend on characteristics of the teacherpreparation students, including those students’ ideas about what they need to learn.152

Researchers are developing data analytic techniques and models that can be used tocontrol for many variables. Future research should strive to conceptualize and usedesigns that enable more refined analyses, as well as more complex and rigorousanalytic techniques.

√ Research on teacher preparation ought to include longitudinal studies ofteacher learning and systemically examine the continuum of teacher learningexperiences from initial preparation to induction to professional development.

Although this review focused on initial teacher preparation, contemporarywisdom suggests that learning to teach is best considered as a continuum. Learningto teach begins with one’s undergraduate coursework (in academic disciplines andeducation), extends into formal teacher preparation and then into induction programsdesigned to support new teachers as they enter the profession, and, finally, is linkedto high quality professional development opportunities. Assessing the impact ofteacher preparation programs ought to include designs that examine impactlongitudinally. Further, some future research ought to link research on teacherpreparation with teacher induction with professional development.

152 Older students who have already raised large families, for example, may benefit relatively little from courses on classroommanagement because they already feel competent in handling children.

34

Domains of Future Research in Teacher Preparation

Building on the existing base of rigorous research, new research programs need to bepursued in the following domains:

Domain 1: The subject matter preparation of teachers. Here, we especially needresearch that attends to the content and quality of that preparation and to thedifferences across subject areas and grade levels.

Research has shown that subject matter preparation is important and that thecurrent results of subject matter preparation are disappointing. Inconsistencies inspecific results need to be resolved through further study, which must give greaterattention to the nature of content and quality. What constitutes quality probably variesby subject area, and we know more about some subject areas than others. The onestudy that contrasted mathematics and science teacher preparation reminds us thatcurricular areas are quite different. Both social studies and science are curriculardomains that include multiple disciplines. Research is needed that is designed totease out similarities and differences in the subject matter preparation of beginningteachers and its effects on teachers’ practice, knowledge, and skills. Similarly, forteachers who will be responsible for multiple subjects (as in the elementary grades),we need to know much more about what constitutes adequate subject matterpreparation. Such work could be done in collaboration with subject matter experts inthe disciplines.

Domain 2: The contribution of particular components of teacher education, by themselvesor in interaction with one another, to prospective teachers’ knowledge and competence.Exploring the relative contributions of education method and educationfoundation courses on prospective teachers is especially important.

Methods and foundations courses are the perennial targets of criticism, thoughthe criticisms have as little solid empirical basis as the defenses of such programcomponents. Some of the debate around alternate routes—vaguely defined as theyare—may be seen as differences of opinion about the value of education coursework.Research is needed both to describe the variety of experiences that go under theserubrics and to understand their effects on prospective teachers, alongside and ininteraction with other components such as clinical experience and subject matterpreparation. Further research in this vein might benefit from longitudinal designsthat can assess how what is learned in methods or foundations courses figures intoteachers’ development over the long term.

Domain 3: The design and organization of clinical experience, and its relation to thelarger set of connections between K-12 schools and teacher preparation programs.

K-12 teachers have always played a major role in teacher preparation fieldexperiences. A major rationale for creation of professional development schools hasbeen improved sites for field experience of prospective teachers. Research is neededto look at the range of ways schools and colleges collaborate in the context of teachereducation, through PDSs or other means, with special attention to how thesecollaborations affect field experiences or other aspects of teacher preparation.

Domain 4: The design, implementation, and relative payoff of different forms of alternateroutes.

The research to date on alternative routes has taken us only part way towardunderstanding the potential of the many kinds of “alternative” preparation forteaching. The proliferation of such programs at the present time offers a natural

35

“laboratory” for rigorous comparative research, following the design principlesoutlined above. Such research can help to establish clearly which forms of alternativeroute preparation offer a high-quality learning experience for prospective teachers.

Domain 5: The effects of policies designed to influence teacher preparation. We need abetter understanding of how teacher education institutions interpret and respondto these policies, and the resulting effect on program components and whatprospective teachers learn in them.

State and national policymakers are becoming more prescriptive about whatshould go on in teacher preparation and how teacher preparation programs shouldbe held accountable. Research is needed to see what effects these policies are havingon the quality of teacher preparation and what factors influence the ways in whichthe policies are implemented. Policies originating at different levels (federal, state,institution) need to be studied to understand how they interact with one another andcumulatively influence what is going on in teacher preparation.

Investment Opportunities

To move forward in answering the key questions about teacher preparation, researchersand those who fund research should think strategically about where to invest availableresources, both human and financial. Based on our review, we suggest the followingprinciples for strategic investments in research on teacher preparation.

√ Take advantage of current teacher educator-researcher interest in self-studyby supporting multi-site research initiatives on particular promising programcomponents.

We found many small studies of local teacher education practice. Currently,these studies offer ideas but are not easily aggregated to support general conclusionsabout the effects of teacher preparation practices. If the effort put into these localstudies could be organized around a shared focus, with a common framework forcollection of information about program, context, and outcomes, the results of manylocal studies could be analyzed to give a clearer understanding of how programsmight be improved. Funding agencies could promote such coordinated local studiesby offering support for a research team to organize the studies, carry out analyses,and provide some funding to support data collection at individual program sites.This strategy would be a way to channel some of the current enthusiasm teachereducators have for self-study into work that will shed much needed light on the natureand content of high quality teacher preparation.153

√ Build on other research and policy initiatives to make substantial, sustainedinvestments on focused areas of teacher preparation.

Literacy, mathematics, and science education are areas of great current nationalinterest. The National Science Foundation has funded large Collaboratives forExcellence in Teacher Preparation, as well as projects to improve science andmathematics teaching and curriculum throughout higher education. Several stateshave mandated coursework on reading instruction, even though the report of theNational Reading Panel found less than a handful of studies on the effectiveness ofteacher education approaches for the teaching of reading.

153 “Self Study of Teacher Education Practices” is one of the largest special interest groups in the American Educational ResearchAssociation.

36

That interest in teaching reading, mathematics, and science might providesupport for interagency funding of research on teacher preparation, focused on subjectmatter and pedagogical preparation for those subject areas. This is a current trend inresearch funding, and one that is particularly appropriate for future teacher preparationresearch.

√ Help build capacity in the research community to enable a few large-scalestudies to provide a broader and more detailed picture of current teacherpreparation practices.

Most of the studies we reviewed were small and local. The work that usedsurvey data often had to make do with surveys designed for other purposes, whichincluded little detail on the content and structure of teacher preparation. Havingmore detailed national data would greatly increase the potential of studies that attemptto connect features of teacher preparation with outcome data such as scores on teacherexaminations. Researchers need help in recognizing that resources are available forsuch work.

√ Encourage and invest in studies that will build understanding of theconditions under which teacher education accountability can lead to thegreatest increases in teacher quality.

The recent changes in the Higher Education Act have called on teacherpreparation institutions to be more accountable for the performance of their graduates.The revised system of national accreditation has a similar focus on outcomes. Thesechanges reflect acute national interest in accountability and provide both anopportunity to study the responses of teacher preparation institutions and the effectson entrance into teaching, as well as retention. The state-to-state variations in teachereducation policy could be treated as a set of natural experiments, and studying themcould shed light on the sets of conditions under which accountability mechanismslead to increasing program quality and content, rather than simply creating superficialcompliance.

As we mentioned at the start, there is no shortage of opinions about what ittakes to prepare a high-quality teaching workforce. This review of the literature,however, suggests that the research upon which those opinions are based is limited.However, the studies that do exist—across multiple research traditions—areheartening, for they demonstrate that rigorous research on teacher preparation ispossible. In fact, the potential of research to lead the ongoing reform and improvementof teacher education in the United States is enormous. By building on what we knowand by conducting rigorous studies of important questions, the research communitycan do its part to ensure that a well-qualified teacher is available for every child, inevery classroom.

37

APPENDIX A

Elaboration of Criteria for Rigorous Research

As noted in the text of our report, with the advice of our Technical Working Group,we developed guidelines for selecting the reports of research to include in thissummary. We included only studies with findings pertinent to the five study questionsthat were empirical, rigorous, published within the past two decades, and in the UnitedStates.

In our decision about whether a study was rigorous, we divided studiesaccording to their general methodology and developed criteria for each type:154

√ For experimental and quasi-experimental studies, they must have usedrandom assignment to group or some form of matching for enteringcharacteristics.

√ For multiple regression studies, the studies would have to have“controlled” for relevant differences among students, other than theteacher education they received.

√ For follow-up surveys, we only included studies that sent surveys toa representative sample of alumni and had a return rate of at least 60percent. For these studies, we restricted inferences to alumniperceptions, not allowing inferences about the effects of programs onother beliefs and knowledge.

√ For comparisons of credentialed and non-credentialed teachers, wetreated them like multiple regression studies, only including studiesthat controlled for relevant differences among the two groups, otherthan the characteristic of being credentialed.

√ For longitudinal studies of change, we only included studies thatchecked for effects of attrition. We also limited attention to studiesthat offered evidence that the changes were not simply due tomaturation and teaching experience.

√ For “interpretive” studies, we limited our attention to reports thatincluded a description of their processes for data collection andanalysis and that included evidence, such as samples of interviewresponses or detailed descriptions of events, as part of the report.155

154 Our categories build on those described by Kennedy, 1999.155 By “interpretive” studies, we mean those that try to understand educational experiences from the perspectives of those involved,

usually by some mixture of in-depth interview and relatively unstructured observation. An informative treatment of the methodsfor such studies is Frederick Erickson, “Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching” (in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd.ed., edited by Merle C. Wittrock, pp. 119-61. New York: Macmillan, 1986).

38

39

Dar

ling-

Ham

mon

d (2

000)

Teac

her

Qua

lity

And

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t: A

Rev

iew

Of S

tate

Pol

icy

Evi

denc

e.

Edu

catio

n P

olic

y A

naly

sis

Arc

hive

s

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion

and

part

ial

corr

elat

ions

)

1993

-94

Sch

ool a

nd S

taffi

ng S

urve

y(S

AS

S)

65,0

00 te

ache

rs

Dat

a on

NC

AT

E c

ertif

icat

ion

colle

cted

from

50

stat

es

Sta

te a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

mat

h-em

atic

s: g

rade

4 in

199

0, 1

996;

gra

de8

1992

, 199

6

Sta

te a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

d-in

g: g

rade

4 in

199

2, 1

994

Sta

te is

uni

t of a

naly

sis.

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

ding

and

mat

hem

atic

s w

aspo

sitiv

ely

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e st

ate’

s pe

rcen

tage

of w

ell-q

ualif

ied

teac

hers

(fu

ll ce

rtifi

catio

n an

d m

ajor

in th

eir

field

).

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

ding

and

mat

hem

atic

s w

asne

gativ

ely

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e st

ate’

s pe

rcen

tage

of t

each

ers

out o

ffie

ld (

less

than

a m

inor

in th

e fie

ld th

ey te

ach)

.

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

ding

and

mat

hem

atic

s w

aspo

sitiv

ely

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e st

ate’

s pe

rcen

tage

of f

ully

cer

tifie

dte

ache

rs.

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

ding

and

mat

hem

atic

s w

asne

gativ

ely

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

ree

indi

cato

rs o

f the

sta

te’s

per

cent

age

ofle

ss th

an fu

lly c

ertif

ied

teac

hers

: %

of a

ll te

ache

rs le

ss th

an fu

llyce

rtifi

ed, %

of n

ew e

ntra

nts

to te

achi

ng w

ho a

re u

ncer

tifie

d (e

xclu

ding

tran

sfer

s), %

of a

ll ne

wly

hire

d te

ache

rs u

ncer

tifie

d.

The

per

cent

age

of te

ache

rs w

ith b

oth

a m

ajor

and

full

cert

ifica

tion

inth

eir

field

was

pos

itive

ly c

orre

late

d w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

each

ered

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns in

a s

tate

that

are

NC

AT

E a

ccre

dite

d.

Fer

guso

n an

d W

omac

k (1

993)

The

Impa

ct o

f Sub

ject

Mat

ter

and

Edu

catio

n C

ours

ewor

k on

Tea

chin

gP

erfo

rman

ce

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(AN

OV

A a

nd s

tepw

ise

regr

es-

sion

)

266

seco

ndar

y st

uden

t tea

cher

s at

Ark

ansa

s Te

ch U

nive

rsity

.

Gra

des

from

sev

en e

duca

tion

cour

ses,

GP

A in

the

maj

or, N

TE

Spe

cial

tysc

ores

, and

rat

ings

from

bot

h su

bjec

tm

atte

r sp

ecia

lists

and

edu

catio

nsu

perv

isor

s on

a L

iker

t sca

le o

bser

va-

tion

inst

rum

ent f

or te

achi

ng p

erfo

r-m

ance

Edu

catio

n co

urse

wor

k ac

coun

ted

for

48%

of t

he v

aria

nce

in te

achi

ngpe

rfor

man

ce w

hen

teac

hing

per

form

ance

was

rat

ed b

y ed

ucat

ion

supe

rvis

ors

and

39%

whe

n pe

rfor

man

ce w

as r

ated

by

subj

ect m

atte

rsu

perv

isor

s.

Sub

ject

mat

ter

maj

or a

nd N

TE

exp

lain

ed a

con

side

rabl

y lo

wer

pro

por-

tion

of th

e va

rianc

e (1

% a

nd 9

% r

espe

ctiv

ely)

for

the

outc

ome

varia

ble

as r

ated

by

subj

ect m

atte

r sp

ecia

lists

and

by

educ

atio

n su

perv

isor

s.

Not

e: T

he m

odel

s do

not

incl

ude

com

para

ble

deta

il ab

out p

erfo

rman

cein

sub

ject

mat

ter

cour

ses.

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

Qu

esti

on

1, P

art

1: R

esea

rch

on

Su

bje

ct M

atte

r P

rep

arat

ion

AP

PE

ND

IX B

Gol

dhab

er a

nd B

rew

er (

2000

)

Doe

s Te

ache

r C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

ter?

Hig

h S

choo

l Tea

cher

Cer

tific

atio

nS

tatu

s an

d S

tude

nt A

chie

vem

ent

Edu

catio

nal E

valu

atio

n an

d P

olic

yA

naly

sis

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion)

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

nal L

ongi

tudi

nal

Sur

vey

1988

3,78

6 st

uden

ts in

mat

hem

atic

s

2,52

4 st

uden

ts in

sci

ence

2,09

8 m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

1,37

1 sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

10th

and

12t

h gr

ade

stan

dard

ized

test

scor

es in

mat

hem

atic

s an

d sc

ienc

e is

the

outc

ome

varia

ble.

Inde

pend

ent v

aria

bles

are

gro

uped

into

:

• in

divi

dual

and

fam

ily b

ackg

roun

dch

arac

teris

tics

of s

tude

nts

• sc

hool

ing

reso

urce

s, w

hich

incl

ude

scho

ol, t

each

er, a

nd c

lass

spe

cific

varia

bles

.

Teac

her

varia

bles

incl

ude

type

of

cert

ifica

tion

(sta

ndar

d su

bjec

t, pr

oba-

tiona

ry s

ubje

ct, p

rivat

e sc

hool

, non

e),

degr

ee le

vel,

and

expe

rienc

e.

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

old

stan

dard

cer

tific

atio

n or

priv

ate

scho

ol c

ertif

icat

ion

in th

eir

subj

ect h

ave

12th

gra

de m

ath

test

s w

ithsc

ores

bet

wee

n 7

to 1

0 po

ints

hig

her

than

stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

with

prob

atio

nary

or

emer

genc

y ce

rtifi

catio

n, o

r w

ho a

re n

ot c

ertif

ied.

Sim

ilar

resu

lts w

ere

foun

d fo

r st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t on

a 10

th g

rade

mat

hem

atic

s te

st.

The

res

ults

wer

e si

mila

r fo

r sc

ienc

e, b

ut a

re le

ss p

rono

unce

d.

Stu

dent

s fr

om lo

wer

SE

S b

ackg

roun

ds te

nd to

get

teac

hers

who

hav

eem

erge

ncy

or p

roba

tiona

ry c

rede

ntia

ls, o

r no

cer

tific

atio

n. T

hus,

stud

ents

are

not

ran

dom

ly d

istr

ibut

ed a

cros

s te

ache

rs b

y ty

pe o

fce

rtifi

catio

n.

Stu

dent

s w

ho d

o po

orly

in 1

0th

grad

e ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

assi

gned

to a

teac

her

who

doe

s no

t hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

in m

athe

mat

ics

in 1

2th

grad

e.

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

ad d

egre

es in

mat

hem

atic

s w

are

foun

dto

hav

e hi

gher

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

teac

hers

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

In s

cien

ce, t

here

was

no

effe

ct.

Mat

h st

uden

ts w

ith te

ache

rs w

ith b

ache

lor’s

or

mas

ter’s

deg

rees

inm

athe

mat

ics

have

hig

her

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

The

re is

no

sign

ifica

nt r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

teac

her

subj

ect m

atte

rm

ajor

and

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t in

scie

nce.

Hav

ing

a de

gree

in e

duca

tion

had

no im

pact

on

stud

ent s

cien

cesc

ores

, but

a B

A in

edu

catio

n ha

d a

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n m

athe

mat

ics

achi

evem

ent.

Stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

who

hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

or e

mer

genc

yce

rtifi

catio

n ha

ve h

ighe

r m

ath

scor

es th

an s

tude

nts

who

se te

ache

rsha

ve p

rivat

e sc

hool

cer

tific

atio

n or

no

cert

ifica

tion.

The

effe

cts

are

not

as s

tron

g in

sci

ence

, but

follo

w th

e sa

me

tren

ds.

Guy

ton

and

Far

okhi

(19

87)

Rel

atio

nshi

ps A

mon

g A

cade

mic

Per

form

ance

, Bas

ic S

kills

, Sub

ject

Mat

ter

Kno

wle

dge,

and

Tea

chin

gS

kills

of T

each

er E

duca

tion

Gra

du-

ates

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Cor

rela

tiona

l res

earc

h

Gra

duat

es fr

om G

eorg

ia S

tate

Uni

vers

ity b

etw

een

1981

and

198

4

Sam

ple

rang

ed fr

om 1

51 to

411

,de

pend

ing

on a

vaila

bilit

y of

dat

a.

413

teac

hers

with

sta

tew

ide

Teac

her

Cer

tific

atio

n Te

st s

core

s (s

ubje

ctm

atte

r kn

owle

dge)

273

with

Tea

cher

Per

form

ance

GP

A w

as s

igni

fican

tly c

orre

late

d w

ith te

achi

ng s

ucce

ss a

s m

easu

red

on th

e Te

ache

r P

erfo

rman

ce A

sses

smen

t inv

ento

ry, a

mea

sure

of o

n-th

e-jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce u

sed

with

beg

inni

ng te

ache

rs in

Geo

rgia

.

Bot

h so

phom

ore

and

uppe

r le

vel G

PA

s al

so c

orre

late

d si

gnifi

cant

lyw

ith T

each

er

Cer

tific

atio

n Te

st s

core

s, a

s di

d su

bjec

t mat

ter

know

ledg

e as

mea

-su

red

by th

e R

egen

ts T

ests

of b

asic

ski

lls.

Bas

ic s

kill

abili

ty is

cor

rela

ted

with

sub

ject

mat

ter

know

ledg

e bu

t not

rela

ted

to o

n-th

e-jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce.

GP

A a

t sop

hom

ore

year

and

upo

ngr

adua

tion

wer

e bo

th p

ositi

vely

cor

rela

ted

with

teac

hing

per

form

ance

,

40

Ass

essm

ent I

nven

tory

sco

res

GP

A (

soph

omor

e an

d up

per

leve

l)

Geo

rgia

Reg

ents

Tes

t sco

res

(bas

icsk

ills)

alth

ough

the

corr

elat

ion

was

str

onge

r up

on g

radu

atio

n. T

he g

rade

s in

educ

atio

n co

urse

s th

at c

ontr

ibut

e to

GP

A a

t gra

duat

ion

(and

, alth

ough

not n

oted

by

the

auth

ors,

pos

sibl

y gr

ades

in u

pper

leve

l cou

rses

insu

bjec

t mat

ter)

wer

e a

stro

nger

pre

dict

or o

f suc

cess

on-

the-

job

than

grad

es in

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge

cour

ses

as m

easu

red

in s

opho

mor

eG

PA

.

The

Tea

cher

Cer

tific

atio

n (s

ubje

ct m

atte

r) te

st w

as n

ot c

orre

late

d w

ithte

ache

r pe

rfor

man

ce a

s m

easu

red

on th

e G

eorg

ia T

each

er P

erfo

r-m

ance

Ass

essm

ent I

nstr

umen

t, su

gges

ting

that

one

can

not s

impl

y do

wel

l as

a te

ache

r w

ith o

nly

subj

ect m

atte

r kn

owle

dge.

Not

e: A

dditi

onal

info

rmat

ion

abou

t GS

U p

rogr

am r

equi

rem

ents

wou

ldbe

nec

essa

ry to

fully

inte

rpre

t the

diff

eren

ces

in r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

soph

omor

e an

d up

per

leve

l GP

As

and

the

mea

sure

s of

teac

hing

perf

orm

ance

.

Haw

k, C

oble

and

Sw

anso

n (1

985)

Cer

tific

atio

n: It

Doe

s M

atte

r

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive/

quas

i-exp

erim

enta

l stu

dy(A

NO

VA

, t-t

ests

)

Gra

duat

es o

f Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

36 m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

of g

rade

s 6–

12 w

ere

follo

wed

in th

e st

udy.

All

wer

ece

rtifi

ed. 1

8 te

ache

rs w

ere

in-f

ield

and

18 w

ere

teac

hing

out

-of-

field

.

826

stud

ents

Teac

hers

mat

ched

on

scho

ol, t

each

ing

the

sam

e m

athe

mat

ics

cour

se, t

ost

uden

ts o

f sam

e ab

ility

Stu

dent

s te

sts:

Sta

nfor

d A

chie

vem

ent

Test

(ge

nera

l mat

h) a

nd S

tanf

ord

Test

of A

cade

mic

Ski

lls (

alge

bra)

Test

s of

arit

hmet

ic a

nd e

lem

enta

ryal

gebr

a w

ere

adm

inis

tere

d to

teac

hers

.

Teac

hing

per

form

ance

was

mea

sure

dby

the

CT

PA

S.

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

appa

rent

from

the

post

-tes

t in

gene

ral

mat

hem

atic

s an

d al

gebr

a. S

tude

nts

who

had

in-f

ield

teac

hers

sco

red

high

er.

In-f

ield

teac

hers

sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

on th

e C

TP

AS

and

the

know

ledg

e te

st.

Chi

-squ

are

anal

ysis

yie

lded

no

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

sdu

e to

yea

rs o

f tea

chin

g or

deg

ree

held

by

teac

hers

in th

e st

udy.

41

Sur

vey

rese

arch

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

n st

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion)

Long

itudi

nal S

tudy

of A

mer

ican

You

th

51 r

ando

mly

sel

ecte

d sc

hool

site

s;ba

se s

ampl

e of

2,8

29 s

tude

nts;

sele

cted

loca

litie

s na

tionw

ide

608

mat

hem

atic

s te

ache

rs, 4

83sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

Sam

plin

g ru

bric

incl

uded

geo

grap

hic

loca

l and

com

mun

ity ty

pe (

rura

l,su

burb

an, u

rban

).

Teac

her

surv

ey a

bout

num

ber

ofun

derg

radu

ate

and

grad

uate

cou

rses

in v

ario

us c

urric

ular

are

as

Stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t mea

sure

d by

sele

cted

NA

EP

item

s (1

,492

stu

dent

s)at

bot

h 10

th a

nd 1

1th

grad

es

Fou

nd p

ositi

ve r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n th

e nu

mbe

r of

und

ergr

adua

tem

athe

mat

ics

subj

ect m

atte

r co

urse

s in

a te

ache

r’s b

ackg

roun

d an

dim

prov

emen

t in

stud

ents

’ mat

hem

atic

s pe

rfor

man

ce, f

or b

oth

soph

o-m

ores

and

juni

ors.

For

sop

hom

ores

, tea

cher

cou

rse-

taki

ng a

t the

gra

duat

e le

vel i

nm

athe

mat

ics

also

has

a p

ositi

ve e

ffect

on

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent.

Afte

r fiv

e m

athe

mat

ics

cour

ses,

the

addi

tion

of c

ours

es in

mat

hem

at-

ics

has

a sm

alle

r ef

fect

on

pupi

l per

form

ance

.

Mat

hem

atic

s ed

ucat

ion

cour

ses:

Und

ergr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k is

posi

tivel

y re

late

d to

impr

ovem

ent i

n m

athe

mat

ics

for

soph

omor

es a

ndju

nior

s. G

radu

ate

mat

hem

atic

s ed

ucat

ion

cour

ses

have

a m

odes

tpo

sitiv

e ef

fect

at t

he ju

nior

leve

l. C

ours

es in

und

ergr

adua

te m

athe

mat

-ic

s pe

dago

gy c

ontr

ibut

e m

ore

to s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce g

ains

than

do

unde

rgra

duat

e m

athe

mat

ics

cour

ses.

Hav

ing

mat

hem

atic

s m

ajor

has

no

appa

rent

bea

ring

in p

upil

perf

or-

man

ce.

Teac

hers

’ deg

ree

leve

l has

qui

te a

diff

eren

t effe

ct c

ompa

red

to c

ours

e-ta

king

var

iabl

es; t

here

is e

ither

a z

ero

or n

egat

ive

rela

tions

hip

be-

twee

n ad

ditio

nal t

rain

ing

and

stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce.

The

num

ber

of m

athe

mat

ics

cour

ses

in a

teac

her’s

bac

kgro

und

has

apo

sitiv

e ef

fect

on

stud

ents

in a

dvan

ced

cour

ses

and

a ze

ro e

ffect

on

stud

ents

in r

emed

ial c

ours

es.

Teac

her

unde

rgra

duat

e pr

epar

atio

n in

the

life

scie

nces

has

no

dis-

cern

ible

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t per

form

ance

.

Pos

itive

rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ere

foun

d be

twee

n un

derg

radu

ate

cour

sew

ork

in p

hysi

cal s

cien

ces

and

gain

s in

pup

il pe

rfor

man

ce, f

or b

oth

soph

o-m

ores

and

juni

ors.

The

re w

as a

pos

itive

rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n ju

nior

gai

ns in

ach

ieve

men

tan

d gr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k in

life

sci

ence

s.

Gra

duat

e co

urse

s in

sci

ence

ped

agog

y w

ere

posi

tivel

y re

late

d to

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent f

or s

opho

mor

es.

Und

ergr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k in

scie

nce

peda

gogy

had

a p

ositi

ve r

elat

ions

hip

with

stu

dent

ach

ieve

-m

ent f

or ju

nior

s. T

he m

agni

tude

s of

the

rela

tions

hips

in s

cien

cebe

twee

n co

urse

taki

ng a

nd s

tude

nt g

ains

wer

e qu

ite s

mal

l.

Hav

ing

a sc

ienc

e m

ajor

was

pos

itive

ly r

elat

ed to

stu

dent

gai

ns fo

rju

nior

s.

Adv

ance

d te

ache

r tr

aini

ng w

as e

ither

not

rel

ated

or

nega

tivel

y re

late

dto

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t for

sci

ence

and

mat

hem

atic

s fo

r so

phom

ores

.

The

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

unde

rgra

duat

e co

urse

-tak

ing

in th

e ph

ysic

al

Mon

k (1

994)

Sub

ject

Are

a P

repa

ratio

n of

Sec

onda

ry M

athe

mat

ics

and

Sci

ence

Tea

cher

s an

d S

tude

ntA

chie

vem

ent

Eco

nom

ics

of E

duca

tion

Rev

iew

42

Row

an, C

hian

g, a

nd M

iller

(19

97)

Usi

ng R

esea

rch

on E

mpl

oyee

’sP

erfo

rman

ce to

Stu

dy th

e E

ffect

sof

Tea

cher

s on

Stu

dent

s’ A

chie

ve-

men

t

Soc

iolo

gy o

f Edu

catio

n

Cor

rela

tiona

l res

earc

h (c

orre

latio

n,re

gres

sion

, hie

rarc

hica

l lin

ear

mod

el-

ing)

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n Lo

ngitu

dina

l Stu

dyof

198

8 (N

ELS

:88)

5,38

1 st

uden

ts in

410

sch

ools

Var

iabl

es fo

r st

uden

ts: N

ELS

10t

hgr

ade

mat

h te

st, c

ours

e ta

king

and

trac

k, o

ther

bac

kgro

und

Var

iabl

es fo

r te

ache

rs: s

core

on

NE

LSm

ath

quiz

, maj

or in

mat

hem

atic

s,em

phas

is o

n te

achi

ng fo

r hi

gher

ord

erth

inki

ng, m

otiv

atio

n

Oth

er s

choo

l var

iabl

es

Stu

dent

s w

ho w

ere

taug

ht b

y te

ache

rs w

ho h

ad m

ajor

ed in

mat

hem

at-

ics

had

high

er le

vels

of a

chie

vem

ent i

n m

athe

mat

ics.

The

effe

ct s

ize

was

qui

te s

mal

l (.0

15S

D).

scie

nces

and

the

subj

ect t

augh

t is

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant b

oth

for

soph

omor

es a

nd ju

nior

s, w

ith th

e ph

ysic

al s

cien

ces

sign

bei

ng p

osi-

tive

for

pupi

l’s p

erfo

rman

ce in

the

life

scie

nces

.

43

Qu

esti

on

1, P

art

2: R

esea

rch

on

th

e Ty

pic

al S

ub

ject

Mat

ter

Kn

ow

led

ge

of

Beg

inn

ing

Tea

cher

s

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

Ada

ms

(199

8)

Pro

spec

tive

Ele

men

tary

Tea

cher

s’M

athe

mat

ics

Sub

ject

Mat

ter

Kno

wle

dge:

The

Rea

l Num

ber

Sys

tem

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

and

surv

ey r

esea

rch

93 p

rosp

ectiv

e el

emen

tary

teac

hers

inel

emen

tary

met

hods

cou

rse

in la

rge

sout

heas

tern

uni

vers

ity

Sel

f-re

port

ed b

ackg

roun

d

Ope

n en

ded

mat

hem

atic

s as

sess

-m

ents

Des

pite

hav

ing

take

n m

ultip

le c

olle

ge m

athe

mat

ics

clas

ses,

pro

spec

-tiv

e el

emen

tary

teac

hers

hav

e lim

ited

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

real

num

ber

syst

em.

Bal

l (19

90)

Pro

spec

tive

Ele

men

tary

and

Sec

onda

ry T

each

ers’

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f Div

isio

n

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

10 e

lem

enta

ry a

nd 9

sec

onda

rypr

ospe

ctiv

e te

ache

rs a

bout

to e

nrol

l in

first

edu

catio

n co

urse

Ele

men

tary

pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

maj

orin

g in

ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n;se

cond

ary

stud

ents

mat

hem

atic

sm

ajor

s or

min

ors

Dat

a fr

om s

tude

nt a

cade

mic

rec

ords

and

inte

rvie

ws

abou

t div

isio

n in

vario

us c

onte

xts

All

but t

wo

of th

e pr

ospe

ctiv

e te

ache

rs c

ould

cal

cula

te a

nsw

ers

todi

visi

on b

y fr

actio

n pr

oble

ms

corr

ectly

, but

bot

h th

e el

emen

tary

and

the

seco

ndar

y m

ajor

s ha

d si

gnifi

cant

diff

icul

ty w

ith th

e m

eani

ng o

fdi

visi

on b

y fr

actio

ns. O

nly

five

coul

d ex

plai

n th

e m

eani

ng o

f div

isio

n by

zero

. In

a q

uest

ion

abou

t alg

ebra

ic e

quat

ions

,14

of th

e st

uden

ts,

incl

udin

g al

l of t

he m

athe

mat

ics

maj

ors,

focu

sed

on th

e m

echa

nics

of

man

ipul

atin

g th

e eq

uatio

n. In

gen

eral

, mos

t of t

he p

rosp

ectiv

e te

ach-

ers—

whe

ther

they

maj

ored

in m

athe

mat

ics

or n

ot—

had

frag

men

ted

and

rule

-bou

nd m

athe

mat

ical

und

erst

andi

ng.

Bal

l (19

90)

The

Mat

hem

atic

al U

nder

stan

ding

sth

at P

rosp

ectiv

e Te

ache

rs B

ring

toTe

ache

r E

duca

tion

Ele

men

tary

Sch

ool J

ourn

al

Sur

vey,

inte

rpre

tive,

and

long

itudi

nal

stud

y

252

pres

ervi

ce te

ache

rs a

t 5 in

stitu

-tio

ns (

217

elem

enta

ry, 3

5 m

ath

maj

ors

inte

ndin

g to

teac

h hi

gh s

choo

l), fr

omth

e Te

ache

r E

duca

tion

and

Lear

ning

toTe

ach

Stu

dy (

TE

LT)

Que

stio

nnai

res

with

all

inte

rvie

ws

with

a su

b sa

mpl

e

Ele

men

tary

and

sec

onda

ry (

mat

hem

atic

s m

ajor

s) p

rosp

ectiv

e te

ach-

ers

had

diffi

culty

exp

lain

ing

and

artic

ulat

ing

thei

r kn

owle

dge

of d

ivis

ion

of fr

actio

ns.

Onl

y 30

% o

f ele

men

tary

and

40%

of s

econ

dary

sel

ecte

dan

app

ropr

iate

rep

rese

ntat

ion

of a

div

isio

n by

frac

tions

pro

blem

. O

ver

30%

of t

he s

econ

dary

pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at m

ost m

ath-

emat

ics

cann

ot b

e ex

plai

ned.

Mos

t ele

men

tary

and

pro

spec

tive

seco

ndar

y te

ache

rs b

elie

ved

that

mat

hem

atic

s co

ncer

ned

mem

oriz

a-tio

n an

d un

ders

tand

ing

stan

dard

pro

cedu

res;

few

of t

hem

thou

ght t

hat

mat

hem

atic

s ha

d co

ncep

tual

dim

ensi

ons.

44

Bor

ko, E

isen

hart

, Bro

wn,

Und

erhi

ll,Jo

nes,

and

Aga

rd (

1992

)

Lear

ning

to T

each

Har

d M

athe

mat

-ic

s: D

o N

ovic

e Te

ache

rs G

ive

Up

Too

Eas

ily?

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Cas

e of

one

mid

dle

scho

ol m

athe

mat

-ic

s st

uden

t tea

cher

in th

e la

rger

data

base

of 8

teac

hers

who

par

tici-

pate

d in

the

Lear

ning

to T

each

Mat

hem

atic

s S

tudy

Obs

erva

tions

, int

ervi

ews,

obs

erva

tions

of u

nive

rsity

cou

rses

The

teac

her

belie

ved

that

goo

d m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hing

incl

uded

mak

ing

mat

hem

atic

s re

leva

nt a

nd m

eani

ngfu

l.

The

res

earc

hers

cou

ld n

ot g

et th

e te

ache

r to

spe

ak a

bout

the

divi

sion

of fr

actio

ns in

a m

eani

ngfu

l way

at t

he b

egin

ning

of h

er s

tude

ntte

achi

ng y

ear,

and

ther

e w

as li

ttle

evid

ence

that

she

had

a c

once

ptua

lun

ders

tand

ing

of d

ivis

ion

by fr

actio

ns.

Alth

ough

her

kno

wle

dge

of fr

actio

ns s

eem

ed to

dee

pen

som

e th

roug

h-ou

t her

par

ticip

atio

n in

a m

athe

mat

ics

met

hods

cou

rse,

she

stil

l cou

ldno

t pro

vide

a c

oher

ent e

xpla

natio

n co

ncer

ning

the

divi

sion

of f

rac-

tions

, eve

n af

ter

her

stud

ent t

each

ing

expe

rienc

e.

Dur

ing

her

stud

ent t

each

ing,

she

was

una

ble

to r

ealiz

e he

r im

age

ofgo

od m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hing

bec

ause

her

ow

n kn

owle

dge

of th

edi

visi

on o

f fra

ctio

ns a

nd o

f how

to r

epre

sent

the

idea

to s

tude

nts

inin

stru

ctio

n w

as li

mite

d.

The

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m w

orke

d to

rei

nfor

ce th

e te

ache

r’s

limite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of m

athe

mat

ics

and

mat

hem

atic

s te

achi

ng,

rath

er th

an q

uest

ioni

ng it

or

help

ing

the

teac

her

rein

vent

her

und

er-

stan

ding

of d

ivis

ion

of fr

actio

ns.

The

uni

vers

ity p

rogr

am d

id n

ot c

reat

eth

e co

nditi

ons

for

the

teac

her

to o

verc

ome

the

limita

tions

of h

er o

wn

know

ledg

e.

Gra

eber

, Tiro

sh, a

nd G

love

r (1

989)

Pre

serv

ice

Teac

hers

’ Mis

conc

ep-

tions

in S

olvi

ng V

erba

l Pro

blem

s in

Mul

tiplic

atio

n an

d D

ivis

ion

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

129

colle

ge s

tude

nts

enro

lled

inm

athe

mat

ics

subj

ect m

atte

r or

met

h-od

s co

urse

s fo

r ea

rly e

duca

tion

maj

ors

at a

larg

e un

iver

sity

in s

outh

east

ern

|U

. S.

Inte

rvie

ws

with

a s

ub s

ampl

e an

d a

subj

ect m

atte

r kn

owle

dge

test

(26

item

s) w

as ta

ken

by a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Of t

he p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs, 3

9% a

nsw

ered

4 o

r m

ore

of th

e 13

mul

tiplic

atio

n an

d di

visi

on p

robl

ems

inco

rrec

tly.

All

inte

rvie

wee

s he

ldva

rious

mis

conc

eptio

ns a

bout

mul

tiplic

atio

n an

d di

visi

on. P

rese

rvic

ete

ache

rs d

emon

stra

ted

the

wea

k un

ders

tand

ing

of m

ultip

licat

ion

and

divi

sion

. T

heir

know

ledg

e re

sem

bled

the

know

ledg

e of

10-

to 1

5-ye

ar-

olds

in o

ther

res

earc

h on

div

isio

n an

d m

ultip

licat

ion.

McD

iarm

id a

nd W

ilson

(19

91)

An

Exp

lora

tion

of th

e S

ubje

ctM

atte

r K

now

ledg

e of

Alte

rnat

eR

oute

Tea

cher

s: C

an W

e A

ssum

eT

hey

Kno

w T

heir

Sub

ject

?

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

and

surv

ey s

tudy

N=

55

Und

ergr

adua

te d

egre

es in

mat

hem

at-

ics,

8 in

the

inte

nsiv

e sa

mpl

e, a

ll in

two

alte

rnat

e ro

utes

Ano

ther

8 in

tens

ive

sam

ple

inte

rvie

wee

s w

ho m

ajor

ed in

som

e-th

ing

else

but

wer

e to

be

elem

enta

rysc

hool

teac

hers

Que

stio

nnai

re a

nd in

terv

iew

s

In g

ener

al, p

rosp

ectiv

e te

ache

rs d

id w

ell o

n ru

les

of th

umb

in m

ath-

emat

ics

but c

ould

not

exp

lain

how

thos

e ru

les

wor

ked

or r

epre

sent

prob

lem

s ac

cura

tely

.

45

Sim

on (

1993

)

Pro

spec

tive

Ele

men

tary

Tea

cher

s’K

now

ledg

e of

Div

isio

n

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Larg

e ea

ster

n te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

in la

rge

publ

ic s

tate

uni

vers

ity

33 p

rosp

ectiv

e el

emen

tary

sch

ool

teac

hers

for

subj

ect m

atte

r kn

owle

dge

test

(fiv

e op

en r

espo

nse

prob

lem

s)

8 te

ache

rs w

ere

then

inte

rvie

wed

as

they

wor

ked

on p

robl

ems

from

the

orig

inal

test

.

Pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

dem

onst

rate

d se

rious

sho

rtco

min

gs in

thei

run

ders

tand

ing

of d

ivis

ion

as a

mod

el fo

r si

tuat

ions

.

The

teac

hers

had

app

ropr

iate

kno

wle

dge

of s

ymbo

ls a

nd a

lgor

ithm

sas

soci

ated

with

div

isio

n. B

ut th

eir

conc

eptu

al k

now

ledg

e w

as w

eak,

and

they

kne

w li

ttle

of a

ppro

pria

te c

onne

ctio

ns b

etw

een

diffe

rent

idea

sin

div

isio

n.

Sto

ddar

t, C

onne

ll, S

toffl

ett,

and

Pec

k (1

993)

Rec

onst

ruct

ing

Ele

men

tary

Tea

ch-

ers

Can

dida

tes’

Und

erst

andi

ng o

fM

athe

mat

ics

and

Sci

ence

Con

tent

Teac

hers

and

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Two

para

llel i

nter

pret

ive

stud

ies,

one

with

ele

men

tary

pro

spec

tive

mat

h-em

atic

s te

ache

rs, o

ne w

ith e

lem

enta

rypr

ospe

ctiv

e sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

Med

ium

siz

e un

iver

sity

in th

e w

este

rnU

.S.

83 p

rosp

ectiv

e el

emen

tary

mat

hem

at-

ics

teac

hers

49 p

rosp

ectiv

e el

emen

tary

sci

ence

teac

hers

Pap

er a

nd p

enci

l sub

ject

mat

ter

test

sad

min

iste

red

on e

ntry

to th

e el

emen

-ta

ry e

duca

tion

met

hods

cla

sses

Fut

ure

teac

hers

had

lim

ited

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

mat

hem

atic

s su

bjec

tm

atte

r th

ey w

ould

hav

e to

teac

h. T

he m

ajor

ity c

ould

ans

wer

sim

ple

com

puta

tiona

l pro

blem

s. O

nly

half

coul

d co

rrec

tly s

olve

sto

ry p

rob-

lem

s or

pro

blem

s th

at in

volv

ed th

e m

ultip

licat

ion,

div

isio

n, a

nd e

quiv

a-le

ncy

of fr

actio

ns.

Res

ults

sho

w th

at th

e m

ajor

ity o

f tea

cher

can

dida

tes

ente

red

the

cour

se w

ith a

poo

r un

ders

tand

ing

of s

cien

ce c

onte

nt.

Bet

wee

n 60

%an

d 90

% o

f the

par

ticip

ants

hel

d na

ïve

or s

cien

tific

ally

nai

ve v

iew

s of

wea

ther

phe

nom

ena

(con

dens

atio

n, te

mpe

ratu

re, p

reci

pita

tion,

etc

.).

The

pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

’ kno

wle

dge

of th

ese

phen

omen

a re

sem

bled

that

of t

he e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l chi

ldre

n th

ey w

ere

to te

ach.

Tiro

sh a

nd G

raeb

er (

1989

)

Pre

serv

ice

Ele

men

tary

Tea

cher

s’E

xplic

it B

elie

fs a

bout

Mul

tiplic

atio

nan

d D

ivis

ion

Edu

catio

nal S

tudi

es in

Mat

hem

atic

s

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

135

unde

rgra

duat

e te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

enr

olle

d in

mat

hem

atic

ssu

bjec

t mat

ter

or m

etho

ds c

ours

es a

t ala

rge

univ

ersi

ty

Mat

hem

atic

s te

st o

f bel

iefs

abo

utm

ultip

licat

ion

and

divi

sion

and

com

pu-

tatio

nal s

kills

Hal

f wer

e al

so in

terv

iew

ed a

bout

conc

eptio

ns o

f mul

tiplic

atio

n an

ddi

visi

on.

85%

res

pond

ed c

orre

ctly

to th

e st

atem

ent "

In a

mul

tiplic

atio

n pr

oble

m,

the

prod

uct i

s gr

eate

r th

an e

ither

fact

or."

(C

orre

ct a

nsw

er is

FA

LSE

.)

90%

res

pond

ed c

orre

ctly

to a

sta

tem

ent t

hat c

ould

be

chec

ked

imm

edia

tely

by

perf

orm

ing

a co

mpu

tatio

n.

Onl

y 45

% r

espo

nded

cor

rect

ly to

"In

div

isio

n pr

oble

ms,

the

quot

ient

mus

t be

less

than

the

divi

dend

." (

Cor

rect

ans

wer

is F

ALS

E.)

Per

form

ance

rat

es o

n co

mpu

tatio

n te

sts

wer

e ge

nera

lly g

ood.

Pre

serv

ice

teac

hers

hav

e m

isco

ncep

tions

abo

ut m

ultip

licat

ion

and

divi

sion

.

46

Wils

on (

1994

)

One

Pre

serv

ice

Sec

onda

ryTe

ache

r’s U

nder

stan

ding

of

Fun

ctio

n: T

he Im

pact

of a

Cou

rse

Inte

grat

ing

Mat

hem

atic

al C

onte

ntan

d P

edag

ogy

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Cas

e st

udy

of o

ne s

tude

nt in

tend

ing

tobe

com

e a

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

mat

h-em

atic

s te

ache

r. A

t the

tim

e of

the

stud

y, s

he w

as p

artic

ipat

ing

in a

seco

ndar

y m

athe

mat

ics

peda

gogy

cour

se in

a u

nive

rsity

.

Writ

ten

mat

hem

atic

al ta

sks

abou

tfu

nctio

ns a

nd s

even

inte

rvie

ws

abou

tfu

nctio

ns, t

echn

olog

y, a

nd o

ther

topi

cs.

The

sub

ject

see

s te

xtbo

oks

as m

ajor

sou

rces

for

auth

ority

in m

ath-

emat

ics,

bel

ieve

s it

is s

uffic

ient

for

stud

ents

to o

nly

know

how

toco

rrec

tly a

pply

pro

cedu

res,

and

that

it is

the

teac

her’s

res

pons

ibili

ty to

teac

h co

rrec

t rul

es a

nd p

roce

dure

s in

an

orga

nize

d fa

shio

n.

She

und

erst

ands

func

tions

as

com

puta

tiona

l act

iviti

es a

nd b

elie

ved

that

gra

phs

of fu

nctio

ns s

houl

d be

con

tinuo

us.

Ove

r th

e pe

riod

of th

e co

urse

, her

und

erst

andi

ng o

f fun

ctio

ns im

-pr

oved

.

Wils

on a

nd W

ineb

urg

(198

9)

Pee

ring

at H

isto

ry th

roug

h D

iffer

ent

Lens

es

Teac

hers

Col

lege

Rec

ord

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

4 pr

ospe

ctiv

e hi

gh s

choo

l soc

ial

stud

ies

teac

hers

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

ove

r on

eye

ar

Onl

y on

e of

the

thre

e te

ache

rs h

ad a

n ac

cura

te u

nder

stan

ding

of

hist

ory

as a

sub

ject

mat

ter.

47

Qu

esti

on

2:

Res

earc

h o

n P

edag

og

ical

Pre

par

atio

n

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

Ada

ms

and

Kro

ckov

er (

1997

)

Beg

inni

ng S

cien

ce T

each

erC

ogni

tion

and

Its O

rigin

s in

the

Pre

serv

ice

Sec

onda

ry S

cien

ceTe

ache

r P

rogr

am

Jour

nal o

f Res

earc

h in

Sci

ence

Teac

hing

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

4 be

ginn

ing

seco

ndar

y sc

ienc

ete

ache

rs w

ho w

ent t

hrou

gh a

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

prog

ram

at a

larg

em

idw

este

rn u

nive

rsity

2 sc

ienc

e te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

inst

ruc-

tors

at t

he s

ame

univ

ersi

ty

Inte

rvie

ws,

obs

erva

tions

(45

hrs

),vi

deot

apes

of c

lass

room

inte

ract

ion,

and

docu

men

t ana

lysi

s

Inte

rvie

w in

stru

men

t: Te

ache

rs’

Ped

agog

ical

Phi

loso

phy

Inte

rvie

w

Cas

es d

evel

oped

with

cod

ing

and

mem

os; c

ross

cas

e an

alys

is

Not

e: D

ata

anal

ysis

pro

cess

is d

e-sc

ribed

in d

etai

l.

The

teac

hers

attr

ibut

ed th

eir

know

ledg

e of

stu

dent

-cen

tere

d in

stru

c-tio

n, g

ener

al p

edag

ogic

al k

now

ledg

e (in

clud

ing

clas

sroo

m d

isci

plin

ean

d cl

assr

oom

rou

tines

), a

nd p

edag

ogic

al c

onte

nt k

now

ledg

e (in

clud

-in

g in

stru

ctio

nal s

trat

egie

s) to

the

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m.

All

of th

e te

ache

rs v

iew

ed th

e te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

and

par

ticu-

lar

cour

ses

in it

as

the

sour

ce o

f the

ir kn

owle

dge

of c

lass

room

dis

ci-

plin

e. T

wo

of th

e fo

ur te

ache

rs a

lso

attr

ibut

ed th

eir

know

ledg

e of

gene

ral c

lass

man

agem

ent a

s be

ing

base

d on

cou

rses

with

in th

epr

ogra

m, w

hile

the

othe

r tw

o fe

lt th

ey le

arne

d ab

out t

his

on th

e jo

b.

Kno

wle

dge

abou

t ins

truc

tiona

l str

ateg

ies

cam

e fr

om te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

cour

ses,

und

ergr

adua

te te

achi

ng a

ssis

tant

ship

s, s

ubje

ct m

atte

rco

urse

s, a

nd o

ther

teac

hing

exp

erie

nces

.

Tho

ugh

thre

e of

the

stud

ents

did

not

cre

dit t

heir

met

hods

cou

rse

with

prov

idin

g cu

rric

ular

kno

wle

dge,

ther

e w

as e

vide

nce

of it

s in

fluen

ce in

thei

r pr

actic

e.

For

thre

e of

the

teac

hers

, kno

wle

dge

abou

t stu

dent

-cen

tere

d le

arni

ngca

me

from

thei

r m

etho

ds c

ours

e.

The

re w

as c

onsi

dera

ble

varia

tion

in w

hat t

he te

ache

rs le

arne

d fr

omth

e te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n co

urse

s. F

acto

rs th

at c

ontr

ibut

ed to

this

varia

tion

incl

uded

the

scho

ols

in w

hich

they

wer

e te

achi

ng a

nddi

ffere

nces

in th

eir

prio

r ex

perie

nces

.

Cou

rses

in te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

prov

ided

the

begi

nnin

g te

ache

rs w

ith a

fram

ewor

k w

ith w

hich

to o

rgan

ize,

und

erst

and,

and

ref

lect

on

thei

rex

perie

nces

in c

lass

room

s.

Dar

ling-

Ham

mon

d (2

000)

Teac

her

Qua

lity

And

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t: A

Rev

iew

Of S

tate

Pol

icy

Evi

denc

e.

Edu

catio

n P

olic

y A

naly

sis

Arc

hive

s

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion

and

part

ial

corr

elat

ions

)

1993

-94

Sch

ool a

nd S

taffi

ng S

urve

y(S

AS

S)

65,0

00 te

ache

rs

Dat

a on

NC

AT

E c

ertif

icat

ion

colle

cted

from

50

stat

es

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

posi

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f wel

l-qua

lifie

dte

ache

rs (

full

cert

ifica

tion

and

maj

or in

thei

r fie

ld).

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

nega

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f tea

cher

s ou

t of

field

(le

ss th

an a

min

or in

the

field

they

teac

h).

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

posi

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f ful

ly c

ertif

ied

teac

hers

.

48

Sta

te a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

mat

h-em

atic

s: g

rade

4 in

199

0, 1

996;

gra

de8

1992

, 199

6 S

tate

ave

rage

NA

EP

scor

es in

rea

ding

: gra

de 4

in 1

992,

1994

Sta

te is

uni

t of a

naly

sis.

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

nega

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

thre

e in

dica

tors

of t

he s

tate

’s p

erce

ntag

e of

less

than

fully

cer

tifie

d te

ache

rs: %

of a

ll te

ache

rs le

ss th

an fu

llyce

rtifi

ed, %

of n

ew e

ntra

nts

to te

achi

ng w

ho a

re u

ncer

tifie

d (e

xclu

ding

tran

sfer

s), %

of a

ll ne

wly

hire

d te

ache

rs u

ncer

tifie

d.

The

per

cent

age

of te

ache

rs w

ith b

oth

a m

ajor

and

full

cert

ifica

tion

inth

eir

field

was

pos

itive

ly c

orre

late

d w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

each

ered

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns in

a s

tate

that

are

NC

AT

E a

ccre

dite

d.

Fet

ler

(199

9)

Hig

h S

choo

l Sta

ff C

hara

cter

istic

san

d M

athe

mat

ics

Test

Res

ults

Edu

catio

n P

olic

y A

naly

sis

Arc

hive

s

Cor

rela

tiona

l res

earc

h (m

ultip

le r

egre

s-si

on)

795

regu

lar

Cal

iforn

ia h

igh

scho

ols

(the

sam

ple

did

not i

nclu

de C

A a

ltern

ativ

ehi

gh s

choo

ls)

The

se s

choo

ls r

epor

t em

ploy

ing

56,5

71F

TE

. S

choo

l ave

rage

Sta

nfor

d 9

test

scor

es fr

om 1

998

in m

athe

mat

ics.

Pro

fess

iona

l Ass

ignm

ent I

nfor

mat

ion

For

m, c

ondu

cted

as

part

of t

he C

AB

asic

Edu

catio

nal D

ata

Sys

tem

(de

mo-

grap

hics

, ass

ignm

ents

, and

pos

ition

s/cr

eden

tials

)

10.5

% o

f mat

hem

atic

s te

ache

rs in

thes

e hi

gh s

choo

ls h

ave

emer

-ge

ncy

perm

its; a

maj

ority

of t

hese

pos

sess

ed o

nly

a ba

ccal

aure

ate

degr

ee.

Abo

ut o

ne fo

urth

of c

rede

ntia

led

mat

hem

atic

s te

ache

rs h

ad c

ompl

eted

wor

k be

yond

the

M.A

.

Stu

dent

pov

erty

has

the

stro

nges

t rel

atio

nshi

p w

ith te

st s

core

s.

Teac

hing

exp

erie

nce

and

stud

ent p

artic

ipat

ion

are

posi

tivel

y re

late

d to

test

res

ults

.

Stu

dent

par

ticip

atio

n an

d pe

rcen

t of m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

with

emer

genc

y pe

rmits

pre

dict

test

sco

res

equa

lly w

ell.

Neg

ativ

e co

rrel

a-tio

n be

twee

n th

e pe

rcen

t of t

each

ers

with

em

erge

ncy

perm

its a

ndst

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t.

Fer

guso

n an

d W

omac

k (1

993)

The

Impa

ct o

f Sub

ject

Mat

ter

and

Edu

catio

n C

ours

ewor

k on

Teac

hing

Per

form

ance

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(AN

OV

A a

nd s

tepw

ise

regr

es-

sion

)

266

seco

ndar

y st

uden

t tea

cher

s at

Ark

ansa

s Te

ch U

nive

rsity

.

Gra

des

from

sev

en e

duca

tion

cour

ses,

GP

A in

the

maj

or, N

TE

Spe

cial

tysc

ores

, and

rat

ings

from

bot

h su

bjec

tm

atte

r sp

ecia

lists

and

edu

catio

nsu

perv

isor

s on

a L

iker

t sca

le o

bser

va-

tion

inst

rum

ent f

or te

achi

ng p

erfo

r-m

ance

.

Edu

catio

n co

urse

wor

k ac

coun

ted

for

48%

of t

he v

aria

nce

in te

achi

ngpe

rfor

man

ce.

Sub

ject

mat

ter

maj

or a

nd N

TE

exp

lain

ed le

ss th

an 1

% o

f the

var

ianc

e.

49

Ges

s-N

ewso

me

and

Lede

rman

(199

3)

Pre

serv

ice

Bio

logy

Tea

cher

s’K

now

ledg

e S

truc

ture

s as

a F

unc-

tion

of P

rofe

ssio

nal T

each

erE

duca

tion:

A Y

ear-

Long

Ass

ess-

men

t

Sci

ence

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

10 p

rese

rvic

e se

cond

ary

biol

ogy

teac

hers

enr

olle

d in

sci

ence

edu

catio

nco

urse

Que

stio

nnai

re (

3 tim

es in

one

sem

es-

ter)

and

one

30

min

ute

inte

rvie

w w

ithea

ch p

artic

ipan

t

Cro

ss-c

ase

anal

ysis

pro

vide

d

Pre

serv

ice

teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at th

ey h

ad n

ever

thou

ght a

bout

the

cons

titue

nt to

pics

of b

iolo

gy o

r th

e in

terr

elat

ions

hips

am

ong

thos

eto

pics

.

In g

ener

al th

e pr

ospe

ctiv

e te

ache

rs g

ener

ated

list

s of

topi

cs th

ey h

adst

udie

d in

col

lege

bio

logy

cou

rses

and

pro

vide

d fe

w c

onne

ctio

nsam

ong

them

. T

hey

had

isol

ated

mem

orie

s of

list

s of

topi

cs a

nd n

oco

here

nt p

ictu

re o

f the

sub

ject

mat

ter

as a

who

le.

The

pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

’ sub

ject

mat

ter

conc

eptio

ns w

ere

unst

able

over

thei

r te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n. N

ew to

pics

wer

e ad

ded,

and

teac

hers

appe

ared

to tr

y an

d cr

eate

mor

e in

terc

onne

ctio

ns.

The

y ac

quire

d th

iskn

owle

dge

in s

ubje

ct s

peci

fic te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

cour

ses.

Dur

ing

stud

ent t

each

ing,

the

teac

hers

beg

an to

org

aniz

e th

eir

subj

ect

mat

ter

know

ledg

e ac

cord

ing

to h

ow th

ey th

ough

t it s

houl

d be

taug

ht.

The

ir te

achi

ng e

xper

ienc

es in

fluen

ced

the

orga

niza

tion

of th

eir

know

ledg

e of

bio

logy

.

Gol

dhab

er a

nd B

rew

er (

2000

)

Doe

s Te

ache

r C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

ter?

Hig

h S

choo

l Tea

cher

Cer

tific

atio

nS

tatu

s an

d S

tude

nt A

chie

vem

ent

Edu

catio

nal E

valu

atio

n an

d P

olic

yA

naly

sis

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion)

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

nal L

ongi

tudi

nal

Sur

vey

1988

3,78

6 st

uden

ts in

mat

hem

atic

s

2,52

4 st

uden

ts in

sci

ence

2,09

8 m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

1,37

1 sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

10th

and

12t

h gr

ade

stan

dard

ized

test

scor

es in

mat

hem

atic

s an

d sc

ienc

e is

the

outc

ome

varia

ble.

Inde

pend

ent v

aria

bles

are

gro

uped

into

:

1. I

ndiv

idua

l and

fam

ily b

ackg

roun

dch

arac

teris

tics

of s

tude

nts

2. S

choo

ling

reso

urce

s, w

hich

incl

ude

scho

ol, t

each

er, a

nd c

lass

spe

cific

varia

bles

.

Teac

her

varia

bles

incl

ude

type

of

cert

ifica

tion

(sta

ndar

d su

bjec

t, pr

oba-

tiona

ry s

ubje

ct, p

rivat

e sc

hool

, non

e),

degr

ee le

vel,

and

expe

rienc

e.

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

old

stan

dard

cer

tific

atio

n or

priv

ate

scho

ol c

ertif

icat

ion

in th

eir

subj

ect h

ave

12th

gra

de m

ath

test

s w

ithsc

ores

bet

wee

n 7

to 1

0 po

ints

hig

her

than

stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

with

prob

atio

nary

or

emer

genc

y ce

rtifi

catio

n, o

r w

ho a

re n

ot c

ertif

ied.

Sim

ilar

resu

lts w

ere

foun

d fo

r st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t on

a 10

th g

rade

mat

hem

atic

s te

st.

The

res

ults

wer

e si

mila

r fo

r sc

ienc

e bu

t are

less

pro

noun

ced.

Stu

dent

s fr

om lo

wer

SE

S b

ackg

roun

ds te

nd to

get

teac

hers

who

hav

eem

erge

ncy

or p

roba

tiona

ry c

rede

ntia

ls, o

r no

cer

tific

atio

n. T

hus,

stud

ents

are

not

ran

dom

ly d

istr

ibut

ed a

cros

s te

ache

rs b

y ty

pe o

fce

rtifi

catio

n.

Stu

dent

s w

ho d

o po

orly

in 1

0th

grad

e ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

assi

gned

to a

teac

her

who

doe

s no

t hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

in th

e re

leva

ntsu

bjec

t mat

ter

in 1

2th

grad

e (in

mat

hem

atic

s).

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

ad d

egre

es in

mat

hem

atic

s w

ere

foun

dto

hav

e hi

gher

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

teac

hers

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

In s

cien

ce, t

here

was

no

effe

ct.

Mat

h st

uden

ts w

ith te

ache

rs w

ith b

ache

lor’s

or

mas

ter’s

deg

rees

inm

athe

mat

ics

have

hig

her

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

The

re is

no

sign

ifica

nt r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

teac

her

subj

ect m

atte

rm

ajor

and

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t in

scie

nce.

Hav

ing

a de

gree

in e

duca

tion

had

no im

pact

on

stud

ent s

cien

cesc

ores

, but

a B

A in

edu

catio

n ha

d a

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n m

athe

mat

ics

achi

evem

ent.

50

Gro

ssm

an (

1989

)

Lear

ning

to T

each

With

out T

each

erE

duca

tion

Teac

hers

Col

lege

Rec

ord

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

Long

itudi

nal s

tudy

as

part

of t

heK

now

ledg

e G

row

th in

a P

rofe

ssio

nP

roje

ct

3 ne

w s

econ

dary

Eng

lish

teac

hers

who

did

not

hav

e te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

who

wer

e te

achi

ng in

the

Bay

Are

a in

Cal

iforn

ia

The

AC

teac

hers

foun

d it

hard

to r

econ

cept

ualiz

e E

nglis

h as

a s

choo

lsu

bjec

t and

to r

ethi

nk it

so

as to

mak

e it

acce

ssib

le to

thei

r st

uden

ts.

The

AC

teac

hers

als

o fo

und

it di

fficu

lt to

ant

icip

ate

stud

ent k

now

ledg

ean

d po

tent

ial d

iffic

ultie

s.

The

AC

teac

hers

exp

lain

ed a

way

teac

hing

diff

icul

ties

with

lack

of

stud

ent m

otiv

atio

n an

d un

will

ingn

ess

to w

ork

hard

.

The

AC

teac

hers

use

d te

achi

ng s

trat

egie

s th

at th

ey h

ad e

xper

ienc

edas

lear

ners

. Som

etim

es th

ese

wer

e co

llege

mod

els

and

inap

prop

riate

for

thei

r hi

gh s

choo

l stu

dent

s.

The

AC

teac

hers

sha

red

a "c

once

ptio

n of

teac

hing

that

pre

supp

oses

brig

ht, m

otiv

ated

stu

dent

s w

ho a

re e

ager

to le

arn

from

a k

now

ledg

e-ab

le te

ache

r" (

p. 2

00).

For

the

AC

teac

hers

, pla

nnin

g m

eant

sub

ject

mat

ter

prep

arat

ion

(rea

ding

the

book

or

the

play

), n

ot th

inki

ng th

roug

h ho

w s

tude

nts

wou

ld b

est l

earn

it.

Gro

ssm

an a

nd R

iche

rt (

1988

)

Una

ckno

wle

dged

Kno

wle

dge

Gro

wth

: A

Re-

exam

inat

ion

of th

eE

ffect

s of

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Teac

hing

and

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Two-

year

stu

dy o

f beg

inni

ng te

ache

rsas

par

t of t

he K

now

ledg

e G

row

th in

aP

rofe

ssio

n P

roje

ct in

the

Bay

Are

a in

Cal

iforn

ia.

Sec

onda

ry a

naly

sis

of in

terv

iew

and

obse

rvat

iona

l dat

a

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

dur

ing

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

and

first

yea

r of

teac

hing

6 pr

eser

vice

sec

onda

ry te

ache

rs(E

nglis

h, m

athe

mat

ics,

and

sci

ence

), 3

from

a s

mal

l tea

cher

edu

catio

n pr

o-gr

am a

t a p

rivat

e un

iver

sity

(12

mon

thpr

ogra

m);

3 a

t a la

rge

publ

ic in

stitu

tion.

(9-m

onth

pro

gram

). B

oth

5th

year

prog

ram

s

Cod

ing

cate

gorie

s ar

e pr

ovid

ed

Pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

ack

now

ledg

e bo

th fi

eldw

ork

and

prof

essi

onal

cour

sew

ork

as in

fluen

tial.

Teac

hers

rep

ort t

hey

acqu

ired

prac

tical

sur

viva

l ski

lls, g

ener

al p

eda-

gogi

cal k

now

ledg

e, k

now

ledg

e of

stu

dent

s’ u

nder

stan

ding

from

fiel

dex

perie

nces

.

Teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

cour

sew

ork

had

its b

igge

stim

pact

on

thei

r co

ncep

tions

of t

heir

subj

ect m

atte

r fo

r te

achi

ng.

Teac

hers

rep

ort t

hat u

nive

rsity

cou

rsew

ork

had

a la

rge

impa

ct o

n th

eir

conc

eptio

n of

the

subj

ect m

atte

r th

ey w

ere

to te

ach.

The

y ci

ted

thei

rsu

bjec

t-sp

ecifi

c co

urse

s as

influ

entia

l in

shap

ing

thei

r co

ncep

tions

of

how

to te

ach

the

subj

ect m

atte

r.

Teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at th

e un

iver

sity

cou

rsew

ork

help

ed th

em a

cqui

rege

nera

l ped

agog

ical

kno

wle

dge

of th

eore

tical

prin

cipl

es r

elat

ed to

grou

ping

, mai

nstr

eam

ing,

lear

ning

, and

inst

ruct

ion.

The

y re

port

ed th

atte

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

cour

sew

ork

prov

ided

nor

ms

for

inst

ruct

ion.

Teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at th

eir

expe

rienc

es in

the

field

hel

ped

them

lear

nab

out s

tude

nts’

und

erst

andi

ngs

of a

nd r

eact

ions

to th

e su

bjec

t mat

ter.

Fie

ld e

xper

ienc

es a

lso

help

ed n

ew te

ache

rs le

arn

mor

e ab

out t

heir

subj

ect m

atte

r.

Stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

who

hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

or e

mer

genc

yce

rtifi

catio

n ha

ve h

ighe

r m

ath

scor

es th

an s

tude

nts

who

se te

ache

rsha

ve p

rivat

e sc

hool

cer

tific

atio

n or

no

cert

ifica

tion.

The

effe

cts

are

not

as s

tron

g in

sci

ence

but

follo

w th

e sa

me

tren

ds.

51

Gro

ssm

an, V

alen

cia,

Eva

ns,

Tho

mps

on, M

artin

, and

Pla

cein

pre

ss)

Tran

sitio

ns in

to T

each

ing:

Lea

rn-

ing

to T

each

Writ

ing

in T

each

erE

duca

tion

and

Bey

ond

Jour

nal o

f Lite

racy

Res

earc

h

Inte

rpre

tive

and

long

itudi

nal s

tudy

Stu

dy o

f 10

teac

hers

from

thei

r la

stye

ar o

f pre

serv

ice

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

into

thei

r fir

st tw

o fu

ll ye

ars

of te

achi

ng

Was

hing

ton

Sta

te

5 el

emen

tary

, 2 m

iddl

e, 3

hig

h sc

hool

Inte

rvie

ws

(11

per

teac

her)

, cla

ssro

omob

serv

atio

ns w

ith te

ache

rs (

5 tim

esov

er 3

yea

rs),

prin

cipa

ls, c

oope

ratin

gte

ache

rs, s

uper

viso

rs, a

nd m

ento

rs,

grou

p in

terv

iew

s, c

lass

room

art

ifact

s

Teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ovid

ed th

e te

ache

rs w

ith a

con

cept

ual f

ram

ewor

kfo

r te

achi

ng w

ritin

g, th

e co

ncep

t of i

nstr

uctio

nal s

caffo

ldin

g, w

riter

s’w

orks

hop,

and

a p

roce

ss-o

rient

atio

n to

war

d w

ritin

g. T

hey

acqu

ired

apr

ofes

sion

al la

ngua

ge fo

r ta

lkin

g ab

out t

he te

achi

ng o

f writ

ing,

and

they

use

d th

ese

conc

epts

in th

eir

plan

ning

and

ref

lect

ion.

Teac

her

educ

atio

n al

so p

rovi

ded

them

with

a r

ange

of i

nstr

uctio

nal

stra

tegi

es in

clud

ing

conf

eren

cing

, jou

rnal

writ

ing,

pee

r ed

iting

, mod

el-

ing,

and

aut

hor’s

cha

ir.

The

cur

ricul

ar m

ater

ials

that

they

wer

e re

quire

d to

use

had

an

influ

-en

ce o

n th

eir

prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

and

thei

r in

stru

ctio

n as

firs

t-ye

arte

ache

rs.

In th

e se

cond

yea

r of

teac

hing

, the

con

cept

s th

at h

ad b

een

intr

oduc

edin

teac

her

educ

atio

n re

appe

ared

in th

e te

ache

rs’ t

alk

and

thin

king

, at

the

time

whe

n th

ey b

egan

to b

e co

mfo

rtab

le w

ith c

ritiq

uing

the

mat

eri-

als

that

they

wer

e us

ing.

Tea

cher

edu

catio

n pr

ovid

ed a

n im

age

of a

nid

eal p

ract

ice.

The

teac

hers

cre

dite

d te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

with

teac

hing

them

how

to b

ere

flect

ive

abou

t the

ir te

achi

ng a

nd to

mak

e se

nse

of th

eir

succ

esse

san

d fa

ilure

s.

Guy

ton

and

Far

okhi

(19

87)

Rel

atio

nshi

ps A

mon

g A

cade

mic

Per

form

ance

, Bas

ic S

kills

, Sub

ject

Mat

ter

Kno

wle

dge,

and

Tea

chin

gS

kills

of T

each

er E

duca

tion

Gra

du-

ates

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Cor

rela

tiona

l res

earc

h

Gra

duat

es fr

om G

eorg

ia S

tate

Uni

ver-

sity

bet

wee

n 19

81 a

nd 1

984

Sam

ple

rang

ed fr

om 1

51 to

411

,de

pend

ing

on a

vaila

bilit

y of

dat

a.

413

teac

hers

with

sta

tew

ide

Teac

her

Cer

tific

atio

n Te

st s

core

s (s

ubje

ctm

atte

r kn

owle

dge)

273

with

Tea

cher

Per

form

ance

As-

sess

men

t Inv

ento

ry s

core

s

GP

A (

soph

omor

e, a

nd u

pper

leve

l)

Geo

rgia

Reg

ents

Tes

t sco

res

(bas

icsk

ills)

GP

A w

as s

igni

fican

tly c

orre

late

d w

ith te

achi

ng s

ucce

ss.

Bas

ic s

kill

abili

ty is

cor

rela

ted

with

sub

ject

mat

ter

know

ledg

e bu

t not

rela

ted

to o

n-th

e-jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce.

GP

A a

t sop

hom

ore

year

and

upo

ngr

adua

tion

wer

e bo

th p

ositi

vely

cor

rela

ted

with

teac

hing

per

form

ance

,al

thou

gh th

e co

rrel

atio

n w

as s

tron

ger

upon

gra

duat

ion.

Gra

des

ined

ucat

ion

cour

ses

wer

e a

stro

nger

pre

dict

or o

f on-

the-

job

succ

ess

than

gra

des

in g

ener

al k

now

ledg

e co

urse

s.

The

sub

ject

mat

ter

test

was

not

cor

rela

ted

with

teac

her

perf

orm

ance

as m

easu

red

on th

e G

eorg

ia T

each

er P

erfo

rman

ce A

sses

smen

tIn

stru

men

t, su

gges

ting

that

one

can

not s

impl

y do

wel

l as

a te

ache

rw

ith o

nly

subj

ect m

atte

r kn

owle

dge.

52

Haw

k, C

oble

and

Sw

anso

n (1

985)

Cer

tific

atio

n: I

t Doe

s M

atte

r

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive/

quas

i-exp

erim

enta

l stu

dy(A

NO

VA

, t-t

ests

)

Gra

duat

es o

f Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

36 m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

of g

rade

s 6

–12

wer

e fo

llow

ed in

the

stud

y. A

ll w

ere

cert

ified

. 18

teac

hers

wer

e in

-fie

ld a

nd18

wer

e te

achi

ng o

ut-o

f-fie

ld; 8

26st

uden

ts.

Teac

hers

mat

ched

on

scho

ol, t

each

ing

the

sam

e m

athe

mat

ics

cour

se, t

ost

uden

ts o

f sam

e ab

ility

Stu

dent

s te

sts:

Sta

nfor

d A

chie

vem

ent

Test

(ge

nera

l mat

h) a

nd S

tanf

ord

Test

of A

cade

mic

Ski

lls (

alge

bra)

Test

s of

arit

hmet

ic a

nd e

lem

enta

ryal

gebr

a w

ere

adm

inis

tere

d to

teac

hers

.

Teac

hing

per

form

ance

was

mea

sure

dby

the

CT

PA

S.

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

appa

rent

from

the

post

-tes

t in

gene

ral

mat

hem

atic

s an

d al

gebr

a.

Stu

dent

s w

ho h

ad in

-fie

ld te

ache

rs s

core

d hi

gher

.

In-f

ield

teac

hers

sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

on th

e C

TP

AS

and

the

know

ledg

e te

st. C

hi-s

quar

e an

alys

is y

ield

ed n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

due

to y

ears

of t

each

ing

or d

egre

e he

ld b

y te

ache

rs in

the

stud

y.

Hol

lings

wor

th (

1989

)

Prio

r B

elie

fs a

nd C

ogni

tive

Cha

nge

in L

earn

ing

to T

each

Am

eric

an E

duca

tiona

l Res

earc

hJo

urna

l

Inte

rpre

tive

and

long

itudi

nal s

tudy

3 ye

ars

14 p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs, 3

2 co

oper

atin

gte

ache

rs, 6

uni

vers

ity s

uper

viso

rs, a

nd2

read

ing

cour

se in

stru

ctor

s; s

ubje

ctm

atte

r is

rea

ding

.

Obs

erva

tions

, cla

ssro

om in

terv

iew

sev

ery

two

wee

ks

Doc

umen

t ana

lysi

s

Task

ana

lysi

s

Teac

her

jour

nals

Sup

ervi

sor

obse

rvat

ions

Not

e: D

ata

anal

ysis

pro

cess

des

crib

edin

det

ail

Pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

’ pre

exis

ting

belie

fs s

hape

d th

eir

inte

ract

ion

with

the

info

rmat

ion

pres

ente

d in

the

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m.

53

Mon

k (1

994)

Sub

ject

Are

a P

repa

ratio

n of

Sec

onda

ry M

athe

mat

ics

and

Sci

ence

Tea

cher

s an

d S

tude

ntA

chie

vem

ent

Eco

nom

ics

of E

duca

tion

Rev

iew

Sur

vey

rese

arch

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

n st

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion)

Long

itudi

nal S

tudy

of A

mer

ican

You

th

51 r

ando

mly

sel

ecte

d sc

hool

site

s;ba

se s

ampl

e of

2,8

29 s

tude

nts;

sele

cted

loca

litie

s na

tionw

ide

608

mat

hem

atic

s te

ache

rs, 4

83sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs S

ampl

ing

rubr

icin

clud

ed g

eogr

aphi

c lo

cal a

nd c

omm

u-ni

ty ty

pe (

rura

l, su

burb

an, u

rban

)

Teac

her

surv

ey a

bout

num

ber

ofun

derg

radu

ate

and

grad

uate

cou

rses

in v

ario

us c

urric

ular

are

as

Stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t mea

sure

d by

sele

cted

NA

EP

item

s (1

,492

stu

dent

s)at

bot

h 10

th a

nd 1

1th

grad

es.

Fou

nd p

ositi

ve r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n th

e nu

mbe

r of

und

ergr

adua

tesu

bjec

t mat

ter

cour

ses

in a

teac

her’s

bac

kgro

und

and

impr

ovem

ent i

nst

uden

ts’ m

athe

mat

ics

perf

orm

ance

, for

bot

h ju

nior

s an

d se

nior

s.

For

sop

hom

ores

, tea

cher

cou

rse-

taki

ng a

t the

gra

duat

e le

vel i

nm

athe

mat

ics

also

has

a p

ositi

ve e

ffect

on

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent.

Afte

r fiv

e m

athe

mat

ics

cour

ses,

the

addi

tion

of c

ours

es in

mat

hem

at-

ics

has

a sm

alle

r ef

fect

on

pupi

l per

form

ance

.

Mat

hem

atic

s ed

ucat

ion

cour

ses:

und

ergr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k is

pos

i-tiv

ely

rela

ted

to im

prov

emen

t in

mat

hem

atic

s fo

r so

phom

ores

and

juni

ors.

Cou

rses

in u

nder

grad

uate

mat

hem

atic

s pe

dago

gy c

ontr

ibut

em

ore

to s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce g

ains

than

do

unde

rgra

duat

e m

athe

mat

-ic

s co

urse

s.

Hav

ing

a m

athe

mat

ics

maj

or h

as n

o ap

pare

nt b

earin

g in

pup

il pe

rfor

-m

ance

.

Teac

her

unde

rgra

duat

e pr

epar

atio

n in

the

life

scie

nces

has

no

dis-

cern

ible

impa

ct o

n st

uden

t per

form

ance

.

Pos

itive

rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ere

foun

d be

twee

n un

derg

radu

ate

cour

sew

ork

in p

hysi

cal s

cien

ces

and

gain

s in

pup

il pe

rfor

man

ce, f

or b

oth

soph

o-m

ores

and

juni

ors.

The

re w

as a

pos

itive

rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n ju

nior

gai

ns in

ach

ieve

men

tan

d gr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k in

life

sci

ence

s.

Gra

duat

e co

urse

s in

sci

ence

ped

agog

y w

ere

posi

tivel

y re

late

d to

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent f

or s

opho

mor

es.

Und

ergr

adua

te c

ours

ewor

k in

scie

nce

peda

gogy

had

a p

ositi

ve r

elat

ions

hip

with

stu

dent

ach

ieve

-m

ent f

or ju

nior

s. T

he m

agni

tude

s of

the

rela

tions

hips

in s

cien

cebe

twee

n co

urse

taki

ng a

nd s

tude

nt g

ains

wer

e qu

ite s

mal

l.

Hav

ing

a sc

ienc

e m

ajor

was

pos

itive

ly r

elat

ed to

stu

dent

gai

ns fo

rju

nior

s.

Adv

ance

d te

ache

r tr

aini

ng w

as e

ither

not

rel

ated

or

nega

tivel

y re

late

dto

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t for

sci

ence

and

mat

hem

atic

s fo

r so

phom

ores

.

Val

li w

ith A

gost

inel

li (

1993

)

Teac

hing

Bef

ore

and

Afte

r P

rofe

s-si

onal

Pre

para

tion:

The

Sto

ry o

f aH

igh

Sch

ool M

athe

mat

ics

Teac

her

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

One

teac

her

who

taug

ht b

efor

e an

daf

ter

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

Inte

rvie

ws,

obs

erva

tions

, and

full

refle

ctio

ns o

f the

teac

her

(who

is th

ese

cond

aut

hor

of th

e pa

per)

Whe

n A

gost

inel

li ta

ught

prio

r to

teac

her

educ

atio

n, h

e ha

d lit

tlecl

assr

oom

con

trol

, thr

eate

ned,

and

yel

led

at s

tude

nts.

Afte

r st

uden

t tea

chin

g an

d po

st s

tude

nt te

achi

ng, h

e w

as s

oft s

poke

nan

d re

spec

tful i

n in

tera

ctio

ns w

ith s

tude

nts

and

ther

e w

as li

ttle

off t

ask

beha

vior

.

Bef

ore

teac

her

prep

arat

ion,

his

teac

hing

was

teac

her

orie

nted

,in

volv

ed a

lot o

f tel

ling,

too

little

pla

nnin

g, lo

wer

ord

er q

uest

ions

, and

little

wai

t tim

e.

54

Dur

ing

his

supe

rvis

ed s

tude

nt te

achi

ng a

nd p

ost-

grad

uatio

n, h

e w

asm

ore

stud

ent o

rient

ed, o

utlin

ed h

is p

lans

, ask

ed h

ighe

r-or

der

ques

-tio

ns, v

arie

d as

sign

men

ts fo

r st

uden

ts, a

nd p

rom

pted

and

then

wai

ted

for

stud

ents

to r

espo

nd to

que

stio

ns.

He

attr

ibut

ed th

ese

chan

ges

to a

rang

e of

exp

erie

nces

, inc

ludi

ng e

xper

ienc

e, d

iscu

ssio

ns w

ith c

oope

r-at

ing

teac

hers

, met

hods

cla

sses

, edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y, a

nd o

ther

teac

her

educ

atio

n co

urse

wor

k.

55

Qu

esti

on

3:

Res

earc

h o

n C

linic

al E

xper

ien

ce

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

And

rew

(19

90)

Diff

eren

ces

betw

een

Gra

duat

es o

f4-

Year

and

5-Y

ear

Teac

her

Pre

para

tion

Pro

gram

s

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive

popu

latio

n st

udy

70-it

em q

uest

ionn

aire

A c

ompa

rison

of r

ando

m s

ampl

es o

f14

4, 5

-yea

r pr

ogra

m g

radu

ates

and

163,

4-y

ear

prog

ram

gra

duat

es fr

om19

76-1

986

that

pro

vide

d en

try,

ret

en-

tion

and

back

grou

nd d

ata

Gra

duat

es o

f tea

cher

edu

catio

npr

ogra

ms

at th

e U

nive

rsity

of N

ewH

amps

hire

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e ga

ve in

form

atio

n on

27 fa

ctor

s de

term

ined

to b

e im

port

ant

for

rete

ntio

n in

teac

hing

.

Que

stio

nnai

re w

as p

ilot t

este

d on

six

grou

ps o

f exp

erie

nced

teac

hers

and

subs

eque

ntly

mod

ified

.

Ent

ry: B

oth

grou

ps e

nter

ed te

achi

ng a

t a h

ighe

r ra

te th

an r

epor

ted

inna

tiona

l stu

dies

of e

ntry

.

Ret

entio

n: 5

6% o

f 4-y

ear

stud

ents

and

74%

of 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts w

ere

still

teac

hing

. A

lthou

gh it

has

bee

n re

port

ed th

at a

cade

mic

ally

sup

e-rio

r te

ache

rs a

re m

ore

likel

y to

leav

e te

achi

ng, t

his

was

not

true

of t

he5-

year

pro

gram

gro

up w

ho h

ad h

ad h

ighe

r ac

adem

ic r

equi

rem

ents

for

ente

ring

prog

ram

s.

Car

eer

Sat

isfa

ctio

n: 5

6% o

f 4-y

ear

stud

ents

com

pare

d to

82%

of 5

-ye

ar s

tude

nts

said

they

'd c

hoos

e te

achi

ng a

gain

.

Atti

tude

s to

war

d te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n: 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts r

espo

nses

show

ed s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

show

ing

mor

e po

sitiv

e at

titud

es to

war

dpr

ogra

m a

nd m

otiv

atio

n. Y

early

eva

luat

ions

com

paris

on: 1

) Allo

catio

nof

tim

e sh

owed

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s in

5-y

ear

stud

ents

who

had

high

er e

stim

ates

for

each

of t

he fi

ve a

reas

. 2)

Rat

ings

of e

ffect

iven

ess

of 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts c

onsi

sten

tly r

ated

thei

r ow

n ab

ilitie

s as

hig

her

than

4-ye

ar s

tude

nts

in 1

1 ou

t of 1

2 ite

ms.

Hig

her

rete

ntio

n ra

te fo

r 5t

h ye

ar p

rogr

am, 7

4% c

ompa

red

to 5

6%.

Hig

her

care

er s

atis

fact

ion.

The

y al

so r

ated

the

prog

ram

, and

thei

rco

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs h

ighe

r.

5-ye

ar s

tude

nts

cons

iste

ntly

rat

ed th

eir

abili

ties

high

er th

an 4

-yea

rpr

ogra

m g

rads

, esp

ecia

lly in

org

aniz

ing

and

plan

ning

cla

ss a

ctiv

ities

,st

imul

atin

g st

uden

t int

eres

t and

con

fere

ncin

g w

ith p

aren

ts.

Fou

ndth

eir

cour

sew

ork

mor

e va

luab

le.

Bor

ko, E

isen

hart

, Bro

wn,

Und

erhi

ll,Jo

nes,

and

Aga

rd (

1992

)

Lear

ning

to T

each

Har

d M

athe

mat

-ic

s: D

o N

ovic

e Te

ache

rs G

ive

Up

Too

Eas

ily?

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Cas

e of

1 m

iddl

e sc

hool

mat

hem

atic

ste

ache

r in

the

larg

er d

atab

ase

of 8

teac

hers

who

par

ticip

ated

in th

eLe

arni

ng to

Tea

ch M

athe

mat

ics

Stu

dy

Obs

erva

tions

, int

ervi

ews,

obs

erva

tions

of u

nive

rsity

cou

rses

The

teac

her

belie

ved

that

goo

d m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hing

incl

uded

mak

ing

mat

hem

atic

s re

leva

nt a

nd m

eani

ngfu

l.

The

res

earc

hers

cou

ld n

ot g

et th

e te

ache

r to

spe

ak a

bout

the

divi

sion

of fr

actio

ns in

a m

eani

ngfu

l way

at t

he b

egin

ning

of h

er s

tude

ntte

achi

ng y

ear,

and

ther

e w

as li

ttle

evid

ence

that

she

had

a c

once

ptua

lun

ders

tand

ing

of d

ivis

ion

by fr

actio

ns.

Alth

ough

her

kno

wle

dge

of fr

actio

ns s

eem

ed to

dee

pen

som

e th

roug

h-ou

t her

par

ticip

atio

n in

a m

athe

mat

ics

met

hods

cou

rse,

she

stil

l cou

ldno

t pro

vide

a c

oher

ent e

xpla

natio

n co

ncer

ning

the

divi

sion

of f

rac-

tions

, eve

n af

ter

her

stud

ent t

each

ing

expe

rienc

e.

Dur

ing

her

stud

ent t

each

ing,

she

was

una

ble

to r

ealiz

e he

r im

age

of

56

good

mat

hem

atic

s te

achi

ng b

ecau

se h

er o

wn

know

ledg

e of

the

divi

sion

of f

ract

ions

and

of h

ow to

rep

rese

nt th

e id

ea to

stu

dent

s in

inst

ruct

ion

was

lim

ited.

The

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m w

orke

d to

rei

nfor

ce th

e te

ache

r’s

limite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of m

athe

mat

ics

and

mat

hem

atic

s te

achi

ng,

rath

er th

an q

uest

ioni

ng it

or

help

ing

the

teac

her

rein

vent

her

und

er-

stan

ding

of d

ivis

ion

of fr

actio

ns.

The

uni

vers

ity p

rogr

am d

id n

ot c

reat

eth

e co

nditi

ons

for

the

teac

her

to o

verc

ome

the

limita

tions

of h

er o

wn

know

ledg

e.

Car

ter

and

Gon

zale

z (1

993)

Beg

inni

ng T

each

ers’

Kno

wle

dge

Of

Cla

ssro

om E

vent

s

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Two

elem

enta

ry s

tude

nt te

ache

rsen

rolle

d in

a s

tate

uni

vers

ity te

ache

rpr

epar

atio

n pr

ogra

m in

the

wes

tern

part

of t

he U

. S.

Inte

rvie

ws

(4 d

urin

g on

e se

mes

ter)

One

stu

dent

teac

her

atte

nded

to p

robl

ems

asso

ciat

ed w

ith h

is r

ole

inth

e im

plem

enta

tion

of c

urric

ula

and

conc

entr

ated

on

wat

chin

g fo

r cu

esfr

om s

tude

nts

abou

t how

and

whe

n to

alte

r in

stru

ctio

n.

The

oth

er s

tude

nt te

ache

r fo

cuse

d on

her

feel

ings

of i

nade

quac

y an

dsp

ent h

er ti

me

elic

iting

stu

dent

em

path

y. W

hile

she

was

suc

cess

ful i

nga

inin

g st

uden

t sup

port

, the

stu

dent

s lo

st r

espe

ct fo

r he

r, an

d in

stru

c-tio

n de

terio

rate

d.

Clif

t (19

91)

Lear

ning

To

Teac

h E

nglis

h –

May

be: A

Stu

dy O

f Kno

wle

dge

Dev

elop

men

t

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

One

teac

her

maj

orin

g in

Eng

lish

at a

larg

e ur

ban

univ

ersi

ty

Inte

rvie

ws

(7 o

ver

sprin

g-su

mm

er-f

all

sem

este

rs),

vid

eota

pes

ofm

icro

teac

hing

, tea

cher

jour

nals

, and

obse

rvat

ions

Not

e: D

escr

iptio

n of

how

dat

a w

ere

cate

goriz

ed is

incl

uded

.

Aut

hor

prov

ides

a d

iscu

ssio

n of

thre

e re

pres

enta

tive

even

ts o

fpa

rtic

ipan

t's e

xper

ienc

es r

egar

ding

her

sub

ject

mat

ter

know

ledg

e,cl

assr

oom

con

fron

tatio

n, a

nd s

tatu

s am

bigu

ity.

The

n sh

e di

scus

ses

the

know

ledg

e sc

hem

es th

at th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t"n

eede

d to

dra

w u

pon

as s

he w

orke

d th

roug

h ea

ch in

cide

nt a

nd th

ein

terp

lay

betw

een

her

prio

r ex

perie

nces

as

a st

uden

t and

the

form

alin

stru

ctio

n sh

e re

ceiv

ed in

uni

vers

ity c

ours

e w

ork"

(p.

364

). A

lthou

ghfin

ding

s ar

e no

t spe

cific

ally

pro

vide

d, th

e au

thor

say

s th

at th

is c

ase

stud

y su

gges

ts th

ree

rela

ted

conc

lusi

ons

abou

t the

par

ticip

ant’s

know

ledg

e de

velo

pmen

t (p.

364

):

1. M

ultip

le s

chem

ata

are

calle

d up

on a

lmos

t sim

ulta

neou

sly

whe

n an

Eng

lish

teac

her

begi

ns in

tera

ctin

g w

ith s

tude

nts

in c

lass

room

s.

2. T

hese

sch

emat

a ar

e no

t equ

ally

wel

l dev

elop

ed, a

nd th

e ga

ps in

know

ledg

e be

com

e ap

pare

nt w

hen

teac

hers

are

req

uire

d to

inte

grat

eac

ross

sch

emes

as

they

put

kno

wle

dge

into

pra

ctic

e.

3. T

each

er p

repa

ratio

n cu

rric

ula

are

not d

esig

ned

to fo

ster

kno

wle

dge

inte

grat

ion

acro

ss s

chem

es.

Eis

enha

rt, B

orko

, Und

erhi

ll, B

row

n,Jo

nes,

and

Aga

rd (

1992

)

Con

cept

ual K

now

ledg

e F

alls

Thr

ough

the

Cra

cks:

Com

plex

ities

of L

earn

ing

to T

each

Mat

hem

atic

s

Inte

rpre

tive

and

long

itudi

nal s

tudy

One

teac

her

who

was

a s

enio

r in

a K

-8te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

at a

larg

eso

uthe

rn u

nive

rsity

(on

e of

eig

htte

ache

rs s

tudi

ed in

the

Lear

ning

to

The

teac

her

belie

ved

that

lear

ning

arit

hmet

ic la

rgel

y in

volv

ed m

emor

i-za

tion.

She

cou

ld n

ot a

rtic

ulat

e th

e di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n do

ing

arith

-m

etic

and

doi

ng m

athe

mat

ics.

And

she

cou

ld n

ot p

rovi

de p

reci

sede

scrip

tions

of a

rithm

etic

or

mat

hem

atic

s.

She

bel

ieve

d th

at te

achi

ng fo

r pr

oced

ural

kno

wle

dge

and

teac

hing

for

57

for

Und

erst

andi

ng

Jour

nal f

or R

esea

rch

inM

athe

mat

ics

Edu

catio

n

Teac

h M

athe

mat

ics

Pro

ject

)

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

(in

4di

ffere

nt p

lace

men

ts)

Par

t of t

he L

earn

ing

to T

each

Mat

hem

atic

s S

tudy

conc

eptu

al k

now

ledg

e in

mat

hem

atic

s re

quire

d di

ffere

nt k

inds

of

teac

hing

act

iviti

es.

She

was

less

art

icul

ate

abou

t act

iviti

es th

at w

ould

lead

to th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

once

ptua

l kno

wle

dge.

She

was

mor

e co

nfid

ent i

n he

r ab

ility

to te

ach

proc

edur

al a

spec

ts o

fm

athe

mat

ics

than

con

cept

ual a

spec

ts.

She

taug

ht fo

r pr

oced

ural

kno

wle

dge

mor

e th

an fo

r co

ncep

tual

know

ledg

e.

Her

ow

n lim

ited

know

ledg

e so

met

imes

led

her

to e

mph

asiz

e pr

oce-

dura

l kno

wle

dge

to th

e ex

clus

ion

of c

once

ptua

l kno

wle

dge.

Her

des

ire to

cov

er th

e cu

rric

ulum

als

o lim

ited

her

emph

asis

on

teac

hing

for

conc

eptu

al k

now

ledg

e.

In h

er th

ird s

tude

nt te

achi

ng p

lace

men

t, sh

e di

d pu

t mor

e em

phas

ison

con

cept

ual k

now

ledg

e. T

his

may

hav

e be

en d

ue to

her

per

cep-

tions

of d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n he

r co

llabo

ratin

g te

ache

rs.

Pre

ssur

es to

pre

pare

stu

dent

s fo

r te

sts,

cov

er th

e cu

rric

ulum

, and

tous

e sc

hool

tim

e to

rev

iew

for

test

s an

d pr

actic

e sk

ills

ofte

n le

d to

her

emph

asiz

ing

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f pro

cedu

ral k

now

ledg

e ov

er c

once

p-tu

al k

now

ledg

e.

In th

e m

athe

mat

ics

met

hods

cla

ss th

at s

he w

as e

nrol

led

in, t

hest

uden

t tea

cher

s in

terp

rete

d th

e in

stru

ctor

’s a

ttem

pts

to te

ach

for

unde

rsta

ndin

g an

d tu

rned

them

into

rou

tines

to b

e m

emor

ized

and

then

taug

ht.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

’ que

stio

ns a

lway

s em

phas

ized

the

deta

ils o

f spe

cific

proc

edur

es, n

ot th

e un

derly

ing

mat

hem

atic

al id

eas.

Tens

ions

felt

by th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s te

nded

to b

lind

them

to c

once

p-tu

al k

now

ledg

e an

d pu

sh th

em to

em

phas

ize

the

acqu

isiti

on o

f tea

ch-

ing

activ

ities

and

pro

cedu

ral k

now

ledg

e.

Wha

t the

teac

her

lear

ned

in h

er s

tude

nt te

achi

ng w

as in

fluen

ced

bym

any

fact

ors:

her

col

labo

ratin

g te

ache

rs, t

he v

ario

us s

choo

ls s

he w

aspl

aced

in, t

he p

olic

ies

of th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t, he

r ow

n kn

owle

dge

ofm

athe

mat

ics,

and

her

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

the

mat

eria

ls o

ffere

d in

her

univ

ersi

ty m

etho

ds c

lass

.

Eis

enha

rt, B

ehm

, and

Rom

agna

no(1

991)

Lear

ning

To

Teac

h: D

evel

opin

gE

xper

tise

Or

Rite

Of P

assa

ge?

Jour

nal o

f Edu

catio

n fo

r Te

achi

ng

Eig

ht m

iddl

e sc

hool

mat

h te

ache

rsco

mpl

etin

g a

2-se

mes

ter

stud

ent

teac

hing

exp

erie

nce

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

The

pro

gram

was

unc

oord

inat

ed a

nd in

cohe

rent

to th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

The

nov

ices

foun

d th

e co

urse

wor

k to

o th

eore

tical

. T

he s

tand

ards

wer

e hi

gh fo

r w

hat t

hey

wer

e ex

pect

ed to

do

– in

tegr

ate

theo

ry a

ndpr

actic

e, s

olve

thei

r ow

n pr

oble

ms,

acq

uire

adv

ance

d in

stru

ctio

nal

skill

s, e

tc.,

and

they

wer

e ov

erw

helm

ed.

In th

e fa

ce o

f thi

s, th

eyre

vert

ed to

the

cultu

re o

f the

ir re

spec

tive

scho

ols.

The

y di

dn’t

even

have

min

imal

teac

hing

ski

lls, a

nd th

ey w

ere

expe

cted

to b

e ad

vanc

edbe

ginn

ers.

58

Flo

rio-R

uane

and

Len

smire

(19

90)

Tran

sfor

min

g F

utur

e Te

ache

rs’

Idea

s A

bout

Writ

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

Jour

nal o

f Cur

ricul

um S

tudi

es

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Six

pre

serv

ice

elem

enta

ry te

ache

rs in

a m

etho

ds c

lass

that

incl

uded

fiel

dw

ork

at a

larg

e m

idw

este

rn u

nive

rsity

The

teac

hers

ent

ered

with

cle

ar v

iew

s of

teac

hing

. Te

ache

rs p

rovi

ded

info

rmat

ion,

and

lear

ning

to w

rite

invo

lved

lear

ning

the

rule

s. B

yob

serv

ing

child

ren

lear

ning

to w

rite,

the

novi

ces

bega

n to

rec

onst

ruct

thei

r un

ders

tand

ings

of t

each

ing

writ

ing

and

lear

ning

to w

rite.

Goo

dman

(19

85)

Wha

t Stu

dent

s Le

arn

from

Ear

lyF

ield

Exp

erie

nces

: A C

ase

Stu

dyan

d C

ritic

al A

naly

sis

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m a

t ala

rge

sout

heas

tern

uni

vers

ity10

elem

enta

ry p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

at

prac

ticum

site

s (o

ne to

four

tim

es)

Prio

r to

stu

dent

teac

hing

, the

pre

serv

ice

teac

hers

spe

nt a

t lea

st fo

urou

t of f

ive

quar

ters

in s

ome

early

fiel

d ex

perie

nces

.

The

uni

vers

ity in

volv

emen

t in

the

early

fiel

d ex

perie

nces

was

min

imal

.It

was

a m

atte

r of

pol

icy

that

the

univ

ersi

ty "

trus

ted"

the

expe

rienc

edte

ache

rs.

The

hea

vy e

mph

asis

on

teac

hing

-to-

the-

test

in th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

tsh

aped

the

stud

ent t

each

ers,

who

als

o be

gan

to v

iew

teac

hing

as

the

tran

smis

sion

of k

now

ledg

e fr

om th

e te

xtbo

oks

in o

rder

to p

repa

rest

uden

ts fo

r th

e te

st.

Coo

pera

ting

teac

hers

and

stu

dent

teac

hers

rep

orte

d fe

elin

g th

at th

eyne

eded

to s

tick

with

the

curr

icul

um a

nd li

mit

any

inno

vatio

n or

crea

tivity

.

Dis

cipl

ine

was

the

mos

t com

mon

ly m

entio

ned

prob

lem

.

Grif

fin (

1989

)

A D

escr

iptiv

e S

tudy

of S

tude

ntTe

achi

ng

Ele

men

tary

Sch

ool J

ourn

al

Inte

rpre

tive

and

corr

elat

iona

l stu

dy

Two

pres

ervi

ce p

rogr

ams;

one

an

unde

rgra

duat

e, o

ne a

5th

yea

r m

as-

ters

.

93 e

lem

enta

ry a

nd s

econ

dary

pres

ervi

ce s

tude

nt te

ache

rs, 8

8co

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs, 1

7 un

iver

sity

supe

rvis

ors

"Int

ensi

ve"

sam

ple

of 2

0 tr

iads

of

stud

ent t

each

ers,

coo

pera

ting

teac

h-er

s, a

nd u

nive

rsity

sup

ervi

sors

Bac

kgro

und

ques

tionn

aire

Edu

catio

nal P

refe

renc

e S

cale

Par

agra

ph C

ompl

etio

n Te

st

Teac

her

Con

cern

s Q

uest

ionn

aire

Rig

idity

-Fle

xibi

lity

Inde

x

Qui

ck W

ord

Test

Inte

rnal

Loc

us o

f Con

trol

Few

diff

eren

ces

acro

ss th

e tw

o pr

ogra

ms.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

conc

erne

d w

ith o

ther

s’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

fth

eir

adeq

uacy

than

wer

e co

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

sco

red

very

low

on

the

voca

bula

ry m

easu

res,

coop

erat

ing

teac

hers

wer

e at

abo

ut th

e m

idpo

int,

and

univ

ersi

tysu

perv

isor

s at

the

63rd

per

cent

ile.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

sho

wed

mod

est c

hang

e ov

er th

e co

urse

of s

tude

ntte

achi

ng in

the

follo

win

g ca

tego

ries:

1. a

dec

reas

e in

all

stag

es o

f con

cern

2. a

n in

crea

se in

flex

ibili

ty

3. a

tren

d to

war

d ed

ucat

iona

l con

serv

atis

m r

egar

ding

edu

catio

nal

philo

soph

y

The

re w

as n

ot c

hang

e al

ong

any

othe

r di

men

sion

, sug

gest

ing

that

the

deep

-sea

ted

pers

onal

bel

iefs

of t

he s

tude

nt te

ache

rs r

emai

ned

inta

ctat

the

end

of s

tude

nt te

achi

ng.

The

spe

cific

nat

ure

of th

e sc

hool

set

ting

appe

ared

to h

ave

min

imal

effe

ct o

n th

e st

uden

t tea

chin

g ex

perie

nce.

Inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

s ac

ross

set

tings

wer

e m

ore

sim

ilar

than

diffe

rent

.

59

Em

path

y C

onst

ruct

Rat

ing

Sca

le

Sel

f Per

cept

ion

Inve

ntor

y

Gro

up E

mbe

dded

Fig

ures

Tes

t

Teac

her

Wor

k-Li

fe In

vent

ory

Out

com

e m

easu

res:

exp

ecta

tion

scal

es, p

erfo

rman

ce r

atin

g sc

ales

, and

teac

her

satis

fact

ion

Cla

ssro

om o

bser

vatio

ns

Inte

rvie

ws,

doc

umen

ts, s

core

s on

stan

dard

ized

test

s, p

ost o

bser

vatio

nau

diot

apes

, jou

rnal

s, c

onfe

renc

ere

cord

s fr

om c

oope

ratin

g te

ache

rs

Alth

ough

the

cont

exts

in w

hich

stu

dent

teac

hing

took

pla

ce v

arie

d, th

eex

perie

nce

of s

tude

nt te

achi

ng d

id n

ot.

Sup

ervi

sion

was

dom

inat

ed b

y co

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs.

Con

vers

atio

ns b

etw

een

the

stud

ent t

each

ers

and

coop

erat

ing

teac

hers

sel

dom

invo

lved

the

disc

ussi

on o

f alte

rnat

ive

inst

ruct

iona

lap

proa

ches

or

alte

rnat

ive

inte

rpre

tatio

ns o

f cla

ssro

om e

vent

s.

Coo

pera

ting

teac

hers

had

two

way

s of

thin

king

abo

ut th

eir

wor

k w

ithst

uden

t tea

cher

s: (

1) th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

nee

ds to

lear

n ho

w to

teac

hth

e w

ay I

do a

nd (

2) th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s ne

eds

to fi

nd h

is o

r he

r ow

nw

ay.

Con

vers

atio

ns fo

cuse

d on

cla

ssro

om m

anag

emen

t and

on

spec

ific

reco

mm

enda

tions

from

the

coop

erat

ing

teac

her

abou

t spe

cific

clas

sroo

m p

ract

ices

. T

here

was

sel

dom

any

men

tion

of u

nder

lyin

gpr

inci

ples

, lea

rnin

g th

eory

, con

cept

ualiz

atio

ns o

f tea

chin

g, c

urric

ulum

theo

ries

or p

arad

igm

s, e

tc.

Coo

pera

ting

teac

hers

did

not

use

cod

ified

prof

essi

onal

kno

wle

dge

base

.

The

coo

pera

ting

teac

hers

and

stu

dent

teac

hers

saw

the

expe

rienc

e in

inte

rper

sona

l ter

ms,

rat

her

than

pro

fess

iona

l one

s. S

tude

nt te

ache

rsw

ere

very

sat

isfie

d w

ith th

e su

ppor

t the

y go

t fro

m th

e co

oper

atin

gte

ache

rs a

nd w

ere

gene

rally

less

sat

isfie

d w

ith th

e un

iver

sity

supe

rvis

ors.

The

re w

as a

lack

of e

valu

ativ

e co

mm

ents

.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

tend

ed to

focu

s on

the

inte

rper

sona

l asp

ects

of t

heir

rela

tions

hips

with

thei

r C

Ts fo

r de

cidi

ng a

bout

the

succ

ess

of th

eir

stud

ent t

each

ing.

The

re w

ere

seld

om a

ny e

nd v

iew

s sh

ared

bet

wee

nun

iver

sity

facu

lty a

nd th

e sc

hool

teac

hers

.

Cla

ssro

om e

xper

ienc

es s

eldo

m w

ere

inte

grat

ed w

ith u

nive

rsity

cou

rse

wor

k. R

atin

gs w

ere

univ

ersa

lly h

igh

for

all o

f the

stu

dent

teac

hers

,an

d tr

aditi

onal

che

cklis

ts w

ere

used

.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

wer

e se

ldom

obs

erve

d in

full

com

man

d of

an

entir

ecl

ass.

Coo

pera

ting

teac

hers

and

stu

dent

teac

hers

dem

onst

rate

d lit

tleva

riabi

lity

in te

achi

ng p

ract

ice.

Man

agem

ent o

f stu

dent

beh

avio

r de

terio

rate

d ov

er th

e co

urse

of t

hese

mes

ter.

Mos

t par

ticip

ants

wer

e un

awar

e of

the

polic

ies,

exp

ecta

tions

,pu

rpos

es, a

nd d

esire

d pr

actic

es in

reg

ards

to s

tude

nt te

achi

ng.

60

Gris

ham

, Lag

uard

ia, a

nd B

rink

(200

0)

Par

tner

s In

Pro

fess

iona

lism

:C

reat

ing

A Q

ualit

y F

ield

Exp

eri-

ence

For

Pre

serv

ice

Teac

hers

Act

ion

in T

each

er E

duca

tion

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Fiv

e el

emen

tary

sch

ool p

rese

rvic

ete

ache

rs w

ho w

ere

all p

lace

d in

the

sam

e pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent s

choo

las

par

t of t

heir

part

icip

atio

n in

a 1

5-m

onth

long

mas

ter’s

teac

her

prep

ara-

tion

prog

ram

in th

e w

este

rn U

. S.

Inte

rvie

ws,

stu

dent

teac

hers

’ jou

rnal

s,ob

serv

atio

ns, a

nd a

ctio

n re

sear

chpr

ojec

ts c

ondu

cted

by

the

stud

ent

teac

hers

and

thei

r co

llabo

ratin

gte

ache

rs

Eig

ht fa

ctor

s co

ntrib

ute

to a

qua

lity

field

exp

erie

nce:

1. y

ear-

long

exp

erie

nce

2. c

lust

erin

g of

stu

dent

teac

hers

3. o

n-si

te li

tera

cy c

lass

es

4. t

each

er s

tudy

gro

ups

and

actio

n re

sear

ch

5. e

nhan

ced

supe

rvis

ion

of s

tude

nt te

ache

rs b

y a

univ

ersi

ty s

uper

vi-

sor

who

was

intim

atel

y in

volv

ed w

ith th

e P

DS

.

6. s

teer

ing

com

mitt

ee in

the

scho

ol th

at c

onsi

sted

of t

he p

rinci

pal a

ndan

y in

tere

sted

teac

hers

, the

stu

dent

teac

hers

, the

ir co

llabo

ratin

gte

ache

rs, a

nd th

e un

iver

sity

facu

lty.

7. s

econ

d ex

perie

nce:

som

e of

the

inte

rns

wen

t to

anot

her

clas

sroo

mfo

r th

e se

cond

hal

f of t

he y

ear.

8. t

he s

tatu

s of

the

inte

rns:

bec

ause

they

wer

e in

the

scho

ol a

ll ye

ar,

they

felt

and

wer

e tr

eate

d m

ore

like

co-t

each

ers

than

like

"st

uden

t"te

ache

rs.

Gro

ssm

an a

nd R

iche

rt (

1988

)

Una

ckno

wle

dged

Kno

wle

dge

Gro

wth

: A

Re-

exam

inat

ion

of th

eE

ffect

s of

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Teac

hing

and

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Two-

year

stu

dy a

s pa

rt o

f the

Kno

wl-

edge

Gro

wth

in a

Pro

fess

ion

Pro

ject

inth

e B

ay A

rea

in C

alifo

rnia

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

Six

pre

serv

ice

seco

ndar

y te

ache

rs, 3

in a

sm

all t

each

er e

duca

tion

prog

ram

at a

priv

ate

univ

ersi

ty (

12 m

onth

prog

ram

); 3

at a

larg

e pu

blic

inst

itutio

n.(9

-mon

th p

rogr

am).

Bot

h 5t

h-ye

arpr

ogra

ms

Teac

hers

rep

ort t

hey

acqu

ired

prac

tical

sur

viva

l ski

lls, g

ener

al p

eda-

gogi

cal k

now

ledg

e, k

now

ledg

e of

stu

dent

s’ u

nder

stan

ding

from

fiel

dex

perie

nces

.

Teac

hers

rep

ort t

hat u

nive

rsity

cou

rsew

ork

had

a la

rge

impa

ct o

n th

eir

conc

eptio

n of

the

subj

ect m

atte

r th

ey w

ere

to te

ach.

The

y ci

ted

thei

rsu

bjec

t-sp

ecifi

c co

urse

s as

influ

entia

l in

shap

ing

thei

r co

ncep

tions

of

how

to te

ach

the

subj

ect m

atte

r.

Teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at th

e un

iver

sity

cou

rsew

ork

help

ed th

em a

cqui

rege

nera

l ped

agog

ical

kno

wle

dge

of th

eore

tical

prin

cipa

ls r

elat

ed to

grou

ping

, mai

nstr

eam

ing,

lear

ning

, and

inst

ruct

ion.

The

y re

port

ed th

atte

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

cour

sew

ork

prov

ided

nor

ms

for

inst

ruct

ion.

Teac

hers

rep

orte

d th

at th

eir

expe

rienc

es in

the

field

hel

ped

them

lear

nab

out s

tude

nt u

nder

stan

ding

s of

and

rea

ctio

ns to

the

subj

ect m

atte

r.F

ield

exp

erie

nces

als

o he

lped

new

teac

hers

lear

n m

ore

abou

t the

irsu

bjec

t mat

ter.

Gro

ssm

an, V

alen

cia,

Eva

ns,

Tho

mps

on, M

artin

, and

Pla

ce (

inpr

ess)

Tran

sitio

ns in

to T

each

ing:

Lea

rn-

ing

to T

each

Writ

ing

in T

each

erE

duca

tion

and

Bey

ond

Inte

rpre

tive

and

long

itudi

nal s

tudy

Stu

dy o

f 10

teac

hers

from

thei

r la

stye

ar o

f pre

serv

ice

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

into

thei

r fir

st tw

o fu

ll ye

ars

of te

achi

ng

Was

hing

ton

Sta

te

Pro

spec

tive

teac

hers

lear

ned

from

the

field

whe

n th

ey w

ere

aske

d to

focu

s th

eir

time

in fi

eld

assi

gnm

ents

col

lect

ing

data

for

min

i-act

ion

rese

arch

pro

ject

s.

Whe

n st

uden

t tea

cher

s be

long

ed to

a c

ohor

t, th

ey r

epor

ted

that

that

help

ed th

em le

arn

from

thei

r fie

ld e

xper

ienc

es.

The

nat

ure

of s

tude

nt te

achi

ng v

arie

d w

idel

y ac

ross

the

part

icip

ants

in

61

5 el

emen

tary

, 2 m

iddl

e, 3

hig

h sc

hool

Inte

rvie

ws

(11

per

teac

her)

, cla

ssro

omob

serv

atio

ns w

ith te

ache

rs (

5 tim

esov

er 3

yea

rs),

prin

cipa

ls, c

oope

ratin

gte

ache

rs, s

uper

viso

rs, a

nd m

ento

rs,

grou

p in

terv

iew

s, c

lass

room

art

ifact

s

the

prog

ram

and

the

coop

erat

ing

teac

hers

pla

yed

a cr

itica

l rol

e. O

neki

nd o

f stu

dent

teac

hing

exp

erie

nce

invo

lved

a r

efle

ctiv

e pa

rtne

rshi

p in

whi

ch th

e no

vice

was

enc

oura

ged

to e

xper

imen

t and

inqu

ire. A

t the

othe

r en

d of

the

spec

trum

wer

e m

ore

clas

sic

rela

tions

hips

whe

re th

est

uden

t tea

cher

was

mea

nt to

app

rent

ice

to th

e pr

actic

es o

f the

coop

erat

ing

teac

her.

The

form

er w

orke

d to

dev

elop

mor

e re

flect

ive

teac

hers

, the

latte

r w

orke

d if

ther

e w

as a

phi

loso

phic

al a

lignm

ent

betw

een

the

teac

her

and

the

novi

ce.

Hol

lings

wor

th (

1989

)

Prio

r B

elie

fs a

nd C

ogni

tive

Cha

nge

in L

earn

ing

to T

each

Am

eric

an E

duca

tiona

l Res

earc

hJo

urna

l

Inte

rpre

tive

and

long

itudi

nal s

tudy

Thr

ee y

ears

14 p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs, 3

2 co

oper

atin

gte

ache

rs, 6

uni

vers

ity s

uper

viso

rs, a

nd2

read

ing

cour

se in

stru

ctor

s; s

ubje

ctm

atte

r is

rea

ding

Obs

erva

tions

, cla

ssro

om in

terv

iew

sev

ery

two

wee

ks

Doc

umen

t ana

lysi

s

Task

ana

lysi

s

Teac

her

jour

nals

Sup

ervi

sor

obse

rvat

ions

Not

e: D

ata

anal

ysis

pro

cess

des

crib

edin

det

ail.

Cha

nges

in p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs' t

hink

ing

from

glo

bal v

iew

s of

teac

hing

in c

lass

room

s to

und

erst

andi

ngs

abou

t con

text

-spe

cific

stu

dent

lear

ning

from

text

cou

ld b

e tr

aced

in p

redi

ctab

le p

atte

rns.

Fin

ding

ssu

gges

ted

that

:

1. P

repr

ogra

m b

elie

fs s

erve

d as

filte

rs fo

r pr

oces

sing

pro

gram

con

tent

and

mak

ing

sens

e of

cla

ssro

om c

onte

xts.

2. G

ener

al m

anag

eria

l rou

tines

had

to b

e in

pla

ce b

efor

e su

bjec

tsp

ecifi

c co

nten

t and

ped

agog

y be

cam

e a

focu

s of

atte

ntio

n.

3. In

terr

elat

ed m

anag

eria

l and

aca

dem

ic r

outin

es w

ere

need

ed b

efor

ete

ache

rs c

ould

act

ivel

y fo

cus

on s

tude

nts'

lear

ning

from

aca

dem

iccl

assr

oom

task

s. R

egar

dles

s of

thei

r su

bjec

t mat

ter

know

ledg

e,no

vice

s w

ho fa

iled

to r

outin

ize

man

agem

ent a

nd in

stru

ctio

n fa

iled

toun

ders

tand

wha

t stu

dent

s w

ere

lear

ning

.

Fac

tors

that

the

rese

arch

team

sug

gest

acc

ount

ed fo

r in

telle

ctua

lch

ange

(or

the

lack

ther

eof)

is d

escr

ibed

thro

ugh

part

ial c

ase

stud

ies

of fo

ur p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e st

udy:

1. t

heir

imag

es o

f the

mse

lves

as

teac

hers

;

2. a

n aw

aren

ess

that

they

nee

ded

to te

mpe

r in

itial

bel

iefs

and

com

eto

term

s w

ith c

lass

room

man

agem

ent;

3. t

he p

rese

nce

of a

coo

pera

ting

teac

her

as a

rol

e m

odel

that

faci

li-ta

ted

grow

th; a

nd

4. p

lace

men

t with

a c

oope

ratin

g te

ache

r w

hose

idea

s an

d pr

actic

esw

ere

som

ewha

t diff

eren

t tha

n th

ose

of th

e pr

ospe

ctiv

e te

ache

r.

Laza

r (1

998)

Hel

ping

Pre

serv

ice

Teac

hers

Inqu

ire A

bout

Car

egiv

ers:

AC

ritic

al E

xper

ienc

e fo

r F

ield

-Bas

edC

ours

es

Act

ion

in T

each

er E

duca

tion

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

15 e

lem

enta

ry p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rsw

ho p

artic

ipat

ed in

a s

emes

ter

long

liter

acy

prac

ticum

in a

Phi

lade

lphi

ael

emen

tary

sch

ool

Cul

tura

l Div

ersi

ty A

war

enes

s In

vent

ory,

Teac

hers

’ pap

ers,

ref

lect

ions

, int

er-

view

s w

ith 6

of t

hem

, and

obs

erva

tions

At t

he b

egin

ning

of t

he te

rm, m

ost o

f the

pre

serv

ice

teac

hers

eith

erw

ere

not s

ure

or d

oubt

ed th

at p

oor,

inne

r-ci

ty p

aren

ts r

ead

to th

eir

child

ren,

taug

ht th

em to

rea

d, o

r bo

ught

them

boo

ks.

Afte

r 10

wee

ks o

f int

ervi

ewin

g, te

achi

ng, a

nd o

bser

ving

chi

ldre

n an

dca

regi

vers

, 50%

of t

he s

tude

nt te

ache

rs b

elie

ved

that

inne

r-ci

typa

rent

s re

ad to

thei

r ch

ildre

n an

d su

pplie

d bo

oks;

30%

bel

ieve

d th

atpa

rent

s br

ough

t the

ir ch

ildre

n to

the

libra

ry; 1

5% w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g to

belie

ve th

at c

areg

iver

s ta

ught

thei

r ch

ildre

n to

rea

d.

Wha

t the

stu

dent

teac

hers

lear

ned

from

thei

r fie

ld e

xper

ienc

es w

assh

aped

by

thei

r at

titud

es a

nd b

elie

fs.

Jour

nal o

f Lite

racy

Res

earc

h

62

Met

calf,

Ham

mer

, and

Kah

lich

(199

6)

Alte

rnat

ives

to F

ield

-Bas

ed E

xper

i-en

ces:

The

Com

para

tive

Effe

cts

ofO

n-C

ampu

s La

bora

torie

s

Teac

hing

and

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Qua

si-e

xper

imen

tal,

com

para

tive

stud

y

37 p

rosp

ectiv

e se

cond

ary

teac

hers

enro

lled

in g

ener

al m

etho

ds c

ours

es a

ta

larg

e, m

idw

este

rn p

ublic

uni

vers

ity

The

y w

ere

assi

gned

to tw

o di

ffere

ntki

nds

of c

linic

al e

xper

ienc

es.

One

grou

p (N

=16

) ha

d fie

ld p

lace

men

ts in

one

of tw

o ju

nior

hig

h sc

hool

s. T

heot

her

grou

p (N

=21

) pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

labo

rato

ry e

xper

ienc

es o

n ca

mpu

s th

atw

ere

desi

gned

to p

lay

the

role

of f

ield

expe

rienc

e bu

t in

a m

ore

cont

rolle

den

viro

nmen

t.

Stu

dent

wor

k w

as c

olle

cted

; writ

ten

case

ana

lysi

s as

pre

test

; vi

deot

apes

of th

em te

achi

ng m

ini-l

esso

ns; d

aily

logs

, stu

dent

pap

ers

The

labo

rato

ry s

ettin

g w

as e

ffect

ive

in im

prov

ing

pres

ervi

ce te

ache

rs’

abili

ty to

iden

tify

and

expl

ain

criti

cal p

edag

ogic

al e

vent

s in

writ

ten

case

s, w

here

as th

e fie

ld e

xper

ienc

e re

sulte

d in

slig

htly

neg

ativ

ech

ange

s.

The

re w

as n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce in

the

grou

ps in

thei

r ab

ility

toor

gani

ze in

stru

ctio

n. L

abor

ator

y te

ache

rs w

ere

foun

d to

impr

ove

sign

ifica

ntly

in th

eir

abili

ty to

per

form

dur

ing

inst

ruct

ion.

Sch

elsk

e an

d D

eno

(199

4)

The

Effe

cts

of C

onte

nt-S

peci

ficS

emin

ars

on S

tude

nt T

each

ers’

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Act

ion

in T

each

er E

duca

tion

Cor

rela

tiona

l stu

dy

26 s

tude

nt te

ache

rs e

nrol

led

in a

4-

year

priv

ate

liber

al a

rts

colle

ge in

Min

neso

ta

The

par

ticip

ants

wer

e ra

ndom

lyas

sign

ed to

thre

e se

min

ar c

ondi

tions

:co

ping

ski

lls, c

lass

room

man

agem

ent,

and

educ

atio

nal d

iscu

ssio

n.

Cla

ssro

om o

bser

vatio

ns

Com

pone

nt r

atin

g sc

ales

Stu

dent

Tea

cher

Eva

luat

ion

Sca

le

Stu

dent

Eng

agem

ent R

atin

gs S

cale

Stu

dent

teac

hers

in th

e cl

assr

oom

man

agem

ent a

nd c

opin

g sk

ills

sem

inar

s de

mon

stra

ted

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

clas

sroo

m m

anag

emen

tsk

ill in

thei

r te

achi

ng th

an d

id th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s in

the

disc

ussi

onse

min

ar (

p <

.01)

. S

tude

nt te

ache

rs in

thos

e tw

o gr

oups

als

o de

mon

-st

rate

d si

gnifi

cant

ly h

ighe

r fa

culty

rat

ings

of t

heir

over

all e

ffect

iven

ess

(p <

.05)

, and

low

er p

erce

ntag

es o

f pup

il of

f-ta

sk b

ehav

ior

(p <

.06)

.

Shu

lman

(19

87)

Fro

m V

eter

an P

aren

t to

Nov

ice

Teac

her:

A C

ase

Stu

dy o

f aS

tude

nt T

each

er

Teac

hing

and

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

One

9th

gra

de E

nglis

h pr

eser

vice

teac

her

at a

larg

e m

idw

este

rn u

nive

r-si

ty

1 co

oper

atin

g te

ache

r

2 va

lidat

ing

info

rman

ts (

stud

ent

teac

hers

in a

6th

gra

de c

lass

room

)

Obs

erva

tions

and

inte

rvie

ws

Ove

r th

e ye

ar, t

he te

ache

r pa

ssed

thro

ugh

man

y of

the

stan

dard

phas

es o

f tra

ditio

nal s

tude

nt te

ache

rs, r

angi

ng fr

om fr

ustr

atio

n an

dde

spai

r to

con

fiden

ce a

nd s

ucce

ss.

In d

iffic

ult s

ituat

ions

, the

teac

her

relie

d on

life

exp

erie

nce

as a

cop

ing

mec

hani

sm. P

hase

s w

ere

iden

tifie

d as

obs

erve

r ro

le, a

ctiv

e te

achi

ng,

tria

l and

err

or, c

onso

lidat

ion

and

inte

grat

ion.

She

acc

epte

d a

pass

ive

obse

rver

rol

e in

itial

ly—

adop

ting

a "s

trat

egic

com

plia

nce"

pos

ture

with

her

coop

erat

ing

teac

her

and

late

r w

as a

llow

ed to

dev

elop

her

ow

nin

stru

ctio

nal s

tyle

and

mat

eria

l.

63

A la

rge

part

of t

he p

robl

em fa

ced

by th

e te

ache

r w

as a

han

ds-o

ffco

oper

atin

g te

ache

r w

ho o

ffere

d no

thin

g in

the

way

of a

dvic

e or

com

men

tary

. The

cur

ricul

um w

as a

lso

blan

d an

d im

pove

rishe

d.

The

stu

dent

teac

her

stru

ggle

d to

cre

ate

an im

prov

ed le

arni

ng e

nviro

n-m

ent,

a ta

sk th

at m

ight

hav

e be

en e

asie

r to

ach

ieve

had

she

mor

etr

aini

ng in

teac

her

educ

atio

n. In

the

end

the

teac

her

earn

ed r

espe

ctfr

om th

e st

uden

ts a

nd a

mea

sure

of s

ucce

ss in

impl

emen

ting

a ric

her

curr

icul

um th

at w

as m

ore

stud

ent f

ocus

ed th

an th

e ap

proa

ch w

ithw

hich

she

had

sta

rted

.

Taba

chni

ck, P

opke

wtiz

, and

Zei

chne

r (1

979-

1980

)

Teac

her

Edu

catio

n an

d T

heP

rofe

ssio

nal P

ersp

ectiv

es O

fS

tude

nt T

each

ers

Inte

rcha

nge

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

85 s

tude

nt te

ache

rs e

nrol

led

in th

eel

emen

tary

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m a

t ala

rge

mid

wes

tern

uni

vers

ity

12 w

ere

then

iden

tifie

d as

inte

nsiv

eca

se s

tudi

es

Obs

erva

tions

and

inte

rvie

ws

Stu

dent

teac

hing

invo

lved

a v

ery

limite

d ra

nge

of c

lass

room

act

iviti

es.

Typi

cally

, the

y w

ere

enga

ged

in r

outin

e an

d m

echa

nica

l asp

ects

of

teac

hing

: te

achi

ng s

hort

-ter

m s

kills

, tes

ting

or g

radi

ng c

hild

ren,

and

help

ing

mak

e su

re th

at c

hild

ren

mov

e th

roug

h le

sson

s in

an

orde

rlyw

ay.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

larg

ely

taug

ht in

a m

echa

nica

l fas

hion

and

did

not q

uest

ion

the

norm

s of

the

scho

ol o

r th

e tr

aditi

onal

and

nar

row

appr

oach

to c

urric

ulum

take

n by

the

teac

hers

.

Wor

kboo

ks a

nd w

orks

heet

s do

min

ated

the

stud

ent t

each

ers’

cla

ss-

room

s. T

he a

ctiv

ities

they

wou

ld d

o w

ere

alre

ady

pres

crib

ed b

efor

eth

ey w

ent t

o th

e sc

hool

, and

the

mat

eria

ls w

ere

also

larg

ely

pre-

scrib

ed.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

’ int

erac

tions

with

stu

dent

s te

nded

to b

e br

ief a

ndim

pers

onal

, lar

gely

lim

ited

to th

e sm

all t

echn

ical

task

s th

at th

ey w

ere

wor

king

with

the

stud

ents

on.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

ofte

n to

ok o

n a

pass

ive

role

in th

eir

inte

ract

ions

with

the

coop

erat

ing

teac

hers

. T

here

was

als

o ev

iden

ce th

at th

e st

uden

tte

ache

rs a

void

ed c

onfli

ct w

ith th

eir

coop

erat

ing

teac

hers

.

The

uni

vers

ity s

emin

ars

that

the

stud

ent t

each

ers

wer

e in

volv

ed in

emph

asiz

ed b

eing

ref

lect

ive,

aut

onom

ous,

res

pons

ible

, and

act

ive.

Yet t

hose

them

es w

ere

in c

ontr

adic

tion

with

wha

t act

ually

hap

pene

d in

the

sem

inar

s, fo

r th

e se

min

ars

larg

ely

supp

orte

d th

e on

-goi

ng a

ndco

nstr

aine

d fie

ld e

xper

ienc

es th

at th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s ac

tual

ly h

ad.

Thu

s, in

stea

d of

bei

ng in

com

petit

ion

with

one

ano

ther

, the

uni

vers

ityan

d th

e sc

hool

s to

geth

er c

reat

ed a

pow

erfu

l for

ce in

sup

port

ing

the

stat

us q

uo.

The

stu

dent

teac

hers

sai

d th

at th

ey w

ante

d to

be

diffe

rent

than

thei

rco

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs a

nd to

hav

e in

tere

stin

g an

d ex

citin

g cl

assr

oom

s.B

ut in

thei

r ac

tions

, the

y ac

cept

ed a

rou

tiniz

ed te

achi

ng m

ode

that

was

fam

iliar

.

64

Taba

chni

ck a

nd Z

eich

ner

(198

4)

The

Impa

ct o

f the

Stu

dent

Tea

ch-

ing

Exp

erie

nce

on th

e D

evel

op-

men

t of T

each

er P

ersp

ectiv

es

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

13 e

lem

enta

ry s

tude

nt te

ache

rsen

rolle

d in

a te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

pro-

gram

at a

larg

e m

idw

este

rn u

nive

rsity

Teac

her

Bel

ief I

nven

tory

Obs

erva

tions

and

inte

rvie

ws

The

res

earc

hers

iden

tifie

d 18

dile

mm

as fa

ced

by th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s.T

hese

dile

mm

as c

lust

ered

in 4

dom

ains

: kn

owle

dge

and

curr

icul

um,

teac

her-

pupi

l rel

atio

nshi

ps, t

he te

ache

r’s r

ole,

and

stu

dent

div

ersi

ty.

The

y us

ed th

ese

dile

mm

as to

cha

ract

eriz

e ea

ch s

tude

nt te

ache

r’spe

rspe

ctiv

e, a

nd th

en th

ey e

xam

ined

the

impa

ct o

f stu

dent

teac

hing

on th

e st

uden

t tea

cher

s’ p

ersp

ectiv

es.

Stu

dent

teac

hing

did

not

res

ult i

n a

hom

ogen

izat

ion

of s

tude

nt te

ach-

ers’

per

spec

tives

.

The

stu

dent

teac

hing

exp

erie

nce

did

not s

igni

fican

tly a

lter

the

per-

spec

tives

that

stu

dent

teac

hers

bro

ught

with

them

. O

n th

e co

ntra

ry,

for

10 o

f the

13

stud

ent t

each

ers,

the

stud

ent t

each

ing

expe

rienc

eso

lidifi

ed th

eir

pers

pect

ives

, and

stu

dent

teac

hers

bec

ame

mor

ear

ticul

ate

in th

eir

abili

ty to

exp

ress

thei

r vi

ews.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

dev

elop

ed a

mor

e re

alis

tic v

iew

of t

he w

ork

ofte

achi

ng a

nd th

e te

ache

r’s

role

.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

gre

w in

crea

sing

ly c

omfo

rtab

le w

ith th

eir

belie

fsab

out t

each

ing

and

thei

r ab

ilitie

s to

han

dle

a cl

assr

oom

in th

eir

pref

erre

d st

yles

.

Stu

dent

teac

hers

’ int

entio

ns p

laye

d a

sign

ifica

nt r

ole

both

in th

epl

acem

ent t

hey

sele

cted

for

thei

r st

uden

t tea

chin

g an

d in

thei

r re

ac-

tions

to th

eir

stud

ent t

each

ing

expe

rienc

es.

Wils

on (

1996

)

An

Eva

luat

ion

of th

e F

ield

Exp

erie

nces

of t

he In

nova

tive

Mod

el fo

r th

e P

repa

ratio

n of

Ele

men

tary

Tea

cher

s fo

r S

cien

ce,

Mat

hem

atic

s, a

nd T

echn

olog

y

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y (A

NO

VA

and

de-

scrip

tive

stat

istic

s)

26 p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs w

ho p

artic

i-pa

ted

in a

n N

SF

-spo

nsor

ed e

lem

en-

tary

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m a

tK

ansa

s S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

Sci

ence

Tea

cher

Effi

cacy

Bel

ief

Inve

ntor

y F

ield

Exp

erie

nce

Eva

luat

ion

For

m

Inte

rvie

ws

(all

wer

e ad

min

iste

red

twic

e)

The

fiel

d ex

perie

nces

wer

e pa

rt o

f edu

catio

nal m

etho

ds c

lass

es a

ndto

ok fi

ve fo

rms:

afte

r-sc

hool

clu

b ex

perie

nces

, cla

ssro

om te

ampr

esen

tatio

ns, t

each

er o

bser

vatio

ns a

nd c

ase

stud

ies,

pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t act

iviti

es, a

nd s

peci

al e

vent

s.

The

fiel

d ex

perie

nces

took

pla

ce in

3 p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

scho

ols.

The

sel

f-ef

ficac

y of

pre

serv

ice

teac

hers

incr

ease

s w

ith fi

eld

expe

ri-en

ces

that

are

cle

arly

def

ined

, pla

nned

and

pra

ctic

ed a

head

of t

ime,

and

logi

cally

seq

uenc

ed.

Fie

ld e

xper

ienc

es th

at a

llow

ed p

rese

rvic

e te

ache

rs to

par

ticip

ate

inta

ms

wer

e m

ore

bene

ficia

l tha

n pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent o

ppor

tuni

-tie

s.

65

Qu

esti

on

4:

Res

earc

h o

n T

each

er E

du

cati

on

Po

licie

s

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

And

rew

(19

90)

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

Gra

duat

es o

f4-

Year

and

5-Y

ear

Teac

her

prep

a-ra

tion

Pro

gram

s

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive

popu

latio

n st

udy

70-it

em q

uest

ionn

aire

A c

ompa

rison

of r

ando

m s

ampl

es o

f14

4, 5

-yea

r pr

ogra

m g

radu

ates

and

163,

4-y

ear

prog

ram

gra

duat

es fr

om19

76-1

986

that

pro

vide

d en

try,

ret

en-

tion

and

back

grou

nd d

ata

Gra

duat

es o

f tea

cher

edu

catio

npr

ogra

ms

at th

e U

nive

rsity

of N

ewH

amps

hire

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e ga

ve in

form

atio

n on

27 fa

ctor

s de

term

ined

to b

e im

port

ant

for

rete

ntio

n in

teac

hing

.

Que

stio

nnai

re w

as p

ilot t

este

d on

six

grou

ps o

f exp

erie

nced

teac

hers

and

subs

eque

ntly

mod

ified

.

Ent

ry: B

oth

grou

ps e

nter

ed te

achi

ng a

t a h

ighe

r ra

te th

an r

epor

ted

inna

tiona

l stu

dies

of e

ntry

.

Ret

entio

n: 5

6% o

f 4-y

ear

stud

ents

and

74%

of 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts w

ere

still

teac

hing

. A

lthou

gh it

has

bee

n re

port

ed th

at a

cade

mic

ally

sup

e-rio

r te

ache

rs a

re m

ore

likel

y to

leav

e te

achi

ng, t

his

was

not

true

of t

he5-

year

pro

gram

gro

up w

ho h

ad h

ad h

ighe

r ac

adem

ic r

equi

rem

ents

for

ente

ring

prog

ram

s.

Car

eer

Sat

isfa

ctio

n: 5

6% o

f 4-y

ear

stud

ents

com

pare

d to

82%

of 5

-ye

ar s

tude

nts

said

they

'd c

hoos

e te

achi

ng a

gain

.

Atti

tude

s to

war

d te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n: 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts r

espo

nses

show

ed s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

show

ing

mor

e po

sitiv

e at

titud

es to

war

dpr

ogra

m a

nd m

otiv

atio

n. Y

early

eva

luat

ions

com

paris

on: 1

) Allo

catio

nof

tim

e sh

owed

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s in

5-y

ear

stud

ents

who

had

high

er e

stim

ates

for

each

of t

he fi

ve a

reas

. 2)

Rat

ings

of e

ffect

iven

ess

of 5

-yea

r st

uden

ts c

onsi

sten

tly r

ated

thei

r ow

n ab

ilitie

s as

hig

her

than

4-ye

ar s

tude

nts

in 1

1 ou

t of 1

2 ite

ms.

Hig

her

rete

ntio

n ra

te fo

r 5t

h ye

ar p

rogr

am, 7

4% c

ompa

red

to 5

6%.

Hig

her

care

er s

atis

fact

ion.

The

y al

so r

ated

the

prog

ram

, and

thei

rco

oper

atin

g te

ache

rs h

ighe

r.

5-ye

ar s

tude

nts

cons

iste

ntly

rat

ed th

eir

abili

ties

high

er th

an 4

-yea

rpr

ogra

m g

rads

, esp

ecia

lly in

org

aniz

ing

and

plan

ning

cla

ss a

ctiv

ities

,st

imul

atin

g st

uden

t int

eres

t and

con

fere

ncin

g w

ith p

aren

ts.

Fou

ndth

eir

cour

sew

ork

mor

e va

luab

le.

Dar

ling-

Ham

mon

d (2

000)

Teac

her

Qua

lity

And

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t: A

Rev

iew

Of S

tate

Pol

icy

Evi

denc

e.

Edu

catio

n P

olic

y A

naly

sis

Arc

hive

s

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion

and

part

ial

corr

elat

ions

)

1993

-94

Sch

ool a

nd S

taffi

ng S

urve

y(S

AS

S)

65,0

00 te

ache

rs

Dat

a on

NC

AT

E c

ertif

icat

ion

colle

cted

from

50

stat

es

Sta

te a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

mat

h-em

atic

s: g

rade

4 in

199

0, 1

996;

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

posi

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f wel

l-qua

lifie

dte

ache

rs (

full

cert

ifica

tion

and

maj

or in

thei

r fie

ld).

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

nega

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f tea

cher

s ou

t of

field

(le

ss th

an a

min

or in

the

field

they

teac

h).

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

posi

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

stat

e’s

perc

enta

ge o

f ful

ly c

ertif

ied

teac

hers

.

A s

tate

’s a

vera

ge o

f NA

EP

sco

res

in r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

was

nega

tivel

y as

soci

ated

with

thre

e in

dica

tors

of t

he s

tate

’s p

erce

ntag

e of

66

grad

e 8

1992

, 199

6

Sta

te a

vera

ge N

AE

P s

core

s in

rea

d-in

g: g

rade

4 in

199

2, 1

994

Sta

te is

uni

t of a

naly

sis.

less

than

fully

cer

tifie

d te

ache

rs:

% o

f all

teac

hers

less

than

fully

cert

ified

, % o

f new

ent

rant

s to

teac

hing

who

are

unc

ertif

ied

(exc

ludi

ngtr

ansf

ers)

, % o

f all

new

ly h

ired

teac

hers

unc

ertif

ied.

The

per

cent

age

of te

ache

rs w

ith b

oth

a m

ajor

and

full

cert

ifica

tion

inth

eir

field

was

pos

itive

ly c

orre

late

d w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

each

ered

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns in

a s

tate

not

NC

AT

E a

ccre

dite

d.

Gito

mer

& L

atha

m (

1999

)

The

Aca

dem

ic Q

ualit

y of

Pro

spec

-tiv

e Te

ache

rs:

The

Impa

ct o

fA

dmis

sion

s an

d Li

cens

ure

Test

ing.

Prin

ceto

n, N

J: E

duca

tiona

l Tes

ting

Ser

vice

.

Com

para

tive

stud

y (m

ultip

le r

egre

s-si

on)

Nat

iona

l pro

babi

lity

sam

ple

Stu

dy o

f tea

cher

edu

catio

n st

uden

tte

st s

core

s an

d in

form

atio

n on

teac

her

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

Ove

rall

sam

ple

incl

udes

ove

r 30

0,00

0st

uden

ts w

ho to

ok P

raxi

s in

199

4-97

Dat

a so

urce

s: E

TS

Pra

xis

I and

IIex

amin

atio

ns s

core

s; c

olle

ge e

ntra

nce

SA

T a

nd A

CT

sco

res;

NC

AT

E s

tatu

s of

cand

idat

e’s

inst

itutio

n; s

tate

pas

sing

stat

us

Teac

hers

did

bet

ter

on th

e ce

rtifi

catio

n te

sts

if th

ey a

ttend

ed in

stitu

-tio

ns th

at h

ad b

een

appr

oved

by

the

natio

nal a

ccre

ditin

g as

soci

atio

n.

Pre

stin

e (1

991)

Pol

itica

l Sys

tem

The

ory

as a

nE

xpla

nato

ry P

arad

igm

for

Teac

her

Edu

catio

n R

efor

m.

Am

eric

an E

duca

tiona

l Res

earc

hJo

urna

l

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y of

one

col

lege

of

educ

atio

n’s

expe

rienc

e w

ith a

cha

nge

in s

tate

pol

icy

Uni

vers

ity o

f Wis

cons

in M

adis

on a

ndth

e W

isco

nsin

Dep

artm

ent o

f Pub

licIn

stru

ctio

n

Doc

umen

t ana

lysi

s, in

terv

iew

s

Cha

nge

in s

tate

law

con

cern

ing

the

role

of t

he s

tate

in a

ppro

val o

fte

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

lead

ing

to c

ertif

icat

ion

or li

cens

ure

resu

lted

in a

sus

tain

ed c

onfli

ct b

etw

een

UW

-M a

nd W

DP

I and

even

tual

ly in

cha

nges

in U

W-M

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m.

The

sta

te g

over

nmen

t was

abl

e to

pro

duce

cha

nge

in th

e te

ache

red

ucat

ion

prog

ram

, eve

n in

an

inst

itutio

n w

ith a

str

ong

and

wel

l-de

fined

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m.

Wen

glin

sky

(200

0)

Teac

hing

the

Teac

hers

: Diff

eren

tS

ettin

gs, D

iffer

ent R

esul

ts.

Prin

ceto

n, N

J:

Edu

catio

nal T

estin

g S

ervi

ce

Com

para

tive

stud

y (m

ultip

le r

egre

s-si

on)

Stu

dy o

f tea

cher

edu

catio

n st

uden

tte

st s

core

s an

d in

stitu

tion

surv

eyre

spon

ses

Sam

ple

size

: 152

inst

itutio

ns; 4

0,00

0te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

Dat

a so

urce

s: E

TS

Pra

xis

II ex

amin

a-tio

ns s

core

s; N

CE

S In

tegr

ated

Pos

tsec

onda

ry E

duca

tiona

l Dat

aS

yste

m; c

olle

ge e

ntra

nce

SA

T s

core

san

d A

CT

sco

res;

sur

vey

of in

stitu

tions

Sou

thea

ster

n U

S

Teac

hers

did

bet

ter

on th

e ce

rtifi

catio

n te

sts

if th

ey a

ttend

edin

stitu

tions

that

:

1. h

ad a

rel

ativ

ely

low

pro

port

ion

of th

e in

stitu

tion

(bud

get a

nd n

um-

bers

of e

duca

tion

maj

ors

and

min

ors)

dev

oted

to te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n

2. h

ad a

rel

ativ

ely

high

pro

port

ion

of tr

aditi

onal

(i.e

., fu

ll-tim

e, 2

4 ye

ars

old

or y

oung

er)

stud

ents

3. w

ere

priv

ate

rath

er th

an p

ublic

4. h

ad a

n et

hnic

ally

div

erse

facu

lty

67

Qu

esti

on

5:

Res

earc

h o

n A

lter

nat

e R

ou

tes

Stu

dy

Res

earc

h T

rad

itio

n

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Var

iab

les

Fin

din

gs

Gol

dhab

er a

nd B

rew

er (

2000

)

Doe

s Te

ache

r C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

ter?

Hig

h S

choo

l Tea

cher

Cer

tific

atio

nS

tatu

s an

d S

tude

nt A

chie

vem

ent

Edu

catio

nal E

valu

atio

n an

d P

olic

yA

naly

sis

Sur

vey

and

com

para

tive

popu

latio

nst

udy

(mul

tiple

reg

ress

ion)

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

nal L

ongi

tudi

nal

Sur

vey

1988

3,78

6 st

uden

ts in

mat

hem

atic

s

2,52

4 st

uden

ts in

sci

ence

2,09

8 m

athe

mat

ics

teac

hers

1,37

1 sc

ienc

e te

ache

rs

10th

and

12t

h gr

ade

stan

dard

ized

test

scor

es in

mat

hem

atic

s an

d sc

ienc

e is

the

outc

ome

varia

ble.

Inde

pend

ent v

aria

bles

are

gro

uped

into

:

• in

divi

dual

and

fam

ily b

ackg

roun

dch

arac

teris

tics

of s

tude

nts

• sc

hool

ing

reso

urce

s, w

hich

incl

ude

scho

ol, t

each

er, a

nd c

lass

spe

cific

varia

bles

.

Teac

her

varia

bles

incl

ude

type

of

cert

ifica

tion

(sta

ndar

d su

bjec

t, pr

oba-

tiona

ry s

ubje

ct, p

rivat

e sc

hool

, non

e),

degr

ee le

vel,

and

expe

rienc

e

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

old

stan

dard

cer

tific

atio

n or

priv

ate

scho

ol c

ertif

icat

ion

in th

eir

subj

ect h

ave

12th

gra

de m

ath

test

s w

ithsc

ores

bet

wee

n 7

to 1

0 po

ints

hig

her

than

stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

with

prob

atio

nary

or

emer

genc

y ce

rtifi

catio

n, o

r w

ho a

re n

ot c

ertif

ied.

Sim

ilar

resu

lts w

ere

foun

d fo

r st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t on

a 10

th g

rade

mat

hem

atic

s te

st.

The

res

ults

wer

e si

mila

r fo

r sc

ienc

e, b

ut a

re le

ss p

rono

unce

d.

Stu

dent

s fr

om lo

wer

SE

S b

ackg

roun

ds te

nd to

get

teac

hers

who

hav

eem

erge

ncy

or p

roba

tiona

ry c

rede

ntia

ls, o

r no

cer

tific

atio

n. T

hus,

stud

ents

are

not

ran

dom

ly d

istr

ibut

ed a

cros

s te

ache

rs b

y ty

pe o

fce

rtifi

catio

n.

Stu

dent

s w

ho d

o po

orly

in 1

0th

grad

e ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

assi

gned

to a

teac

her

who

doe

s no

t hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

in m

athe

mat

ics

in 1

2th

grad

e.

Stu

dent

s w

ith te

ache

rs w

ho h

ad d

egre

es in

mat

hem

atic

s w

are

foun

dto

hav

e hi

gher

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

teac

hers

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

In s

cien

ce, t

here

was

no

effe

ct.

Mat

h st

uden

ts w

ith te

ache

rs w

ith b

ache

lor’s

or

mas

ter’s

deg

rees

inm

athe

mat

ics

have

hig

her

test

sco

res

rela

tive

to th

ose

with

out

-of-

subj

ect d

egre

es.

The

re is

no

sign

ifica

nt r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

teac

her

subj

ect m

atte

rm

ajor

and

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t in

scie

nce.

Hav

ing

a de

gree

in e

duca

tion

had

no im

pact

on

stud

ent s

cien

cesc

ores

, but

a B

A in

edu

catio

n ha

d a

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n m

athe

mat

ics

achi

evem

ent.

Stu

dent

s of

teac

hers

who

hav

e st

anda

rd c

ertif

icat

ion

or e

mer

genc

yce

rtifi

catio

n ha

ve h

ighe

r m

ath

scor

es th

an s

tude

nts

who

se te

ache

rsha

ve p

rivat

e sc

hool

cer

tific

atio

n or

no

cert

ifica

tion.

The

effe

cts

are

not

as s

tron

g in

sci

ence

but

do

follo

w th

e sa

me

tren

ds.

Gro

ssm

an (

1989

)

Lear

ning

to T

each

With

out T

each

erE

duca

tion

Teac

hers

Col

lege

Rec

ord

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

3 te

ache

rs w

ho d

id n

ot g

o th

roug

hte

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

(2 w

ith B

As

inlit

erat

ure,

one

com

plet

ing

a do

ctor

ate)

The

teac

hers

foun

d it

hard

to r

econ

cept

ualiz

e E

nglis

h as

a s

choo

lsu

bjec

t and

to r

ethi

nk it

so

as to

mak

e it

acce

ssib

le to

thei

r st

uden

ts.

The

teac

hers

als

o fo

und

it di

fficu

lt to

ant

icip

ate

stud

ent k

now

ledg

e an

dpo

tent

ial d

iffic

ultie

s.

68

Guy

ton,

Fox

, and

Sis

k (1

991)

Com

paris

on o

f Tea

chin

g A

ttitu

des,

Teac

her

Effi

cacy

, and

Tea

cher

Per

form

ance

of F

irst Y

ear

Teac

hers

Pre

pare

d by

Alte

rnat

ive

and

Trad

ition

al T

each

er E

duca

tion

Pro

gram

s

Act

ion

in T

each

er E

duca

tion

Com

para

tive

and

surv

ey s

tudy

3 be

ginn

ing

teac

hers

in a

n A

ltern

ativ

eP

repa

ratio

n In

stitu

te (

AC

teac

hers

)an

d 26

beg

inni

ng te

ache

rs p

repa

red

intr

aditi

onal

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

(RC

teac

hers

) in

Geo

rgia

AC

teac

hers

nom

inat

ed a

nd th

enin

vite

d to

par

ticip

ate

in r

esea

rch;

no

info

rmat

ion

abou

t how

RC

teac

hers

wer

e se

lect

ed

Atti

tude

Inve

ntor

y (1

4 op

en-e

nded

item

s) E

duca

tiona

l Atti

tude

s In

vent

ory

(Lik

ert s

cale

) Te

achi

ng A

ttitu

des

Inve

ntor

y (L

iker

t sca

le)

Teac

her

Effi

cacy

Sca

leB

egin

ning

Tea

cher

sE

valu

atio

n F

orm

(co

mpl

eted

by

men

tors

, pee

rs, p

rinci

pals

)

At t

he e

nd o

f the

yea

r, th

e sa

mpl

edr

oppe

d to

11

AC

teac

hers

and

15

RC

teac

hers

.

39%

of t

he A

C te

ache

rs w

ere

Afr

ican

-Am

eric

an; 8

% o

f the

RC

teac

h-er

s w

ere.

Com

para

ble

on o

ther

dim

ensi

ons,

incl

udin

g S

ES

, sub

ject

area

, and

gen

der.

No

stat

istic

al d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n A

C a

nd R

C G

PA

or

teac

her

cert

ifi-

catio

n te

st s

core

.

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n th

e tw

o gr

oups

in m

ean

eval

uatio

nsc

ores

.

The

AC

teac

hers

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

posi

tive

abou

t the

ir te

ache

rpr

epar

atio

n pr

ogra

m.

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

edu

catio

nal a

ttitu

des

or in

eva

luat

ion

ofse

lf-ef

ficac

y as

a te

ache

r. A

C te

ache

rs fe

lt at

leas

t as

effic

acio

us a

sth

e R

C te

ache

rs.

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

sel

f-ef

ficac

y or

edu

catio

nal a

ttitu

des.

RC

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

posi

tive

abou

t sta

ying

in th

e pr

ofes

sion

. F

ive

AC

teac

hers

qui

t tea

chin

g be

fore

the

year

was

ove

r.

AC

teac

hers

had

men

tors

to s

uppo

rt th

eir

indu

ctio

n; R

C te

ache

rs d

idno

t.

Firs

t-ye

ar te

ache

rs o

f Eng

lish

insc

hool

s in

the

San

Fra

ncis

co B

ayar

ea.

Inte

rvie

ws

(fiv

e) a

nd c

lass

room

obse

rvat

ions

from

the

Kno

wle

dge

Gro

wth

in a

Pro

fess

ion

Pro

ject

The

teac

hers

exp

lain

ed a

way

teac

hing

diff

icul

ties

with

lack

of s

tude

ntm

otiv

atio

n an

d un

will

ingn

ess

to w

ork

hard

.

The

teac

hers

rel

y he

avily

on

mem

orie

s of

them

selv

es a

s st

uden

ts.

The

teac

hers

use

d te

achi

ng s

trat

egie

s th

at th

ey h

ad e

xper

ienc

ed a

sle

arne

rs.

Som

etim

es th

ese

wer

e co

llege

mod

els

and

inap

prop

riate

for

thei

r hi

gh s

choo

l stu

dent

s.

The

teac

hers

sha

red

a "c

once

ptio

n of

teac

hing

that

pre

supp

oses

brig

ht, m

otiv

ated

stu

dent

s w

ho a

re e

ager

to le

arn

from

a k

now

ledg

e-ab

le te

ache

r" (

p. 2

00).

For

the

teac

hers

, pla

nnin

g m

eant

sub

ject

mat

ter

prep

arat

ion

(rea

ding

the

book

or

the

play

), n

ot th

inki

ng th

roug

h ho

w s

tude

nts

wou

ld b

est

lear

n it.

Hou

ston

, Mar

shal

l, an

d M

cDav

id(1

993)

Pro

blem

s of

Tra

ditio

nally

Pre

pare

dan

d A

ltern

ativ

ely

Cer

tifie

d F

irst-

Year

Tea

cher

s

Edu

catio

n an

d U

rban

Soc

iety

Com

para

tive

stud

y

69 r

egul

arly

cer

tifie

d el

emen

tary

teac

hers

and

162

alte

rnat

ivel

y ce

rtifi

edfir

st y

ear

teac

hers

in th

e H

oust

onIn

depe

nden

t Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Sur

vey

inst

rum

ent t

o as

sess

teac

hers

’

Trad

ition

ally

cer

tifie

d te

ache

rs w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to b

e fe

mal

e(p

= .0

001)

, you

nger

(p=

.000

1), s

ingl

e an

d W

hite

.

AC

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

teac

hing

chi

ldre

n of

col

or(p

=. 0

02).

TC

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

teac

hing

in th

e ar

ea in

whi

ch th

eyw

ere

cert

ified

(p=

. 001

).

69

Hut

ton,

Lut

z, a

nd W

illia

mso

n(1

990)

Cha

ract

eris

tics,

Atti

tude

s, a

ndP

erfo

rman

ce o

f Alte

rnat

ive

Cer

tifi-

catio

n In

tern

s

Edu

catio

n R

esea

rch

Qua

rter

ly

Com

para

tive

stud

y

110

inte

rns

in th

e D

alla

s In

depe

nden

tS

choo

l Dis

tric

t Alte

rnat

ive

Cer

tific

atio

nP

rogr

am w

hich

is a

col

labo

ratio

nbe

twee

n th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t and

Eas

tTe

xas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Teac

her

Wor

klife

Inve

ntor

y

Teac

her

Con

cern

s C

heck

list

Sur

vey

of M

ains

trea

min

g O

ptio

ns

Com

paris

on g

roup

of 6

2 tr

aditi

onal

lypr

epar

ed fi

rst-

year

teac

hers

TTA

S (

the

stat

ewid

e te

ache

r pe

rfor

-m

ance

eva

luat

ion)

ExC

ET

(th

e st

atew

ide

cert

ifica

tion

exam

)

TAC

RF

(ra

tings

by

teac

her

advi

sors

com

parin

g in

tern

s to

ave

rage

firs

t-ye

arte

ache

rs)

AC

inte

rns

beca

me

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e co

ncer

ned

abou

t the

task

of

teac

hing

afte

r a

sem

este

r in

the

clas

sroo

m.

And

less

con

cern

ed a

bout

self

and

impa

ct o

n st

uden

ts.

(p <

.01)

AC

inte

rns

beca

me

sign

ifica

ntly

less

pos

itive

abo

ut m

ains

trea

min

g(p

< .0

1).

11 in

tern

s dr

oppe

d ou

t.

In th

e re

mai

ning

99,

ther

e w

as a

hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f min

ority

teac

h-er

s th

an in

a c

ompa

rison

gro

up o

f 62

trad

ition

ally

pre

pare

d fir

st-y

ear

teac

hers

.

The

re w

as n

o ch

ange

dur

ing

trai

ning

on

the

TW

LI.

The

firs

t yea

r te

ache

rs w

ere

youn

ger

than

the

AC

inte

rns

(p <

.05)

.

The

re w

as n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce in

the

SE

S o

f the

sch

ools

in w

hich

they

wer

e te

achi

ng.

On

two

dim

ensi

ons

of th

e W

orkl

ife In

vent

ory,

the

AC

inte

rns

foun

dth

eir

wor

k si

gnifi

cant

ly le

ss r

ewar

ding

and

mor

e co

mpl

ex (

p <

.05)

.

Alm

ost a

ll of

the

AC

inte

rns

met

or

exce

eded

exp

ecta

tions

on

the

TTA

S. I

nter

n pa

ssin

g ra

tes

on fi

ve o

f the

sev

en d

iffer

ent E

xCE

Tex

amin

atio

ns w

ere

high

er th

an th

e st

atew

ide

pass

ing

rate

s. (

The

sam

ple

size

s fo

r te

st-t

aker

s ra

nged

from

1 to

60)

.

perc

eptio

ns o

f pro

blem

s, a

ssis

tanc

e of

men

tors

, and

con

fiden

ce, s

atis

fact

ion,

and

futu

re p

lans

, adm

inis

tere

d af

ter

2an

d 8

mon

ths

of te

achi

ng

The

res

earc

hers

als

o fo

und

that

afte

r 2

mon

ths

of te

achi

ng, a

ltern

a-tiv

ely

cert

ified

teac

hers

per

ceiv

ed s

igni

fican

tly g

reat

er p

robl

ems

with

stud

ent m

otiv

atio

n, m

anag

ing

teac

her

time,

the

amou

nt o

f pap

erw

ork,

grad

ing

stud

ents

, lac

k of

per

sona

l tim

e, a

nd s

choo

l adm

inis

trat

ion.

Six

mon

ths

late

r, af

ter

8 m

onth

s of

teac

hing

, the

se d

iffer

ence

s ha

d al

lbu

t dis

appe

ared

. T

here

wer

e no

diff

eren

ces

in th

eir

conf

iden

ce a

ste

ache

rs, a

nd a

fter

8 m

onth

s of

teac

hing

, the

re w

ere

no s

igni

fican

tdi

ffere

nces

in th

eir

view

of t

he e

ffect

iven

ess

of m

ento

rs’ a

ssis

tanc

e,th

eir

satis

fact

ion

with

teac

hing

as

a ca

reer

, in

thei

r pl

ans

to k

eep

teac

hing

, or

thei

r in

tent

ion

to b

e te

achi

ng 5

yea

rs h

ence

.

Jelm

berg

(19

96)

Col

lege

-Bas

ed T

each

er E

duca

tion

Ver

sus

Sta

te-S

pons

ored

Alte

rna-

tive

Pro

gram

s

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive

and

surv

ey s

tudy

Ran

dom

sam

ple

of 4

92 N

ew H

amp-

shire

ele

men

tary

and

sec

onda

rysc

hool

teac

hers

cer

tifie

d be

twee

n19

87 a

nd 1

990.

236

usab

le te

ache

r su

rvey

s

136

usab

le p

rinci

pal s

urve

ys

App

roxi

mat

ely

200

RC

teac

hers

, 30

AC

teac

hers

cam

e fr

om A

ltern

ativ

e 4

grad

uate

s as

sum

e fu

ll re

spon

si-

bilit

y fo

r st

uden

ts p

rior

to te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n an

d ha

ve 3

yea

rs to

com

plet

e a

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t pla

n.

RC

teac

hers

cam

e th

roug

h a

4-ye

ar tr

aditi

onal

pro

gram

, or

a 5-

year

trad

ition

al p

rogr

am th

at in

clud

es a

yea

rlong

inte

rnsh

ip.

Teac

hers

from

the

teac

her

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

rate

d th

eir

prof

essi

onal

prep

arat

ion

in te

achi

ng m

etho

ds a

nd e

duca

tion

foun

datio

ns h

ighe

rth

an d

id A

C te

ache

rs (

p <

.02)

, as

wel

l as

thei

r su

perv

isio

n an

d th

eir

over

all p

repa

ratio

n.

70

Lutz

and

Hut

ton

(198

9)

Alte

rnat

ive

Teac

her

Cer

tific

atio

n:Its

Pol

icy

Impl

icat

ions

for

Cla

ss-

room

and

Per

sonn

el P

ract

ice

Edu

catio

nal E

valu

atio

n an

d P

olic

yA

naly

sis

Com

para

tive

stud

y, s

urve

y

Eva

luat

ion

of th

e al

tern

ativ

e te

ache

rce

rtifi

catio

n pr

ogra

m in

the

Dal

las

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

tric

t, in

clud

ing

com

paris

ons

and

regr

essi

on a

naly

sis

110

inte

rns

in p

rogr

am; 9

9 in

sam

ple,

com

pare

d to

62

first

yea

r te

ache

rs

Var

ious

mea

sure

s, in

clud

ing

dem

o-gr

aphi

c in

form

atio

n, b

asic

ski

lls te

st,

Texa

s Te

ache

r App

rais

al S

yste

m,

Teac

her A

dvis

or C

ompa

rison

Rat

ing

For

m, T

each

er W

ork-

Life

Inve

ntor

y,E

xCE

T (

stat

ewid

e ce

rtifi

catio

n ex

am),

Teac

her

Con

cern

s C

heck

list,

Sur

vey

ofM

ains

trea

min

g O

ptio

ns

Som

e de

scrip

tion

of th

e pr

ogra

m e

lem

ents

is p

rovi

ded.

The

ave

rage

age

was

31.

3 ye

ars,

38%

wer

e w

hite

, 34%

Bla

ck, 2

5%H

ispa

nic.

The

ir av

erag

e G

PA

in th

eir

unde

rgra

duat

e w

ork

was

3.1

35.

Whe

n co

mpa

red

to fi

rst-

year

teac

hers

in th

eir

sam

e di

stric

t, th

eal

tern

ativ

ely

cert

ified

teac

hers

wer

e ol

der

and

mor

e di

vers

e et

hnic

ally

or r

acia

lly (

p <

.01)

. T

here

wer

e no

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s in

the

SE

Sof

the

scho

ols

to w

hich

they

wer

e as

sign

ed, a

lthou

gh m

ore

alte

rna-

tivel

y cr

eden

tiale

d te

ache

rs w

ere

teac

hing

in s

econ

dary

sch

ools

.

Firs

t-ye

ar te

ache

rs r

epor

ted

a hi

gher

com

mitm

ent t

o te

achi

ng a

s a

prof

essi

on a

nd p

lann

ed to

sta

y in

teac

hing

long

er th

an A

C in

tern

s.

Whe

n ra

ted

by th

eir

men

tors

, the

alte

rnat

ivel

y ce

rtifi

ed te

ache

rs g

othi

gh e

valu

atio

ns o

n th

eir

perf

orm

ance

as

teac

hers

. 91

.8%

wer

e ra

ted

as p

erfo

rmin

g as

wel

l as,

sup

erio

r to

, or

very

sup

erio

r to

the

typi

cal

first

-yea

r te

ache

r in

the

dist

rict.

Whe

n co

mpa

red

to th

e st

atew

ide

aver

age

of fi

rst-

year

teac

hers

, the

99 A

C te

ache

rs w

ho c

ompl

eted

the

prog

ram

had

hig

her

test

sco

res

onth

e E

xCE

T, th

e st

atew

ide

test

for

teac

her

subj

ect m

atte

r kn

owle

dge.

Teac

her

advi

sors

gen

erat

ed a

list

of s

peci

fic s

ugge

stio

ns fo

r im

prov

ing

the

DIS

D In

tern

pro

gram

.

59 o

f the

99

inte

rns

wer

e re

com

men

ded

for

cert

ifica

tion;

24

wer

ere

quire

d to

mak

e up

def

icie

ncie

s in

thei

r fil

es.

Prin

cipa

ls r

ated

beg

inni

ng te

ache

rs h

ighe

r th

an A

C in

tern

s on

rea

ding

,di

scip

line

man

agem

ent,

clas

sroo

m m

anag

emen

t, pl

anni

ng, i

nstr

uc-

tiona

l tec

hniq

ues,

and

inst

ruct

iona

l mod

els.

Abo

ut 2

5% o

f AC

inte

rns

adm

itted

to c

hoos

ing

teac

hing

bec

ause

of

lack

of s

ucce

ss in

firs

t car

eer,

in c

ompa

rison

with

96%

of f

irst y

ear

teac

hers

.

AC

teac

hers

Que

stio

nnai

re to

gat

her

prog

ram

eval

uatio

ns fr

om te

ache

rs a

nd to

gath

er e

valu

atio

ns fr

om p

rinci

pals

;al

so s

urve

yed

acad

emic

cre

dent

ials

,pr

ofes

sion

al c

ours

es, a

nd p

ract

icum

supe

rvis

ion

Prin

cipa

ls r

ated

the

RC

teac

hers

sig

nific

antly

hig

her

on in

stru

ctio

nal

plan

ning

(p

< .0

5) a

nd o

n in

stru

ctio

nal s

kills

(p

< .0

4).

A s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of A

C te

ache

rs a

sses

sed

the

dist

rict

staf

f as

valu

able

.

26 o

f the

27

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s fo

und

in th

e st

udy

favo

red

trad

i-tio

nal t

each

er p

repa

ratio

n.

71

McD

iarm

id a

nd W

ilson

(19

91)

An

Exp

lora

tion

of th

e S

ubje

ctM

atte

r K

now

ledg

e of

Alte

rnat

eR

oute

Tea

cher

s: C

an W

e A

ssum

eT

hey

Kno

w T

heir

Sub

ject

?

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Inte

rpre

tive

and

surv

ey s

tudy

N=

55

Und

ergr

adua

te d

egre

es in

mat

hem

atic

s

8 in

the

inte

nsiv

e sa

mpl

e

All

in tw

o al

tern

ate

rout

es

Ano

ther

8 in

tens

ive

sam

ple

inte

rvie

wee

s w

ho m

ajor

ed in

som

e-th

ing

else

but

wer

e to

be

elem

enta

rysc

hool

teac

hers

Que

stio

nnai

re a

nd in

terv

iew

s

In g

ener

al, p

rosp

ectiv

e te

ache

rs d

id w

ell o

n ru

les

of th

umb

in m

ath-

emat

ics

but c

ould

not

exp

lain

how

thos

e ru

les

wor

ked

or r

epre

sent

prob

lem

s ac

cura

tely

.

Mill

er, M

cKen

na, a

nd M

cKen

na(1

998)

A C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

ely

and

Trad

ition

ally

Pre

pare

d Te

ache

rs

Jour

nal o

f Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

para

tive

and

inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Stu

dy 1

: 41

AC

teac

hers

mat

ched

with

41 T

C te

ache

rs.

The

AC

gra

duat

esca

me

from

a p

rogr

am fo

r m

iddl

esc

hool

teac

hers

at a

sou

thea

ster

nun

iver

sity

. T

he s

tudy

took

pla

ce a

fter

all t

each

ers

had

3 ye

ars

of c

lass

room

expe

rienc

e. M

atch

ed o

n su

bjec

tsta

ught

, gra

de le

vel,

and

scho

ol

Cla

ssro

om e

valu

atio

n ra

ting

scal

e(t

rain

ed o

bser

vers

)

Stu

dy 2

: 18

5th

and

6th

grad

e cl

ass-

room

s, s

elec

ted

from

teac

hers

in s

tudy

1. 188

stud

ents

of A

C te

ache

rs, 1

57st

uden

ts o

f RC

teac

hers

Iow

a Te

st o

f Bas

ic S

kills

Stu

dy 3

: Int

ervi

ews

abou

t per

cept

ions

of te

achi

ng a

bilit

ies

of th

e 82

teac

hers

from

Stu

dy 1

.

Trai

ned

inte

rvie

wer

s

Stu

dy 1

: No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

teac

hing

beh

avio

rs b

etw

een

AC

and

RC

teac

hers

. M

AN

OV

A a

naly

ses

sugg

est t

hat t

he d

iffer

ence

sob

tain

ed in

the

stud

y w

ere

due

to s

ampl

ing

varia

bilit

y an

d do

not

refle

ct tr

ue d

iffer

ence

s in

the

popu

latio

ns.

Stu

dy 2

: No

diffe

renc

e in

ave

rage

stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t.

Stu

dy 3

: Nei

ther

gro

up fe

lt m

ore

prep

ared

than

the

othe

r; n

eith

er fe

ltpa

rtic

ular

ly w

ell p

repa

red.

Dis

cipl

ine

and

clas

sroo

m m

anag

emen

tw

ere

the

two

mos

t com

mon

ly c

ited

prob

lem

s. B

oth

grou

ps fe

lt co

mpe

-te

nt a

fter

3 ye

ars

of e

xper

ienc

e.

72

San

dlin

, You

ng, a

nd K

arge

(19

92)

Reg

ular

ly a

nd A

ltern

ativ

ely

Cre

-de

ntia

led

Beg

inni

ng T

each

ers:

Com

paris

on a

nd C

ontr

ast o

f The

irD

evel

opm

ent

Act

ion

in T

each

er E

duca

tion

Com

para

tive,

sur

vey,

and

long

itudi

nal

stud

y

66 b

egin

ning

teac

hers

and

58

inte

rns

rand

omly

sel

ecte

d fr

om a

poo

l of

teac

hers

at a

Cal

iforn

ia S

tate

Uni

ver-

sity

cam

pus;

inte

rns

wer

e pa

rt o

f aC

alifo

rnia

Uni

vers

ity In

tern

Cre

dent

ial

AC

pro

gram

.

All

of th

e in

tern

s ha

d tw

o ye

ars

of p

aid

field

exp

erie

nce

prio

r to

teac

hing

.

Teac

her

Eva

luat

ion

Sca

le a

nd c

lass

-ro

om o

bser

vatio

n of

teac

hers

Teac

her

Con

cern

Sur

vey

13%

wer

e in

terv

iew

ed b

y ph

one

In th

e fa

ll, R

C te

ache

rs w

ere

rate

d si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

in c

lass

room

obse

rvat

ions

than

the

AC

teac

hers

on

5 of

16

item

s (p

< .0

5).

By

mid

year

, the

y w

ere

rate

d si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

on

2 of

the

16 it

ems.

At

the

end

of th

e ye

ar, t

here

wer

e no

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n th

egr

oups

.

15 te

ache

rs w

ere

inte

rvie

wed

by

phon

e. A

C te

ache

rs s

trug

gled

mos

tw

ith p

aper

wor

k, ti

me,

and

org

aniz

atio

n. R

C te

ache

rs w

ere

conc

erne

dw

ith s

elf-

conf

iden

ce a

nd o

rgan

izat

ion.

By

the

end

of a

yea

r, bo

thgr

oups

felt

prep

ared

to te

ach.

RC

teac

hers

cre

dite

d th

eir

teac

her

prep

arat

ion

prog

ram

; A

C te

ache

rs c

redi

ted

thei

r ex

perie

nce.

RC

teac

hers

list

ed s

elf-

conc

erns

(e.

g., e

valu

atio

n) a

s hi

ghes

t; A

Clis

ted

task

and

sel

f-co

ncer

ns a

s hi

ghes

t.

RC

teac

hers

sho

wed

mor

e co

ncer

n ab

out a

ll el

emen

ts o

f the

ir te

ach-

ing

abili

ty.

She

n (1

997)

Has

the

Alte

rnat

ive

Cer

tific

atio

nP

olic

y M

ater

ializ

ed It

s P

rom

ise?

AC

ompa

rison

Bet

wee

n Tr

aditi

onal

lyan

d A

ltern

ativ

ely

Cer

tifie

d Te

ache

rsin

Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Edu

catio

nal E

valu

atio

n an

d P

olic

yA

naly

sis

Sur

vey

rese

arch

Sch

ools

and

Sta

ffing

Sur

vey

1993

-94

(SA

SS

93)

Rel

ativ

e w

eigh

ted

sam

ple

incl

udes

14,7

19 te

ache

rs (

13,6

02 R

C te

ache

rs;

1,11

9 A

C te

ache

rs)

Not

e: T

his

anal

ysis

is b

ased

on

the

sam

e da

ta s

et a

nd r

epor

ts la

rgel

yth

e sa

me

findi

ngs

as S

hen

(199

8a, b

)

The

re w

as li

ttle

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n A

C a

nd R

C te

ache

rs in

term

s of

gend

er.

The

re w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e no

n-W

hite

teac

hers

in th

e A

C g

roup

than

in th

e R

C g

roup

(p

< .0

01).

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f tho

se u

nder

the

age

of 3

0 in

the

AC

teac

hers

,an

d a

high

er p

erce

ntag

e of

teac

hers

50

or o

lder

in th

e R

C g

roup

.

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f RC

teac

hers

(99

%)

had

BA

s th

an A

C te

ache

rs(9

6.7%

) (p

< .0

01).

RC

teac

hers

als

o ha

d a

high

er p

erce

ntag

e of

MA

s.

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f AC

teac

hers

at t

he s

econ

dary

leve

l and

in la

rge

cent

ral c

ities

.

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f AC

teac

hers

taug

ht in

sch

ools

whe

re 5

0-10

0%of

the

stud

ents

wer

e fr

om m

inor

ity g

roup

s.

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f AC

teac

hers

taug

ht s

econ

dary

mat

hem

atic

s an

dsc

ienc

e, a

nd h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

had

deg

rees

in th

ese

subj

ects

, plu

sen

gine

erin

g.

Hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f RC

teac

hers

inte

nd to

sta

y in

teac

hing

unt

ilre

tirem

ent.

73

She

n (1

998a

)

Alte

rnat

ive

Cer

tific

atio

n, M

inor

ityTe

ache

rs, a

nd U

rban

Edu

catio

n

Edu

catio

n an

d U

rban

Soc

iety

Sur

vey

rese

arch

Sch

ools

and

Sta

ffing

Sur

vey

1993

-94

(SA

SS

93)

Rel

ativ

e w

eigh

ted

sam

ple

incl

udes

14,7

19 te

ache

rs (

13.6

01 R

C te

ache

rs;

1,11

8 A

C te

ache

rs)

Dat

a ex

trac

ted

from

Pub

lic S

choo

lTe

ache

r Q

uest

ionn

aire

Exa

min

atio

n of

cha

ract

eris

tics

of A

Cm

inor

ity te

ache

rs a

nd T

C a

nd A

CW

hite

teac

hers

.

Not

e: T

his

stud

y re

peat

s th

e sa

me

findi

ngs

as S

hen,

199

8b.

Thu

s,th

ey s

houl

d no

t be

coun

ted

as s

epar

ate

stud

ies.

AC

rec

ruits

a s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of m

inor

ity te

ache

rs(p

< .0

01).

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

pro

port

ion

by g

ende

r.

A v

ery

high

per

cent

age

of m

inor

ity te

ache

rs te

ach

in u

rban

sch

ools

,es

peci

ally

AC

min

ority

teac

hers

.

AC

attr

acts

a h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of W

hite

teac

hers

who

are

less

than

30 y

ears

old

, but

a h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of m

inor

ity te

ache

rs w

ho a

re in

thei

r 40

s.

AC

attr

acts

a s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r nu

mbe

r of

teac

hers

who

hav

epr

evio

us w

ork

expe

rienc

e.

3% o

f bot

h A

C W

hite

and

AC

min

ority

teac

hers

do

not p

osse

ss a

BA

(p <

.001

).

10%

of A

C m

inor

ity te

ache

rs h

ave

educ

atio

nal a

ttain

men

t of a

n M

A o

rab

ove.

The

per

cent

age

of th

ose

teac

hers

hav

ing

a M

A is

hig

her

amon

g A

C m

inor

ity te

ache

rs th

an a

mon

g an

y ot

her

grou

p of

teac

hers

.

Sig

nific

antly

hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f AC

teac

hers

teac

h m

athe

mat

ics

orsc

ienc

e, b

ut th

ere

is n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

AC

and

RC

teac

hers

in te

rms

of w

heth

er th

ey r

ecei

ve a

bac

helo

r’s d

egre

e in

mat

hem

atic

s, s

cien

ce, o

r en

gine

erin

g. S

o a

high

er p

erce

ntag

e of

AC

teac

hers

are

teac

hing

out

of s

ubje

ct a

rea.

Sig

nific

antly

hig

her

num

bers

of A

C m

inor

ity te

ache

rs d

o no

t pla

n to

stay

in te

achi

ng.

She

n (1

998b

)

The

Impa

ct o

f Alte

rnat

ive

Cer

tific

a-tio

n on

the

Ele

men

tary

and

Sec

-on

dary

Pub

lic T

each

ing

For

ce

Jour

nal o

f Res

earc

h an

dD

evel

opm

ent i

n E

duca

tion

Sur

vey

rese

arch

Sch

ools

and

Sta

ffing

Sur

vey

1993

-94

(SA

SS

93)

Rel

ativ

e w

eigh

ted

sam

ple

incl

udes

14,7

19 te

ache

rs (

13.6

01 R

C te

ache

rs;

1,11

8 A

C te

ache

rs)

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

gen

der

Sig

nific

antly

hig

her

num

ber

of m

inor

ity te

ache

rs, b

oth

at th

e se

cond

-ar

y le

vel (

p <

.005

) an

d el

emen

tary

(p

< .0

01)

Sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s in

term

s of

age

, with

AC

teac

hers

bei

ng o

lder

at

both

the

elem

enta

ry (

.001

) an

d se

cond

ary

(.01

) le

vels

.

Sig

nific

antly

mor

e A

C te

ache

rs in

larg

e ce

ntra

l citi

es, b

ut th

ere

is n

osi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce in

rur

al a

reas

.

Sig

nific

antly

mor

e A

C te

ache

rs w

ork

in s

choo

ls w

here

min

ority

stud

ents

mak

e up

50-

100%

of t

he s

tude

nt p

opul

atio

n, a

t ele

men

tary

and

seco

ndar

y le

vels

.

Sig

nific

antly

hig

her

perc

enta

ge o

f AC

teac

hers

teac

h m

athe

mat

ics

orsc

ienc

e, b

ut th

ere

is n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

AC

and

RC

teac

hers

in te

rms

of w

heth

er th

ey r

ecei

ve a

BA

in m

athe

mat

ics,

scie

nce,

or

engi

neer

ing.

So

a hi

gher

per

cent

age

of A

C te

ache

rs a

rete

achi

ng o

ut o

f sub

ject

are

a.

74

Sto

ddar

t (1

990)

Los

Ang

eles

Uni

fied

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Inte

rn P

rogr

am: R

ecru

iting

and

Pre

parin

g Te

ache

rs fo

r an

Urb

anC

onte

xt

Pea

body

Jou

rnal

of E

duca

tion

Inte

rpre

tive

stud

y

Cas

e st

udy

of o

ne a

ltern

ativ

e ro

ute

Los

Ang

eles

Uni

fied

Sch

ool D

istr

ict,

and

som

e co

mpa

rison

s

Dem

ogra

phic

dat

a fr

om th

e di

stric

t,in

clud

ing

anal

ysis

of t

rans

crip

ts

Inte

rvie

ws

and

obse

rvat

ions

from

the

Teac

her

Edu

catio

n an

d Le

arni

ng to

Teac

h S

tudy

(T

ELT

) fr

om th

e N

atio

nal

Cen

ter

for

Res

earc

h on

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

Com

paris

ons

to A

AC

TE

RA

TE

III

surv

ey.

1,10

0 ne

w te

ache

rs r

ecru

ited

into

LAU

SD

via

inte

rn p

rogr

am in

6 y

ear

perio

d

855

still

teac

hing

in 1

990

at th

e tim

e of

the

anal

ysis

1,10

0 te

ache

rs in

6 y

ears

wer

e re

crui

ted

in E

nglis

h, m

athe

mat

ics,

scie

nce,

ele

men

tary

, and

bili

ngua

l edu

catio

n.

30%

dro

pped

out

in w

ithin

that

6-y

ear

timef

ram

e. I

t is

uncl

ear

whe

ther

they

left

teac

hing

.

Num

ber

of e

mer

genc

y cr

eden

tiale

d te

ache

rs d

ropp

ed fr

om 4

7 to

34%

.

It is

a r

equi

rem

ent o

f the

pro

gram

that

the

inte

rns

have

a b

acca

laur

e-at

e de

gree

in a

n ac

adem

ic m

ajor

and

20

sem

este

r ho

urs

in th

esu

bjec

t to

be ta

ught

; the

y m

ust p

ass

NT

E w

ith a

sco

re o

f 660

.

GP

As

of th

e A

C in

tern

s co

mpa

red

favo

rabl

y w

ith th

e ge

nera

l pop

ula-

tion

of te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

grad

uate

s. T

he m

ajor

ity o

f the

sec

onda

ryin

tern

s gr

adua

ted

from

aca

dem

ical

ly r

igor

ous

univ

ersi

ties.

Onl

y 9%

had

GP

As

belo

w 2

.75.

The

attr

ition

rat

e of

LA

US

D in

tern

s in

the

first

thre

e ye

ars

of te

achi

ngis

low

er th

an w

ould

be

expe

cted

on

the

basi

s of

nat

iona

l fig

ures

.

Low

per

cent

ages

of A

C in

tern

s ha

d w

ork

expe

rienc

e in

an

occu

patio

nre

late

d to

thei

r ac

adem

ic a

rea,

in m

athe

mat

ics

and

Eng

lish.

The

num

ber

of in

tern

s co

min

g in

to te

achi

ng fr

om s

cien

ce o

ccup

atio

ns is

rela

tivel

y hi

gh.

The

AC

inte

rns

had

high

er p

erce

ntag

es o

f mal

es a

nd o

f min

ority

teac

hers

than

typi

cal c

olle

ge-b

ased

pro

gram

s.

AC

inte

rns

have

mor

e ex

perie

nce

livin

g in

urb

an s

ettin

gs th

an th

eir

RC

colle

ague

s, a

nd th

ey h

old

high

er e

xpec

tatio

ns fo

r lo

w in

com

e an

dm

inor

ity s

tude

nts

whe

n co

mpa

red

to a

nat

iona

l dat

abas

e co

llect

ed b

yN

CR

TE

.

The

am

ount

of t

ime

in c

ours

ewor

k fo

r th

e A

C in

tern

s is

equ

ival

ent t

oth

e te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n re

quire

men

ts in

CA

, and

the

cont

ent o

f the

cour

sew

ork

is s

imila

r to

that

of c

olle

ge p

rogr

ams.

How

ever

, the

prog

ram

was

not

aca

dem

ical

ly r

igor

ous,

for

atte

ndan

ce w

as th

e on

lyre

quire

men

t for

pas

sing

the

cour

ses.

The

pro

gram

als

o fo

cuse

dex

clus

ivel

y on

pre

parin

g te

ache

rs to

teac

h th

e LA

US

D c

urric

ulum

and

to s

ucce

ed in

the

LAU

SD

sch

ools

.

The

ele

men

ts o

f the

trai

ning

incl

uded

: pre

serv

ice

orie

ntat

ion

to

No

diffe

renc

e in

whe

ther

AC

and

RC

ele

men

tary

teac

hers

hav

e a

BA

.A

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

was

foun

d be

twee

n A

C te

ache

rs w

ithou

t a B

A(6

.4%

) an

d T

C te

ache

rs w

ithou

t a B

A (

1.4%

)

A s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of A

C te

ache

rs d

o no

t hav

e a

MA

.

A s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r pe

rcen

tage

of A

C te

ache

rs h

ad e

duca

tion-

rela

ted

expe

rienc

es p

rior

to te

achi

ng th

an R

C te

ache

rs, a

t bot

h th

e el

emen

-ta

ry a

nd s

econ

dary

leve

ls

75

LAU

SD

; ins

ervi

ce m

odul

es, m

ultic

ultu

ral e

duca

tion,

and

men

torin

g.E

valu

atio

n is

focu

sed

on a

bilit

y to

teac

h.

The

re w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

in th

e m

athe

mat

ics

know

ledg

e of

the

inte

rns

whe

n co

mpa

red

to a

nat

iona

l sam

ple

of te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

grad

uate

s. A

C a

nd R

C te

ache

rs a

like

had

mas

tery

of c

ompu

tatio

nal

skill

s bu

t dem

onst

rate

d di

fficu

lties

exp

lain

ing

how

and

why

alg

orith

ms

wor

ked

or h

ow to

rep

rese

nt m

athe

mat

ical

pro

blem

s.

The

RC

Eng

lish

teac

hers

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

know

ledg

eabl

eab

out s

peci

fic a

ppro

ache

s to

teac

hing

writ

ing,

alth

ough

the

RC

teac

hers

aba

ndon

ed th

ose

peda

gogi

es w

hen

face

d w

ith th

e ch

al-

leng

es o

f tea

chin

g in

urb

an a

nd h

igh

pove

rty

setti

ngs.

AC

inte

rns

held

hig

her

expe

ctat

ions

for

low

-inco

me

and

min

ority

stud

ents

and

atte

mpt

ed to

dev

elop

cur

ricul

um a

nd in

stru

ctio

n re

-sp

ondi

ng to

nee

ds o

f div

erse

lear

ners

.

AC

Eng

lish

inte

rns’

app

roac

hes

to te

achi

ng te

nded

to b

e id

iosy

ncra

tican

d la

rgel

y ba

sed

on th

eir

own

expe

rienc

es a

s le

arne

rs.

The

AC

inte

rns

had

diffi

culty

eva

luat

ing

thei

r ow

n in

stru

ctio

n, a

nd a

lthou

ghhi

ghly

cre

ativ

e, th

eir

stra

tegi

es w

ere

ofte

n un

resp

onsi

ve to

the

need

sof

thei

r le

arne

rs.

76

RESEARCH REVIEWED IN THIS REPORT

Adams, T. (1998). Prospective elementary teachers’ mathematics subject matterknowledge: The real number system. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,20, 35-48.

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and itsorigins in the preservice science teacher program. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 34, 633-653.

Andrew, M. D. (1990). Differences between graduates of 4-year and 5-year teacherpreparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 45-51.

Ball, D. L. (1990a). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers’ understandingof division. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 132-144.

Ball, D. L. (1990b). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bringto teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449-466.

Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C.(1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and theirinstructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23,194-222.

Carter K., & Gonzalez, L. E. (1993). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of classroomevents. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 223-232.

Clift, R. (1991). Learning to teach English-maybe: A study of knowledge development.Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 357-372.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A reviewof state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.

Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993).Conceptual knowledge falls through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teachmathematics for understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics, 24, 4-40.

Eisenhart, M., Behm, L., & Romagnano, L. (1991). Learning to teach: Developingexpertise or rite of passage? Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 51-71.

Felter, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html.

Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and educationcoursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 155-63.

Florio Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. (1990). Transforming future teachers’ ideas aboutwriting instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 277-289.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledgestructures as a function of professional teacher education: A yearlong assessment.Science Education, 77, 25-45.

Gitomer, D. H., & Latham, A. S. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers: Theimpact of admissions and licensure testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? Highschool teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.

77

Goodman, J. (1985). What students learn from early field experiences: A case studyand critical analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 42-48.

Graeber, A. O., Tirosh, D., & Glover, R. (1989). Preservice teachers’ misconceptions insolving verbal problems in multiplication and division. Journal of Research inMathematics Education, 20, 95-102.

Griffin, G. A. (1989). A descriptive study of student teaching. Elementary SchoolJournal, 89, 343-364.

Grisham, D. L., Laguardia, A., & Brink, B. (2000). Partners in professionalism: Creatinga quality field experience for preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4),27-40.

Grossman, P. L. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers CollegeRecord, 91, 191-207.

Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,53-62.

Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (inpress). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher educationand beyond. Journal of Literacy Research.

Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basicskills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates.Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 37-42.

Guyton, E., Fox, M.C., and Sisk, K.A. (1991). Comparison of teaching attitudes, teacherefficacy, and teacher performance of first year teachers prepared by alternativeand traditional teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 13(2), 1-9.

Hawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journalof Teacher Education, 36(3), 13-15.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189.

Houston, W. R., Marshall, F., & McDavid, T. (1993). Problems of traditionally preparedand alternatively certified first year teachers. Education and Urban Society, 26, 78-89.

Hutton, J. B., Lutz, F. W., & Williamson, J. L. (1990). Characteristics, attitudes, andperformance of alternative certification interns. Educational Research Quarterly, 14,38-48.

Jelmberg, J. (1996). College-based teacher education versus state-sponsored alternativeprograms. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 60-66.

Lazar, A. M. (1998). Helping preservice teachers inquire about caregivers: A criticalexperience for field-based courses. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 14-28.

Lutz, F. W., & Hutton, J. B. (1989). Alternative teacher certification: Its policyimplications for classroom and personnel practice. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 11, 237-154.

McDiarmid, G. W., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). An exploration of the subject matterknowledge of alternate route teachers: Can we assume they know their subject?”Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 93-103.

78

Metcalf, K. K., Hammer, M. A. R., & Kahlich, P. A. (1996). Alternatives to field-basedexperiences: The comparative effects of on-campus laboratories. Teaching andTeacher Education, 12, 271-283.

Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C., & McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternativelyand traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 165-176.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and scienceteachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.

Prestine, N. A. (1991). Political system theory as an explanatory paradigm for teachereducation reform. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 237-274.

Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology ofEducation, 70, 256-284.

Sandlin, R. A., Young, B. L., & Karge, B. D. (1992-93). Regularly and alternativelycredentialed beginning teachers: Comparison and contrast of their development.Action in Teacher Education, 14, 16-23.

Schelske, M. Y., & Deno, S. L. (1994). The effects of content-specific seminars onstudent teachers’ effectiveness. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 2-28.

Shefelbine, J. L., & Hollingsworth, S. (1987). The instructional decisions of preserviceteachers during a reading practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 36-42.

Shen, J. (1997). Has alternative certification policy materialized its promise? Acomparison between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in publicschools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 276-283.

Shen, J. (1998a). Alternative certification, minority teachers, and urban education.Education and Urban Society, 31, 30-41.

Shen , J. (1998b). The impact of alternative certification on the elementary andsecondary public teaching force. Journal of Research and Development in Education,31(1), 9-16.

Shulman, J. (1987). From veteran parent to novice teacher: A case study of a studentteacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 13-27.

Simon, M. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of division. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 232-254.

Stoddart, T. (1990). Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruitingand preparing teachers for an urban context. Peabody Journal of Education, 67, 84-122.

Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementaryteacher candidates’ understanding of mathematics and science content. Teachingand Teacher Education, 9, 229-241.

Tabachnick, B. R., Popkewitz, T. S., & Zeichner, K. M. (1979-1980). Teacher educationand the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, 10(4), 12-29.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of student teaching experienceon the development of teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-36.

Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1989). Preservice teachers’ explicit beliefs aboutmultiplication and division. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 79-96.

79

Valli, L., with Agostinelli, A. (1993). Teaching before and after professional preparation:The story of a high school mathematics teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 44,107-118.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the teachers: Different settings, different results. Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wilson, J. D. (1996). An evaluation of the field experiences of the innovative modelfor the preparation of elementary teachers for science, mathematics, and technology.Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 53-59.

Wilson, M. (1994). One preservice secondary teacher’s understanding of function:The impact of a course integrating mathematical content and pedagogy. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 346-370.

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses.Teachers College Record, 89, 525-539.

80

OTHER REFERENCES

American Federation of Teachers (2000, April). Building a profession: Strengtheningteacher preparation and induction (Report of the K-12 Teacher Education Task Force).Washington, D. C.: Author.

Ballou, D. (1998). Alternative certification: A comment. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 20, 313-315.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1998). The case against teacher certification, The PublicInterest, 132, 17-29.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing:What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102, 28-56.

Bird, T., Anderson, L. A., Sullivan, B. A., & Swidler, S. A. (1993). Pedagogical balancingacts: Attempts to influence prospective teachers’ beliefs. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 9, 253-267.

Cronbach, L. J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.). (1969). Research for tomorrow’s schools. New York:Macmillan.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing:Debating the evidence, Teachers College Record, 102, 5-27.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000b). Studies of excellence in teacher education:Preparation at the graduate level. Washington, D. C.: National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, American Association for Colleges of TeacherEducation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000c). Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparationin a five-year program. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future, American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000d). Studies of excellence in teacher education:Preparation in the undergraduate years. Washington, D. C.: National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, American Association for Colleges of TeacherEducation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000e). Teacher quality and student achievement: A reviewof state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (in press). Does teacher certificationmatter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Macdonald, M. B. (2000). Where there is learning there ishope: The preparation of teachers at the Bank Street College of Education. In L.Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of Excellence in Teacher Education: Preparation atthe graduate level (pp.1-95). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education.

Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matterin the 1960s: Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14, 11-21.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-61). New York: Macmillan.

Evertson, C., Hawley, W., & Zlotnick, M. (1985). Making a difference in educationalquality through teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 2-12.

81

Feistritzer, C. E. (1999). The making of a teacher: A report on teacher preparation in theU. S. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. (2000). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-stateanalysis 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and whymoney matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.

Finn, C. E. Jr., Kanstoroom, M., & Petrilli, M. J. (1999). The quest for better teachers:Grading the states. Washington, D. C.: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998). The rise and stall of teachereducation reform. Washington, D. C.: American Associate of Colleges of TeacherEducation.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (in press). Evaluating the evidence on teachereducation: A rejoinder. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, P. L. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teachereducation coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 345-357.

Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education: Inquiryinto the nature of program. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.

Humphrey, D. C., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Riehl, L. M., Shields, P. M., & Tiffany, J.(2000, September). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review.Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational quality. Washington, D. C.:U. S. Department of Education.

Kennedy. M. M. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference?New York: Teachers College Press.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The problem of evidence in teacher education. In R. Roth(Ed.), The role of the university in the preparation of teachers (pp. 87-107). Pennsylvania:Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis.

Kennedy, M. M., Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1993). A study package for examiningand tracking changes in teachers’ knowledge. East Lansing, MI: National Center forResearch on Teacher Learning, College of Education, Michigan State University.

Koppich, J. E. (2000). Trinity University: Preparing teachers for tomorrow’s schools.In L. Darling-Hammond, (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparationin a five-year program (pp. 1-48). Washington, DC: American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education.

Kramer, R. (1991). Ed school follies: The miseducation of America’s teachers. New York:Free Press.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education researchChicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lagemann, E. C., & Shulman, L. S. (Eds.) (1999). Issues in education research: Problemsand possibilities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass and the National Academy of Education.

82

Merseth, K. K., & Koppich, J. E. (2000). Teacher education at the University of Virginia:A study of English and mathematics preparation. In L. Darling-Hammond, (Ed.),Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a five-year program (pp. 49-80).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Miller, L., & Silvernail, D. (2000). Learning to become a teacher: The Wheelock way.In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparationin the undergraduate years (pp. 67-107). Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education.

Monk, D. H., & King, J. (1994). Multi-level teacher resource effects on pupilperformance in secondary mathematics and science. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.),Contemporary policy issues: Choices and consequences in education (pp. 29-58). Ithaca,NY: ILR Press.

National Alliance of Business. (2001). Investing in teaching. Washington, D. C.: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most:Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

National Research Council. (1991). Moving beyond myths: Revitalizing undergraduatemathematics. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook.Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science,Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, D. C.: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (2000). Educating teachers of science, mathematics andtechnology: New practices for the new millennium (Committee on Science andMathematics Teacher Preparation). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Shen, J. (1998). Alternative certification: A complicated research topic. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 316-319.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M.Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-17). Washington,DC: American Educational Research Association.

Snyder, J. (2000). Knowing children—understanding teaching: The developmentalteacher education program at the University of California-Berkeley. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduatelevel (pp.97-172). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation.

Whitford, B. L., Ruscoe, G., & Fickel, G. (2000). Knitting it all together: Collaborativeteacher education in southern Maine. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies ofExcellence in Teacher Education: Preparation at the Graduate Level (pp.173-257).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Traditions of practice in U. S. preservice teacher educationprograms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 1-13.

Zeichner, K. M. (1999).The new scholarship in teacher education. EducationalResearcher, 28(9), 4-15.

83

Zeichner, K. M. (2000). Ability-based teacher education: Elementary teacher educa-tion at Alverno College. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teachereducation: Preparation in the undergraduate years (pp. 1-66). Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Zumwalt, K. (1991). Alternate routes to teaching: Three alternative approaches. Journalof Teacher Education, 42(2), 83-92.

84

Center Affiliates

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education American Association of School AdministratorsAmerican Federation of Teachers Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentCouncil for Chief State School Officers International Reading AssociationNational Alliance of Business National Association of Elementary School PrincipalsNational Association of Secondary School Principals National Association of State Boards of EducationNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards National Conference of State LegislaturesNational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education National Council for the Social StudiesNational Council of Teachers of English National Council of Teachers of MathematicsNational Education Association National Governors’ AssociationNational School Boards Association National Science Teachers AssociationNational Staff Development Council National Urban CoalitionNational Urban League Teachers Union Reform Network

Center Team

Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N

Michael Knapp, Center DirectorJames BanksMargaret PleckiSheila Valencia

S TA N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y

Linda Darling-HammondPamela GrossmanMilbrey McLaughlinJoan Talbert

U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N

Deborah Loewenberg BallDavid CohenEdward Silver

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y LVA N I A

Thomas CorcoranRichard Ingersoll

Researchers at Other InstitutionsBarnett Berry, University of North CarolinaDavid Monk, Pennsylvania State UniversityJon Snyder, University of California at Santa BarbaraJudy Swanson, Education Matters, Inc.Suzanne Wilson, Michigan State University

Contact Information

Michael S. Knapp, Center DirectorMiller Hall M201, College of EducationUniversity of Washington, Box 353600Seattle, WA 98195-3600email: mknapp@u.washington.edu

Michele C. Ferguson, Center ManagerMiller Hall 203C, College of EducationUniversity of Washington, Box 353600Seattle, WA 98195-3600Phone: (206) 221-4114FAX: (206) 616-6762email: ctpmail@u.washington.edu

Sally Brown, Communications DirectorMiller Hall 404B, College of EducationUniversity of Washington, Box 353600Seattle, WA 98195-3600Phone: (206) 543-5319FAX: (206) 616-6762email: salbrown@u.washington.edu

Web Addresshttp://www.ctpweb.org

CTP Research Reports

The Center’s Research Report series presents the findings of CTP studies, analyses, reviews, and conceptual work.In addition to internal review by Center members, each report has been reviewed externally by at least two scholarsand revised in light of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Along with CTP Working Papers, Policy Briefs,and Occasional Papers, these reports are available for download from the Center’s website: www.ctpweb.org