• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Educating teachers of science maths

Educating teachers of science maths






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 2

http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://www.twylah.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Educating teachers of science maths Educating teachers of science maths Document Transcript

    • EDUCATING TEACHERSof Science, Mathematics, and Technology New Practices for the New Millennium Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Center for Education National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, DC
    • NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of theNational Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy ofSciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of thecommittee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard forappropriate balance.This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DUE 9614007 between the National Academy ofSciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of theorganizations or agencies that provided support for the project.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataEducating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology : newpractices for the new millennium / Committee on Science and Mathematics p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-07033-31. Science teachers—Training of—United States. 2. Mathematicsteachers—Training of—United States. 3. Engineering teachers—Trainingof—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee onScience and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. II. Title. Q183.3.A1 E39 2000 507.1073—dc21 00-011135Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in theWashington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.eduPrinted in the United States of AmericaCopyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
    • National Academy of SciencesNational Academy of EngineeringInstitute of MedicineNational Research CouncilThe National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguishedscholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science andtechnology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by theCongress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government onscientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences theresponsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsorsengineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recog-nizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academyof Engineering.The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure theservices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining tothe health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy ofSciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its owninitiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president ofthe Institute of Medicine.The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associatethe broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge andadvising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by theAcademy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy ofSciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies andthe Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman,respectively, of the National Research Council.
    • COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHER PREPARATIONHERBERT K. BRUNKHORST, California State University, San Bernardino, Co-ChairW. J. (JIM) LEWIS, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Co-ChairTOBY CAPLIN, Cambridge, MA, Public SchoolsRODNEY L. CUSTER, Illinois State UniversityPENNY J. GILMER, Florida State UniversityMARTIN L. JOHNSON, University of MarylandHARVEY B. KEYNES, University of MinnesotaR. HEATHER MACDONALD, College of William and MaryMARK SAUL, Bronxville, NY, Public SchoolsM. GAIL SHROYER, Kansas State UniversityLARRY SOWDER, San Diego State UniversityDAN B. WALKER, San Jose State UniversityVIVIANLEE WARD, Genentech, Inc.LUCY WEST, Community School District 2, New York CitySUSAN S. WOOD, J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College v
    • NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF JAY B. LABOV, Study Director (since October 1998) JANE O. SWAFFORD, Senior Program Officer (January – October 1999) NANCY L. DEVINO, Senior Program Officer (through October 1998) TERRY K. HOLMER, Senior Project Assistant Consultants PAUL J. KUERBIS, Special Consultant, Colorado College KATHLEEN (KIT) S. JOHNSTON, Consulting Editorvi
    • Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverseperspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by theNational Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde-pendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institu-tion in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that thereport meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness tothe study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential toprotect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the followingindividuals for their participation in the review of this report:DAVID C. BERLINER, Arizona State UniversityFRANK CARDULLA, Lake Forest High School, Lake Forest, ILJERE CONFREY, University of Texas at AustinSARAH C. ELGIN, Washington University, St. Louis, MOHENRY HEIKKINEN, University of Northern ColoradoTOBY M. HORN, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityWILLIAM G. HOWARD, JR.*, Independent Consultant, Scottsdale, AZRONALD L. LATANISION*, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCHRISTINE WEST PATERACKI, Cario Middle School, Mt. Pleasant, SCJUDITH ROITMAN, University of KansasTHOMAS ROMBERG, University of Wisconsin, MadisonJAMES STITH, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive commentsand suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely withthe authoring committee and the National Research Council. *Member of the National Academy of Engineering vii
    • Foreword The United States is finally getting commissions and professional organiza-serious about the quality of our children’s tions; the increasing use of high-stakeseducation, and it is rare to pick up a standardized testing to measure thenewspaper today without finding some academic performance of students,discussion of education issues. In the teachers, and schools; and the reality ofcurrent maelstrom of the education the many challenges that teachers anddebate, the need to improve the quality students actually face in today’s class-of our teachers’ preparation and profes- rooms.sional development deserves a central The entire nation must recognize thatplace. Teachers stand at the center of teaching is a very difficult and demand-any education system, since everything ing profession. Teachers must of courserests on their skills and energy. have a deep understanding of theirQuestions regarding teaching quality, subject areas, but this is not enough.teaching effectiveness, and teacher They must also be skilled at motivatingrecruitment and retention have become their students to want to learn in a societyparticularly important in science and in which young people are exposed tomathematics, as we enter a century that so many outside distractions. Mostwill be ever more dependent on science importantly, improvements in teacherand technology. education need to be aligned with Many interacting and often-conflicting recommendations about what studentsvariables have influenced attempts to should know and be able to do at vari-improve teaching in science and math- ous grade levels, which means thatematics. These include a multitude of teachers need to become expert at whatreports and recommendations from is called content-oriented pedagogy. ix
    • The National Academies recently current data and issues. Importantly, it called for a decade of research to be also offers a series of recommendations, devoted to improving education (National based on extensive evidence from Research Council, 1999c). A primary research, about how various stakehold- focus of that effort will be devoted to ers might contribute individually and resolving issues about the most effec- collectively—even systemically—to the tive ways to improve teaching. It is in improvement of teaching in these this context that the Academies also subject areas. A number of critical established the Committee on Science points are emphasized: and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. If the nation is to make the continuous 1. Teacher education must no longer improvements needed in teaching, we be viewed as a set of disconnected need to make a science out of teacher phases for which different communi- education—using evidence and analysis ties assume the primary responsibil- to build an effective system of teacher ity. As this study progressed, com- preparation and professional develop- mittee members realized that the ment. What do we know about what committee’s name (Committee on works based on experience and research? Science and Mathematics Teacher After two years of studying and synthe- Preparation) was too limiting, sizing the immense body of research because “preparation” is only one data—as well as recommendations from phase of “teacher education.” professional organizations and the diver- Teacher education should instead be sity of current practices—the committee a seamless continuum that begins has issued this report. Educating Teachers well before prospective teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: enter college and that supports New Practices for the New Millennium will them throughout their professional help readers understand areas of emerg- careers. Accordingly, this report ing consensus about what constitutes calls for school districts, institutions effective structure and practice for of higher education (both two- and teacher education in these subject areas. four-year colleges and universities), The extensive list of cited references, business, industry, research facili- many from peer-reviewed journals, reflect ties, and individual scientists and the committee’s efforts to produce a other members of the community to report that will advance the scholarship of work closely together in integrated, teacher education. collaborative partnerships to sup- The report does more than review port teachers and teacher education.x FOREWORD
    • 2. Responsibility for teacher education on ongoing professional develop- in science, mathematics, and tech- ment that enables teachers to grow nology can no longer be delegated in their profession and to assume only to schools of education and new responsibilities for their col- school districts. Scientists, math- leagues, their employers, and for ematicians, and engineers must future generations of teachers. become more informed about and 4. The ultimate measure of the success involved with this effort. Those who of any teacher education program is commit part of their professional how well the students of these lives to improving teacher education teachers learn and achieve. Thus, must be recognized and rewarded the partnerships that the committee for their efforts. Moreover, since envisions in this report would be prospective teachers of science, structured in ways that facilitate mathematics, and technology are student learning and the assessment sitting in most college classrooms, of that learning. all faculty who teach undergradu- ates in these subject areas need to Improving the quality of science and think about how their courses can mathematics teaching, the professional- better meet the needs of these ism of teaching, and the incentives and critical individuals. The committee rewards in teaching are issues that are has emphasized that changing now deemed to be critical to the national courses in ways that address the interest. For this reason, in 1999 U.S. needs of prospective and practicing Secretary of Education Richard Riley teachers would also enhance the established the National Commission on educational experience for most Mathematics and Science Teaching in the undergraduates. 21st Century, chaired by former Senator3. If teaching is to improve, then John Glenn of Ohio. In the same spirit, teachers must be accorded the same Educating Teachers of Science, Mathemat- kind of respect that members of ics, and Technology: New Practices for the other professions receive. As in New Millennium is being made freely other professions, beginning teach- available on the Worldwide Web, so as to ers cannot be expected to have offer its valuable information and insights mastered all that they will need to to as broad an audience as possible. know and be able to do when they first begin teaching. Rather, the Bruce Alberts, President committee calls for a new emphasis National Academy of SciencesFOREWORD xi
    • Preface In 1998, the National Research Coun- Members examined the relevant litera-cil (NRC) established the Committee on ture and current calls for reform of K-16Science and Mathematics Teacher science and mathematics education asPreparation (CSMTP) and charged it well as more general principles ofwith identifying critical issues in exist- effective teacher education that can being practices and policies for K-12 derived from analysis of actual classroomteacher preparation in science and practice. Research on what is currentlymathematics. In its Statement of Task, known about effective teacher prepara-the NRC’s Governing Board also asked tion and professional development andthe committee to identify recommenda- the committee’s reflections on thetions from professional organizations compelling evidence for teacher educa-regarding teacher preparation and the tion to become a career-long continuumquality of the K-12 teaching of science lie at the foundation of the committee’sand mathematics and to examine rel- discussion, conclusions, and subsequentevant research. The committee’s report vision and recommendations.was to synthesize critical issues, recom- In reflecting on the committee’s find-mendations, and relevant research. ings, members developed six principles In carrying out its responsibilities, to frame their conclusions about thethe committee explored practices and need for changes in the predominantpolicies in K-12 teacher education in ways K-12 teachers of science, math-general—for both prospective and ematics, and technology are currentlycurrently practicing teachers—then prepared and professionally supported.focused on issues involving the teaching The principles call for teacher educationof science, mathematics, and technology. and teaching in science, mathematics, xiii
    • and technology improvement to be tists, and mathematicians in institutions viewed as a top national priority; for the of higher education. As they exist on a education of teachers to become a small scale today, these partnerships are career-long process—a continuum—that devoted to improving student learning stimulates teachers’ intellectual growth through improving the education and as well as upgrades their knowledge and professional support of teachers. skills; for teaching as a profession to be After exploring what is known about upgraded in status and stature; for two- the effectiveness of such collaborative and four-year colleges and universities approaches, the committee calls in its to assume greater responsibility and be vision and specific recommendations for held more accountable for improving a fundamental rethinking and restruc- teacher education; for institutions of turing of the ways that the K-12 and higher education and K-12 schools to higher education communities work work together—along with the larger toward improving teacher education, community—to improve teacher educa- from initial preparation through life-long tion; and for more scientists, mathemati- professional development. cians, and engineers to provide teachers To assist action on these principles, with the appropriate content knowledge the committee calls in its recommenda- and pedagogy of their disciplines. tions for K-12 schools and districts and The report then describes how teacher the higher education community—with preparation might be redesigned in light support and assistance from the broader of research and new knowledge about community—to engage in collaborative how teachers learn the content, the art, partnerships. In these partnerships, and craft of their profession. The report school districts and their higher educa- also examines and provides examples of tion partners together would promote exemplary and promising current prac- high-quality teacher education, includ- tices for improving teacher education, ing sharing responsibility for teacher including establishment of close local or preparation and on-going professional regional partnerships between school development for the K-12 partner districts and teacher educators, scien- schools’ teachers.1 1The committee emphasizes in this report that all colleges and universities, including those that do not have formal teacher education programs, should become more involved with improving teacher education because the nation’s teacher workforce consists of many individuals who have matriculated at all types of two- and four-year institutions of higher education. Although many of these schools do not offer formal teacher education programs, virtually every institution of higher education, through the kinds of courses it offers, the teaching it models, and the advising it provides to students, has the potential to influence whether or not its graduates will pursue careers in teaching.xiv P R E FA C E
    • Such partnerships will require a preparation in science, mathematics,fundamental rethinking of the currently and technology education can no longerdisparate phases of teacher education work in isolation if they are to helpand, therefore, a fundamental restruc- improve teacher education. All profes-turing of current organizational and sional stakeholders in teacher educationfinancial relationships between the K-12 are addressed. They include teachers ofand higher education communities in science, mathematics, and technology,science, mathematics, engineering, and those in policy making institutions,technology (SME&T). Committee accrediting agencies, and professionalmembers readily acknowledge that this societies, as well as scientists, mathema-will not be a straightforward, easily ticians, educators, and administratorsaccomplished, or inexpensive process. inside and outside of academe.In these new partnerships, responsibil- The committee is confident that theity for preparatory student teaching report will prove useful to the manyexperiences would be vested primarily dedicated people who are working toin school district partners. In turn, improve the quality of the education ofresponsibility for ongoing professional teachers of K-12 science, mathematics,development would fall primarily within and technology. The report also shouldthe purview of the higher education help increase the numbers of teacherspartners. These changes will require a who are teaching in ways that allowtremendous shift in the structure, their students to understand and appre-allocation of support resources, and ciate science, mathematics, and technol-relationships between the K-12 and ogy and the relevance of these disci-higher education communities. And the plines to virtually every aspect of ourresult will be nothing less than the lives in the new millennium.fundamental revamping of teaching as aprofession. Herbert K. Brunkhorst The report before you addresses a W.J. (Jim) Lewisbroad audience because it is evident Co-Chairsfrom the research that anyone who is Committee on Science andresponsible for any aspect of teacher Mathematics Teacher PreparationP R E FA C E xv
    • Dedication Just prior to the publication of this report, we learned of the untimelyand tragic death of Dr. Susan Loucks-Horsley. From 1998 until 1999,Susan was Director of K-12 Professional Development and Outreach in theNational Research Council’s Center for Science, Mathematics, andEngineering Education. Dr. Loucks-Horsley’s work in professionaldevelopment for teachers and the continual improvement of education forchildren was associated with many national organizations throughout herremarkable thirty-year career. One of Susan’s proudest personal achieve-ments, for which she was senior author, was the publication in 1998 ofDesigning Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathe-matics. Earlier, she led the development team of Facilitating SystemicChange in Science and Mathematics Education: A Toolkit for ProfessionalDevelopers, the product of ten regional education laboratories. She alsowas on the development team of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model,which described how individuals experience change. At the time of herdeath, Susan was Associate Executive Director of the Biological SciencesCurriculum Study in Colorado Springs. With this report and other publications that will surely follow on theimportance of providing quality professional development for teachers,Susan’s legacy of groundbreaking research, published works, and profes-sional development and leadership initiatives for science education willcontinue. As some of her work is cited in this report, and she was acolleague, friend, and mentor to many on our committee and staff, wededicate this report to Susan Loucks-Horsley. She will be greatly missed. xvii
    • Acknowledgments The members and staff of the Com- Terr y Woodin, Program Officer,mittee on Science and Mathematics Division of Undergraduate Education,Teacher Preparation are grateful to National Science Foundationmany people for their professional input Judith Wurtzel, Learning Firstand perspective to this study. We ac- Allianceknowledge the following people forproviding presentations, additional data,and their invaluable insight and exper- We also acknowledge and thanktise to the committee during committee several colleagues from the Nationalmeetings: Research Council for their guidance and support: Ismat Abdal-Haqq, AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Rodger Bybee, now Director of theEducation Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Angelo Collins, Interstate New served as Executive Director of theTeacher Assessment and Support National Research Council’s Center forConsortium Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Linda Darling-Hammond, National Education from the time that thisCommission on Teaching and America’s project was conceived through JuneFuture, and Stanford University 1999. Rodger’s contributions to this Emily Feistritzer, National Center study are numerous, especially infor Education Information helping the committee to set its priori- Glenn F. Nyre, Westat ties and in guiding the committee’s staff Abigail Smith, Teach for America for much of the study. Jan Somerville, Education Trust William Thompson, Interstate New Joan Ferrini-Mundy, now AssociateTeacher Assessment and Support Dean for the Division of Science andConsortium Mathematics Education at Michigan State University, served as Associate xix
    • Executive Director of the National the National Research Council’s report Research Council’s Center for Science, review process. They assisted with Mathematics, and Engineering Educa- recruiting reviewers, maintaining tion from the time that this project was communication between the committee conceived through June 1999. Joan’s and the review monitor and coordinator knowledge and insights about math- during the response to review process, ematics education, her understanding of and working with National Academy the critical role of quality teacher Press and the National Academies’ education in promoting learning and Office of News and Public Information. academic achievement for all students, and her advice for completing this study Tina Winters worked with the are especially appreciated. committee’s staff during a portion of 1998 in searching the literature on Eugenia Grohman, Kirsten teacher education issues. Sampson Snyder, and Yvonne Wise were responsible for helping to shep- To all of these people, we express our herd the committee’s report through gratitude and thanks.xx ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • ContentsFOREWORD ixPREFACE xiiiDEDICATION xviiACKNOWLEDGMENTS xixEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Current Problems and Issues in Teacher Education and the Teaching Profession 1 The Evidence That High-Quality Teaching Matters 4 Teacher Education as a Professional Continuum 4 Vision and Recommendations 6 General Recommendations 10 Specific Recommendations 101 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 15 The Reform Movement in Education: Current Challenges 16 Roadblocks to Changes in Teacher Education 22 Increasing Expectations for Teaching and Learning 24 Origins of the Study 27 xxi
    • 2 THE CONTINUUM OF TEACHER EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND TECHNOLOGY: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 30 Teacher Education Issues 31 The Teaching Profession 35 3 THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF WELL-PREPARED TEACHERS FOR STUDENT LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT 44 The Evidence That High-Quality Teaching Matters 45 Teacher Quality and General Student Achievement: Three Studies 47 Teacher Quality and Student Achievement in Science and Mathematics 49 The Importance of Teacher Certification 49 Data from National and International Tests 52 Content Preparation Is Critical for High-Quality Teaching in Science and Mathematics 55 The Nature and Importance of Content Knowledge in the Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics 59 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PROFESSION AND THE DISCIPLINES 66 5 TEACHER EDUCATION AS A PROFESSIONAL CONTINUUM 72 Systemic Approaches to Improving Teacher Education 74 Some Exemplary Approaches to Teacher Education 75 The Effectiveness of PDS and Similar Collaborative Efforts in Improving Student Learning 77 Educating Elementary School Teachers in the Teaching of Science and Mathematics: Special Considerations 79 6 A VISION FOR IMPROVING TEACHER EDUCATION AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION 85 Teacher Education in the 21st Century 87 Articulation of the Vision 88 Articulation of the Committee’s Vision for Teacher Education 91 Institutional Leadership and Commitment 93 Changing Roles for Schools, Districts, and Higher Education in Teacher Education 96xxii CONTENTS
    • Other Benefits of Partnerships for Teacher Education in Science and Mathematics 99 Financial Support for Partnerships for Teacher Education 104 Potential Obstacles to Sustaining an Effective Partnership for Teacher Education 1057 RECOMMENDATIONS 109 General Recommendations 109 Recommendations for Governments 110 Recommendations for Collaboration Between Institutions of Higher Education and the K-12 Community 116 Recommendations for the Higher Education Community 118 Recommendations for the K-12 Community 124 Recommendations for Professional and Disciplinary Organizations 128REFERENCES 131APPENDIXESA Standards for Teacher Development and Professional Conduct 143B Overview of Content Standards from the National Science Education Standards and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics 148C Overview of Teaching Standards from the National Science Education Standards and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics 154D Examples of Local and Statewide Programs That Provide Ongoing Professional Development Opportunities to Beginning and Experienced Teachers 159E Examples of Formal and Informal Partnerships Between Institutions of Higher Education and School Districts to Improve Teacher Education 164F Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 177GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION TERMS 185INDEX 193CONTENTS xxiii
    • 1 EDUCATING TEACHERS / 2 of Science, Mathematics, and Technology
    • Executive SummaryCURRENT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES much of the system of teacher prepara-IN TEACHER EDUCATION AND tion and professional development,THE TEACHING PROFESSION including the recruiting, preparing, inducting, and retaining of teachers. A large and growing body of research Indeed, many teachers themselvesdata—as well as recommendations from report frustration with current methodsprofessional societies—indicate that the of and approaches to teacher education.preparation and ongoing professional After extensive review of the researchdevelopment of teachers in science, literature and the recommendations ofmathematics, and technology1 for professional societies, the Nationalgrades K-12 needs rethinking and Research Council’s Committee onimprovement, and not just on a small Science and Mathematics Teacherscale. There is now a great deal of Preparation (CSMTP) has determinedevidence that this situation permeates that fundamental restructuring of 1With the recent release of standards from the International Technology Education Association(ITEA) (2000), teaching and learning about the history and roles of technology in modern society arelikely to become increasingly important. Thus, although the authoring committee of this report iscalled the Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, its report places technologyeducation on the same footing with science and mathematics education. Including consideration of theemerging subject area of technology also is consistent with the NRC’s Statement of Task to thecommittee. The new technology standards do not specifically address or offer recommendations about educatingteachers in this subject area. Hence, new research and recommendations will be required to determinethe most effective ways to teach and learn about technology. In addition, because there has been little ifany consensus about appropriate ways to teach about technology prior to the release of these stan-dards, little research has been undertaken about effective teaching and learning in this subject area.Therefore, the vast majority of references discussed in this report focus on science and mathematics. 1
    • teacher preparation and professional do not have sufficient content knowl- development is needed to best serve the edge or adequate background for interest of students’ learning and of teaching these subject areas. Indeed, in their future success as individuals, some states, middle school teachers workers, and citizens. The committee (typically, grades 6-8) with generalist also has concluded that such change is backgrounds are being assigned to in the best interest of teachers of sci- teach science or mathematics exclu- ence and mathematics themselves, who, sively. Many faculty in science, math- quite incontrovertibly, are not accorded ematics, engineering, and technology the respect and recognition due profes- (SME&T) at the nation’s colleges and sionals who hold such responsible universities may not be sufficiently positions in our society. aware of these changing expectations to Increasing expectations under na- provide the appropriate type and level of tional, state, and local content standards instruction needed by students who are raising the stakes for what K-12 would be teachers. Nor do most of students need to know and to be able to these faculty have the kinds of profes- do in science and mathematics. Con- sional development experiences in comitantly, expectations have risen for teaching that would enable them to what K-12 teachers need to know and to model effectively the kinds of pedagogy be able to do. These expectations are that are needed for success in grade K- reflected in part by bolstered state 12 classrooms. Similarly, some faculty requirements for the type of in schools or colleges of education, postsecondary education and degrees especially those who are engaged with required of new teachers. graduate programs, may have had little Most instructors of these new or no recent direct contact with teachers teachers—including postsecondary in classroom environments. faculty in science, mathematics, engi- Once teachers reach the classroom, neering, technology, and education— they often do not receive the support have not been able to provide the type of they need to keep their pedagogical education that K-12 teachers need to skills and content knowledge current. succeed in their own classrooms. Unlike in other professions, in educa- Numerous studies and the results from tion, few specific requirements and even a variety of the Praxis and other teacher fewer opportunities exist for teachers to licensing and certification examinations engage in meaningful professional demonstrate that many teachers, espe- development (often called inservice cially those who will teach in grades K-8, education). Whereas other professions2 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • expect their practitioners to pursue professions not only also expect theiradvanced programs of study that in- practitioners to upgrade their knowl-crease and broaden their specific edge and skills throughout their careerscompetencies for the profession, in but also have in place an enablingeducation, most state regulations continuing education system. Impor-require only that teachers obtain post- tantly, most other professions do notbaccalaureate credits or a master’s view those who have recently entereddegree within a certain period of time the profession as being fully qualified orafter being hired and then earn addi- expert. Rather, there are full expecta-tional credits every few years thereafter. tions that neophytes will continue toContent areas typically are not specified. learn and grow through participation inThese kinds of amorphous require- regular professional developmentments for teachers may actually reduce programs and as a result of mentoringthe number of experienced teachers in by more senior colleagues. This trendclassrooms, since many teachers who is now infiltrating teaching; beginningcontinue with their education pursue teachers are sometimes now referred todegrees in educational administration, as “competent novices” (for example,allowing them to take better paying jobs Schempp et al., 1998).outside of the classroom. In sum, In addition, performance standardscurrent expectations for continuing exist for many professions, often devel-education may not contribute to the oped and maintained by members ofretention of experienced teachers. In those professions through accreditingaddition, recruitment and retention of boards and professional societies.high-quality teachers, especially those Professionals who meet or exceed thewho are qualified to teach science and standards are rewarded in tangible andmathematics, has become a problem in appropriate ways. Although such guide-some school districts across the coun- lines exist for the teaching professiontry, especially where numerous profes- (for example, as developed in 1994 forsional opportunities exist not only practicing teachers by the Nationaloutside of teaching but outside of Board for Professional Teaching Stan-education. dards and in 2000 by the National Unlike in teaching, in many other Council for Accreditation of Teacherprofessions, coherent, well-recognized Education), to date only a few of theseprocedures and policies have been guidelines have been incorporateddeveloped to attract, educate, and place systematically into the fabric and cultureprofessionals. Many of these other of the teaching profession.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
    • THE EVIDENCE THAT HIGH- within the classroom, has been found to QUALITY TEACHING MATTERS relate positively to the number of education courses taken by teachers, As noted in the extensive body of their grades as student teachers, and evidence cited throughout this report, teaching experience. Some recent research is confirming that good teach- studies also have found that teacher ing does matter. In reviewing the quality accounts for a greater amount of literature, the Committee on Science the variance in student achievement and Mathematics Teacher Preparation than do variables such as the racial (CSMTP) found that studies conducted composition of schools or students’ over the past quarter century increas- economic levels. ingly point to a strong correlation The CSMTP believes that these and between student achievement in K-12 other studies have clear implications for science and mathematics and the teacher preparation. Science and math- teaching quality and level of knowledge ematics educators as well as practitio- of K-12 teachers of science and math- ners have concluded that content ematics. Other studies have found knowledge must be a central focus of a positive correlations between teachers’ science or mathematics teacher’s performance on state examinations, preparation, with the result being a years of teaching experience, and deeper understanding of the fundamen- advanced degrees and student tests tal science, mathematics, or technology scores in reading and mathematics. that he or she will need to teach. These Specific content preparation of teachers conclusions are consistent with an also has been found to make a difference emerging body of research in cognitive in student achievement. Several studies science that is contributing to our conducted over the past 15 years and understanding of the processes by detailed in the committee’s report have which people learn. concluded that “in-field” teachers—i.e., teachers holding specific certificates in certain subject areas—not only know TEACHER EDUCATION AS A more content in their subject area than PROFESSIONAL CONTINUUM their “out-of-field” colleagues but also use their content knowledge more Many national organizations have effectively in the classroom. recommended improvements in the Teaching effectiveness, defined as the education of teachers of K-12 science ability to produce desired changes and mathematics, including the National4 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Association of Biology Teachers (1990), must be seen in the future as muchthe National Council of Teachers of more continual and seamless than it isMathematics (1991), the Mathematical today. The college education that leadsAssociation of America (1991), the to initial certification to teach (alsoNational Board for Professional Teaching known as preservice education) shouldStandards (1994), the National Science be viewed as only the first part of aFoundation (1996, 1998), the National complex, career-long learning processResearch Council (1996a, 1997a,b), the that involves continual intellectualAssociation for the Education of Teachers growth both inside and outside theof Science (1997), the National Science classroom.Teachers Association (1998), the Ameri- Standards for K-12 teaching coupledcan Institute of Physics (1999), and the with increasing demands for improvedConference Board of the Mathematical teacher quality have created unprec-Sciences (in preparation). edented opportunities for all players in In recently released teacher educa- the education community (with inputtion standards, the Interstate New and cooperation from the larger commu-Teacher Assessment and Support nity, including industrial and researchConsortium (INTASC, formed by the scientists and mathematicians) toCouncil of Chief State School Officers) design and implement new collaborativehas specified that teachers of K-12 approaches to teacher education. Inscience and mathematics need to meet fact, over the past 10 years, manythe National Research Council’s stan- institutions have begun to develop suchdards for science and the National collaboration, often called a ProfessionalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics’ Development School (PDS). Through-standards for mathematics. INTASC out the report, the committee has usedhas emphasized further that teacher this term to describe an intentionaleducation should focus understanding partnership between a college or univer-of content in subject areas and knowing sity and the K-12 sector for teacherhow to apply that understanding in education and the improvement ofproblem-solving and inquiry-based teaching and learning in the schools.situations in the classroom. More than Although the objectives and infrastruc-30 states now belong to INTASC. tures of PDS arrangements can vary Based on its review of the literature widely, the committee found that someand of the recommendations of profes- PDS models have become living labora-sional organizations, the CSMTP has tories for observation, experimentation,concluded that teacher preparation and extended practice—sites whereEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
    • teachers, students, and college and invest the time and money needed to university faculty create new knowledge sustain the partnership, they can im- about effective teaching and experiment prove the quality of teacher education with, evaluate, and revise teaching and teaching in general. The practices. committee’s vision to improve teacher Like student learning, teacher learn- education that builds on the PDS ap- ing and professional development are proach is detailed in Chapter 6. Specific part of an extremely long and complex recommendations to various stake- process. Thus, a PDS encourages holder communities are provided in educators to restructure teacher educa- Chapter 7. tion comprehensively, as opposed to incrementally and in a series of dis- jointed reforms. The PDS provides VISION AND more systematic teaching experiences RECOMMENDATIONS for preservice and novice teachers, where content and pedagogy are inte- Vision grated and where teacher education After examining what is known about takes place in environments that more the effectiveness of the PDS approach, closely resemble the classrooms in the committee concluded that the entire which these future teachers will work. professional community’s2 level of At present, there are more than 1,000 commitment to and input in both indi- PDS models in the United States, with vidual schools and districts can have some institutions of higher education significant effects on student achieve- exploring several different models. ment. Systemic support from the larger Examples of such partnerships are community in which a school is located provided in Appendix E of the report. also can make a critical difference in the The committee has concluded that success of teachers and their students when the partners in these kinds of (Smith and O’Day, 1991). This larger collaboratives establish mechanisms for community includes policymakers, making decisions that are mutually superintendents, district administrators, supportive and collegial and when they teacher unions, faculty and administra- 2The professional community includes all individuals and organizations that should be responsible for preparing, providing professional development for, and supporting teachers throughout their careers. Recent efforts to improve teacher education and professionalism must involve members of the K-12, higher education (including both two- and four-year colleges and universities), and business and industry communities.6 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • tors from local colleges and universities, It was in this regard, then, that theindividual school staff, and parents. It committee took particular note of thealso includes scientists and mathemati- partnerships between medical schoolscians outside of academe, who can bring and their teaching hospitals that involvetheir understanding and everyday collaboration between teaching andapplications of science and mathematics clinical faculty in the education of newconcepts and skills to K-12 teaching and generations of physicians. The commit-learning improvement. tee emphasizes that the primary goal of The approaches taken by PDSs, the any partnership arrangement would bevast body of literature that is reported to improve teacher education in waysand analyzed here, and the many exam- that contribute to enhanced studentples of effective teacher education learning and achievement.programs and policies and practices of In reflecting on its findings andother professions in the United States conclusions, the CSMTP established thereviewed for this report by the CSMTP following six guiding principles on whichled committee members to develop a further action to improve K-12 teachervision for a new type of partnership for education in science, mathematics, andteacher education. In the committee’s technology should be based:vision (articulated in Chapter 6), thevarious communities involved with 1. The improvement of teacher educa-specific aspects of teacher education tion and teaching in science, math-work much more closely together toward ematics, and technology should becommon goals. The current separation viewed as a top national priority.of programs to educate prospective and 2. Teacher education in science,practicing teachers lessens considerably mathematics, and technology mustto the point of becoming a seamless become a career-long process.continuum. Institutions that collaborate High-quality professional develop-in these partnerships re-examine and, in ment programs that include intellec-some cases, redefine their roles in tual growth as well as the upgradingteacher education. The ultimate goal of of teachers’ knowledge and skillsthe partnerships under the committee’s must be expected and essentialvision is to offer teachers ongoing features in the careers of all teachers.opportunities to improve their under- 3. Through changes in the rewards for,standing of the subjects they teach, the incentives for, and expectations ofways they teach, and their standing as teachers, teaching as a professionprofessionals. must be upgraded in status andEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
    • stature to the level of other efforts to provide the appropriate professions. content knowledge and pedagogy of 4. Both individually and collectively, their disciplines to current and two- and four-year colleges and future teachers.3 universities must assume greater responsibility and be held more To initiate action based on these accountable for improving teacher principles, the committee envisions a education. new partnership arrangement between 5. Neither the higher education nor K-12 schools and the higher education the K-12 communities can success- community, with support and assistance fully improve teacher education as from the broader community, that is effectively in isolation as they can by designed to promote high-quality working closely together. Collec- teacher education over the continuum of tive, fully integrated efforts among a teacher’s career. Two- and four-year school staff and administrators in colleges and universities, and especially individual schools and districts, those that have teacher education teacher unions, faculty and adminis- programs, would enter into long-term trators in institutions of higher partnerships with one or more school education, policymakers from local districts. Large school districts could colleges and universities, parents, partner with more than one institution and the private sector are essential of higher education (for example, with for addressing these issues. their local community college and a 6. Many more scientists, mathemati- four-year institution). The objectives of cians, and engineers must become such partnerships would include the well informed enough to become sharing of responsibility for teacher involved with local and national preparation and providing on-going 3In a recent study of Columbia University’s Summer Research Program for Science School Teachers, Silverstein (2000) found that students of teachers who had participated in summer research received higher scores and pass rates on the New York State Regents Examination than the students of teachers from the same schools who did not participate in such programs (teachers who participated in this program were drawn from a broad spectrum of schools in the New York City area). Additionally, participation in Westinghouse/Intel Talent Search projects, science clubs, and extra-curricular activities in science was higher for students whose teachers participated in this program compared to students from the same schools whose teachers did not participate. Additional information about this program is available at <http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/physio/>. The program at Columbia University is one of approximately 70 such programs across the U.S. that are part of the Science Work Experiences for Teachers(SWEPT. A listing of SWEPT programs is available at <http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/ physio/swep.html>.8 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • professional development for the school within the purview of the higher educa-districts’ teachers.4 The committee tion partners. The committee’s visionenvisions that each of the contributors also would involve a correspondingand stakeholders in these partnerships rethinking of how each partner uses itswould be recognized and utilized for resources in support of the partnership.their particular professional expertise in Thus, in the new teacher educationscience, mathematics, and technology partnership envisioned in this report,education. The partners would work master teachers in partner schoolcollectively toward improving teaching districts could have adjunct facultyand ongoing professional development appointments in the partner two- andfor all teachers in the partnership four-year colleges or universities. Thesecommunity, including those in higher teachers would take on a much moreeducation. These partnerships collec- significant role in the mentoring of futuretively would establish and implement teachers during their practicum experi-goals for improving the learning and ences. In turn, faculty in both the schoolacademic achievements in science, of education and in science, mathematics,mathematics, and technology of stu- and engineering departments at partnerdents in affiliated institutions, including colleges and universities would assumestudents in teacher education programs much greater responsibility for provid-and the children in the schools that are ing ongoing professional developmentmembers of the partnerships. opportunities for the school districts’ It is important to note that this new teachers. The partnerships would basetype of partnership envisioned by the their approaches to improved teachercommittee would involve a restructur- education on the scholarly literature,ing of the various phases of teacher recommendations about improvingeducation. Responsibility for student teacher education from professional andteaching experiences would be vested disciplinary organizations, and anprimarily in school districts that partici- ongoing analysis and evaluation of thepate in the partnership. In turn, profes- partnership itself. A major componentsional development would fall primarily of this evaluation would be the academic 4The committee emphasizes in this report that all colleges and universities, including those that donot have formal teacher education programs, should become more involved with improving teachereducation because the nation’s teacher workforce consists of many individuals who have matriculated atall types of two- and four-year institutions of higher education. Although many of these schools do notoffer formal teacher education programs, virtually every institution of higher education, through thekinds of courses it offers, the teaching it models, and the advising it provides to students, has thepotential to influence whether or not its graduates will pursue careers in teaching.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
    • achievement in science, mathematics, lessly from college preparation for and technology of the students in the teaching to careers in teaching schools that are members of the part- these subject areas. nership. The partnerships also might 2. Teacher education be viewed as a undertake directed research within the career-long process that allows member organizations to find ways to teachers of science, mathematics, improve further teacher education and and technology to acquire and student outcomes in science, mathemat- regularly update the content knowl- ics, and technology. Faculty in schools edge and pedagogical tools needed of education could play an especially to teach in ways that enhance critical role in directing some of their student learning and achievement in research efforts to evaluating systemi- these subjects. cally the efficacy of teacher education 3. Teacher education be structured in programs in these partnerships. ways that allow teachers to grow The committee acknowledges that individually in their profession and achieving this vision will not be straight- to contribute to the further enhance- forward, easily accomplished, or inex- ment of both teaching and their pensive. It will require fundamental disciplines. rethinking and restructuring of the relationships between the K-12 and As outlined, then detailed in its vision, higher education communities in the CSMTP believes that the goals and SME&T, including financial relation- objectives of these general recommen- ships. It also will require fundamental dations can be achieved by all two- and revamping of teaching as a profession. four-year colleges and universities (those with and without programs in teacher education) working with school GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS districts to establish partnerships for teacher education. The CSMTP recommends that 1. Teacher education in science, SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS mathematics, and technology be viewed as a continuum of programs The CSMTP further offers the follow- and professional experiences that ing specific recommendations: enables individuals to move seam-10 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • For Governments school districts, or teacher education Local, state, and federal governments partnerships to offset the costs ofshould recognize and acknowledge the continual professional development.need to improve teacher education in For Collaboration Betweenscience and mathematics, as well as Institutions of Higher Educationassist the public in understanding and and the K-12 Communitysupporting improvement. Governmentsshould understand that restructuring Two- and four-year institutions ofteacher education will require large higher education and school districtsinfusions of financial support and make that are involved with partnerships fora strong commitment to provide the teacher education should—workingdirect and indirect funding required to together—establish a comprehensive,support local and regional partnerships integrated system of recruiting andfor improving teacher education in these advising people who are interested indisciplines.5 They also should encour- teaching science, mathematics, andage the recruitment and retention of technology.teachers of science and mathematics— For the Higher Educationparticularly those who are “in-field”— Communitythrough financial incentives, such assalaries that are commensurate and 1. Science, mathematics, and engineer-competitive with those in other profes- ing departments at two- and four-sions in science, mathematics, and year colleges and universitiestechnology; low-interest student loans; should assume greater responsibil-loan forgiveness for recently certified ity for offering college-level coursesteachers in these disciplines who that provide teachers with strongcommit to teaching; stipends for teach- exposure to appropriate content anding internships; and grants to teachers, that model the kinds of pedagogical 5A recent survey by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has concluded that nearly 40percent of science teachers in the United States are considering leaving their jobs. The primary reasoncited was job dissatisfaction, with low pay and lack of support from principals the most likely causes ofthis dissatisfaction (Education Week, April 19, 2000). A report from the Texas State Teachers Associa-tion pointed to similar levels of dissatisfaction among teachers in that state (Henderson, 2000). Incomparison, for all subject areas, nearly 20 percent of 1992-93 teacher graduates who entered publicschool teaching in 1993-94 had left the profession within three years. The brightest novice teachers, asmeasured by their college-entrance exams, were the most likely to leave. Teachers who did notparticipate in an induction program, who were dissatisfied with student discipline, or who wereunhappy with the school environment were much more likely to leave than their peers (EducationWeek, 2000).EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
    • approaches appropriate for teaching tion should assume primary respon- that content. sibility for providing professional 2. Two- and four-year colleges and development opportunities to universities should reexamine and experienced teachers of science, redesign introductory college-level mathematics, and technology. Such courses in science and mathematics programs would involve faculty from to better accommodate the needs of science, mathematics, and engineer- practicing and future teachers. ing disciplines and from schools of 3. Universities whose primary mission education. includes education research should set as a priority the development For the K-12 Education and execution of peer-reviewed Community research studies that focus on ways 1. Following a period of collaborative to improve teacher education, the planning and preparation, school art of teaching, and learning for districts in a partnership for teacher people of all ages. New research education should assume primary that focuses broadly on synthesizing responsibility for providing high- data across studies and linking it to quality practicum experiences and school practice in a wide variety of internships for prospective teachers. school settings would be especially 2. School districts in a partnership for helpful to the improvement of teacher education should assume teacher education and professional primary responsibility for develop- development for both prospective and ing and overseeing field experiences, experienced teachers. The results student teaching, and internship of this research should be collated programs for new teachers of science, and disseminated through a national mathematics, and technology. electronic database or library. 3. School districts should collaborate 4. Two- and four-year colleges and with two- and four-year colleges and universities should maintain contact universities to provide professional with and provide guidance to teach- development opportunities to ers who complete their preparation experienced teachers of science, and development programs. mathematics, and technology. Such 5. Following a period of collaborative programs would involve faculty from planning and preparation, two- and science, mathematics, and engineer- four-year colleges and universities ing disciplines and from schools of in a partnership for teacher educa- education. Teachers who participate12 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • in these programs would, in turn, 2. Professional disciplinary societies in offer their expertise and guidance to science, mathematics, and engineer- others involved with the partnership. ing, higher education organizations, government at all levels, and busi-For Professional and Disciplinary ness and industry should becomeOrganizations more engaged as partners (as1. Organizations that represent institu- opposed to advisors or overseers) tions of higher education should in efforts to improve teacher assist their members in establishing education. programs to help new teachers. For 3. Professional disciplinary societies in example, databases of information science, mathematics, and engineer- about new teachers could be devel- ing, and higher education organiza- oped and shared among member tions also should work together to institutions so that colleges and align their policies and recommen- universities could be notified when a dations for improving teacher newly certified teacher was moving education in science, mathematics, to their area to teach. Those col- and technology. leges and universities could then plan and offer welcoming and These recommendations are elabo- support activities, such as opportu- rated in Chapter 7. nities for continued professional and intellectual growth.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
    • 1 Introduction and Context Nearly everyone can drive a car. But tion. Which training method is prefer-can everyone drive a tractor-trailer or fly able? The foreign carrier pilots do notan airliner? What minimum qualifica- appear to have more accidents, but theytions and background are required to also do not have the experience andcarry out these demanding tasks com- flexibility that results from a longer-petently? How does one define an term training program.“expert” in each of these categories? Like pilots who fly aircraft and areHow much training and experience responsible for cargo, crew, and passen-would travelers want the truck driver gers, teachers have demanding jobs,or pilot to have had? with responsibilities that can have long- These kinds of questions were raised term impacts on their students, commu-recently in an article comparing methods nities, and society in general. Thus, asused around the world for the training with the skills required of airline pilots,of commercial airline pilots for United one might reasonably ask, “Can every-States and foreign carriers (Mangan, one teach?” The answer to this is likely2000). Pilots for the U.S.-based airlines “Yes!” That is, virtually everyone hasgo through training over a six-year taught something to someone else, evenperiod that includes a four-year college if it was as a parent or friend. “Teachingdegree (or military piloting experience). as telling” is a common human behavior.They then move through the ranks from But what does it require to be a highlyflight instructor to pilot of a regional competent teacher in a classroom?carrier. By contrast, new pilots for In the prevailing cultural norms in themany foreign carriers are given one United States, there seems to be anyear of rigorous training and instruc- assumption that certain professions do 15
    • not require all that much background— remains concerned about the academic that anyone can be a professional writer, performance of U.S. children on national for example, or teacher, with the relative (e.g., National Assessment of Educa- outcomes the same regardless of tional Progress—NAEP) and inter- education, experience, or professional national (e.g., the Third International development. But as this report will Mathematics Science Study—TIMSS) show, highly knowledgeable, highly skilled teachers do make a difference in terms of student learning. And, there- fore, if for no other reason, careful The key difference between the current and attention must be paid to how they are previous calls for reform in teacher prepara- educated and professionally supported tion is a focus on strategies that coordinate and nurtured throughout their careers. the preparation of high quality teachers with improvements in K-12 student achievement. THE REFORM MOVEMENT Rodriguez, 1998 IN EDUCATION: CURRENT CHALLENGES Although education has been a central assessments compared with the aca- focus of concern for the U.S. public for demic performance of students in many many years, the first contemporary other countries. What might these poor national expression of concern was performances bode for our future issued in 1983, in a U.S. Department of international and economic stature? Are Education-funded report entitled A schools accomplishing what we want for Nation at Risk (National Commission on our children? For all of our children? Excellence in Education). That report Following publication and national warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity” discussion of A Nation at Risk, a spate of that threatened the United States both other reports appeared. Those reports economically and militarily. At the time, offered criticisms of and proposed the nation was especially concerned solutions for the entire landscape of with the rise of Japanese economic K-12 education (e.g., reviewed by power and Soviet military might. Six- Darling-Hammond, 1997). In science teen years later, the United States and mathematics, the American Associa- stands as the world’s sole economic and tion for the Advancement of Science military superpower, but our nation still (AAAS) initiated its comprehensive16 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • project, “Project 2061”1 in 1986. Project voluntary standards, published in 1996,2061 resulted in the publication of reflected input from thousands ofScience for All Americans (1989), which scientists, mathematicians, and sciencearticulated AAAS’ vision for scientific and mathematics educators. Theliteracy. Benchmarks for Science Literacy, National Science Education Standardswhich offered goals and objectives for addressed not only content but alsowhat U.S. students should know and be critical related issues, such as theable to do in science, appeared in 1993. professionalism of teachers, the roles ofIn 1986, the National Council of Teach- colleges and universities in preparingers of Mathematics began its work on teachers to implement and teach cur-K-12 content standards for mathematics, ricula that are consistent with thewhich were released in 1989 and subse- content standards, appropriate assess-quently revised in 2000. By the end of ment of knowledge, and the educationalthe 1980s, the National Science Teach- infrastructure that would be needed toers Association (NSTA) had started support these new approaches tocrafting a new approach to teaching teaching and learning.2 The develop-science (Scope, Sequence and Coordina- ment of these national standards re-tion), which recommended that stu- flected the concern that U.S. studentsdents in grades 9-12 be exposed to needed to become much more knowl-every science subject each year (NSTA, edgeable about science and mathemat-1996). In 1991, the National Research ics than they had been in the past. TheCouncil was asked by the president of national standards presaged a growingthe NSTA and other scientific organiza- researched-based consensus about howtions, the U.S. Department of Education, people learn and should be taughtthe National Science Foundation, and (summarized in NRC, 1999d,e).the co-chairs of the National Education All 50 states are now at varying stagesGoals Panel (a project supported by the of developing and implementing theirNational Governors’ Association) to own curriculum frameworks and learn-coordinate the development of national ing outcomes for students in gradesscience education standards. These K-12 (Education Commission of the 1“Project 2061” was so named because it was launched in 1986, the year that Halley’s comet made itsmost recent close pass by Earth. The next time that the comet returns will be in 2061. The title servesas a metaphor for what AAAS views as a generation of change for fundamentally new approaches toteaching and learning science. 2In mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued a separate set of recom-mendations for teacher education (NCTM, 1991) two years after the release of its content standards formathematics.INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 17
    • States, 2000). Many of these state learn, there have been calls for restruc- initiatives are based at least in part on turing teacher preparation and profes- the national standards. Thus, a growing sional development. The leading consensus is emerging about the proponents of education reform have science and mathematics content that all argued that the attainment of high students in grades K-12 should know, standards for students—standards that understand, and be able to do to prepare demand understanding and the ability to themselves for living and working in the perform—will be unlikely until teachers 21st century. are educated in ways that enable them While there continues to be a recog- to implement and teach curricula that nized need to improve the content of are consistent with the vision, goals, and science and mathematics education for content of the national standards. If K-12 students, a near revolution in children are to be able to engage in understanding human learning has inquiry and problem solving as they been taking place through the emerging learn science and mathematics, then field of cognitive science. This re- surely their teachers also need to search, summarized recently by a study experience and practice inquiry and committee of the National Research problem solving in their own education Council (1999d), indicates that teachers (NRC, 2000a). should incorporate content-appropriate Three other recent reports have methods of teaching that improve their served to catalyze attempts to improve students’ chances of knowing and teacher education: understanding content in areas such as mathematics. This new understanding, • In 1996, the Council of Basic coupled with research that substantiates Education (CBE) cited several problems the importance of guiding beginning that it claimed compromised the educa- teachers so that they learn to employ a tion of teachers. These problems variety of instructional practices, implies included inadequate and poorly super- the need for and benefit of sound vised school-based practicum experience, preparation in both subject matter and the mediocre academic credentials of pedagogical training for prospective students who enroll in teacher educa- teachers (Stoddard and Floden, 1995; tion programs, and the questionable Ball, 1997). quality of faculty in the schools of Concomitant with the reform of education who prepare those students content in K-12 science and mathemat- (Rigden, 1996). ics and knowledge about how people • In the same year, a report from the18 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • National Commission on Teaching and all newly prepared teachers; enhancingAmerica’s Future (NCTAF, 1996) mentoring of beginning teachers byadmonished educators of teachers for setting standards for the selection ofnot attending to problems of uninspired mentor teachers and providing funds toteaching in their own courses, a curricu- professionally prepare and compensatelum that lacks both substance and mentors; and the funding of professionaldepth, and a lack of coherence and development tied to state contentarticulation in teacher education pro- standards for students.grams between schools of education and • Mundry et al. (1999) noted the lackother disciplines. Although critical of focus and coherence in teacherabout how teachers are prepared, the education programs. That study alsoNCTAF report also pointed to research highlighted the failure of teacher educa-data showing that the United States tors to establish a “coherent set orlabors with fatal distractions in its ‘continuum’ of career-long learningreform efforts, including the misguided experiences for all K-12 teachers ofbeliefs that 1) anyone can teach, espe- science and mathematics, primarily tocially if they have adequate content improve teaching and learning in theknowledge, and that 2) teacher prepara- classroom.” Significant effort is neededtion programs contribute little to the to bridge the gap between preserviceproduction of qualified teachers and and inservice teacher education. How-high-quality teaching. ever, the authors noted that a “discon- In a second report, NCTAF (1997) nect” in teacher education programscited 12 partner states that have begun actually stems from a major problemfar-reaching sets of reforms that could that teacher educators face. In theaffect virtually all aspects of teaching. current education system, most teach-In North Carolina, for example, the ers do not have access to high-quality,state’s Excellent Schools Act of 1997 ongoing opportunities for professionalenacted “nearly all of the recommenda- development. Thus, schools of educa-tions of the National Commission that tion attempt to prepare prospectivewere not already in place in the state,” teachers for the demands of the presentincluding increasing teachers’ average system of K-12 education as well as forsalaries by 33 percent over four years; both probable and unanticipatedimproving teacher education by estab- changes to the education system in thelishing school-university partnerships to future. Partly as a result of thesecreate clinical school settings and attempts to cover such broad ground inrequiring special education training for teacher preparation programs, manyINTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 19
    • graduates and their supervisors report Research Council (1989, 1991, 1995, that their teacher preparation programs 1999h) have criticized the nearly exclu- were inadequate, idealistic, or too sive use of lecture-based teaching that theoretical. prospective teacher candidates experi- ence in many of their undergraduate science and mathematics courses. As Too often, teacher preparation programs noted in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996a), science is not are characterized by a lack of coherence something that is done to students, it is and articulation across the general educa- something that students do. If teachers tion, science education, and professional are to implement standards-based education curriculum strands. In each of teaching approaches, then they too must experience these models of in- these three areas, expectations typically are struction in their undergraduate classes. defined by a list of courses. These courses Furthermore, prospective teachers need in turn usually are defined by a body of to experience science and mathematics basic knowledge within the respective learning through inquiry, problem- based approaches, and direct, hands-on disciplines without major attention to the experiences in the classroom, labora- nature of the investigative modes that tory, and field (e.g., Howard Hughes produced them. Similarly, few courses Medical Institute, 1996; NRC, 1999h). address the application of this knowledge to Although calls for reform persist, teacher educators at some major re- societal issues or other matters—dimensions search universities have been working that the Standards say need significant for many years to reform teacher attention in K-12 education in science. education. Representatives from many National Research Council, 1997b of these universities banded together in 1986 to produce the hallmark Holmes Group Report (Holmes Group, 1986). This report was to be the first in a series In the past decade, the criticism of of efforts to deal with the reform and teacher preparation programs also has revitalization of teacher education. The extended to content preparation. Numer- Holmes report called for prospective ous reports, including those from the teachers to acquire a solid background American Association for the Advance- in the liberal arts as undergraduates and ment of Science (1990) and the National then to engage in substantive post-20 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Teaching science through inquiry allows students to conceptualize a question and then seekpossible explanations that respond to that question. For example, in my field of cell biology,cell membranes have to be selectively permeable—they have to let foodstuffs like sugarspass inward and wastes like carbon dioxide pass out, while holding the many big moleculesthat from the cell inside. What kind of material could have these properties and yet be ableto expand as the cell grows?It is certainly easy to remember another and more familiar type of science teaching from mychildhood. In this approach—which remains depressingly common today—teachers providetheir students with sets of science facts and with technical words to describe those facts. Inthe worst case, this type of science teaching assumes that education consists of filling astudent’s head with vocabulary words and associations, such as mitochondria being “thepowerhouses of the cell,” DNA being the “genetic material,” and motion producing “kineticenergy.” Science classes of this type treat education as if it were preparation for a quizshow or a game of trivial pursuit.This view of science education has many problems. Most students are not interested in beingquiz show participants. They fail to see how this type of knowledge will be useful to them inthe future. They therefore lack the motivation for this kind of “school learning.”Most important, this kind of teaching misses a tremendous opportunity to give all students theproblem-solving skills that they will need to be effective workers and citizens in the 21st century. Bruce Alberts Excerpted from the Foreword in National Research Council (2000b)INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 21
    • baccalaureate work that would allow extensive clinical training in K-12 them to apply their knowledge and schools (Darling-Hammond, 1997). In pedagogical skills in school settings. 1998, Abdal-Haqq reported that over 600 The Holmes report also urged that PDS models had been developed in the teacher education take place at “teach- United States, with some of these ing centers” linked to major universities, institutions exploring several different a strategy parallel to the reform of models for improving teacher education. medical education in the early 1900s More than 1,000 such schools exist following publication of the Flexner today (Abdal-Haqq, personal communi- Report (1910). cation). Professional Development A major study by Goodlad (1994) Schools are described in greater detail served as further impetus for restruc- later in this report. turing teacher education. Goodlad highlighted significant problems, such as the lack of “connectedness” among ROADBLOCKS TO CHANGES IN schools of education, university liberal TEACHER EDUCATION arts programs, and the K-12 education sector. Goodlad also cited as problem- Murray (1996) emphasized that a atic the low status accorded to teacher significant barrier to the reform of education programs and schools of teacher education results from a long- education on university campuses. He standing belief among many people that recommended strengthening the teaching is a natural human endeavor. connections between reform efforts Parents teach their children, and friends taking place in schools of education and colleagues teach each other. Even (teacher preparation) and those in K-12 people with few personal connections or education (e.g., implementation of similar interests may teach each other. content standards). Both the Holmes However, in most of these cases, the act Group and Goodlad reports encouraged of teaching almost always occurs among development of Professional Develop- people of like minds, backgrounds, ment Schools and other forms of univer- education, or beliefs and centers around sity and K-12 partnerships. More than tasks or problems that the teacher and 300 schools of education responded to learner have in common. It is strikingly these reports to create programs that go different from what typically occurs in beyond the traditional four-year degree schools. programs to include more extensive The notion that anyone can teach study of subject matter and more clearly is ingrained in the contemporary22 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • culture of the United States, and it can largely “telling,” and that the primarybe seen in how university professors are role of teacher educators is to acquaintprepared and selected (Merseth, 1993; their students with procedural rules thatMurray, 1996). The typical doctorate will ensure success in the classroom.program emphasizes research, not Thus, some teacher education programsteaching. Yet many of these research- stress to their students “basic principlesers take positions at colleges or univer- of teaching” and then help these teachersities where they also must teach. candidates learn, practice, and imple-Many reports in recent years have ment them (e.g., Goodlad, 1990; Howey,called for paying more attention to 1996).teaching, especially of undergraduates Such approaches also can lead to the(reviewed in NRC, 1999h; Rothman and espousal of “simple” solutions to prob-Narum, 1999). lems such as maintaining classroom These notions that “teaching is discipline rather than to broader, deepertelling” and that “anyone can teach” also examination of what may be the under-are seen in the design of many alterna- lying causes for disciplinary problems—tive teacher education programs that failed instruction. Thus, those programsemphasize content background and de- may lack program coherence or aemphasize lengthy pedagogical prepara- comprehensive philosophical frame-tion. These programs might, for ex- work. They may not integrate prepara-ample, actively recruit college tion in subject content and pedagogy.graduates, provide a highly abbreviated Field components of the program may“training” period on pedagogy, and then be instituted primarily to comply withimmerse the novice teachers in the state regulations for certifying teachersculture of the classroom, sometimes or for accreditation of the program itself.with a mentor and sometimes not. All of the aforementioned attributes of Sadly, the belief that anyone can teach some traditional preparation programsalso seems to be reflected in some may help explain why the preparation oftraditional teacher preparation pro- teachers historically has been describedgrams. This notion or belief that every- as teacher “training” rather than teacherone can teach can lead to overly simplis- “education” (Goodlad, 1994; Howey,tic approaches to teaching and teacher 1996; Mundry et al., 1999).education. The design of such pro- Career-long professional developmentgrams seems to presume that all for teachers has suffered a similar lackteacher candidates have some level of of coherence, integration, and continu-natural teaching ability, that teaching is ity. In the current system, schoolINTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 23
    • districts typically have assumed primary students and classes were more homo- responsibility for inservice education. geneous and when the level of knowl- These programs too often are presented edge required of students was more in the form of short (typically one-day) basic. The approaches to teacher “workshops” that may not be sufficiently preparation described above and the focused or grounded in practice to be patterns of inservice programs met the useful to teachers. Or, teachers are sent needs of a largely agrarian society and to a teachers’ convention where they also worked later when schools were may attend or participate in sessions on expected to prepare “citizen-students” to a variety of related or unrelated topics, function as workers in an increasingly collecting teaching ideas that school industrialized society. But current officials hope they will be able to imple- learning goals include expectations for ment shortly after returning to their much higher levels of knowledge and classrooms or share with teacher understanding about science (AAAS, colleagues. If their content and peda- 1993; NRC, 1996a), mathematics (NCTM, gogical preparation has modeled teach- 1989, 2000), and technology (ITEA, 2000). ing as a simple, straightforward In addition, these standards emphasize enterprise—“teaching as telling”—then understanding as well as knowing these teachers’ students may not be content and the ability to undertake better off as a result of these kinds of activities that are related to these inservice experiences. More than small disciplines. For example, the National changes, what is needed are fundamen- Science Education Standards (NRC, tal changes in teachers’ content and 1996a)3 call for teachers of science to pedagogical preparation and ongoing professional development (Ball, 1997; • plan inquiry-based programs for their Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). students. • guide and facilitate learning. • engage in on-going assessment that is INCREASING EXPECTATIONS FOR appropriate for the new expectations TEACHING AND LEARNING for learning. • design and manage learning environ- The paradigm for teacher education ments. outlined above was developed in and • develop communities of science may have worked during an era when learners. 3An elaboration of these six teaching standards can be found in Appendix A.24 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • • actively participate in the ongoing Teaching mathematics well “takes deep planning and development of the insight about mathematics, about school science program. teaching, and about learners, coupled with a sound and robust mathematics Similarly, the NCTM’s Professional curriculum and thoughtful reflectionStandards for Teaching Mathematics and planning” (NCTM, 2000).(1991)4 envision teachers as decision- Linked with these standards formakers who must bring to their class- teaching is changing expectations aboutrooms the following: what should receive greater emphasis in science and mathematics instruction.• A deep content knowledge and Table 1-1 is an example from the Na- understanding of mathematics beyond tional Science Education Standards that the mathematics they are teaching. illustrates these differences.• An understanding of students as Both the science and mathematics learners and their previous and current standards call for teachers to ensure knowledge about the subject area. that all students have learning opportu-• Carefully selected learning goals. nities in science and mathematics that• Knowledge of a variety of pedagogical result in measurable learning outcomes strategies, including the use of (NRC, 1996a; NCTM, 2000). However, modeling and simulation. today’s K-12 student population in the• Experience knowing how to frame United States is much more diverse, in questions, choose activities to address terms of different languages, cultures, misunderstandings they know stu- and ethnicities, for example, than it was dents have, and assess student just a few decades ago, and teaching learning appropriately. standards-based science and mathemat- ics to this new generation of students According to the new Principles and can pose great educational challengesStandards for School Mathematics, for teachers.effective mathematics teachers use Expectations for increased perfor-strategies and approaches that range mance by K-12 students have shiftedfrom extended student explorations in dramatically during the past 10 yearssmall groups to direct teaching. As with the development and publication ofstudent needs change, teachers make standards and curriculum frameworksdeliberate shifts among these strategies. of individual states, many of which are 4An elaboration of these standards can be found in Appendix A.INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 25
    • TABLE 1-1 Changing Emphases and Expectations in Science Education The National Science Education Standards envision change throughout the system. The teaching standards encompass the following changes in emphasis: Less Emphasis on More Emphasis on Treating all students alike and responding to Understanding and responding to individual the group as a whole student’s interests, strengths, experiences, and needs Rigidly following curriculum Selecting and adapting curriculum Focusing on student acquisition of information Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes Presenting scientific knowledge through lecture, Guiding students in active and extended scientific text, and demonstration inquiry Asking for recitation of acquired knowledge Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students Testing students for factual information at Continuously assessing student understanding the end of the unit or chapter Maintaining responsibility and authority Sharing responsibility for learning with students Supporting competition Supporting a classroom community with cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect Working alone Working with other teachers to enhance the science program based at least in part on the national coupled with high-stakes standardized statements of learning goals in science tests, placing even greater pressure for and mathematics. In increasing num- effective teaching performance on bers of states, calls for higher student teachers. These changing expectations understanding of and achievement in are making clear that teaching no science and mathematics has been longer can be seen as an activity that26 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • anyone can do, nor is it primarily “teach- practices and policies for teacher prepara-ing as telling.” Rather, these develop- tion. The project report will synthesize existing research relevant to teacherments must compel those who educate preparation in science, mathematics, andprospective and currently practicing technology. The process will includeteachers to redesign their programs to collecting and summarizing comprehen-meet the needs of teachers in this new sive recommendations that have beeneducational environment (Goodlad, developed by professional societies for1994; Darling-Hammond, 1997). science, mathematics, and technology teacher preparation. These three compo- nents of the project report will be inter- woven, so that the resulting reportORIGINS OF THE STUDY provides an analysis of the ways in which research, recommendations from profes- As part of a grant from the National sional societies, and practice might beScience Foundation (NSF), the National integrated to improve the teacher prepa-Research Council (NRC) commissioned ration process in mathematics, science,in 1998 the Committee on Science and and technology. (1998)Mathematics Teacher Preparation In response, this report of the com-(CSMTP).5 This study committee has mittee explores the landscape of teacherundertaken a series of projects and education in general, and then focusesactivities to examine ways to improve on issues that can be seen as specific orthe education of teachers of science, unique to the teaching of science,mathematics, and technology for grades mathematics, and technology. It synthe-K-12. The Executive Committee of the sizes and builds on the research litera-NRC’s Governing Board approved the ture and current calls for reform of K-16following Statement of Task to define science and mathematics education asthe nature and scope of the committee’s well as on more general principles ofpurview and responsibilities: effective teacher education that are The [study committee] will identify derived from analysis of actual class- critical issues emerging from existing room practice. Research about what is 5As noted throughout this report, this study undertaken by the members of the Committee onScience and Mathematics Teacher Preparation has led to the conclusion that teacher preparation(which often is equated with the education of prospective teachers, or preservice education) cannot beaddressed adequately by itself. Instead, teacher preparation must be viewed as a component of a muchmore integrated approach to improving the education of teachers at all stages of their careers. Thus,while the study committee was designated as the Committee on Science and Mathematics TeacherPreparation, this report stresses teacher education in its entirety rather than separating teacherpreparation from professional development (also known as inservice education).INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 27
    • currently known about effective teacher tions for the professional quality of preparation and career-long professional teachers and teaching, especially for development undergirds the report’s science and mathematics, are likely to discussion, conclusions, and recommen- change in the near future (Chapter 4); dations. • Descriptions of and vignettes from The main topics and issues contained exemplary and promising current in the report’s chapters are practices for improving teacher education in science, mathematics, • The broader context and issues and technology, including the estab- surrounding teaching and teacher lishment of close local or regional education that led to the NRC’s partnerships between school districts establishment of a Committee on and teacher educators, scientists, and Science and Mathematics Teacher mathematicians in institutions of Preparation (this chapter); higher education (Chapter 5); • The current status of education for • The study committee’s vision for teachers of science, mathematics, and improving teacher education in these technology, including stresses on disciplines (Chapter 6); current systems of teacher education • Specific recommendations for imple- and the teaching profession that are menting the committee’s vision for exacerbated by the urgent need in the improvement of education for many localities for many new “quali- K-12 teachers of science, mathematics, fied” teachers, especially in science, and technology (Chapter 7); and mathematics, and technology • Information about national standards (Chapter 2); for K-12 science and mathematics for • The critical importance of well- teacher development, course and prepared teachers for improving curriculum content, and teaching student learning and achievement practices (Appendixes A-C); statewide (Chapter 3); programs that offer ongoing profes- • Descriptions of how teacher prepara- sional development for both novice tion might be redesigned in light of and experienced teachers of K-12 research, new knowledge about how science and mathematics (Appendix teachers learn the content and art of D); examples of formal partnerships their profession, and, based on between institutions of higher educa- recommendations from higher tion and schools or school districts education organizations and the (Appendix E); and a glossary of terms disciplines themselves, how expecta- specific to the profession.28 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • The CSMTP’s vision for improved who are working to improve the qualityteacher education (Chapter 6) and of the education of teachers of K-12general as well as specific recommenda- science, mathematics, and technology.tions (Chapter 7) not only are grounded The report also should help increase thein research and reports of best practice numbers of teachers who are teachingin teacher education programs and in ways that allow their students toclassrooms but on advice from profes- understand and appreciate the wonderssional societies and organizations, as of science, mathematics, and technologywell. Therefore, committee members and the relevance of these disciplines toare confident that the report will prove virtually every aspect of people’s lives inuseful to the many dedicated people the new millennium.INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 29
    • 2 The Continuum of Teacher Education in Science, Mathematics, and Technology: Problems and Issues What does it require to be a compe- Calls for the reform of K-12 science tent—or highly competent—teacher of and mathematics education and science science, mathematics, or technology?1 and mathematics teacher education have Should we allow anyone to teach chil- been issued with increasing frequency dren in general or to teach children by national and state leaders, policy- science, mathematics, or technology in makers, and a plethora of education- particular, even though they might have related organizations. Some of these only limited amounts of “training?” Are exhortations seem to be supported by four years of education at the pre- data that point to the generally poor or baccalaureate level sufficient to produce only slightly above average academic competent teachers in these subject performance of U.S. students in science areas? How can professional develop- and mathematics on international tests. ment programs improve a teacher’s Contextually, there are several related effectiveness in the classroom? How issues that must be taken into consider- should the quality of that teaching be ation in the improvement of teacher defined and measured? education. 1This report includes consideration of technology education. The members of the committee agree that, in addition to having an adequate foundation and understanding of science and mathematics, students must understand the role and nature of technology by itself as well as technology’s relation- ship to the more traditional disciplines of science and mathematics. In April 2000, the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) released standards for technology education that provide guidance to educators about how to incorporate the teaching and learning about technology issues into the curriculum for grades K-12. However, because the kind of technology education being proposed by the ITEA standards is quite new, little research has been undertaken that addressed how specifically to improve it. Thus, most of the discussion of research data in this report necessarily focuses on the teaching and learning of science and mathematics.30
    • TEACHER EDUCATION ISSUES • The preparation of beginning teachers by many colleges and • Research is demonstrating that universities (preser vice education)good teaching does matter. An does not meet the needs of theincreasing amount of research suggests modern classroom (e.g., Americanthat student achievement correlates Council on Education, 1999;with teaching quality and the level of American Federation of Teachers,knowledge of teachers in science and 2000). Many states are bolsteringmathematics. However, numerous their requirements for degrees andstudies and the results from a variety of certification of new teachers, and thesethe Praxis and other teacher licensing changes should be forcing educators inand certification examinations demon- both schools of education and thestrate that many teachers, especially disciplines to ask hard questions aboutthose who will teach in grades K-8 do their programs and teacher education innot have sufficient content knowledge general. For example, when statesor adequate skills for teaching these mandate that all teachers graduate withdisciplines. a major in a discipline rather than in • In addition to benchmarks and education, how should students whostandards for science, mathematics, wish to become teachers be properlyand technology from national orga- advised about the most appropriatenizations (e.g., AAAS, 1993; NRC, major to pursue, especially if those1996a; NCTM, 1989, 2000; ITEA, students wish to teach in the primary2000; American Mathematical grades? Should students who decide toAssociation of Two-Year Colleges, teach at the high-school level pursue1995), most states have developed majors in a single discipline or a com-their own curriculum frameworks posite major? (The question arises inand expectations for learning out- part because different states havecomes in these subjects.2 However, developed different requirements aboutit is clear that many of the nation’s single vs. composite majors for certifica-teachers are not adequately prepared to tion at the secondary level.) How doesteach these subjects using standards- the choice of a major affect the futurebased approaches and in ways that teacher’s professional options followingbolster student learning and achievement. graduation or five years hence? What 2Content standards for science and mathematics for every state that has developed them areavailable through “Achieve” (National Governors Conference) at <http://www.achieve.com>.PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 31
    • should the role of education programs an increasingly pervasive role in teach- be in states that mandate that all new ing and learning yet, according to teachers graduate with a major in several recent reports, teacher educa- something other than education? Given tion programs are not providing pro- these changing regulations, how can a spective or practicing teachers with prospective teacher’s preparation in enough preparation to enable them to education be tied more closely to that use information technology tools effec- student’s preparation in one or more tively to enhance teaching and learning disciplines, and vice versa? (Milken Family Foundation, 1999; CEO Unfortunately, many faculty in sci- Forum, 1999, 2000). While many ence, mathematics, engineering, and educators and policy analysts consider technology (SME&T) at the nation’s educational technology as a vehicle for colleges and universities may not be transforming education, relatively few sufficiently aware of these changing teachers (20 percent) feel well equipped expectations to help prospective teach- to institute technology integration in ers learn and understand the content classroom instruction (U.S. Department and concepts that are critical to effective of Education, 1999).3 teaching in these disciplines and their • Teacher licensing examinations subject areas. Nor do most of these do not always reflect recommended faculty have the kinds of professional standards for teacher education or development in teaching that would what states expect K-12 students to enable them to model effectively the know or be able to do. The content kinds of pedagogy that is needed for of teacher licensing examinations often success in grades K-12 classrooms (e.g., does not reflect content espoused by NRC, 1999h). such national standards documents as • Accreditation standards for the National Science Education Stan- education programs may not reflect dards (NRC, 1996a), the Benchmarks for recent changes in expectations for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and classroom teaching. For example, Principles and Standards for School information technology will likely play Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). Nor do 3The International Society for Technology in Education released the National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teacher Education in June 2000. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, these standards provide standards and benchmarks for “Essential Conditions for Teacher Preparation” and “Performance Profiles for Teacher Preparation” in the use of information technology at various stages of the teacher preparation process. Additional information about these standards is available at <http://cnets.iste.org/teachstand.html>.32 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • they necessarily reflect state standards education) too often consists of abased in whole or in part on these patchwork of courses, curricula,national standards. In addition, teacher and programs and may do little tolicensing examinations typically do not enhance teachers’ content knowl-assess whether prospective teachers have edge or the techniques and skillsbecome adept at planning and imple- they need to teach science andmenting the kinds of active pedagogies mathematics effectively. The quality,(e.g., inquiry, discourse) called for in coherence, and usefulness of profes-national as well as some state science sional development programs forand mathematics standards. improving the quality of teaching and • Current rewards, incentives, student learning vary considerably.and school environments are not While all states mandate a minimumadequate to attract large numbers of level of preparation in content andthe best students to teaching or to pedagogy for preservice teachers, thereencourage them to remain in the are few specific requirements forprofession beyond the first few inservice education. In most states, theyears of teaching. These problems regulations that do exist for inserviceare exacerbated in science and math- education mandate only that teachersematics, where teacher shortages obtain some number of post-baccalaure-already exist in many parts of the ate credits or a master’s degree withinUnited States and are expected to grow some period of time after being hiredworse over the next decade. The lack of and then to earn additional creditsteachers with adequate content knowl- every few years thereafter. Contentedge and pedagogical skills for teaching areas typically are not specified.science and mathematics is especially • Against increasing expectationsacute in small rural and inner city for performance, teachers are notschools, where science or mathematics sufficiently supported in profes-departments may consist of only one or sional development. In addition,two individuals and a given teacher may they often have to undertake addi-be required to teach several different tional professional development onsubject areas every day (U.S. Depart- their own time and at their ownment of Education, 1997a; Asimov, 1999; expense. Expectations for professionalShields et al., 1999; Public Agenda, competence, performance, and account-2000). ability for teachers are increasing. • Professional development for These higher expectations are exempli-continuing teachers (inser vice fied by the standards set forth by thePROBLEMS AND ISSUES 33
    • National Board for Professional Teach- scarce or when school days are lost ing Standards (NBPTS, 1994), the because of inclement weather or other Interstate New Teacher Support Con- unforeseen circumstances. sortium (INTASC, 1999), and more This lack of support for or provision strident calls by local, state, and national of high-quality, professional develop- officials for more rigorous teacher ment opportunities by school districts education programs and licensing also is becoming increasingly coupled examinations. In addition, an increasing with demands by states that teachers number of states have implemented (or acquire advanced degrees to become will do so in the next several years) permanently certified. As a result, statewide testing programs for students, teachers often must continue their many of which place a strong emphasis education and professional development on content knowledge. Because many on their own time and, unlike many of these tests will determine whether other professions, at their own expense. students can advance to higher grades or can earn high-school diplomas, teachers are under increasing pressure to become better versed in the content of the subject areas that they teach. Policy Position: However, many school districts have • Teachers are committed to students and not recognized nor responded to their responsibility to help teachers become their learning. better versed in their profession through • Teachers know the subjects they teach well-planned, ongoing professional and how to teach those subjects to development programs. Inservice students. training within schools, where “one-size- fits-all” programs may be offered to • Teachers are responsible for managing teachers during the several professional and monitoring student learning. development days during the school • Teachers think systematically about their year, may not provide the knowledge practice and learn from experience. teachers need to improve their ability to help students learn specific subjects • Teachers are members of learning such as science and mathematics. communities. Inservice education for teachers also is National Board for Professional among the first programs to be cut by Teaching Standards, 1994 school districts when resources are34 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • THE TEACHING PROFESSION • Career Advising: Colleges and universities routinely assign an indi- As summarized below, many other vidual or empanel a committee to attendprofessions have developed and adopted to the needs of students who are prepar-coherent, well-recognized procedures ing for other professions (e.g., medi-and policies for attracting, educating, and cine, law, or engineering). In contrast,inducting new members to the profes- science and mathematics departmentssion. Many of these other professions rarely have people who are sufficientlyalso have well-understood and accepted knowledgeable about K-12 teaching inexpectations for high-quality perfor- the sciences or mathematics to offermance by practitioners, the expectation students the guidance they need. Manythat practitioners will upgrade their college faculty in science, mathematics,knowledge and skills throughout their and engineering who serve as academiccareers, and an enabling continuing advisors actually know very little abouteducation system. Often these types of career opportunities in K-12 teaching orstandards are developed and maintained the requirements for entering theby the members of the profession profession and may offer very littlethrough accrediting boards and the encouragement to students to pursue aprofessional societies that represent career in teaching.them. People who meet or exceed • Rigor and appropriateness ofthose professional expectations typically content courses for prospectiveare rewarded and recognized in ways teachers: Perception can governthat are both tangible and appropriate. action, whether those perceptions are The National Board for Professional accurate or not. In some institutions,Teaching Standards (1994) has articu- both faculty and students may perceivelated such standards or guidelines for that courses in science and mathematicsthe teaching profession. That these designed for teachers are less rigorousguidelines are available but have been or challenging than courses designedwidely overlooked or ignored by the for students who are preparing for mostnation’s education system is a symptom other professions (e.g., introductoryof a lack of attention to the professional physics or calculus for pre-engineeringneeds of teachers. This lack of attention students) (see also NRC, 1997b, Lewisto teachers as professionals betrays a and Tucker, in press).certain lack of respectful treatment that • Oversight of teacher educationpermeates the continuum of the careers programs by professional organiza-of teachers in the following ways: tions: Unlike the requirements andPROBLEMS AND ISSUES 35
    • standards that they establish for stu- often are viewed as being ready to dents who wish to pursue more tradi- assume full duties in the classroom and tional careers in a discipline, many too often are assigned the most chal- disciplinary professional organizations lenging teaching responsibilities in their do not claim “ownership” of teacher schools. Many beginning teachers in preparation programs for that discipline. the United States cite the lack of guid- Indeed, many college-level faculty in the ance, time for preparation and reflec- sciences, mathematics, engineering, or tion, and opportunities to grow in the technology are unaware of expectations profession as primary frustrations of for content or even the existence of state teaching (Hoff, 2000; NSTA, 2000). or national standards for teacher prepa- As with other professions, teachers ration in their own disciplines. This lack must master a rapidly changing body of of common expectations can result in knowledge, serve a constantly changing teachers with similar degrees having clientele, and deal with the pressure of experienced substantially different new societal expectations. For profes- levels of preparation during their sions deemed critical to the well being preservice years. of society (e.g., biomedical research and • The continuum of professional clinical practice), private and govern- development: Other professions mark mental agencies and organizations often the awarding of the baccalaureate expand funding to accommodate such degree as the beginning of a career changes and retrain practitioners. In path. Focused and directed professional contrast, K-12 education—although growth is expected and supported in the critical to the well-being of individuals, ensuing years. For example, no doctor communities, and society at large—does is considered to have received sufficient not receive similar support, especially at education upon the awarding of the the state and local levels where it is medical degree to practice a specialty. controlled and operated. Intensive residencies and fellowships • Mentoring of new employees: that involve extensive additional educa- Neophytes in many other professions tion, mentoring, and direct work with (and teachers in other nations) are acknowledged experts in the field are routinely placed under the tutelage and routinely expected. Following licensing guidance of more experienced teach- in a specialty, regular upgrading of skills ers—mentors—for extended periods of and knowledge within the specialty and time. Novices may be assigned fewer related fields is required. In contrast, specific work responsibilities during the college graduates who enter teaching early parts of their careers so they can36 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • both learn more about their disciplines education and learning theory) may beand become reflective about the practice presented before practitioners ever setof their professions. Mentoring of foot in a classroom. Inservice pro-novice teachers in the United States has grams, in turn, may offer more experi-been haphazard at best (Education enced teachers information and per-Trust, 1998; Darling-Hammond and spectives about teaching that might beMacdonald, 2000), although a new study better suited to preservice students orby the Urban Teacher Collaborative4 those who are about to begin their(Haselkorn and Harris, 1998; Fideler teaching careers.and Haselkorn, 1999; Urban Teacher • Encouragement and incentivesCollaborative, 2000) shows that for continuing education within thementoring has been successful in some profession: Employers who require orlarge urban areas. While some districts encourage people in the early stages ofand states pay close attention to the first their careers to pursue additionalfew years of teachers’ careers, most do education either pay completely for ornot. subsidize the costs of such advanced • Targeted professional develop- training. In turn, it is expected that thement programs: Professional develop- employees’ additional education willment programs in most professions are enhance the skills they need in theirdirected toward providing practitioners current positions and prepare them forwith information and resources that are new opportunities within the companyappropriate for their specific job respon- and profession. Although many schoolsibilities and career levels. Because districts now require teachers to com-employers assume that entry-level plete master’s degrees or continuingemployees do not yet possess the high- education units to obtain lifetime certifi-level skills and insights of more senior cation, there are few requirements orcolleagues, professional development is expectations that teachers will pursuegeared toward the acquisition of in- those advanced degrees in the subjectcreasingly sophisticated lifelong profes- areas in which they actually instruct.sional skills, perspectives, and learning. • Expectations for credentialing ofMentors are often useful in helping with professionals: Statistics indicate thatthis process. In teaching, however, people are changing careers more fre-many of the more abstract ideas (e.g., quently now than ever before (synthe- 4The Urban Teacher Collaborative is a joint initiative sponsored by Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.(<http://www.rnt.org/>), The Council of the Great City Schools (<http://www.cgcs.org>), and TheCouncil of the Great City Colleges of Education (<http://www.cgcs.org/services/Cgcce/index.html>).PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 37
    • sized in NRC, 1999b). People moving incentives that districts have to hire into professional schools or professions these individuals rather than teachers through nontraditional routes generally with more professional experience. expect to take prerequisite and required • Involvement of employees in courses first. And they do so because decision- and policy-making: Experi- the financial and other rewards they ence in modern business and industry expect, eventually, make the investment has pointed to the critical importance of of time and money worthwhile. How- workers at all levels being included in ever, financial compensation and other workplace and product design, plan- rewards are much less for teachers than ning, and decision-making (e.g., for other professionals.5 Therefore, Murnane and Levy, 1997; Rust, 1998). those who might consider becoming Workers who have spent many years teachers after experience in other assembling products have been found professions have few incentives to often to be the best people to provide spend the several years and the money advice to management about ways to required to take education or subject- increase productivity and efficiency in matter courses for teacher certification an industry. And, in turn, workers are (U.S. Department of Education, 1999; being rewarded for this. AFT, 2000). Under these conditions, a However, these kinds of changes in variety of alternative paths to certifica- the workplace have not yet reached tion have evolved.6 There has been much of K-12 education. In many much debate about both the efficacy of school districts, classroom teachers still many of these alternative certification do not have the authority or power to programs (e.g., Feistritzer and Chester, effect meaningful change in what they 2000; AFT, 2000) and the financial do, how they do it, or the environments 5According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of Education Statistics (1999 ed.), the average salary for all teachers across the U.S. in 1997-1998 was $39,385, and since 1990-1991, salaries for teachers have actually fallen slightly after being adjusted for inflation. 6The term, “alternative certification,” encompasses a very wide set of philosophies and approaches to allowing people to become teachers. Feistritzer and Chester (2000) state “…‘alternative certification’ has been used to refer to every avenue to becoming licensed to teach, from emergency certification to very sophisticated and well-designed programs that address the professional preparation needs of the growing population of individuals who already have at least a baccalaureate degree and considerable life experience and want to become teachers.” Feistritzer and Chester also point out that nearly all states now offer opportunities to people who have earned college degrees in fields other than education to return to college, major in education, and become certified teachers. Several states provide alternative routes to teaching where individuals with bachelor’s degrees can engage in “on-the-job training” while taking various college level courses (vs. a full-time program). However, many more states are now looking into authorizing other types of alternative pathways to certification.38 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • in which they work. For example, the criticism and support to help each othercurricular materials that teachers are improve their teaching.expected to use are typically either • Clientele and professionalselected by committees with members working conditions: U.S. schools anddrawn from diverse constituencies or teachers are facing challenges todaymandated by the district or state. Most that were largely unimagined andK-12 teachers also do not have work- unanticipated even 30 years ago. Thespaces separate from their students or education system in the United Stateseven access to a telephone within their now works with a more diverse studentworkspace for work-related communica- population than ever before. Teacherstions. Exceptional enterprise or innova- in both large metropolitan areas andtion may not be tangibly rewarded due more rural locales must try to educateto workplace rules.7 Senior teachers the children of large and varied popula-typically are not asked to offer their tions of immigrants, many of whomexpertise, insights, and perspectives to arrive at school unable to speak English.help improve teacher education pro- Some of these children—as well as theirgrams for less senior colleagues. parents—have received little or no formal In addition, data from TIMSS (e.g., education even in their first languagesStigler and Hiebert, 1997) and evalua- before arriving in the United States. Intion of new approaches to teacher addition, teachers are working witheducation (e.g., see Chapter 4 and more types of “special needs” students,examples in Appendixes D and E, such including those who are physicallyas UTeach at the University of Texas) challenged or developmentally orindicate that, in addition to providing emotionally delayed, than ever before.input to the operations of their schools Teachers also are working increasinglyand districts, teachers also need time with some students who come fromand flexibility in their schedules to build families that offer them little stability ora “teaching community” where they can support at home. For teachers ofactively and openly discuss content and science and mathematics, this latterpedagogy. As discussed by Ball (1997), problem can be exacerbated by the factthis teaching community also is a place that some parents from all walks of lifewhere teachers can offer constructive are not sufficiently familiar or comfort- 7Some districts and states are reconsidering their policies about additional financial incentives forteachers. For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that, in 1999, 15 statelegislatures had proposed or established incentives that encourage and reward teachers’ knowledgeand skills (Hirsch, 2000).PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 39
    • able with the content and approaches to profession. For example, a recent teaching the subjects in these disciplines survey by the National Science Teach- to be able to help or encourage their ers Association (NSTA) has concluded children. that nearly 40 percent of science teach- Unlike the facilities and resources ers in the United States are considering that are routinely provided to people in leaving their jobs. The primary reason other professions, the facilities and cited was job dissatisfaction stemming equipment provided to teachers in largely from low pay and lack of support schools are often dilapidated or out- from principals (Education Week, 2000). dated (Lewis et al., 2000). Many science A report from the Texas State Teachers laboratories may not conform to current Association reported similar levels of codes for safety, and most were not built dissatisfaction among teachers in that to facilitate teaching and learning of state (Henderson, 2000). science as articulated in national stan- These conditions also may be influ- dards (Biehle et al., 1999). Science encing the career choices of young equipment may be obsolete or in need people. In 1999, a survey of 501 college- of routine repair or calibration. There is bound high-school students from little technical support to maintain Montgomery County, MD, public equipment or resolve technical prob- schools indicated that a majority of lems that teachers or students encoun- these students was reluctant even to ter. In those cases where concerted consider teaching as a career option. efforts have been made to outfit schools Reporting out the results from the with modern equipment (e.g., desktop survey, Hart Research Associates computers connected to the Internet), (1999)8 stated that 39 percent of the teachers may not receive the preservice students in the survey had no interest in preparation or ongoing professional becoming teachers in public schools, training needed to use this equipment in with another 16 percent expressing little ways that truly enhance student learn- interest. Participants in two focus ing and achievement (Knuth et al., 1996; groups also reported out by Hart Valdez et al. 1999; Downes, 2000). Research Associates (one of boys, one As a result of these conditions, many of girls) concentrated their remarks on teachers are becoming both disenchanted the poor image of teachers and the with and disenfranchised from their public’s general lack of respect for the 8Additional information about the methods and results of this survey is available at <http:// www.mff.org/newsroom>.40 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • teaching profession. Although 55 teacher as work that is uninteresting.”percent of the respondents would at Thus, the Committee on Science andleast consider careers as teachers, some Mathematics Teacher Preparation isare likely to lose interest in teaching as convinced that the status quo in thethey proceed through college, particu- education and professional developmentlarly if they are interested enough in of teachers of science and mathematicsscience, mathematics, or engineering to does not meet the needs of eitherdeclare a major in one of these disci- teachers or the teaching profession.plines (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). Most importantly, current approaches toFurther, the feedback given by the focus the various phases of teacher educationgroups about their images of teachers do not and will not serve the needs ofand teaching was revealing. Students in the nation’s students in the next decadethe focus group recognized that, “for and beyond. As many recent reportstheir entire careers, teachers remain at already have stated, improving teacherthe level at which they began unless education and the treatment of teachersthey decide to go into the administrative as professionals in science, mathemat-side of education. There is no higher ics, and technology will require theposition for which to strive, no room for cooperation and collaboration of apromotion, and little opportunity for multitude of disparate institutions,significant salary increases.” Hart agencies, and organizations, many ofAssociates concluded, “While the which have had minimal contact withpolling results indicate that young each other and few incentives to workpeople have little interest in being together. If the United States genuinelyteachers, the focus group sessions—in values high-quality education for itswhich we hear the actual ‘voices’ of children, its leaders and decision-college-bound students—are especially makers should not allow the presentsobering. Simply put, we are dealing state of affairs to persist.with a generation of youth whose Further, the committee’s reviews ofvalues, outlook, and career goals seem- the research data and of other reportsingly run counter to what it takes to be and recommendations have led theinterested in teaching. On the one members to conclude that teachinghand, most of these students profess must involve continual professionaladmiration for the teaching profession; development, growth, and progressivethey understand that shaping young leadership responsibilities for teachersminds is important work. On the other over the span of their careers. Thehand, they view the job of being a committee’s vision of teacher education,PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 41
    • as articulated in this report, is one that organizations would assist their member involves a complex, multidimensional, institutions to develop programs to and career-long process. This vision increase awareness of all faculty mem- (detailed in Chapter 6) emphasizes the bers about the importance of teacher intellectual growth and maturation of education and their roles in it. teachers of science and mathematics • Each postsecondary institution and increasing the professionalism of would establish clear connections teaching in these disciplines and in between its programs and professional general. The vision would be achieved consensus about what beginning and through genuine partnerships that more experienced teachers should exhibit the following characteristics: know and be able to do in their class- rooms.10 Teacher education programs • They would be developed and would meet the highest standards that implemented collaboratively by scientists, have been articulated by national mathematicians, engineers; science, professional organizations. mathematics, and technology educators; • Institutions of higher education and teachers of grades K-12. would maintain contact with and provide • All colleges and universities, guidance for teachers who complete whether or not they offer formal teacher their preparation and development education programs, would make teacher programs after those teachers leave the education one of their institution’s campus. Higher education organizations central priorities.9 The highest levels of would assist higher education institution leadership from postsecondary educa- members in establishing programs for tion communities would affirm their new teachers who have moved to the institutions’ commitment to teacher regions served by those institutions. education as a basic tenet of their • Professional disciplinary societies educational mission. Higher education in science, mathematics, and engineer- 9The nation’s teacher workforce consists of many individuals who have matriculated at all types of two- and four-year colleges and universities. Although many of these schools do not offer formal teacher education programs, virtually every institution of higher education, through the kinds of courses it offers, the teaching it models, and the advising it provides to students, has the potential to influence whether or not its graduates will pursue careers in teaching. 10For example, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) has developed consensus guidelines for preservice programs under the auspices of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Additional information about INTASC is available at <http://www.ccsso.org/ intasc.html>. Corresponding consensus guidelines for continuing professional development have been developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Additional informa- tion about NBPTS is available at <http://www.nbpts.org/nbpts/>.42 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • ing, higher education organizations, that focuses broadly on synthesizinggovernments at all levels, and the data across studies and linking it toprivate sector would become more school practice in a wide variety ofengaged partners in efforts to improve school settings would be especiallyteacher education in science, mathemat- helpful to the improvement of teacherics, and technology. Professional education and professional developmentdisciplinary societies also would work for both prospective and experiencedtogether to align their own policies and teachers.recommendations on teacher education. • Concomitant with such collabora- • Universities whose primary mis- tion would be the development of asion includes education research would culture of education that recognizes allset as a priority the development and of these partners as having equal voicesexecution of studies that focus on ways at the table. All partners would beto improve teaching and learning for equally responsible for the leadershippeople of all ages (e.g., AAU Presidents’ required to prepare future educatorsResolution on Teacher Education, 1999; and improve the knowledge base andNRC, 1999f). Government agencies skills of all practicing teachers in bothwould also set this priority. New research the K-12 and higher education sectors.PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 43
    • 3 The Critical Importance of Well-Prepared Teachers for Student Learning and Achievement Nearly everyone now accepts the over what is taught and the climate for premise that teachers make a difference learning, improving teachers’ knowl- in the lives of their students. One edge, skills and dispositions through report (Coleman et al., 1966) briefly cast professional development is a critical doubt on the direct importance of step in improving student achievement.” teachers in student achievement. This The National Commission on Teaching report seemed to indicate that the and America’s Future (NCTAF, 1996) impact of teachers and the quality of and other national groups, such as the teaching were less important to student Education Trust (1998), earlier reached learning and achievement than other similar conclusions based on research factors, such as students’ socioeconomic that tracked the academic achievement status. However, subsequent research of individual students over long time in classrooms has demonstrated that periods (see, for example, Sanders and teachers do make a tangible difference Rivers, 1996). Further, all of these in student achievement. For example, organizations have shown that well- variation in student achievement has qualified teachers and high-quality been systematically related to variation teaching can close the achievement gap in the classroom behaviors of teachers between economically disadvantaged (as summarized in a review of the students and their more affluent peers. literature by Good et al., 1975). The public also recognizes the impor- Reflecting these findings, King and tance of well-prepared teachers. In a Newman (2000) state, “Since teachers large survey, Haselkorn and Harris have the most direct, sustained contact (1998) reported that “roughly nine out with students and considerable control of ten Americans believe the best way to44
    • information can then be used to helpPublic opinion overwhelmingly favors determine how better to educate and“ensuring a well-qualified teacher in every support successful teachers. If high-classroom” as the top education priority. quality teaching is essential to success in student learning and if the academicIndeed, teachers—once viewed as central success and achievement of studentsto the problem of student underachieve- can be linked to specific characteristicsment—are now being recognized as the of teaching—such information might besolution. In teacher preparation there is a used to argue against a recent trend in many districts toward dilution of re-“multiplier effect” that can span generations. quirements for teacher education andWhile a sound undergraduate science certification in response to teachereducation is essential for producing the next shortages, class-size reductions, andgeneration of scientists, it is equally critical growing K-12 student populations. Figure 3-1 provides an overview offor future teachers of science. The refrain, how research data, recommendations of“You can’t teach what you don’t know,” professional organizations and theirsurely applies. reports, national standards for teachers National Science Board, 1999 of science and mathematics, and extant standards for K-12 students in science and mathematics can influence the quality of K-12 teachers, teaching, andlift student achievement is to ensure a student achievement.qualified teacher in every classroom.”This survey revealed, in addition, a strongbelief by the public that prospective THE EVIDENCE THAT HIGH-teachers need special training and skills, QUALITY TEACHING MATTERSnot simply a good general education. It is important to examine the veracity Before discussing further the variousof the conclusion that well-prepared aspects of teacher quality, the studyteachers and high-quality teaching committee wishes to acknowledge andmatter. It also is important to document to emphasize that there are countlessand understand what specific character- thousands of science and mathematicsistics of teachers, and the school set- teachers who do excellent jobs in helpingtings in which they work, contribute to their students learn and achieve, oftensuccessful student outcomes. This in very difficult circumstances and atT H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 45
    • FIGURE 3-1 Factors that influence teacher quality and quality teaching and their effects on student achievement. Depicted are four areas examined in this report and describing what is known about preparing quality teachers and their impact on K-12 student achievement in mathematics and science. Data from Recommendations Educational from Professional Research Organizations Teacher Quality and Quality Teaching National Standards Science, Mathematics, for Teachers and Technology Standards for Students K-12 Student Achievement relatively low pay. The committee’s list teaching and learning of science and of concerns and recommendations for mathematics. However, everyone who addressing those concerns are not is concerned about the quality of educa- intended to paint all teachers with the tion should consider carefully adopting same brush. Indeed, most of the con- policies and practices that encourage cerns expressed in this report can be the most qualified individuals to prepare attributed to preparation and continuing for, enter, and remain in science and professional development that are now mathematics teaching and revamping or either out-of-date or inadequate to meet jettisoning those practices that dissuade the demands of new approaches to or impede them from doing so.46 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • In the last few years, a number of given to grade 3-8 students in Tennessee.large-scale studies of teaching have Utilizing a database now in excess ofelucidated how teacher quality makes a 5million r ecords, Sanders and hisdifference in the achievement of students. colleagues have tracked individualThree of these studies and their conclu- students over time and studied eachsions are summarized below. An exami- child’s academic achievement year bynation of studies that focus more specifi- year. In this way, they have been able tocally on science and mathematics identify a year when a child makesteaching and K-12 student achievement average progress, exceeds averagefollows. progress, or achieves no gain. In a study intended to gauge the cumulative and residual effects ofTEACHER QUALITY AND GENERAL teacher qualifications on studentSTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: achievement, Sanders and Rivers (1996)THREE STUDIES gathered test or achievement data for a cohort of students from the time they Later reports frequently cite studies were second-graders to the time theyby Sanders and colleagues (see below), had completed fifth grade. By disaggre-Ferguson (1991), and Ferguson and gating the data, the researchers wereLadd (1996) as evidence that the qualifi- able to see the impact of quality teach-cations of teachers not only matter in ing on each child over time (Sandersstudent achievement but also are major and Rivers, 1996).1 Sanders and Riversvariables in improving student learning reported that student achievement atand achievement. each grade level correlated positively For over 15 years, Sanders and his with the quality of the teachers whocolleagues associated with the Tennes- taught those students. Also of interestsee Value-Added Assessment System was the researchers’ discovery of(TVAAS) have analyzed data from residual effects; that is, they found thatannual tests in mathematics, science, the individual children they studiedreading, language, and social studies tended not to recover after a school 1Sanders, Rivers, and their colleagues did not define teacher quality a priori. Rather they sought toidentify “quality” teachers based on how well students achieved in one year of school. Using theTennessee achievement tests as a measure, they determined if the students in a given teacher’s classachieved a normal year of growth in various subject matter fields such as mathematics or more or lessthan a normal year’s academic growth. Using these criteria, they then identified teachers as “belowaverage quality,” “average quality,” or “above average quality.”T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 47
    • year’s worth of classroom experience cant effects on student scores: teacher with an ineffective teacher. Conversely, language scores on the state examina- a child who spent one year with a highly tion, class size, years of teaching experi- effective teacher tended to experience ence, and the earning of an advanced academic benefits even two years later. degree. According to a review of the In this and other studies, Sanders and study conducted by the National Center his colleagues have shown that placing for Education Statistics (cited in Sparks students in classrooms with high-quality and Hirsh, 2000), teacher expertise, as teaching does matter. Variables such as Ferguson had defined it, explained 40 the racial and/or ethnic composition of percent of the variance in the students’ schools, students’ socioeconomic levels, achievement in reading and mathematics. and the mean achievement of an entire Later, in 1996, Ferguson and Ladd school correlated far less with student used Sanders’ statistical approach to achievement when compared to the study nearly 30,000 Alabama fourth variable of teacher quality. graders during the 1990-91 school year. In a large-scale study of younger They found that students’ test scores in children in grades 3-5, Sanders and mathematics and reading were positively colleagues Wright and Horn found that affected by two teacher variables: higher “teacher effects are dominant factors than average scores on the American affecting student academic gain,” College Testing program’s college especially in mathematics but also, entrance examination and completion of noticeably, in science (Wright et al., 1997). one or more master’s degrees. In a 1991 study, Ferguson examined student scores on standardized tests in reading and mathematics, teacher qualifications, and class size in 900 out of 1,000 school districts in Texas. The Since teachers have the most direct, sus- teacher qualifications examined in each tained contact with students and consider- district included teacher performance on the Texas state teacher examina- able control over what is taught and the tions, years of teaching experience, and climate for learning, improving teachers’ teachers’ acquisition of advanced knowledge, skill and dispositions through (master’s) degrees. Ferguson (1991) professional development is a critical step in found that the following teacher qualifi- cations, listed in order from most to improving student achievement. least important, had statistically signifi- King and Newman, 200048 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • TEACHER QUALITY AND STUDENT science” correlated positively with theACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AND number of science courses taken by theMATHEMATICS teachers. In 1989, McDiarmid et al. concluded, Research that attempted to investi- on the basis of research extant at thegate the relationship between teacher time, that teachers’ subject matterquality and student achievement began understanding and their pedagogicalin earnest in the 1960s and 1970s. In a orientations and decisions criticallymeta-analysis of previous work, Druva influence the quality of their teaching.and Anderson (1983) uncovered a “Teachers’ capacity to pose questions,number of important and statistically select tasks, evaluate their pupil’ssignificant positive correlations that understanding, and to make curricularshed light on the variable of teacher decisions all depend on how theyquality in science instruction. Teaching themselves understand the subjectbackground, teacher behavior in the matter.” And in 1995, Chaney demon-classroom, and student outcomes were strated a relationship between middle-examined. Findings included that school science and mathematics teach-teachers with greater content knowl- ers’ professional preparation andedge in a given subject and those with student performance.more teaching experience were more These consistently positive correla-likely to ask higher level, cognitively tions appear to support the importancebased questions. Teachers with more of high levels of preparation for teacherscontent knowledge also had a greater in both content and pedagogy. Thisorientation toward seeking information preparation and subsequent teachingfrom students through questioning and experience also appear to enhancediscussion in their teaching compared student achievement.to teachers with less content knowl-edge. This was particularly significantin the case of biology teachers. Stu- THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHERdents’ ability to understand the essen- CERTIFICATIONtials of the scientific method was posi-tively correlated with the number of Hawk et al. (1985) conducted ascience courses (both in biology and in specific study of the relationship be-other science disciplines) that their tween teachers’ certification in math-teachers had taken. The degree to ematics and their teaching effective-which students reported that they “liked ness. Two groups, each of 18 teachersT H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 49
    • who had taught at least one course in cantly higher (p<. 001) on the Carolina mathematics in grades 6-12, participated Teacher Performance Assessment System in the seven-month study. One group than did their out-of-field counterparts. consisted of teachers who held either No significant differences were ob- subject area certification or endorse- served between the two groups based ment in mathematics (“in-field teach- on years of teaching experience, years ers”), and the other group consisted of of experience teaching mathematics, or teachers who lacked these credentials level of degree earned. Overall, in-field (“out-of-field teachers”). Both groups of mathematics teachers knew more teachers taught the same mathematics mathematics and showed evidence of course in the same school to students of using more effective teaching practices the same general ability. Pretest scores than did their out-of-field counterparts. of students across the different groups Hawk et al. (1985) concluded that did not differ significantly from each certification requirements are an effec- other. Researchers proceeded to tive mechanism to assure higher stu- examine comparative teacher effective- dent achievement in mathematics. ness by looking at student achieve- Also important to this discussion are ment,2 teacher professional skills,3 and Ingersoll’s (1999) findings that, nation- teacher knowledge of the subject field.4 wide, approximately one third of all Students taught by in-field teachers secondary school teachers of mathemat- scored significantly higher on general ics have neither a major nor a minor in mathematics (p< .001) and algebra mathematics, mathematics education, or (p<.01) tests than did students taught by in such related disciplines as engineer- out-of-field teachers. In-field teachers ing or physics. Similarly, about 20 scored significantly higher (p<.001 ) on percent of science teachers lack even a the test of teachers’ subject matter minor in science or science education, knowledge than did out-of-field teach- and “over half of teachers teaching ers. In-field teachers also scored signifi- physical sciences classes (chemistry, 2Student achievement was measured with the Stanford Achievement Test (general mathematics) and the Stanford Test of Academic Skills (algebra). 3Teacher professional skills were observed for an entire class period twice during the seven-month period by trained observers who used the Carolina Teacher Performance Assessment System (CTPAS). This instrument focuses on five teaching characteristics: management of instructional time, manage- ment of student behavior, instructional presentation, instructional monitoring, and instructional feedback. The inter-rater reliability exceeded 90 percent. 4Descriptive Tests of Mathematics Skills (arithmetic and elementary algebra skills) were used to measure teachers’ subject matter knowledge.50 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • physics, earth science, or space sci- used scores from the administration ofence) are without an academic major or the Stanford Achievement Test (Stanfordminor in any one of the physical sci- 9) to 1.3 million students in grades 9ences” (Ingersoll, 1999).5,6 As one through 11 in 785 California highmight expect, the situation was worse in schools. The test’s content is orientedhigh-poverty schools. The fact that toward basic skills and its publishersignificant numbers of the more than claims that it is based on NCTM stan-314,000 current secondary school dards in mathematics (NCTM, 1989).science and mathematics teachers are Fetler found that three variables relatedteaching without full certification in to teacher preparation correlated withthese subjects should cause significant student test scores: the number ofconcern about the science and math- teachers in those high schools withematics instruction children may or may emergency teaching permits, teachingnot be receiving. experience as measured by years of These concerns are reinforced by service (excluding substitute experi-Fetler (1999), who investigated the ence), and teachers’ educational level.relationship between measures of a Specifically, (1) student test resultsteacher’s experience with mathematics correlated positively with amount ofand educational level and student teaching experience, (2) lower averageachievement in mathematics. Fetler student test scores in a school corre- 5For high-school physics teachers, Ingersoll’s data are corroborated by a recent report from theAmerican Institute of Physics (Neuschatz and McFarling, 1999). However, Neuschatz and McFarlingwere optimistic about what they reviewed as an improving situation in the teaching of physics: “Con-trary to widely-circulating reports, the preparation of high-school physics teachers seems to begenerally, albeit slowly, improving, and cases of instructors with no physics background are rare. Athird have degrees in physics or physics education, and if those with physics minors are included, theproportion approaches one-half… Virtually all the rest have a degree in mathematics or anotherscience, or in math or science education. In the past, we have found that more than 80% had takenthree or more college physics courses.” (Neuschatz and McFarling, 1999). Further, the number ofpeople teaching physics with bachelors degrees in that discipline has increased during the 1990s: from24 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 1993 to 43 percent in 1997 (Neuschatz and McFarling, 1999). 6Survey data collected by Neuschatz and McFarling (1999) also suggest that, at least for physicsteachers, time spent teaching the subject also might influence the quality of teaching, irrespective offormal academic credentials in the discipline. Many teachers without formal credentials in physics whowere surveyed in 1993 had reported that they felt ill prepared to teach the subject. When surveyedagain in 1997, many of these same teachers saw themselves as adequately- or well-prepared to teachphysics and attributed the change to the experience they had gained from actually preparing for andpresenting the course, laboratories, and demonstrations. Neuschatz and McFarling (1999) emphasized,however, that definitive data are not yet available to determine whether the students of these experi-enced teachers without formal preparation in the discipline fare as well on physics examinations asstudents whose teachers have acquired formal credentials in physics.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 51
    • lated with higher numbers of teachers DATA FROM NATIONAL AND with emergency permits in that school, INTERNATIONAL TESTS and (3) higher average student scores in a school correlated higher levels of Studies of the National Assessment of education among the teachers in that Educational Progress (NAEP)7 also school. After controlling for socioeco- point to the importance of teachers’ nomic status, Fetler concluded that levels of content preparation. Although student achievement in mathematics the NAEP is designed primarily to significantly correlated with teacher determine how U.S. students are doing experience and preparation. in various subjects at grades 4, 8, and As a result of his study, Fetler (1999), 12, recent NAEPs also have collected commented, “After controlling for some data about the teachers whose poverty, teacher experience and prepa- students took these examinations (e.g., ration significantly predict test scores” Hawkins et al., 1998). The 1996 data and “Schools with higher percentages of show a statistically significant correla- teachers on emergency permits tended tion coefficient of 0.26 between the to have lower achieving students in percentage of students whose teachers mathematics.” have a college major in mathematics In light of the positive impact of in- and the average mathematics scores of field teaching on student achievement, those students (Hawkins et al., 1998). why is out-of-field teaching so prevalent Hence, there is some evidence to suggest and what might be done to curtail the the position that the more well versed a practice? This report examines that teacher is in the subject, the better his/ issue more fully in a subsequent section her students do on this type of standard- on recruiting teachers and staffing ized examination. Hawkins et al. (1998) schools (see Chapter 6 “Other Benefits concluded that, “At the eighth-grade of Partnerships for Teacher Education level, students who were taught by in Science and Mathematics”). teachers with teaching certificates in mathematics outperformed students 7The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) conducts assessments of samples of the nation’s students attending public and private schools at the elementary-, junior-, and high-school levels. NAEP collects and reports information about the academic performance of American students in a wide variety of learning areas, including subjects such as reading, math, science, writing, world and U.S. history, civics, and foreign languages. NAEP uses a complex matrix sampling design in order to cover a broad array of topics. The design allows for reporting of aggregated results for various population groups, but no individual results are reported.52 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • whose teachers had teaching certifi- (U.S. Department of Education, 1997b;cates in education or an ‘other’ field.” Harmon et al., 1997). These findings The Third International Mathematics suggest that a study of the characteristicsand Science Study (TIMSS) collected of teachers in U.S. middle schools mightinformation in the mid-1990s on student possibly point to ways to change teacherperformance in these subjects around preparation in mathematics (Nationalthe world and also gathered information Science Board, 1999; NRC, 1999c).about teachers. In mathematics, fourth- Another component of TIMSS withgrade students in the United States direct bearing on issues in mathematicsscored slightly above average on the teacher preparation is Stigler andTIMSS examination, but eighth- and Hiebert’s (1997) comparative analysis oftwelfth-grade students performed below TIMSS videotapes of grade 8 mathemat-and well below average, respectively. ics classes in Germany, Japan, and theThe findings from the science compo- United States.8 The comparison showsnent of TIMSS indicate that fourth and some startling differences in the in-eighth graders scored above the inter- structional practices of mathematicsnational average in science. However, teachers among the three countriesU.S. twelfth graders performed below (U. S. Department of Education, 1996;the international average in science, and NRC, 1999c), such asthe United States ranked among thelowest of 21 nations in the TIMSS end- • Japanese teachers widely practiceof-secondary school assessment of what the U.S. mathematics reform effortscience general knowledge. Overall, the has recommended, while U.S. teachers“international standing of U.S. students do so less frequently.was stronger at the eighth-grade level • An emphasis on cultivating studentthan at the twelfth-grade level in both understanding is evident in the stepsmathematics and science among the typical of Japanese grade 8 mathematicscountries that participated in the lessons. In contrast, an emphasis onassessments at both grade levels” skill acquisition is evident in the steps 8Between 50 and 100 eighth-grade classes in mathematics were videotaped in each country. Thetapes were then digitized, transcribed, and translated into English. Expert evaluators coded thevideotapes for the occurrence of specific content elements and teaching and curricular events and thenanalyzed the data quantitatively. Teachers whose classes were videotaped also completed question-naires about what they were planning to teach during the sessions so that teacher intentions and actualevents could be compared. For more details, see Stigler and Hiebert (1997) and National ResearchCouncil (1999c). Similar video recordings are now being prepared that will examine science teachingin eighth-grade classrooms in different countries. These videos should be available late in 2001.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 53
    • common to most U.S. and German ing variables, however, it is revealing mathematics lessons. that nearly 40 percent of grade 8 students • The U.S. and German emphasis on in the United States learn mathematics skills rather than understanding also from teachers who do not have college carries over into the type of mathemat- majors in either mathematics or math- ics work that students are assigned to ematics education (Hawkins et al., 1998). do at their desks during class. Nonetheless, in terms of certification, • U.S. teachers rarely develop many eighth-grade teachers have mathematical concepts, in contrast to sufficient backgrounds in mathematics German and Japanese teachers. to be certified in mathematics in many states. For example, 15 units in math- It is important to recognize that ematics (with some specified variety of directly relating the NAEP and TIMSS courses) were cited as satisfactory data about teacher training or practices preparation for junior high-school and approaches to student performance mathematics teachers in the last recom- is difficult at best. For example, more mendations of the Mathematical Asso- experienced teachers with better math- ciation of America (1991)9 (although ematics backgrounds may be assigned some states do require additional units to teach classes composed of more in the subject). Yet, the TIMSS videos motivated or more well-prepared and test results suggest that even those students (U.S. Department of Educa- teachers with certification in the disci- tion, 1996). It also is important to pline are teaching only a limited array of understand that student performance on mathematical concepts and skills and these kinds of standardized examina- doing so in ways that may be ineffective tions reflects the curriculum studied up for long-term learning and mastery. to the time students take a particular The TIMSS video data also suggest that, examination, a state or a nation’s cul- unlike their counterparts in other tural emphasis on and support for countries such as Japan, many U.S. education, and many other variables. mathematics teachers present math- Some of these factors are likely to have ematical manipulations and algorithms at least as much influence on test to their students without first making performance, if not more so, than certain that the students understand teachers. Despite these other interact- how and why such procedures are used. 9An updated version of these recommendations from the Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences will call for 21 hours in mathematics for all middle-school mathematics teachers. Additional information is available at <http://www.maa.org/cbms/metdraft/index.htm>.54 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • These differences in approach and K-12 teachers of science or mathematicsemphasis may account for the lower need? Teacher educators and subjectperformance of U.S. students on the matter specialists have been trying tokinds of questions that were asked on address this question for many years.the TIMSS examination. It is telling that One straightforward answer comesthe eighth grade students whose teach- from examining the national standardsers were most knowledgeable about the in science and mathematics for gradesNCTM standards extant at that time K-12. The national standards for K-12performed better on the NAEP than did science and mathematics do not dictatestudents whose teachers knew little or the level of knowledge required of K-12nothing about those standards teachers. Some find it reasonable to(Hawkins et al., 1998). suggest, however, that, at a bare mini- Taken together, the TIMSS data on mum, teachers should possess knowl-student achievement in mathematics edge and deep understanding of theand the NAEP data on teachers’ math- subject matter recommended for stu-ematics backgrounds lend support to dents at the level of their teaching and,the proposition that students perform preferably, one grade level categorybetter when they are able to learn from above their particular teaching level.10teachers who know their subject matter Thus, the science knowledge set forthwell and who are well informed about in the National Science Educationimproved ways to teach. Standards for middle-level students would be the minimum level of science knowledge required of teachers for theCONTENT PREPARATION IS elementary grades.11 The mathematicsCRITICAL FOR HIGH-QUALITY knowledge set forth in the NationalTEACHING IN SCIENCE AND Council of Teachers of MathematicsMATHEMATICS standards for middle-level students would be the minimum level of math- What level and type of subject-matter ematics knowledge required of teachersknowledge (content knowledge) do for the elementary grades. High-school 10A “grade level category” is defined here as one of the three major divisions prevalent in K-12education today: elementary, middle, and secondary. 11In the United States, many but not all elementary schools contain grades K-5, while many middleschools are for students in grades 6-8. It should be noted, however, that the National Science EducationStandards (NSES) call for grouping of content knowledge and understanding for grades K-4, 5-8, and9-12. Thus, in the middle band (grades 5-8), some of the science content called for in the NSES mightbe taught at different schools.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 55
    • teachers of science and mathematics complete courses or demonstrate would have deep understanding of what competency in genetics, ecology, physi- is taught through first-year courses in ology, microbiology, and conservation their subject areas at colleges and principles. That teacher also needs to universities. It should be noted that acquire some breadth of knowledge in the acquiring the desirable depth of under- other sciences, as well as in mathematics. standing at any level usually will require Some states require a major or at least a advanced study of the pertinent subject minor in the appropriate field but may not matter. The content suggested for articulate the details of specific subjects each major grade level category in the a teacher is expected to have studied National Science Education Standards nor the minimum hours of coursework (NRC, 1996a) and by the Principles and required. To push more prospective Standards for School Mathematics teachers toward adequate content (NCTM, 2000) are provided in Appendix preparation, some states have limited B. A forthcoming publication from the the number of hours a candidate can Conference Board of the Mathematical take in education as part of the bachelor Sciences (see footnote 9) also will degree. For example, in 1999, the address issues of teacher education for Colorado state legislature adopted the prospective teachers of mathematics. following conditions for teacher licensure, However, despite the seemingly including at the elementary grades: straightforward guidance reviewed above, the question of what content teachers 1. a teacher preparation option must be need is deceptively multifaceted and available to students to complete as complex. Level of content knowledge undergraduates; typically has been defined by the spe- 2. the bachelor’s degree shall consist cific number of hours of science content of no more than 120 semester hours; or mathematics content coursework that all candidates must complete an must be a part of prospective teachers’ academic/ subject matter major and preparation. At the elementary school other general education require- level, this might be one to three courses, ments; and which, depending on the teacher educa- 3. the program shall include a mini- tion program or specific state require- mum of 800 hours of organized and ments may or may not be tailored to supervised school-based experiences. prospective teachers at this grade level. At the secondary level, a teacher who Currently, in Texas, the teacher teaches biology might be required to preparation component of a student’s56 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • baccalaureate program (excluding keep abreast of developments in theirstudent teaching) can account for no subject area cannot lead to effectivemore than 18 semester hours. Other teaching of these disciplines.states, such as New York, have moved Science and mathematics educatorsto a required five-year program, thereby agree that strong content preparation isensuring that candidates have strong necessary but also look at the way thatpreparation in a major followed by a content is taught. The National Sciencecoherent teacher preparation program. Education Standards (NRC, 1996a) stateIn addition, a recent report from the Teachers of science will be the represen-American Federation of Teachers (2000) tatives of the science community in theirrecommended that education for prospec- classrooms, and they form much of theirtive teachers be organized as a five-year image of science through the scienceprocess at a minimum. Clearly, some courses they take in college. If thatpolicymakers believe that teachers’ image is to reflect the nature of science as presented in the standards, prospectiveknowledge of content in a subject area is and practicing teachers must take scienceimportant to successful teaching and to courses in which they learn sciencesuccessful student learning, although through inquiry, having the same oppor-how this is put into practice and inter- tunities as their students will have topreted varies widely among the states. develop understanding. It is important to keep in mind that The recently released content or “core”when one examines the evidence of standards from the Interstate Newwhat it takes to teach science or math- Teacher Assessment and Supportematics well, increasing the teaching of Consortium (INTASC, 1999) reinforcecontent alone, without regard to how this recommendation by specifying thatand in what context that content is teachers of science and mathematics needtaught, is insufficient. For example, the to understand content as well as knowknowledge base in many fields of how to apply that content in problem-science, mathematics, and technology is solving and inquiry-based situations ingrowing and changing so rapidly that the classroom. The principles fromspecific content that a student learns INTASC’s Core Standards state furtherduring preparation for teaching may be that all beginning teachers in scienceout-of-date or may need to be revised should have more laboratory experi-substantially by the time that person ence than they can acquire through thebegins teaching. Teaching prospective lab-oriented courses currently offered toteachers content knowledge without prospective teachers at many collegeshelping them also to understand how to and universities as shown in Table 3-1.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 57
    • TABLE 3-1 INTASC Core Principle #1 on Expectations of Teachers’ Content Knowledge Principle Number 1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. Knowledge The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches. The teacher understands how students’ conceptual frameworks and their misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their learning. The teacher can relate his/her disciplinary knowledge to other subject areas. Dispositions The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of facts but is complex and ever evolving. S/he seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and understandings in the field. The teacher appreciates multiple perspectives and conveys to learners how knowledge is developed from the vantage point of the knower. The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline(s) s/he teaches and sees connections to everyday life. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children’s learning of the discipline. Performances The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and link them to students’ prior understandings. The teacher can represent and use differing viewpoints, theories, “ways of knowing,” and methods of inquiry in his/her teaching of subject matter concepts. The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness for representing particular ideas and concepts. The teacher engages students in generating knowledge and testing hypotheses according to the methods of inquiry and standards of evidence used in the discipline. The teacher develops and uses curricula that encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives. The teacher can create interdisciplinary learning experiences that allow students to integrate knowl- edge, skills, and methods of inquiry from several subject areas. Source: INTASC Core Standards, Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at <http://www.ccsso.org/intascst.html>.58 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • The recently released Inquiry and the THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCENational Science Education Standards OF CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN(National Research Council, 2000a) puts THE EDUCATION OF TEACHERS OFit another way: “Programs are needed SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICSthat explicitly attend to inquiry—both asa learning outcome for teachers and as a What science or mathematics shouldway for teachers to learn science subject a teacher know to be an effectivematter.” teacher in these disciplines and subject But what research exists to support areas? According to Shulman andthis recent emphasis upon knowing, Grossman (1988), content knowledgeunderstanding, and being able to do consists of an understanding of keyscience and mathematics? Ball (1998) facts, concepts, principles, and thecontended that, to teach mathematics frameworks of a discipline, as well aseffectively, a teacher must have knowl- the rules of evidence and proof that areedge of mathematics and a conceptual part of that discipline.understanding of the principles underly- In an extensive review of the litera-ing its topics, rules, and definitions. Ball ture on the education of science teach-(1990) and then Cooney (1994) also ers, Anderson and Mitchener (1994)stated that content knowledge must be a noted that most preparation in subjectcentral focus and an integral part of a matter occurs outside of schools ofmathematics teacher’s preparation education. Prospective secondaryprogram. Similarly, after an extensive science and mathematics teachersreview of science education, Coble and devote a large portion of their studies toKoballa (1996) concluded that science their particular disciplines, but little iscontent must be the centerpiece of the known about what students really learnpreparation of science teachers. The in their subject area courses. This lackmajor ideas of science “should form the of knowledge about the real value ofcore of the science content knowledge courses is particularly interesting inof all teachers, with depth of under- light of the fact that students in teacherstanding reflected in the teacher’s education spend the majority of theirchosen level of teaching.” academic time taking courses in the arts and sciences departments. Ball (1990) and Borko et al. (1993) contended that teachers do not develop a deep understanding of mathematics during their own K-12 education or evenT H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 59
    • in their undergraduate coursework. ics. Moreover, research on the relation- Even today, college coursework in ships between teachers’ actual content mathematics may not stress conceptual knowledge (vs. amount of pedagogical understanding of content. Rather, the training and experience) and the emphasis is on performing mathemati- amount of student learning that occurs cal manipulations in a lecture format. usually has been inconclusive. Science coursework often is similar. Some recent studies do, however, Arons (1990) pointed out that college point to a relationship between teachers’ science courses, particularly introduc- content background and the quality of tory survey courses, focus on the major their instruction. Reviews of the re- achievements in an area of science. search on this subject (Fennema and Then, when prospective teachers of Franke, 1992; Manouchehri, 1997) science go on in science coursework— indicate that the importance of teachers’ most often some of the same actual knowledge of content in math- coursework engaged in by science ematics and their conceptual under- majors—they are exposed to science as standing of mathematics in particular is a body of facts, not, as Coble and coming under focused study. As early Koballa found more recently (1996), as a as 1985, Steinberg et al. found that way of knowing the natural world teachers with deeper conceptual under- through inquiry.12 standing also engaged students in active Until recently, many teacher educa- problem solving, and helped students tors have taken it for granted that see relationships inside and outside of teacher candidates would be knowledge- mathematics. These authors suggested able about subject matter in the that there is a relationship between the discipline(s) in which they elected to quality of secondary teachers’ knowl- major. Beyond reports that noted the edge of mathematics and the quality of number of courses taken at the college their classroom instruction. More level by candidates, Cooney (1994) and recent studies have confirmed the Manouchehri (1997) could find no strong positive relationship between a studies on the kinds or levels of second- teacher’s conceptual understanding of ary teachers’ knowledge of mathemat- mathematics and the choices he or she 12Undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education has begun to change during the past decade in ways that are consistent with the reforms being espoused for grades K-12. Rothman and Narum (1999) provide an overview of these changes in undergraduate education and predict the kinds of change that is likely over the next 10 years. Additional information about this report is available at <http://www.pkal.org/news/thennow100.html>.60 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • makes in his or her instruction. Within their specialty, teachers with Brown and Borko (1992) concluded greater content knowledge wrotethat teaching mathematics from a examination questions that focused lessconceptual perspective is very unlikely on recall and more on students beingto occur unless a teacher has deep able to apply and transfer information.conceptual understanding of the math- However, when they were teachingematics subject matter at hand. Later, outside of their specialty, these teachersManouchehri (1997) stated flatly that followed textbook chapters more closelythe research literature supports the and were less likely to recognize ornotion that “in the absence of concep- address student misconceptions.tual understanding of content, effective Hashweh concluded that knowledge ofteaching is highly improbable.” subject matter contributed greatly to Few parallel studies exist for science these teachers’ ability to translate aeducation. Carlsen (1988) found that written curriculum into an active cur-teachers with deeper conceptual under- riculum in biology and physics.standing of science allowed their stu- As was noted earlier in this report,dents to engage in discourse more often some policymakers and teacher educa-than teachers with weaker conceptual tors believe that prospective teachersbackgrounds. Carlsen also noted that should emphasize their preparation inteachers with greater understanding of subject matter at the expense of prepa-content asked students a greater num- ration in education. Do teachers whober of high-level questions, whereas were majors in science or mathematicsteachers who did not know the material understand the subjects they teachtended to dominate the classroom better than teachers who were educa-discussion. tion majors? Ball and Wilson (1990) Hashweh (1987) studied the effects of conducted a study at Michigan Stateteachers’ knowledge of subject matter in University that examined this questionbiology and physics on teachers’ abili- with prospective elementary teachersties to teach these subjects. He found before and after they had completedthat teachers with higher levels of their teacher preparation programs.content knowledge integrated pieces of They looked at two groups, one com-that knowledge more often into their posed of prospective teachers who hadteaching. These teachers also recog- been prepared in a traditional prepara-nized higher order principles in the tion program, and the other composeddiscipline, and their instructional strate- of prospective teachers who had beengies reflected this depth of knowledge. prepared in an alternative program.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 61
    • Their focus was the influence of these studied groups of elementary school programs on the prospective teachers’ teachers in China and the United States. teaching of mathematics. Ball and Despite China’s more limited teacher Wilson found that both groups of preparation program, Ma found that the teacher candidates lacked understand- Chinese teachers had a more profound ing of the underlying relationships of understanding13 of the mathematics mathematics. At the beginning of their they were teaching. This deeper under- teacher preparation programs, 60 standing both of mathematics content percent of these prospective teachers and its application allowed Chinese could not generate a real-world example teachers to promote mathematical that would demonstrate to their stu- learning and inquiry more effectively dents an application for the division of than their counterparts in the United fractions. Moreover, they still could not States, especially when students raised generate an appropriate representation novel ideas or claims that were outside of division of fractions after they had the scope of the lesson being presented graduated from their respective prepara- in class. tion programs. Ball and Wilson (1990) Ma’s study provides some insights concluded that neither group was that might guide an upgrading of prepared to teach mathematics for teacher knowledge in the United States. understanding or to teach mathematics Specifically, most of the Chinese teach- in ways that differ from “telling and ers only taught mathematics, up to three drilling algorithms into students.” or four classes per day. Much of the What else, then, needs to take place rest of their day was unencumbered, in teacher education programs to allowing for reflection on their teaching support candidates adequately in the and, perhaps more importantly, for effective teaching of science and/or shared study and conversation with mathematics? Several possible answers fellow teachers about content and how were revealed in a study of teachers’ to teach it. Their teaching assignments understanding of mathematics con- also permitted them to gain over time a ducted recently by Ma (1999). Ma better grasp of the entire elementary 13Ma (1999) described the following characteristics as evidence for a teacher’s “profound understanding of mathematics”: 1. The ability to sequence appropriately the introduction of new concepts; 2. The ability to make careful choices about problem types to be given to students in terms of number, context, and difficulty; 3. Brief but significant opportunities for students to encounter conceptual obstacles; 4. Solicitation from and discussion by students of multiple points of view about a problem; 5.Anticipa- tion of more complex and related structures; 6. Powerful and timely introduction of generalizations.62 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • school curriculum for mathematics. learning and achievement. “LessNone of these features—specialist extensive” was defined as participationteachers in elementary schools, time for in special topic workshops. Cohen andlearning collaboratively with other Hill (1998) found that the more timeteachers, and experience at a variety of teachers spent in curriculum workshops,grade levels—is common to U.S. el- including those with opportunities toementary schools. examine new curriculum with other The kind and quality of teachers’ teachers, the more reform-oriented andinservice education can make a differ- less conventional was their teachingence in how their students achieve. practice. In fact, the difference wasCohen and Hill (1998) reported on a nearly 0.75 standard deviation higher, alarge-scale study of mathematics teachers statistically significant difference.in California who participated in a These results also appeared to besustained program of professional associated with student achievement.development. Although this study After taking student characteristics andactually focused on the effects of educa- school conditions into account, theretional policy, it revealed important was a modest positive correlationinformation about the opportunities that between the degree to which teachersteachers need both to learn and to teach reported that their classroom practicenew state-required mathematics content was oriented to California’s state Math-as a means of enhancing student ematics Framework and average stu-achievement. Using data from a 1994 dent scores on the CLAS. Cohen andsurvey of California elementary school Hill (1998) noted in particular the fact ofteachers and student scores from the the teachers’ involvement with such1994 California Learning Assessment work as writing topic units potentially toSystem (CLAS), this study examined substitute for or elaborate on less in-whether students who are taught by depth textbook treatments. In addition,teachers with more extensive opportuni- these teachers were involved in theties for inservice education would construction of rubrics for assessingperform better than students whose student responses to open-ended kindsteachers had less extensive opportuni- of problems. No similar relationshipties for inservice. “More extensive” was was found for these two variables indefined as ongoing opportunities to schools where teachers engaged in alearn subject matter deeply, adopt new high degree of conventional practice.curriculum, and learn about appropriate Other studies have produced similarand aligned assessments of student results. For example, another study ofT H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 63
    • student achievement in California of first- and second-grade teachers, the demonstrated that when teachers had CGI group provided teachers with experienced extended inservice oppor- knowledge of young children’s thinking tunities to learn about mathematics and with strategies for teaching addition curriculum and instruction, their stu- and subtraction. Subsequently, these dents’ achievement increased (Wiley teachers spent more time in their and Yoon, 1995). Also, a study of math- mathematics instruction on problem ematics reform, Quantitative Under- solving and assessing student thinking standing: Amplifying Student Achieve- than a control group of teachers who ment and Reasoning (QUASAR), received equivalent hours of inservice program found higher achievement training. The students of CGI teachers among students whose teachers were also performed better in some math involved in a sustained program of assessments—higher in problem solving, curriculum development, in this case, a comparably on computational tasks. program that emphasized enhancing In their review, Grouws and Schultz teachers’ understanding of strategies, specifically note a certain type of having teachers implement new strate- teacher knowledge, called pedagogical gies, and encouraging teachers to content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). reflect on instructional outcomes They state, “In mathematics, pedagogi- (Brown et al., 1995).14 cal content knowledge includes, but is In addition, Grouws and Schultz not limited to, useful representations, (1996) summarized a series of studies unifying ideas, clarifying examples and designed to gauge the impact of the counterexamples, helpful analogies, University of Wisconsin’s Cognitively important relationships, and connec- Guided Instruction (CGI) research tions among ideas. Thus, pedagogical program for mathematics teacher content knowledge is a subset of con- effectiveness. According to Grouws and tent knowledge that has particular Schultz, the studies found that providing utility for planning and conducting teachers with knowledge of how stu- lessons that facilitate student learning.” dents think and opportunities to develop All of the studies cited in this chapter, strategies in specific content domains as well as those cited earlier (e.g., changed teaching behaviors and im- Fetler, 1999), lend strong support to the proved student learning. In one study idea that when teachers receive high- 14Information about the QUASAR program is available at <http://www.ed.gov/pubs/math/ part6.html>.64 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • quality preparation and engage in rich teachers opportunities for continuingprofessional development, their under- professional development and growthstanding of education reform and the and that provide the facilities andstrategies underlying that reform is resources necessary to encourageenhanced. However, it is clear that teaching and learning. Teachers alsoeven the best teachers by themselves need good working conditions in orderwill be unable to make the kinds of to thrive as professionals. The nextinroads in improving student learning chapter discusses the kinds of recom-and academic achievement that are mendations that professional organiza-being expected across the United tions for teaching and in the variousStates. Their efforts must be supported science and mathematics disciplinesby school and policy infrastructure, have issued for improving teacherpolicies, and priorities that offer to education.T H E C R I T I C A L I M P O R TA N C E O F W E L L - P R E PA R E D T E A C H E R S 65
    • 4 Recommendations from the Profession and the Disciplines Over the past decade, an increasing Council on Education (1999), the number of research studies have been National Research Council (1996a, devoted to understanding and docu- 1999h), the National Science Founda- menting how best to educate teachers of tion (1996), and the National Commis- science and mathematics. Recommen- sion on Mathematics and Science dations based on this research, based Teaching for the 21st Century (2000) on proposals articulated by numerous have issued their own recommendations organizations, and based on the realities for improving teacher education. of today’s classrooms have been emerg- In addition, since 1994, the American ing since the early 1990s. Individual Association for the Advancement of teaching professional associations, such Science’s Project 2061 has conducted as the National Science Teachers hundreds of workshops across the Association (1996, 1998), the National nation with thousands of teachers, Council of Teachers of Mathematics administrators, and university faculty. (1991, 2000), the National Association of The programs emphasize cross-grade Biology Teachers (1990), and the and cross-disciplinary participation, as Association for the Education of Teach- well as the use of clear and explicit ers of Science (1997), have offered a benchmarks for learning and the align- variety of recommendations related to ment of curriculum, instruction, and teaching science generally or in specific assessment to those benchmarks. disciplines. Broader-based groups, such The National Science Education as the National Center for Improving Standards (NRC, 1996a) provided a Science Education (Raizen and synthesis of recommendations designed Michelsohn, 1994), the American specifically for science teacher education66
    • and professionalism (see also Appendix teacher education can and does occur inC and Appendix A, respectively). That a variety of ways and involves manyeffort followed extensive work on different kinds of people, both insidemathematics content and teaching and outside of college, and in schoolstandards by both the National Council classrooms. Emphasized is the need forof Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, approaches to teacher education that1989, 1991) and the Mathematical employ methods of inquiry, classroomSciences Education Board of the NRC discourse, and other standards—(1989, 1990), including recommenda- recommended teaching strategies thattions for the preparation of mathematics both reflect and guide what teachersteachers (see also Appendix C). will be expected to use in the classroom Taken together, the visions and with their own students. Understood isrecommendations of all the above- that learning to teach science, math-mentioned organizations paint a picture ematics, and technology effectively veryof teacher education as a complex, much depends on teachers masteringcareer-long process that involves the the content of these disciplines andcontinual intellectual growth and profes- having opportunities to practice theirsionalism of teachers, both individually pedagogical content knowledge withinand collectively. Acknowledged is that school environments.One of my previous ideas about inquiry was that it consisted mainly of doing laboratoryactivities. I discovered that, although labs can aid in the process of sense-making, they oftendon’t because they are either “cookbook” (they don’t allow the students to make choices orjudgments) or “confirmatory” (they follow lectures or students’ reading). What I have real-ized is that the essence of inquiry does not lie in any elaborate, equipment-intensive labora-tory exercise. It lies, rather, in the interactions between the student and the materials, as wellas in the teacher-student and student-student interactions that occur dozens of times each andevery class period. Vignette of reflection from a high school physics teacher National Research Council, 2000b, page 90R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F R O M T H E P R O F E S S I O N A N D T H E D I S C I P L I N E S 67
    • During the past decade, two nation- disciplinary societies and related organi- ally based organizations have been zations, suggest that teacher education studying the competencies that should programs in science and mathematics characterize accomplished teachers and should exhibit the following charac- teachers who have recently entered the teristics: profession. The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards • Be collaborative endeavors devel- (NBPTS), formed in the late 1980s, oped and conducted by scientists, established five guiding principles for mathematicians, education faculty, and assessing the competence of experi- practicing K-12 teachers with assistance enced teachers (see Table 4-1). With from members of professional organiza- these principles in place, the Council of tions and science- and mathematics-rich Chief State School Officers then estab- businesses and industries; lished the Interstate New Teacher • Help prospective teachers to know Assessment and Support Consortium well, understand deeply, and use effec- (INTASC), which developed a parallel tively and creatively the fundamental set of core standards for novice teach- content and concepts of the disciplines ers, as discussed earlier (see Table 3-1). that they will teach. This includes Currently, more than 30 states are understanding the disciplines from members of INTASC, an organization personal and social perspectives. It also compelled by the premise that “the includes being familiar with the disci- complex art of teaching requires plines’ history and nature, unifying performance-based standards and concepts, and the processes of inquiry assessment strategies that are capable and design that practitioners of the of capturing teachers’ reasoned judg- disciplines use in discovering and ments and that evaluate what they can applying new knowledge; actually do in authentic teaching situa- • Unify, coordinate, and connect tions” (INTASC, 1999). content courses in science, mathematics, By establishing expectations for both or technology with methods courses and accomplished and novice teachers, field experiences. They also should respectively, the recommendations from enhance teachers’ proficiency in teaching NBPTS and INTASC offer visions and over time through continuous experi- guidance about how teachers of science ences that help them address varying and mathematics could be educated. A student interests and backgrounds; synthesis of the NBPTS and INTASC • Teach content through the perspec- recommendations, as well as those of tives and methods of inquiry and prob-68 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • TABLE 4-1 The “Five Principles of Accomplished Teaching” as Proposed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.Accomplished teachers are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. They act on thebelief that all students can learn. They treat students equitably, recognizing the individual differences thatdistinguish one student from another and taking account of these differences in their practice. They adjusttheir practice based on observation and knowledge of their students’ interests, abilities, skills, knowledge,and family circumstances and peer relationships.Accomplished teachers understand how students develop and learn. They incorporate the prevailingtheories of cognition and intelligence in their practice. They are aware of the influence of context andculture on behavior. They develop students’ cognitive capacity and their respect for learning. Equallyimportant, they foster students’ self-esteem, motivation, character, civic responsibility and their respect forindividual, cultural, religious and racial differences.2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.Accomplished teachers have a rich understanding of the subject(s) they teach and appreciate howknowledge in their subject is created, organized, linked to other disciplines and applied to real-worldsettings. While faithfully representing the collective wisdom of our culture and upholding the value ofdisciplinary knowledge, they also develop the critical and analytical capacities of their students.Accomplished teachers command specialized knowledge of how to convey and reveal subject matter tostudents. They are aware of the preconceptions and background knowledge that students typically bringto each subject and of strategies and instructional materials that can be of assistance. They understandwhere difficulties are likely to arise and modify their practice accordingly. Their instructional repertoireallows them to create multiple paths to the subjects they teach, and they are adept at teaching studentshow to pose and solve their own problems.3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.Accomplished teachers create, enrich, maintain and alter instructional settings to capture and sustain theinterest of their students and to make the most effective use of time. They also are adept at engagingstudents and adults to assist their teaching and at enlisting their colleagues’ knowledge and expertise tocomplement their own.Accomplished teachers command a range of generic instructional techniques, know when each isappropriate and can implement them as needed. They are as aware of ineffectual or damaging practiceas they are devoted to elegant practice.They know how to engage groups of students to ensure a disciplined learning environment, and how toorganize instruction to allow the schools’ goals for students to be met. They are adept at setting norms forsocial interaction among students and between students and teachers. They understand how to motivatestudents to learn and how to maintain their interest even in the face of temporary failure. Accomplished continuedR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F R O M T H E P R O F E S S I O N A N D T H E D I S C I P L I N E S 69
    • teachers can assess the progress of individual students as well as that of the class as a whole. They employ multiple methods for measuring student growth and understanding and can clearly explain student performance to parents. 4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. Accomplished teachers are models of educated persons, exemplifying the virtues they seek to inspire in students—curiosity, tolerance, honesty, fairness, respect for diversity and appreciation of cultural differ- ences—and the capacities that are prerequisites for intellectual growth: the ability to reason and take multiple perspectives, to be creative and take risks, and to adopt an experimental and problem-solving orientation. Accomplished teachers draw on their knowledge of human development, subject matter and instruction, and their understanding of their students to make principled judgments about sound practice. Their decisions are not only grounded in the literature, but also in their experience. They engage in lifelong learning, which they seek to encourage in their students. Striving to strengthen their teaching, accomplished teachers critically examine their practice, seek to expand their repertoire, deepen their knowledge, sharpen their judgment and adapt their teaching to new findings, ideas and theories. 5. Teachers are members of learning communities. Accomplished teachers contribute to the effectiveness of the school by working collaboratively with other professionals on instructional policy, curriculum development and staff development. They can evaluate school progress and the allocation of school resources in light of their understanding of state and local educational objectives. They are knowledgeable about specialized school and community resources that can be engaged for their students’ benefit, and are skilled at employing such resources as needed. Accomplished teachers find ways to work collaboratively and creatively with parents, engaging them productively in the work of the school. Source: Council of Chief State School Officers. See <http://www.nbpts.org/nbpts/standards/intro.html> lem solving, as well as illustrate and • Present content in ways that allow model in content courses, methods students to appreciate the applications courses, and school-based field experi- of science, mathematics, and technol- ences a wide variety of effective teach- ogy, such as collecting, processing, and ing and assessment strategies that are communicating information and statisti- consistent with the national education cal analysis and interpretation of data; standards for science, mathematics, and • Provide learning experiences in technology; which science, mathematics, and tech-70 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • nology are related to and integrated teaching through individual and collabo-with students’ interests, community rative study, discussion, assessment,concerns, and societal issues, as well as experimentation, analysis, classroom-provide opportunities for collaborative based research, and practice; andlearning experiences where students • Welcome students into the profes-work in teams or groups and also to sional community of educators andhave significant and substantial involve- promote a professional vision of teachingment in scientific research; by providing opportunities for experi- • Integrate education theory with enced and future teachers to assumeactual teaching practice, and knowledge new roles and leadership positions,from science and mathematics teaching generate and apply new knowledge, andexperience with research on how people facilitate improvement efforts.learn science and mathematics; • Provide opportunities for prospec- Given this wealth of reports andtive teachers to learn about and practice recommendations during the pastteaching in a variety of school contexts decade, have institutions of higherand with diverse groups of children, as education, individual schools, andwell as provide opportunities for these school districts heeded these recom-teachers to practice and apply what they mendations and actually institutedare learning in supportive environments changes in their programs for teacherthat offer continual feedback, modeling preparation and professional develop-of quality teaching practices, and indi- ment? Is teacher education better nowvidual coaching from faculty, practitio- as a result of these calls for reform?ners, mentors, and peers; These questions are addressed more • Encourage reflective inquiry into fully in the next chapter.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F R O M T H E P R O F E S S I O N A N D T H E D I S C I P L I N E S 71
    • 5 Teacher Education as a Professional Continuum Given the critical need for well-qualified available for or hired to work in their teachers of science and mathematics, it larger school districts. In California is sobering to consider current statistics alone, legislatively mandated reductions regarding the teaching profession in the in class sizes, expectations that all United States. Nearly 50 percent of all students will study more science and students who currently enter preservice mathematics, the high attrition rate of programs in college and universities do science and mathematics teachers, and not pursue teaching as a career. Of those the inability to hire sufficient numbers who do become certified as teachers of certified teachers in these disciplines and then enter the profession, nearly 30 has resulted in a dire situation: approxi- percent leave within the first five years mately one-third of children in that state of practice (Darling-Hammond and are being taught by teachers who either Berry, 1998; Henderson, 2000). The are unqualified to teach science or problems are exacerbated for prospec- mathematics or are in their first or tive and beginning teachers of science second year of teaching. Indeed, in and mathematics (U.S. Department of California, the probability that a student Education, 1997a). who attends school in a low socioeco- What are some of the implications of nomic district will be taught by a less- these statistics? To varying degrees, than-qualified teacher can be five times some states across the country are higher than for students in more afflu- experiencing a reduction in the number ent districts in that state (Shields et al., of “in field” or experienced teachers 19991 ). Across the country there also is 1This report also is available on-line at <http://www.cftl.org>.72
    • … in addition to teacher preparation, we have the continuing challenge of professionaldevelopment, where school districts update the knowledge, skills, and strategies that teach-ers bring into the classroom. No professional is equipped to practice for all time, i.e., be aninexhaustible “vein of gold.” We cannot expect world-class student learning of mathematicsand science if U.S. teachers lack the confidence, enthusiasm, and knowledge to deliverworld-class instruction. National Science Board, 1999, page 7a higher probability that students in the challenges that prospective teachersdistricts with large populations of face. Those who then enter and decideunderrepresented minorities or with to remain in the profession face oppor-high levels of poverty will be taught by tunities for professional developmentunqualified or inexperienced teachers. that are far from comprehensive orYet, in some states and districts, there integrated. Indeed, they often mustare more qualified applicants for teach- endure professional developmenting positions in science and mathemat- “opportunities” that are disjointed,ics than there are jobs. As a result of repetitive from year to year, uncon-these statistics and demographic re- nected to their practice in the class-search, some have claimed that, at least room, and ephemeral. Professionalfor now, the issue of teacher shortages development days sponsored by dis-is actually a problem of inequities in tricts are typically one-time workshopsdistribution, recruitment, and incentives conducted by outside facilitators who(e.g., Darling-Hammond and Berry, may know little about those teachers’1998). Clearly, a method for addressing educational needs or the problems theyand ameliorating these various chal- face in teaching (e.g., Loucks-Horsleylenges, such as a coordinated and and Matsumoto, 1999). Some statesintegrated system for locating and have stopped providing funds for profes-placing qualified teachers in school sional development while others aredistricts across the country, is lacking at demanding that teachers engage in eventhe national level. more professional development. In the Why does this disjointed—and very latter case, states may or may notworrisome—situation exist? The earlier provide financial assistance for localpart of this report documented some of districts to carry out their mandates.T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 73
    • SYSTEMIC APPROACHES TO lenge of these truly unusual times in IMPROVING TEACHER education. The indisputable link between EDUCATION the quality of elementary and secondary schools and the quality of the education Institutions of Higher Education: schools must be acknowledged—and we One Key must respond.” In Tomorrow’s Schools of Education, Other high-level reports have echoed the Holmes Group (1995) charged that the conclusions of this and the other “education students for too long have Holmes Group reports (1986, 1990). In been learning too little of the right 1996, an advisory committee to the things in the wrong places at the wrong National Science Foundation recom- time.” Their report challenged col- mended that to improve the preparation leges of education to raise their stan- of teachers and principals, schools of dards and to make important changes education should (1) build bridges to in their curriculum, faculty, location of other departments, (2) look for ways to their work, and in their student body. reinforce and integrate learning, rather Similarly, the Holmes Group exhorted, than maintaining artificial barriers “The Universities that develop educa- between courses in content and peda- tion knowledge, influence education gogy, and (3) develop partnerships and policy, and prepare teachers and other collaborations with colleagues in educa- leaders for our nation’s schools and tion, in the K-12 sector, and in the education schools must overcome business world (NSF, 1996). In 1999, ‘business as usual’ to meet the chal- the American Council on Education While school reform alone cannot eliminate all the causes of educational failure in our society, a more responsive educational system is a vital step in breaking the cycle of failure that entraps too many of our students and teachers. Schools and universities must be willing to reexamine everything: the way they utilize personnel, space, money, time, research, and technology. They must creatively build different kinds of schools and preparation programs that bridge the gap between what is learned and what people need to understand and be able to do in order to be productive in the future. Richardson, 1994, page 174 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • urged the presidents and chancellors of Descriptions of several of these pro-the nation’s colleges and universities grams are provided in Appendix D.with education programs either to As noted throughout this report,elevate the status of these programs so there have been numerous calls forthat the entire institution is concerned institutions of higher education toabout their quality or eliminate them. improve teacher education through enhanced communication among science and mathematics educators,SOME EXEMPLARY APPROACHES scientists, and mathematicians. TheseTO TEACHER EDUCATION calls for reform also have urged the creation of formal connections between Even as new recommendations for institutions of higher education andthe education of teachers were emerg- public schools (e.g., Holmes Group,ing in the 1990s, teacher educators in 1986; Goodlad, 1994). In keeping withthis country already were exploring this more systemic approach, a move-ways to improve their programs. The ment has been emerging slowly sinceneed for career-long professional devel- the 1980s that seeks to improve simulta-opment, combined with the need to neously the education of both prospec-restructure schools and teacher prepa- tive and practicing teachers throughration programs, created a unique partnerships between schools andopportunity for collaborative approaches postsecondary institutions.to systemic reform, where the many Various labels have been applied tocomponents of reform are addressed this movement and to the products thatand their interdependencies and inter- have emerged. These labels includerelationships are recognized (Goodlad, “professional development schools,”1990, 1994; Holmes Group 1986, 1990, “clinical schools,” “professional practice1995). Many individual school districts schools,” “school-university partner-and states have now recognized the ships,” and “partnership schools”critical connection between ongoing (Whitford and Metcalf-Turner, 1999).professional development during the Professional Development Schoolinduction and post-induction years of (PDS), the descriptor selected by theteaching. They also have begun to Holmes Group (1986), still predomi-institute a variety of programs that profes- nates in the educational literature. It issionally nurture and sustain beginning the term this report will use to denoteteachers during the first years of their any intentional collaboration between acareers beyond the induction period. college or university and one or moreT E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 75
    • K-12 schools for teacher preparation and providing high-quality professional school renewal. development and empowering those Such collaborative arrangements who have primary responsibility for adhere to several important principles: educating children. Simultaneous and coordinated feedback and renewal are • They offer learning programs for essential components of this movement diverse populations of students; (Goodlad, 1994). • They ground preparation for An effective PDS, therefore, is much novice teachers in classroom practice; more than a collection of people in a • They articulate and establish building. “It entails an attitude, a per- consensus about professional goals and spective, a professional predisposition responsibilities for experienced educa- that releases educators to share what tors; and they know and to improve the teaching • Many conduct research that adds of students and the preparation of future to educators’ knowledge about how to educators” (Richardson, 1994). Partici- make schools more effective and pro- pation in a PDS collaboration involves ductive (Holmes Group, 1990). willingness by all of the partners to question old habits and new trends in These collaborative movements were education and to suggest different ways established on the premise that a of reaching current and future goals. student’s education should be viewed as Professional Development Schools have an integrated continuum from preschool become laboratories for observation, through university. When viewed in this experimentation, and extended practice. light, significant improvement in any A PDS can be a site where teachers, one part of the educational system in students, and university faculty create isolation can be seen as unlikely to have new knowledge and experiment with, much effect on improving education in evaluate, and revise practices. Ulti- general unless concomitant improve- mately, the PDS concept embodies a ments are made throughout the system. commitment to do what is necessary to Thus, improvement in K-12 schools ensure that all students (K-16) become cannot be expected until the preparation engaged learners. of teachers and administrators improves Like student learning, teacher educa- at the university level. In turn, even the tion also is an extremely complex best teachers and administrators cannot process. PDS collaborations encourage be sustained professionally until the educators to restructure teacher educa- system becomes more effective in tion systemically rather than through a76 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • series of disjointed, incremental re- connection does seem to be in effectforms. For example, a PDS offers to have now been reported (e.g., reviewspreservice and novice teachers system- by Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Byrd andatic field experiences within realistically McIntyre, 1999). For example, in 1996,complex learning environments. By Trachtman conducted a survey of 28integrating content and pedagogy in an “highly developed” PDS sites for theatmosphere of relevance for their studies, Professional Development Schoolsthese experiences become a unifying Standards Project.3 Sixty-five percent offeature of education for student teachers. the responding sites indicated that Currently, there are over 600 reported preservice teachers affiliated with theexamples of partnerships between sites in the PDS context spent moreuniversities and school districts involving time in field-related experiences thanthe PDS approach to educational reform teachers who were enrolled in more(Abdal-Haqq, 1998).2 Many more such traditional teacher education programs.programs may exist that are unreported In PDS arrangements, preserviceor that employ some, but not all, of the teachers usually are assigned to aprinciples of the PDS movement. teaching site in cohorts, a desirable practice according to other research. These cohorts work with school-basedTHE EFFECTIVENESS OF PDS AND teams of teachers. Teacher teams haveSIMILAR COLLABORATIVE a variety of functions, including curricu-EFFORTS IN IMPROVING lum development, action research,STUDENT LEARNING creating performance assessments, and university teaching. These preservice Although the PDS movement is still teachers also assume building-widerelatively young, the research literature responsibilities and other roles beyondon Professional Development Schools is their own classroom settings, therebybeginning to document the impact of providing time for practicing teachers inhigh quality, focused professional the school to engage in other kinds ofdevelopment experiences for teachers professional work.on schools and students. Some encour- According to a previous study byaging examples of cases where this Houston et al. (1999), at more than 80 2In a presentation to the CSMTP in 1999, Abdal-Haqq reported that the number of PDS schools hasrisen to more than 1,000. 3Additional information about this project is available at <http://www.ncate.org/accred/projects/pds/m-pds.htm>.T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 77
    • percent of these sites teachers worked committed to and self-confident about together with college faculty to plan teaching, and are more likely to reach curricula for improving teacher educa- out to others and participate in school- tion at their collaborating institution of wide activities (Houston et al., 1999). higher education as well as on site at Houston et al. (1999) also reported their schools. More than 90 percent of that in Texas, teacher candidates with the respondents reported that at least PDS experience outperformed their one preservice course was being taught peers by 15 to 34 percentage points in directly at their school site. Further, at the state’s required examination for more than 50 percent of the sites, teacher licensure, although the study teachers from grades K-12 held adjunct authors acknowledged that it is unclear or other similar kinds of college faculty whether the difference in performance appointments. At 60 percent of the was due to PDS experience per se or to sites, PDS classroom teachers partici- the qualities of students attracted to pated in activities connected with the PDS programs. upgrading of university-level teacher There also is isolated statistical and education program renewal. Seventy- anecdotal evidence that a higher per- five percent of the sites surveyed centage of PDS graduates remain in indicated that the preservice teachers teaching. For example, in a study of the working with them also engaged in Model Clinical Teaching Program research about teaching practice. (MCTP), a PDS partnership between Finally, 89 percent of the respondents East Carolina University faculty and indicated that university and school cooperating teachers in the Pitt County, faculty worked together to plan profes- NC schools was formed that included a sional development activities (Houston full year of internship along with exten- et al., 1999). sive and ongoing staff development. Of According to anecdotal reports, 60 MCTP graduates whose careers graduates of PDS programs begin their were followed after having completed professional careers with greater knowl- this program, 96 percent continued as edge and more teaching skills than classroom teachers five, and in some graduates of more traditional preservice cases, six years after entering the programs. In addition, it has been profession compared with a national observed that teachers trained in PDS average of less than 60 percent. After environments have a greater under- seven years of piloting this program, standing of the diversity and the nonaca- East Carolina University has now demic needs of students, are more adopted it for the senior year of all of its78 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • teacher preparation programs EDUCATING ELEMENTARY(Parmalee Hawk, personal communica- SCHOOL TEACHERS IN THEtion). In addition, these kinds of programs TEACHING OF SCIENCE ANDalso influence student performance on MATHEMATICS: SPECIALstandardized tests. On the North CONSIDERATIONSCarolina state-mandated test of compre-hension skills, “PDS schools performed Traditionally, most districts and statesbetter than most other schools in the have expected teachers in the elemen-district and were above average for the tary grades to be generalists. Despitestate as a whole. Minimal skill scores the accumulating evidence citedfor the middle-school students were throughout this report that teachershigher than they had ever been, and need a deep knowledge and understand-mathematics scores for third and fifth ing of science and mathematics to teachgraders also improved (Apple, 1997). these subjects effectively at any grade, In Maryland, state law requires all education programs for people whoteacher education candidates to spend a teach in the primary grades typicallyfull-year interning in a PDS. The Uni- emphasize and reinforce the notion ofversity of Maryland (UMD) is actively elementary teachers as non-specialists.engaged in Professional Development Even in states that now require prospec-Schools in the state, and while a study tive elementary school teachers tohas yet to be conducted regarding major in a discipline other than educa-efficacy, anecdotally, school superinten- tion, few opt for majors in science ordents and participating teachers have mathematics. Many reports haveindicated that the program makes a suggested, however, that teachers of allpositive difference (Martin Johnson, grade levels must understand deeply the2000, personal correspondence). In subject matter that they teach and useUMD Professional Development this knowledge to teach what is appro-Schools, clusters of schools act as the priate to students at different gradeK-12 partners; i.e., five or six elemen- levels (pedagogical content knowledge)tary or five or six secondary and middle if they are to be effective in the class-schools “held together by the concept of room (Shulman, 1987).reform and renewal.” The idea that subject area specialists might be needed in elementary schools is not new. Following the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983),T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 79
    • subsequent conversations among opt to teach in private schools where education specialists and members of certification is not required; professional disciplinary societies led to 2. training current employees or hiring the development of additional recom- teachers who can serve as content mendations. For example, participants specialists in these subject areas. at a 1993 conference sponsored by the Depending on the size of the school U.S. Department of Education, the or district, these content specialists NCTM, and the Wisconsin Center for may be responsible for teaching Education Research recommended that, most of the science program in a in elementary schools, specialist teach- school and may even travel among ers of mathematics teach all mathemat- schools to do so (similar to teachers ics beginning no later than grade 4 and of art or music); supervise mathematics instruction at 3. establishing “teaching pods” consist- earlier grade levels (Romberg, 1994). ing of several teachers and the In recent years, many elementary students they teach within a school. schools and their districts have begun to In this system, every teacher over- address the disconnect between how sees one class of students. One elementary school teachers have been teacher in the pod may take primary prepared to teach science and math- responsibility for teaching science ematics and the critical need for teachers or mathematics while other teachers who have the knowledge and acumen to focus on other subject areas. work effectively with younger children Depending on the school, teachers in these subject areas. A number of may rotate among the classes in the strategies have emerged. They include pod over the course of a day or several days. Conversely, if one 1. recruiting teachers who have classroom has been specially con- majored in science or mathematics structed for science, teachers may to teach these subjects at the remain in a given classroom elementary level (similar to their throughout the day while students counterparts in the secondary rotate among the classrooms. grades and, increasingly, in the middle grades). Because many The issue of preparing content and science or mathematics majors have pedagogical specialists in science and decided to enter teaching late in mathematics for teaching in the elemen- their undergraduate years or there- tary grades persists, however. While after, many of these students may elementary schools are being held80 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • increasingly responsible for improving Such programs also could include someteaching and learning in these disci- form of collaborative research in whichplines, many current and prospective university faculty and classroom teach-elementary school teachers continue to ers investigate a problem focused ondislike and eschew teaching them. improving student learning or increas-Given the current situation, it is difficult ing the impact of a new curriculum.not to conclude that improvement in Raizen and Michelsohn (1994) men-teacher preparation programs would tioned Professional Developmenthelp. For example, in a seminal report, Schools as the type of setting wherethe National Center for Improving such collaborative program planning,Science Education (Raizen and implementation, and research couldMichelsohn, 1994) reported that one take place. In PDS settings, experiencedcharacteristic of effective elementary elementary school teachers can be bothpreservice teacher preparation is close active and coequal partners with univer-professional collaboration among sity faculty and work with studentscience faculty, education faculty, and teachers. In this kind of environment,experienced elementary school teach- elementary school teachers can contrib-ers. Raizen and Michelson went on to ute greatly to a more well-roundedrecommend at least informal collabora- teacher education program.tion between individuals and institutions The kinds of data discussed in thison issues such as distribution require- chapter and throughout this reportments for students in teacher education make clear that teacher education,programs. recruitment, and professional develop- On the basis of that report and ment in the United States must developsubsequent recommendations from new ways of doing business. Themany other organizations, (e.g., NRC, education and policy communities need1996a, 1999h; NSF, 1996; ACE, 1999), it to reach consensus about systems forseems clear that joint planning of teacher education and recruitment that,courses in pedagogy or science course like the medical school model, can becontent by science, mathematics, and adopted nationally and adapted by statesengineering faculty, education faculty in and localities to guide and support newthese disciplines, and local classroom teachers through their first crucial yearsteachers should occur regularly. Even on the job. The various stakeholders inmore desirable would be programs that teacher education also must find betterintegrate science content courses, ways to provide experienced teachersmethods courses, and field experiences. with meaningful, intellectually engagingT E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 81
    • opportunities for continual professional parents, citizens, and students all must growth. At the same time, officials in come to see themselves as essential schools and districts must recognize the stakeholders in the decisions and emerging consensus that well-prepared policies that affect the quality of educa- teachers are critical for raising student tion in America (Fuhrman and Massell, achievement and should avoid the 1992). temptation to hire and staff their class- Data from research and successful rooms with unqualified or out-of-field practice are demonstrating that it is teachers when personnel shortages critically important for certain groups of loom.4 Further, in light of the research individuals and organizations to become findings presented throughout this actively engaged in the process of report, school administrators and teacher education. At a minimum, these policymakers should find ways to utilize groups include faculty in mathematics, teachers in those subject areas where and the life, physical, and earth sciences they exhibit strength, interest, and in both two-year and four-year colleges, training. Teachers should not be asked as well as teachers and administrators in to teach subjects outside of their areas K-12 schools. Collaborative partner- of competence and interest even though ships appear to be particularly effective their certification may allow them to do ways to realize improved teacher educa- so. If teachers are asked to move to tion, particularly when they involve teaching in those other subject areas, scientists, mathematicians, and faculty then additional professional development from schools of education from two- and should be a prerequisite for doing so. four-year colleges and universities and The National Commission on Teach- teachers from participating school ing and America’s Future has concluded systems (AAAS, 1989; MAA, 1991; that just as businesses and industries NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1989, 1990, and invest in the development of their 1996a; NSTA, 1998). employees, so must schools, schools The data cited in this chapter point to systems, and policymakers invest in the some common themes about successful ongoing education and professional collaborative partnerships for the development of teachers. Educators preparation and professional develop- from preschool through university, ment of teachers and the enhancement 4A number of recent reports suggest that teacher shortages may be due in part (at least in the short- term) to inequitable distribution of the teacher workforce. Qualified teachers can be located and hired if they are offered the appropriate incentives and suitable working conditions (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1998, and personal communication with the committee).82 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • of learning by students. First, the ematics, reading, and historyprofessional community’s level of effort, (Newmann and Wehlage, 1995).commitment, and input in a school can Third, the comprehensive approachhave significant effects on student to teacher education appears to beachievement. Support from the larger promising. Professional Developmentcommunity in which a school is located Schools and similar collaborative pro-also can make a critical difference in the grams attempt to address teachersuccess of teachers and their students. preparation, professional development,This larger community includes the and student learning holistically. Theypolicymakers, superintendents, district encourage teacher educators andadministrators, teacher unions, faculty prospective teachers to see themselvesand administrators from local colleges as students of learning as well as stu-and universities, individual school staff, dents of teaching. Research suggestsand other members of the community, that teachers who develop this level ofsuch as leaders of local businesses and professionalism are better able toindustry. It also includes scientists and respond to the constant and fluctuatingmathematicians outside of academe, demands of their jobs. McCullough andwho can bring their understanding and Mintz (1992), Lampert and Ball (1998),everyday applications of science and and McIntyre et al. (1996) all havemathematics concepts and skills to K-12 pointed to the need for preserviceteaching and learning improvement. preparation that encourages reflectiveWhen these institutions work together practice. For example, McIntyre et al.as a whole, make decisions that are (1996) concluded, “Student teacherssupportive and collegial, and invest the within this framework view teaching astime and money that it takes to make a ongoing decision-making rather than asconcrete impact on education, teachers a product or recipe. These studentare afforded the opportunity to greatly teachers learn that significant educationenhance their teaching practice. must present learners with relevant Second, this enhancement in teaching problematic situations in which thepractice, in turn, appears to influence learner can manipulate objects to seepositively the scholastic achievement of what happens, to question what is alreadystudents and their attitudes towards known, to compare their findings andlearning. In schools where teachers assumptions with those of others, and toreported higher levels of collective search for their own answers.”responsibility for student learning, In summary, the committee haslearning was greater in science, math- concluded that the collaborative andT E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A S A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N T I N U U M 83
    • holistic perspective on teacher educa- the case even among Professional tion and student learning represented Development Schools. Sustainable by Professional Development Schools change will require some fundamental epitomizes what is required for compre- rethinking of the roles and strengths of hensive teacher education. The at- each of the organizations involved in the tributes exhibited by PDS programs and partnerships, including the allocation or other similar collaborative efforts reallocation of human and financial should be viewed as integral compo- resources from each of the partners. In nents of all teacher education programs. the next chapter of this report, the This is not enough, however. Based committee presents its broad vision for on its two years of study, the committee improving teacher education, including also has concluded that improvement of concepts for how those who are in- teacher education for science, math- volved in teacher education might ematics, and technology will require rethink and redefine their roles. Rec- greater levels of cooperation among the ommendations for implementing this various stakeholders than is currently vision conclude the main report.84 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • 6 A Vision for Improving Teacher Education and the Teaching Profession As noted throughout this report, tary of Education Richard Riley (1998,numerous commissions, committees, 2000) regarding the role of higherand state and national organizations education in improving teacher educa-have recently addressed the need for tion: teacher education must become aimproving the teaching of science and central focus of the entire institution, notmathematics in the United States and, just of schools or departments of educa-hence, the preparation and professional tion. The committee also stronglydevelopment of teachers in these supports the specific recommendationdisciplines. The Committee on Science from the American Council on Educa-and Mathematics Teacher Preparation tion (1999), “Where teacher education(CSMTP) has reached similar conclu- programs operate at the periphery of thesions. Committee members strongly institution’s strategic interests andsupport the idea that leaders in national, directions, they should be moved to thestate, and local governments, and all center—or moved out.”education communities must declare The CSMTP’s examination of re-that the improvement of teacher educa- search data, recommendations, andtion is a top priority. Most critically, our current practices also has convincednation’s colleges and universities must members that significant improvementembrace this imperative. Committee in recruiting, preparing, inducting, andmembers concur with the recent state- retaining teachers for the teaching ofments of the American Council on science and mathematics in grades K-12Education (1999), the Presidents and demands fundamental changes in ourChancellors of the Association of Ameri- current systems of teacher education.can Universities (1999), and U.S. Secre- Small adjustments cannot and will not 85
    • Improving teacher quality is at the heart of our national effort to achieve excellence in the classroom. This comes at a time when the very structure of education is going through a profound change. With knowledge all around us, available anytime and anywhere, the role of the teacher is going to be fundamentally transformed in the 21st century. In the future, schools will be more fluid, teachers more adaptable and flexible, and students will be more accountable as the task of learning becomes theirs. The challenge of the modern classroom is its increasing diversity and the skills that this diversity requires of teachers. This is why we need to do some new thinking when it comes to the teaching profession. We need a dramatic overhaul of how we recruit, prepare, induct and retain good teachers. The status quo is not good enough. And we must revamp professional development as we know it. New distance learning models can be powerful new tools to give teachers more opportunities to be better teachers. Our efforts to improve education will rise or fall on the quality of our teaching force, and higher education has the defining role in preparing the next generation of teachers. I ask leaders in higher education across the nation to please make this their mission. Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, 2000 Not long ago, a college chemistry professor grew angry with the way her daughter’s high school chemistry class was being taught. She made an appointment to meet with the teacher and marched with righteous indignation into the classroom—only to discover that the teacher was one of her own former students. Yates, 199586 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • result in sustainable improvement of districts would have adjunct appoint-science and mathematics. Nor will ments with the schools of education orsmall changes improve science and the departments of science, mathemat-mathematics teaching as a profession ics, or engineering within the partnerthat attracts and retains the most quali- colleges or universities. These teachersfied practitioners. would take on a significant role in the mentoring of future teachers during their practicum experiences. In turn,TEACHER EDUCATION IN THE 21ST colleges and universities would assumeCENTURY a greater responsibility for providing professional development opportunities Based on its findings and conclusions, for teachers who teach in the partnerCSMTP proposes a new level of partner- school districts.ship between K-12 schools and the This arrangement would be a partner-higher education community that is ship in the truest sense, as collegedesigned to ensure high-quality teacher faculty and K-12 teachers would workeducation. This teacher education together on a continuous basis tomodel would stress and foster greater improve the teacher education processintegration of the initial preparation of and to determine the on-going profes-teachers and the professional education sional development needs of the teacherof teachers throughout their careers. workforce in the partner school dis-Each college or university with a pro- tricts. At the collegiate level, the part-gram designed to prepare college nership would include active involve-students for teacher certification and ment by both education faculty andthe teaching profession would enter into faculty from departments of science,long-term partnerships with one or mathematics, and engineering. Simi-more school districts. The goal of these larly, wherever it is the case that futurepartnerships would be sharing the teachers obtain a significant part of theirresponsibilities of educating future education at community colleges, theteachers and providing ongoing profes- partnership should involve both two-sional development opportunities for the and four-year colleges.teachers in the participating K-12 schools. The remainder of this chapter elabo- In these new partnerships, master/ rates the committee’s vision for thesementor teachers in partner school new partnerships.I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 87
    • ARTICULATION OF THE VISION in isolation as they can by working closely together. Collective, fully integrated As a result of nearly two years of efforts among school staff and adminis- study and deliberation, the CSMTP trators in individual schools and districts, proposes the following six Guiding teacher unions, faculty and administra- Principles, which together constitute a tors in institutions of higher education, new vision for improving teacher policymakers from local colleges and education in science, mathematics, and universities, and parents are essential for technology: addressing these issues. 6. Many more scientists, mathemati- 1. The improvement of teacher educa- cians, and engineers must become well tion and teaching in science, mathemat- informed enough to be involved with local ics, and technology should be viewed as a and national efforts to provide the appro- top national priority. priate content knowledge and pedagogy of 2. Teacher education in science, their disciplines to current and future mathematics, and technology must teachers. become a career-long process. High- quality professional development pro- Adhering to these Guiding Principles grams that include intellectual growth as will not be straightforward, easily well as the upgrading of teachers’ knowl- accomplished, or inexpensive. To do so edge and skills must be expected and will require fundamental rethinking and essential features in the careers of all restructuring of the relationships teachers. between the K-12 and higher education 3. Through changes in the rewards for, communities in SME&T, including incentives for, and expectations of teach- financial relationships. It also will ers, teaching as a profession must be require fundamental revamping of upgraded in status and stature to the teaching as a profession. level of other professions. The committee also holds that a critical 4. Both individually and collectively, pathway to achieving these changes will two- and four-year colleges and universi- be the establishment of K-16 partnerships ties must assume greater responsibility whose integrated programs and activities and be held more accountable for improv- go well beyond those of most partnerships ing teacher education. that exist today. 5. Neither the higher education nor the The committee envisions that all of K-12 communities can successfully the contributors and stakeholders in improve teacher education as effectively these partnerships would be recognized88 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • and utilized for their professional restructured. Specifically, the CSMTPexpertise in science, mathematics, and envisions partnerships that are fundedtechnology education. The partners primarily through multi-year, line-itemwould work collectively toward improv- commitments in the budgets of theing teaching and ongoing professional participating institutions. While giftsdevelopment for all teachers in the and grants from external funderspartnership community, including those enhance programs and opportunities forin higher education. These partnerships teachers, they should not be the maincollectively would establish and imple- source of support for collaborative part-ment goals for improving the learning nerships for teacher education. Even forand academic achievements in science, colleges and universities that rely onmathematics, and technology of stu- tuition as a major source of institutionaldents in affiliated institutions, including income, the CSMTP holds that support-students in teacher education programs ing these partnerships will yield bothand the children in the schools that are explicit and less tangible benefits. Inmembers of the partnerships. addition to the improved education that It is particularly critical for institu- declared teacher candidates wouldtions that engage in partnerships to re- receive from this arrangement, institu-examine their traditional roles in tional participation in a partnershipteacher education and the ways in could open windows of opportunity forwhich what they do are financially many other students who might besupported. For example, colleges and considering teaching as a career option;universities traditionally have been engagement in partnership activitiesinvolved in oversight of education for might help them make a favorableprospective teachers. However, these decision. In addition, the service to andinstitutions actually may be better suited goodwill from the local community thatto overseeing the ongoing professional a private institution could engenderdevelopment of practicing teachers. through its support of a partnershipSimilarly, school personnel may be could be invaluable in promoting com-better able to organize, oversee, and munity relations.mentor the practicum and internship The partnership model that thephases of teacher education. CSMTP envisions for improving teacher In these examples, funding for the education and the profession of teachingvarious phases of the continuum of is summarized in Figure 6-1 and de-teacher education would need to be scribed in detail in the next section.I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 89
    • FIGURE 6-1 A model for K-16 partnerships involving the people and resources critical to effective teacher education in science and mathematics. In this partnership model, scientists and mathematicians, teacher educators for science and mathematics, and mentor teachers work as equally essential partners to enhance teacher education and to promote more effective learning and curricular materials for students who attend the schools within the partnership. The members of the partnership also work together to facilitate professional growth and development for each other. The partnership’s programs for teacher education ere informed by (1) educational research, (2) recom- mendations from national organizations involved with enhancing teaching, and (3) data gathered from the programs sponsored by the partnership itself. Data from Recommendations Educational from Professional Research Organizations Teacher Practitioners Scientists and Science and Mathematicians Mathematics Educators Local Partnership Products Feedback for Improvement Enhancement of: •Student Learning and Achievement •Personal and Professional Growth of Faculty •Research on Improving Programs •Curriculum Materials90 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • ARTICULATION OF THE Once the partnership was formed, itsCOMMITTEE’S VISION FOR members would contribute both to theTEACHER EDUCATION preparation of future educators and the improvement of the knowledge base The strongest partnerships for and skills of all practicing teachers ofteacher education would include, where science, mathematics, and technology inpossible, one or more school districts, the K-12 and higher education sectorstwo-year colleges, and four-year colleges that are involved with the partnership.and universities. Local businesses, Implicit in this model is that, throughindustry, research laboratories, local or their close professional association andregional organizations, and individual interactions with master teachers fromscientists and mathematicians outside of the partnership, scientists, mathemati-academe also would be integral con- cians, engineers, and teacher educatorstributors to the design, planning, and at colleges and universities will haveimplementation of these partnerships. improved opportunities to enhance theirLeaders at the highest levels from each own teaching skills. They also couldof these sectors would need to demon- increase their understanding of howstrate both to their institutions and to students learn, and reexamine thethe larger community the importance scope, nature, and relevance of thethey place on this kind of partnership. content that they present in their As illustrated in Figure 6-1, teachers courses.of science and mathematics in grades New models for broadening the rangeK-12, scientists and mathematicians, and of student teaching experiences and thescience and mathematics teacher planning and supervision of thoseeducators would serve as the core experiences would be important workparticipants in this new type of partner- for the partnership. Similarly, theship. Representatives from each of partnership would oversee the restruc-these groups who work together in this turing of continuing professional devel-core would be selected on the basis of opment for new and more experiencedtheir expertise, interest, and commit- teachers employed by participatingment to improving teacher education. districts.This core group would commit to The policies and activities of thedeveloping a culture of recognition, partnership would be informed byrespect, and trust that would give all (1) educational research (both self-partners equal voice and responsibility generated and from the scholarlyat the table. literature—see below) that focuses onI M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 91
    • teachers, teaching, and curriculum and might undertake these evaluations (2) recommendations for improving as theses or district personnel or teacher education from national organi- external evaluators could conduct zations (see Figure 3-1). Activities such evaluations. sponsored by the partnership also 2. Collection of data about teachers might include research involving who complete education and profes- teacher educators and teachers that sional development programs explores ways to (1) implement and sponsored by the partnership, as assess the efficacy of new approaches to well as collection of data about the teaching, curricula, and learning tools differences in levels of achievement and (2) understand the systemic impli- of the students of those teachers.1 cations of implementing such changes Included would be student teachers (e.g., Confrey et al., in press). Partner- who had moved to other parts of the ships that involve schools or districts state or country after graduation. and research universities could sponsor Collection of such data would be a studies that focused on ways to improve stimulus to colleges and universities teaching and learning of science, math- to maintain contact with their ematics, and technology for people of all graduates and to acknowledge the ages (e.g., AAU, 1999). effectiveness of their teaching Perhaps most importantly, a programs. partnership’s programs for teacher education would be evaluated continu- As illustrated in Figure 6-1, partner- ally and modified when necessary. ships also would engage other re- Ongoing feedback would come from sources in the community to contribute two primary sources: to planning and implementation of programs and to provide opportunities 1. Evaluation of the science and math- for future and practicing teachers to ematics activities in local schools gain hands-on experience with local and districts that participate in the applications of science, mathematics, partnership. Graduate students and technology. The community re- 1A number of colleges and universities, in collaboration with mentor teachers and district administra- tors, already monitor the success of their graduates who enter teaching. Examples include: Bank Street College, NY (see Wasley, 1999); The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Project – a two-year induction program established by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, that involves faculty from several California State University campuses, and personnel in school districts (Olebe et al., 1999); programs in Kentucky and Illinois that are similar to the California initiative also have been described (Brennan et al., 1999, and Heuser and Owens, 1999, respectively).92 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • sources that could be tapped include planners at four-year colleges andbusinesses, industry, research laborato- universities need to work with theirries, government agencies, and counterparts at community colleges topolicymaking bodies. ensure appropriate course offerings for The CSMTP wants to emphasize the these students. Such planning couldcritical need for both two- and four-year result in better integration and articula-colleges to be core participants in tion of course offerings across thepartnerships and recipients of their institutions, ensuring that prospectivevalue, whenever possible (see Figure 6-2). teachers receive a similar level ofRecent data suggest that approximately education in science and mathematics45 percent of the nation’s undergradu- regardless of where they enroll in theseates are enrolled in community colleges courses. Community colleges and(and this percentage is likely to increase baccalaureate-granting institutions alsoduring the coming decade: American should work together to ensure thatAssociation of Community Colleges, general requirements for teacher2000). An increasingly high percentage education programs at the four-yearof students may complete their entire institutions can be met by communityundergraduate science and mathematics college courses and that the credits arerequirements in community colleges routinely transferable.before transferring to four-year institu-tions to complete their baccalaureatedegrees (NSF, 1998). Therefore, faculty INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP ANDin two-year institutions are very much COMMITMENTneeded to steer students toward addi-tional courses in these subjects and to The presidents and chancellors ofinstill in students who will not go on to both the Association of Americanadditional coursework an appreciation Universities (AAU, 1999) and thefor the life and physical sciences, American Council on Education (ACE,mathematics, and technology. 1999) have made strong statements that Efforts by two-year college faculty to leaders of the nation’s colleges andrecruit, educate, and support prospec- universities, and especially those withtive teachers will be undermined, schools or colleges of education, need tohowever, if those prospective teachers affirm their institutions’ commitments toare not identified as such when they teacher education and professionaltransfer to four-year institutions. There- development as central priorities of theirfore, science and mathematics program institutions. The CSMTP stronglyI M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 93
    • FIGURE 6-2 Organization of a partnership for teacher education showing the institu- tions that would contribute. The core of the partnership would be comprised of local school district(s) and two- and four-year colleges where possible. The partnership also would seek additional advice, expertise, and support from local and regional groups including business and industry, governmental and private funding sources, parent organizations, and other community agencies. Parents Other Civic Organizations Local Partnership Four-Year School Colleges and Districts Universities K-16 Teacher Professional Development Two-Year (Community) Colleges Local Partnership Local/Regional Government and Business and Private Industry Funding Sources94 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • supports these declarations. Under the schools’ and districts’ responsibility toCSMTP’s vision, college and university provide funding for ongoing professionalleaders would recognize the ramifica- development of teachers and for design-tions of real commitment to improving ing a workplace environment that allowsteacher education in science and math- teachers to thrive as members of aematics. For example, faculty who teach professional community. In such anlower division courses might need to environment, time, tangible resources,restructure both content and pedagogi- and support would be provided tocal approaches, especially in courses teachers for meaningful career enhance-that will be taken by prospective teach- ment activities. Teachers would haveers for grades K-8, where many of these opportunities to work together and withteachers will not become certified or their higher education counterparts toendorsed in these subject areas. Many develop and evaluate programs. Bothnational organizations have called for all directly and through their participationundergraduates to experience scienceand mathematics through inquiry-basedapproaches. This could require depart-ments in these subject areas and their Once the relationship between the schoolinstitutions to provide the facilities,equipment, and financial resources and the college has been established, theneeded to give all students engaging teachers acquire leverage outside theirlaboratory and field experiences, includ- classrooms and schools. The college connec-ing students who traditionally have not tion enables teachers to redefine their roleschosen such coursework in the past. Inaddition, postsecondary faculty mem- and increase their responsibilities beyond thebers who teach such courses need walls of their classrooms without leavingtangible support and recognition for classroom teaching. . . . Teachers aresuch efforts from their institution’s provided with visibility and expand theirleadership. These kinds of issues arediscussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. professional influences and self-confidence, Depending on the structure of the enabling them to assume “boundary-partnership, leaders from the K-12 spanning” roles that none had experiencededucation community also must express previously.their strong commitment to the successof the partnership. Under the CSMTP’svision, these leaders would affirm their Boles and Troen, 1997I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 95
    • in the partnership, teachers’ opinions universities may be better equipped to and expertise would be sought for the offer practicing teachers better opportu- most important policy decisions in nities to learn their subject matter more schools and districts. The school deeply and to engage in a more intellec- workplace would encourage teachers to tual focus on education issues, few have become leaders and mentors for their formal agreements with school districts colleagues and reward them for doing so. to do so. Under the proposed partnership, this segregation of responsibilities could CHANGING ROLES FOR disappear, for the most part. Because SCHOOLS, DISTRICTS, AND scientists and mathematicians, teacher HIGHER EDUCATION IN TEACHER educators in these disciplines, and EDUCATION master/mentor teachers would work so closely together, all of them could be The type of close-knit K-16 partner- much more involved with every phase ship proposed here offers new opportu- of teacher education and career develop- nities for districts and institutions of ment. Master classroom teachers could higher education to work together in work together with college faculty in ways that both extend and transcend providing high-quality undergraduate their traditional roles in the education of courses that integrate content, peda- science and mathematics teachers. The gogy, and educational theory. At the most common pattern of interaction has same time, these courses could be more been for colleges and universities to grounded in actual classroom practice take primary responsibility for and be offered at the sites where preservice education and overseeing preservice students undertake their student teachers. Although classroom practicums and other student teaching teachers may have more direct contact experiences. Master teachers also with student teachers or teacher could work with scientists and math- interns, final responsibility for assigning ematicians who teach primarily content- grades and awarding certification based courses to help these college- usually has rested with institutions of level faculty members focus on higher education. Once students are appropriate content and better model graduated and certified, schools and effective classroom teaching. Improve- districts then assume responsibility for ment of pedagogy in undergraduate induction programs and professional courses would benefit all students, development. While colleges and majors and non-majors.96 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Close interaction among institutions the expertise, facilities, and equipmentalso would allow preservice programs to necessary to offer to practicing teachersvest greater responsibility for student the kinds of higher level courses thatteaching experiences in partner schools they need to gain much deeper knowl-and districts. Contractual agreements edge and understanding of the subjectwould specify the level of service (e.g., matter they teach. Experienced teachersdirect supervision and mentoring) and are likely to be ready for such courses;interaction to be provided to students i.e., more motivated and better preparedand also who would take responsibility through their classroom experiences tofor evaluations of student performance. learn about more abstract issues, suchThese agreements also would specify as theories of learning and cognition.the funding that each partner would Some combination of faculty from thecommit—to support these and other life and physical sciences, schools ofendeavors of the partnership. education, and master teachers could The partnerships envisioned here stimulate levels of professional andalso would provide school districts with intellectual growth that would be nearlyopportunities to improve their profes- impossible for achieve from other,sional development programs in science, similar programs offered only by districtsmathematics, and technology. In concert or institutions of higher education alone.with their employing districts, teachers Partnerships also could work withcould earn academic credit and continu- their state’s department of education toing education units at the two- and four- find ways to offer appropriate academicyear colleges within their particular credit to teachers who upgrade theirpartnership or perhaps even within a content knowledge and instructionalsystem of connected partnerships skills in science, mathematics, orwhose teacher education programs are technology. The awarding of appropri-linked through information technology. ate academic credit is particularly In contractual arrangements similar important for teachers who may notto those between higher education and have specific teaching credentials inindustry, the institutions of higher science, mathematics, and technologyeducation in partnerships could develop but who are expected to teach theseand offer ongoing, integrated profes- subjects anyway (e.g., many teachers ofsional development programs that are the elementary and middle grades).geared specifically to the needs of For these teachers, undergraduate-levelteachers of science, mathematics, and courses in science, mathematics, ortechnology. Many college faculty have engineering may be most appropriate.I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 97
    • However, because these teachers software, mathematical manipulatives, already have earned bachelors degrees, and other resources owned by the some states will not permit them to higher education partners. In some receive continuing education credits by cases, college faculty also could benefit enrolling in undergraduate courses. by using equipment, such as mathemati- Graduate-level courses could be seen as cal manipulatives, that may be more a solution; however, as currently of- commonly found in the K-12 schools in fered, they may not provide teachers the partnership. A portion of the with the kind of education and profes- funding dedicated to the partnership sional development that would best would need to be set aside to provide serve their needs. The integrated teacher participants in this research programs that partnerships could from both the K-12 and higher educa- develop and offer to experienced teach- tion partner institutions with sufficient ers might address the problem not only time to plan, work with undergraduate by offering appropriate courses to or graduate students, and evaluate the teachers but also by assuaging official efficacy of their work. concerns about whether the credits they Clearly, as outlined above, new would obtain would reflect appropriate approaches to and sources of funding academic levels of study. would be needed for this model of Teachers in the partnership districts teacher education. Such funds could be also could engage in research projects realized from several sources, including in their disciplines by working with those normally set aside by school college faculty who are involved with districts for inservice training of teach- the partnership or with undergraduate ers, although, in some school districts, or graduate students who are engaged the amount of funds set aside might in disciplinary or interdisciplinary need to be increased, in recognition of research. Teachers also could have the importance of professional develop- increased opportunities to undertake ment. Support could be sought from research related to the improvement of locally based businesses and industries science, mathematics, or technology that have publicly acknowledged the education. For example, the partner- importance of science, mathematics, ship could arrange for undergraduate and technology education and possibly students to work with children in the even funded such improvements in the partnership schools and also establish past. Support also could be sought from ways for teachers to share scientific state and federal agencies through equipment, computing facilities and existing grant programs (e.g., the98 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Eisenhower Act for Improving Science OTHER BENEFITS OFand Mathematics Education2 or Teacher PARTNERSHIPS FOR TEACHEREnhancement grants from the National EDUCATION IN SCIENCE ANDScience Foundation3 ). MATHEMATICS Because the professional developmentof teachers should parallel the develop- In addition to making more seamlessment programs that support people in teacher education programs possible,other professions, the employers of carefully and thoughtfully designedteachers should view ongoing profes- partnerships can provide numeroussional development enhancement as a other benefits to the people and institu-core component of their commitment to tions. These includetheir employees. This commitmentmust include adequate financial support. 1. Coordination of efforts toFinancial support from school districts recruit students to science andshould be an integral component of any mathematics teaching. For sciencebudget created for partnerships. The and mathematics, teacher shortagesCSMTP emphasizes that, as professionals, appear to be localized, at least at theteachers should not be expected to pay for moment (Darling-Hammond, personalprograms that are professionally mandated. communication with the committee). InRather, given the accumulating body of addition, Feistritzer et al. (1999b) havecompelling evidence that student achieve- presented data suggesting that, unlikement is directly tied to the level of teachers’ many other professionals, new K-12knowledge of subject matter and appropri- teachers are likely to find teachingate ways to teach it, districts must view positions close to where they livedongoing, high-quality professional develop- before entering college or near thement programs for teachers as a critical universities where they were educated.investment for improving student learning. This suggests that, through a coordi- nated effort, partnerships involving local school districts could be especially effective in attracting graduates of local 2Additional information about Eisenhower funds is available at <http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/compliance/eisen.html>. Note that when this report was being prepared for publication, the U.S.Congress had been debating whether to maintain Eisenhower funds for professional development ofteachers exclusively in science and mathematics or to make the funds more widely available to profes-sional development in other subject areas. 3Additional information about this program is available at < http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/esie/TE.htm>.I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 99
    • high schools to teaching. It is not districts would give these districts ready unreasonable to expect that students of access to the pool of preservice teachers schools participating in partnerships who are enrolled in the two- and four- would already have experienced the year colleges and universities within the kinds of teaching that would lay the partnership. Because all of the parties groundwork for them to go on to be- would have agreed on standards for come effective teachers themselves. preservice preparation in science, The coordinated teacher education mathematics, and technology as well as programs provided by the partnerships in pedagogy, districts could be assured envisioned here would assist these that these preservice students would be students in becoming particularly well- qualified to undertake a practicum, qualified teacher candidates. internship, or other teaching experi- In addition, through programs and ence. In turn, institutions of higher incentives, partnerships could become education could be confident that the important catalysts that encouraged students they sent out as student teach- high-achieving local students to con- ers would have a teaching experience of sider careers teaching science, math- high quality, assisted by the district’s ematics, or technology. For example, own experienced teachers in consulta- the partnerships could provide opportu- tion with the students’ college or univer- nities for local students to interact sity supervisors. closely with student and mentor teach- An impediment to this plan is the ers who are involved with the partner- need for financial support. Many ship. Partnerships could offer opportu- potential teacher candidates, especially nities for prospective teacher candidates those from lower socioeconomic or to visit and participate in university- underrepresented populations, cannot sponsored recruiting programs during afford to spend extended periods of the school year, on weekends, or during time in practicums or other kinds of summers. The partnerships also could student teaching due to family and other create a coordinated system of advising financial obligations. Financial support that spans the high school and college of potential teachers would enable a years to encourage more students to more diverse population to consider consider teaching as a career. teaching as a profession. 2. Availability of student teachers 3. Definition and enforcement of and interns. Establishing a formal standards of quality for teacher agreement that makes student teachers preparation and professional devel- and interns available to partner school opment, including routes for certifi-100 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • cation of science and mathematics analyze the learning and achievement ofteachers. Enforced standards are the K-12 students being taught, all of thecritical components of effective teacher partners would learn how their contri-education. In partnerships, both higher butions and efforts for improvingeducation institution and school part- practicums and other field experiencesners need to develop mutually accept- for student teachers might be revised orable goals and objectives for the pro- strengthened.grams in which they are engaged and to Establishing such credentials fordo what is necessary to ensure that high-quality teaching also might assistthose goals are met. Through contrac- those who take non-partnership ortual agreements and close interaction, nontraditional paths to becomingthe members of the partnership could teachers. For example, students whoestablish comprehensive expectations have graduated from colleges outsideand standards both for the providers the partnership or people who have theand the “consumers” of teacher educa- requisite knowledge and skills in sci-tion programs. These expectations ence and mathematics but who have notcould extend well beyond education taken formal education courses mightcourses and student teaching experi- be able to become teachers in theences. For example, the partnership partnership. At least on a provisionalcould work to establish how to make basis, these students could participatescience and mathematics courses for in internships and other kinds of profes-prospective and practicing teachers sional development on their way tomore relevant and taught more effec- earning full certification. These types oftively at the partnership’s member standards and opportunities might havecolleges and universities. the added benefit of allowing a district In addition, by clearly defining what to continue to diversify its teachingconstitutes appropriate credentials for force.prospective teachers before they begin 4. Opportunities for ongoing,their student teaching experiences, informal professional development.districts would be assured that these One component of the crisis in sciencestudent teachers would be able to and mathematics education is thathandle the challenges that await them in professionals who work in the culturesthe classroom. Because partnerships as of K-12 and higher education rarelyenvisioned here also would be able to know about or understand what takesdesign and undertake educational place in each other’s work environment.research projects that measure and Partnerships can provide both formalI M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 101
    • and informal opportunities to end this them to have more informed input to isolation. For example, science and the partnership about that content, and mathematics departments and schools influence their own teaching methods. of education typically offer a number of 5. Enhanced professionalism for guest lectures, films, debates, and other teachers. Because teachers are equal presentations during the academic year partners at the table and critical con- but, typically, teachers do not know tributors to the success of the partner- about them. The partnership could ship endeavor, teaching as a profession amend that by making a special effort to would take on more of the characteris- inform and invite teachers to such tics of other professions. When teach- events. The partnership also could ers are required to articulate their ideas, arrange participation by teachers in to express clearly what they do in their afternoon and weekend field trips and classrooms and why they do it, and to other course-related activities offered by share their ideas openly with peers and science and mathematics faculty or other professional colleagues, their departments. In turn, schools could teaching is likely to be enhanced. As target college faculty to participate in teachers become more involved with various activities and events within their various kinds of scientific or educational purview. These might include science research, they go beyond their tradi- fairs, where scientists, mathematicians, tional roles by helping to discover new and engineers are usually needed to knowledge that can then be applied serve as judges, the development of directly to their own classrooms and to nature preserves near partnership the classrooms of colleagues associated schools to allow children to collect and with and beyond the partnership. analyze scientific data, or participation Vesting such responsibilities and author- in textbook selection or grant-writing ity in teachers results in greater owner- teams. Perhaps most importantly, the ship and understanding of teaching as a establishment of partnerships also profession. would make it easier for college faculty, Teachers will need time and financial especially those in science, mathemat- as well as other resources (e.g., avail- ics, and engineering, to visit partnership ability of qualified substitute teachers, schools and actually observe what aides) to be full contributors in any happens in classrooms. These visits partnership. For the partnership to could help college-level faculty better have such a level of contribution from understand the kind and level of content teachers—and to enable teachers to being taught in partner schools, allow grow as professionals in the process—102 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • school districts will need to work with sophisticated laboratory space andtheir partners to find ways to provide equipment, computing facilities, andthe time and resources required. Provid- access to other resources such asing this time implies that (1) teachers library holdings. As partnerships forwill have fewer contact hours with teacher education in science and math-students each day or week, (2) they will ematics develop and prioritize theirbe engaged in (and fully compensated issues, sharing of knowledge andfor) their work for a longer period of resources could become a primarytime each academic year (e.g., by focus. In terms of technology andworking an extra month during the technology applications knowledge, forsummers on professional and curricu- example, recent reports (Becker andlum development), or (3) some combi- Anderson, 1998; Milken Family Founda-nation of these options. The critical tion, 1999; CEO Forum, 1999, 2000;components of a teaching position that Brandt, 2000) have decried the lack ofcould be supported in these ways preparation of future teachers in theinclude professional reflection, continual appropriate use of information technol-intellectual engagement, and advance- ogy, as well as the continued need forment in the profession (e.g., Figure 6-4), practicing teachers to work to incorpo-working with colleagues to improve rate general purpose technology toolsspecific curricula, and working with into core instructional activities. Be-each other and with less senior teachers cause of their familiarity and comfortto improve teaching and learning for all with using sophisticated informationof the schools involved with the partner- technology tools and software, scientistsship (e.g., Ma, 1999). Providing oppor- and mathematicians from the partner-tunities and the financial support that is ship and their expertise could be en-required for teachers to become more gaged to address these issues morefully engaged in their profession fully. In turn, these scientists andthroughout the academic year is mathematicians also could apply theircommon practice in other nations such experiences from such efforts to ad-as Japan (Stigler and Hiebert, 1997; dress appropriate applications of infor-NRC, 1999c). mation technology in undergraduate 6. Sharing of resources and classrooms and laboratories for a widerexpertise. With few exceptions, spectrum of students.colleges and universities in a given In terms of equipment resources,geographical area are far more likely members in a partnership might decidethan local school districts to have that certain kinds of expensive instru-I M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 103
    • mentation and equipment would be partner organizations would authorize useful both in high school and introduc- the partnership to spend these funds as tory college laboratories. The existence needed to provide a continuum of of the partnership could then open the support of teacher education. door to the sharing of current equip- Under this plan, it is entirely possible ment or the pooling of funds to jointly that funds which colleges and universi- purchase new equipment, with obvious ties would otherwise expend to support cost savings benefits. More efficient their own student teacher programs use of the equipment over the academic might be used instead by school dis- year and during the summers might tricts, if the partnership determined that also be arranged. districts should assume primary respon- sibility for this phase of teacher educa- tion. Some of these funds might be FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR used by the partnership to support PARTNERSHIPS FOR TEACHER mentor teachers who would work with EDUCATION university faculty members to teach preservice courses. Likewise, school The kind of partnership program district funds previously used to support described here should be viewed as a district professional development model that can be adapted to local or programs might instead be transferred regional situations: therefore, estimat- to institutions of higher education within ing precise costs of establishing, operat- the partnership to support continuing ing, and sustaining such an effort is not professional development programs. possible. However, the committee’s By combining these separate line vision—that institutions of higher items from the various partners, the education and school districts share partnership could enjoy flexibility in responsibility for all phases of teacher deciding how to develop its programs. education and professional develop- By pooling such funds, the partnership ment—also must extend to the ways in also could then determine whether which partnerships are supported additional funds are required. Those financially. Accordingly, the CSMTP funds could then be sought from a suggests that funds previously devoted variety of sources, including school by individual organizations to their boards, deans or provosts, local, state, current programs in teacher education be and federal government agencies, or pooled within the partnership. Through private sources. Once a partnership had contractual agreements, the respective a coordinated policy for teacher educa-104 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • tion and a pool of funds to support it, the • Current tenure and promotionpartnership could more easily justify the policies at many colleges and universi-need for additional funds. As always, the ties may not sufficiently recognize theargument for expending any funds for contributions of faculty in science,the partnership’s efforts at any time mathematics, engineering, and inwould be to support more effective education departments to the improve-teacher education programs. ment of teacher education through such An important consideration in this partnerships (e.g., NRC, 1999h). Inapproach to teacher education in sci- many cases, these kinds of partnershipence and mathematics would be the activities require more commitment ofreduction or possibly even the elimina- time, effort, and intellectual engage-tion of redundancy of effort, programs, ment than other, more traditional facultyand equipment. Although formal responsibilities. If institutions andfinancial analyses would be required for faculty colleagues who are not engagedeach partnership, CSMTP members in such activities do not recognize andpredict that the sponsoring organiza- reward such efforts, partnerships aretions either would actually save money not likely to be sustained over time.or obtain more services than would be • Sufficient funding for successfulpossible if each organization continued partnerships must be both predictableto operate its own programs divorced and available long-term. Budgets thatfrom the activities and priorities of are subject to annual negotiation canothers. have a negative impact on this kind of compact. Partnerships that depend too heavily on grants rather than on linePOTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO items in the budgets of school districtsSUSTAINING AN EFFECTIVE and postsecondary institutions can bePARTNERSHIP FOR TEACHER compromised if the priorities of fundingEDUCATION agencies shift over time. • Real buy-in by a partner institution Leaders both within the core of a has ramifications for the entire institu-partnership and in the institutions that tion. Partnerships cannot be optimallysupport it must recognize and attempt effective if one or more partners areto mitigate the many external variables unwilling or unable to meet their com-that could compromise the success and mitments. Contractual agreementsvitality of the partnership (see Figure 6-3). must be equitable and supported finan-For example, cially through line items in the budgetsI M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 105
    • FIGURE 6-3 In the system of gears illustrated above, the large main gear and all of the components with which it meshes must be working synchronously for the system to operate. A malfunction in any one of the smaller gears can cause the entire system to malfunction. Like a system of gears, local partnerships are subject to a variety of external influences. Individually or in combination, these external influences can provide opportunities to move the partnership forward or they can bring the system to a halt, even when other components of the system are functioning properly. Several kinds of external influences on K-16 partnerships are illustrated. Those responsible for such partnerships must understand how external factors can influence their operation. Promotion and Funding Tenure Issues Policies Buy-in from Contractual Partner Agreements LOCAL Institutions PARTNERSHIP Participants Other Accreditation Academic and Licensing Responsibilities Issues106 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • of all parties that are involved with the tion or accreditation bodies would needpartnership. to be involved with this type of opportu- • As noted before (and in Figure 6-4), nity through the creation of policies thatthe kind of partnership the committee enable prospective teachers (bothenvisions would allow people with traditional undergraduate candidatesappropriate experience and expertise to and those who pursue teaching later inpursue teaching careers through non- their careers through alternative path-traditional routes to the profession. ways) to earn certification throughHowever, state departments of educa- the partnership.FIGURE 6-4 The continuum of teacher professional development. In this model,teachers have the opportunities for continued professional growth throughout theircareers. They also have the opportunity to assume leadership roles in their schools, inpartnerships with local colleges and universities, and through leadership in theirdistrict, state, and nationally. These experiences, in turn, contribute to further opportu-nities for individual professional growth and development. Teacher Preparation Induction/Internship Other Expertise and Professional Experiences Experienced Teacher Master/Mentor Teacher Continued Continued Professional Leadership Professional Growth Professional Development Local Opportunities Statewide Opportunities National OpportunitiesI M P R O V I N G T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N A N D T H E T E A C H I N G P R O F E S S I O N 107
    • • Most of the people connected with used in some of these tests (e.g., em- the kind of partnership envisioned here phasis on facts and information vs. also would likely have academic and conceptual understanding) could under- other responsibilities to their home mine the kinds of teaching that the institutions, which, like most jobs in committee envisions would result as a education, might also be more than full result of the teacher education within time. Unless these contributors are these partnerships. provided with sufficient time and sup- port to engage in the partnership, Finally, and perhaps most impor- responsibility for it will probably fall on tantly, the committee acknowledges that the shoulders of only a few. To prevent achieving this vision will not be straight- the destructive tensions such a situation forward or easily accomplished. It will can easily generate, all institutions that require fundamental rethinking and contribute to a partnership should restructuring of the relationships consider some redefinition of contribu- between the K-12 and higher education tors’ jobs to give them the time needed communities in science, mathematics, to be true collaborators. engineering, and technology, including • The partnerships envisioned here financial relationships. Building the call for new approaches to teaching and kind of capacity that is needed to begin assessment of teaching and student or to grow a partnership for teacher learning. Many of the ideas espoused in education as envisioned in this report the committee’s vision for improving will require a great deal of time and teaching and learning may be at odds commitment from all parties. It also will with current efforts in some districts require fundamental revamping of and states to institute “high-stakes” teaching as a profession. standardized assessments for both Examples of efforts to work toward students and teachers. The time re- partnerships for teacher education are quired for teachers to prepare them- included throughout this report (see selves and their students for increasing especially Appendixes D and E). These numbers of these examinations could examples can serve as models for those compromise their ability to contribute to who wish to begin or expand partner- the partnership. In addition, the kinds ships to improve teacher education at all and levels of questions that are being phases of teachers’ careers.108 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • 7 RecommendationsGENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 3. Teacher education also be struc- tured in ways that allow teachers The Committee on Science and to grow individually in theirMathematics Teacher Preparation profession and to contribute torecommends that the further enhancement of both teaching and their disciplines.1. Teacher education in science, mathematics, and technology be As outlined, then detailed in its vision viewed as a continuum of pro- in Chapter 6, the Committee on Science grams and professional experi- and Mathematics Teacher Preparation ences that enables individuals to (CSMTP) believes that the goals and move seamlessly from college objectives of the general recommenda- preparation for teaching to careers tions given above can be achieved by all in teaching these subject areas; two- and four-year colleges and universi-2. Teacher education be viewed as ties (those with and without programs in a career-long process that allows teacher education) working with school teachers of science, mathematics, districts to establish partnerships for and technology to acquire and teacher education. regularly update the content In addition, in this chapter, the knowledge and pedagogical tools CSMTP also offers more specific recom- needed to teach in ways that mendations in the areas of (1) recruit- enhance student learning and ment and preparation of new teachers achievement in these subjects; (preservice education), (2) the induc- and tion of new teachers for their first 109
    • teaching positions, and (3) continuing Almost 10 years ago, President Bush and professional development (inservice) for practicing teachers of science, the state governors set goals aimed at mathematics, and technology. Consis- preparing all the Nation’s children to tent with the committee’s vision of improve their achievement in core subjects making teacher preparation and profes- and outpace the world in at least math and sional development a seamless con- tinuum, the committee’s specific recom- science by 2000. . . . The urgency of the mendations for each of these stages in ensuing national debate on how to improve the professional lives of teachers are academic achievement by U.S. elementary-, woven into a continuum framework. middle-, and high school students—and the The intended audiences for each recom- mendation are indicated by boldface consequences of failing to do so—remains type. All of the committee’s specific undiminished today. At issue is who recommendations are listed first in ostensibly defines the content to be learned, Table 7-1, then detailed below. and who ensures the opportunity to teach and learn it well. While resolutions will be RECOMMENDATIONS FOR local, the dialogue that precedes them GOVERNMENTS should reflect experiences from across the Nation, as well as research and evaluation Local, state, and federal govern- ments should recognize and ac- of processes and outcomes, including knowledge the need to improve international comparisons. teacher education in science and mathematics, as well as assist the National Science Board, 1999, page 1 public in understanding and sup- porting improvement. Governments should understand that teacher education in these disciplines. restructuring teacher education will They also should encourage the recruit- require large infusions of financial ment and retention of teachers of support and make a strong commitment science and mathematics through to provide the direct and indirect fund- ing required to support local and re- • low-interest student loans, gional partnerships for improving • loan forgiveness for recently110 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • TABLE 7-1 Specific RecommendationsFOR GOVERNMENTSLocal, state, and federal governments should recognize and acknowledge the need to improveteacher education in science and mathematics, as well as assist the public in understanding and support-ing improvement. Governments should understand that restructuring teacher education will require largeinfusions of financial support and make a strong commitment to provide the direct and indirect fundingrequired to support local and regional partnerships for improving teacher education in these disciplines.They also should encourage the recruitment and retention of teachers of science and mathematics—particularly those who are qualified “in-field”—through financial incentives, such as salaries that arecommensurate and competitive with other professions in science, mathematics, and technology; low-interest student loans; loan forgiveness for recently certified teachers in these disciplines who commit toteaching; stipends for teaching internships; and grants to teachers, school districts, or teacher educationpartnerships to offset the costs of continual professional development.FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND THEK-12 COMMUNITYTwo- and four-year institutions of higher education and school districts that are involvedwith partnerships for teacher education should—working together—establish a comprehensive, integratedsystem of recruiting and advising people who are interested in teaching science, mathematics, andtechnology.FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMUNITY1. Science, mathematics, and engineering departments at two- and four-yearcolleges and universities should assume greater responsibility for offering college-level courses thatprovide teachers with strong exposure to appropriate content and that model the kinds of pedagogicalapproaches appropriate for teaching that content.2. Two- and four-year colleges and universities should reexamine and redesign introductorycollege-level courses in science and mathematics to better accommodate the needs of practicing and futureteachers.3. Universities whose primary mission includes education research should set as a prioritythe development and execution of peer-reviewed research studies that focus on ways to improve teachereducation, the art of teaching, and learning for people of all ages. New research that focuses broadly onsynthesizing data across studies and linking it to school practice in a wide variety of school settings wouldbe especially helpful to the improvement of teacher education and professional development for bothprospective and experienced teachers. The results of this research should be collated and disseminatedthrough a national electronic database or library. continuedR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 111
    • TABLE 7-1 Continued 4. Two- and four-year colleges and universities should maintain contact with and provide guidance to teachers who complete their preparation and development programs. 5. Following a period of collaborative planning and preparation, two- and four-year colleges and universities in a partnership for teacher education should assume primary responsibility for providing professional development opportunities to experienced teachers of science, mathematics, and technology. Such programs would involve faculty from science, mathematics, and engineering disciplines and from schools of education. FOR THE K-12 EDUCATION COMMUNITY 1. Following a period of collaborative planning and preparation, school districts in a partnership for teacher education should assume primary responsibility for providing high-quality practicum experi- ences and internships for prospective teachers. 2. School districts in a partnership for teacher education should assume primary responsibility for developing and overseeing field experiences, student teaching, and internship programs for new teachers of science, mathematics, and technology. 3. School districts should collaborate with two- and four-year colleges and universities to provide professional development opportunities to experienced teachers of science, mathematics, and technology. Such programs would involve faculty from science, mathematics, and engineering disciplines and from schools of education. Teachers who participate in these programs would, in turn, offer their expertise and guidance to others involved with the partnership. FOR PROFESSIONAL AND DISCIPLINARY ORGANIZATIONS 1. Organizations that represent institutions of higher education should assist their members in establishing programs to help new teachers. For example, databases of information about new teachers would be developed and shared among member institutions so that colleges and universities could be notified when a newly certified teacher was moving to their area to teach. Those colleges and universities could then plan and offer welcoming and support activities, such as opportunities for con- tinued professional and intellectual growth. 2. Professional disciplinary societies in science, mathematics, and engineering, higher education organizations, governments at all levels, and business and industry should become more engaged partners (as opposed to advisors or overseers) in efforts to improve teacher education. 3. Professional disciplinary societies in science, mathematics, and engineering, and higher education organizations also should work together to align their policies and recommenda- tions for improving teacher education in science, mathematics, and engineering.112 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • certified teachers in these disciplines in other sectors. If governments con-who commit to teaching for at least tinue to expect increasing levels ofthree years, performance and accountability both for • additional loan forgiveness for teachers and their students, then theyteachers of science, mathematics, and also must provide both the compensationtechnology who agree to teach in and the kinds of professional workplaceschools with high levels of poverty or and working conditions that would allowlow levels of student achievement in higher standards to be realized. Indeed,these subject areas, it may be necessary to provide higher • stipends for teaching internships, levels of compensation to teachers of • grants to teachers, school districts, mathematics, science, and technology toor teacher education partnerships to recruit and retain the best teachers tooffset the costs of ongoing professional these disciplines (see Odden and Kelley,development in these subject areas. 1997; North Central Regional Educa- tional Laboratory, 1999; Olson, 1999; Most importantly, if teachers are to Kelley et al., 2000; and Odden, 2000).be held to higher levels of professional The federal government also shouldaccountability, ways must be found to examine ways to provide assistance withprovide them with levels of compensa- improving the teaching of science,tion and working conditions that are mathematics, and technology in wayscompetitive with other professions that that local and state governments cannotrecruit people with the kinds of creden- do individually. These initiatives couldtials held by teachers of science and includemathematics and that are commensu-rate with the experiences of other • Setting aside funds for ongoingprofessionals with similar levels of professional development for teach-education and training (see U.S. Depart- ers of science, mathematics, andment of Education, 1999). The problem technology. The committee stronglyis especially acute for people with recommends that Eisenhower Grantbackgrounds in science, mathematics, funds continue to be restricted to profes-and technology. In today’s economy, it sional development in science andis much easier and more lucrative for mathematics. As the U.S. Congressalmost anyone with a background in considers reauthorization of the Elemen-engineering, technology, science, or tary and Secondary Education Act,mathematics to find desirable levels of there have been attempts to make thesalary, benefits, and working conditions Eisenhower Grants less restrictive.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 113
    • Given the critical need for improving from existing partnerships in a nearby science and mathematics education in locale. Such support could include the the United States, the CSMTP opposes establishment of electronic links that any attempt to make these very limited would enable practicing teachers to funds available for other purposes. engage in high-quality professional However, a suitable compromise would development activities and stipends that be to allow some portion of these funds would allow either prospective or practic- to be made available to teachers from ing teachers to undertake extended other disciplines who wish to become internships with an existing partnership. more knowledgeable about science, • Establishing a national data- mathematics, and technology. For base for improving teaching of example, a history or social studies science, mathematics, and technol- teacher who would like to understand ogy. Nearly every state is at some stage more about how science and technology of developing databases and other have influenced society in this country resources for its teachers to enable or other parts of the world should be them to understand and teach to state able to use Eisenhower funds to learn standards in science and mathematics. about such issues. While every state’s standards differ to • Providing funding that would some degree, most of them are based at enable prospective and practicing least in part on the national standards teachers who other wise would be for science and mathematics. Thus, it is unable to benefit from participating likely that great deal of overlapping in a partnership to do so. The effort is taking place. If the federal CSMTP recommends that the partner- government could establish a national ship opportunities described in Chapter database for improving the teaching of 6 be extended to as many prospective science, mathematics, and technology and experienced teachers as possible. that would allow teachers to easily For those schools and districts that are access information from their state and located too far from institutions of elsewhere, teaching of these disciplines higher education to form their own could be vastly improved (e.g., NRC, partnerships, government funds should 1998, 1999g). The National Science be made available that would enable Foundation’s National Digital Library teachers from these districts to benefit project1 could serve as the focal point 1The National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library program will be a network of learning environments and resources for science, mathematics, engineer- ing, and technology education. The library will ultimately meet the needs of students and teachers at114 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • for such a compendium of information. • Developing national consensusThe CSMTP recommends that future on criteria for teacher credentialing.Requests for Proposals include specific The CSMTP recommends that the U.S.requests to develop this national data- Secretary of Education convene a panelbase and library on teaching of science, of representatives from the 50 states formathematics, and technology. the purpose of reaching consensus on a • Creating a national database set of uniform criteria for teacherthat lists job openings and teacher credentialing that would allow teacherscandidates for science, mathematics, of science, mathematics, and technologyand technology. As indicated else- who earn certification in one state towhere in this report, there is great teach in any other.variance in both the supply of anddemand for qualified teachers across The CSMTP envisions that thethe country. A national registry that development of such consensus criterialists available positions and the names would be based on high standards forand résumés of teacher candidates who teaching and also would be valid in allare seeking positions might greatly states for some agreed upon number ofreduce the overabundance of teachers years. Each state also would be able toin some parts of the country and the reserve the right to require somecritical shortages of teachers in others. additional number of hours of credit forThe U.S. Department of Education specific coursework in that state (e.g.,could oversee this registry or it could courses on state history). Teachers whobecome part of the NSF’s National received a credential under this agree-Digital Library for Science, Mathematics, ment would be required to take theseEngineering, and Technology Educa- additional courses prior to obtainingtion, once that library is established. their first re-certification in that state.all levels—K-12, undergraduate, graduate, and lifelong learning—in both individual and collaborativesettings. It will serve not only as a gateway to a rich array of current and future high-quality educa-tional content and services but also as a forum where resource users may become resource providers.For example, users might contribute their expertise to produce new teaching modules from resourcessuch as real-time experimental data or visualization software available through the network. Or theymight evaluate and report on the efficacy of specific digital learning objects (such as Java applets orinteractive electronic notebooks) and their impact on student learning. Beyond providing traditionallibrary functions, such as the intelligent retrieval of relevant information, indexing and online annota-tion of resources, and archiving of materials, the digital library will also enable users to access virtualcollaborative work areas, hands-on laboratory experiences, tools for analysis and visualization, remoteinstruments, large databases of real-time or archived data, simulated or virtual environments, and othernew capabilities as they emerge (NSF, 2000).R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 115
    • Coupled with the development of a science, mathematics, and technology national registry for teacher positions teaching should be of a magnitude and available candidates, this national similar to efforts now used to recruit consensus on teacher certification could students to other professions, such as help ease regional shortages of teachers medicine, law, and graduate programs in and lead to greater agreement about the natural sciences and engineering. what teachers of science, mathematics, Science, mathematics, and engineering and technology should know and be departments should be active partici- able to do. pants with their institutions in the recruitment and ongoing support of students who have indicated their RECOMMENDATIONS FOR interest in pursuing careers in teaching. COLLABORATION BETWEEN Their institutions should recognize INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER departments that are especially effective EDUCATION AND THE K-12 in these efforts. COMMUNITY Departments or colleges of science, mathematics, engineering and technol- Two- and four-year institutions of ogy at two- and four-year colleges and higher education and school dis- universities that offer teacher education tricts that are involved with partner- programs also should provide services ships for teacher education should to prospective teachers at levels that are establish a comprehensive, inte- comparable to those offered to students grated system of recruiting and who plan to pursue careers in other advising people who are interested professions in the life and physical in teaching science, mathematics, sciences, mathematics, and engineering. and technology. These services should include the appointment of a pre-teaching advisor or The members of the CSMTP are an advisory committee. These advisors convinced that the recruitment of high- would be given the time and resources quality teachers in science, mathemat- required to establish programs for ics, and technology is truly a national recruiting students who are interested need and must become a national in science, mathematics, and engineer- priority. Colleges and universities must ing and who also relate well to children contribute to attracting the best and and young adults at the elementary or brightest candidates to the profession. secondary levels. They also would Efforts to attract the best students to advise these students on issues and116 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • options for becoming certified teachers. and guidance to these students.Advisors would work with their depart- However, postsecondary faculty in themental colleagues, faculty in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, andinstitution’s school of education, and technology should not delegate allwith local schools involved with a partner- responsibility for advising andship. These advisors either should be mentoring future teachers to a specifiedsuitably compensated for their work or advisor or advisory committee. Jobprovided with sufficient amounts of descriptions for new faculty hires orreleased time from other responsibili- redefinitions of responsibilities forties to carry out this work. In addition, continuing faculty who teach and advisethe quality of advising should be taken undergraduate students should includeinto account during personnel decisions. the expectation that applicants have orThe advisor or advising group also are willing to acquire the knowledgewould have primary responsibility for they will need to help students learncoordinating the campus’ teacher about careers in teaching.preparation efforts with those of com- Through their words, actions, andmunity colleges that are sending large financial support, the highest levelnumbers of students to the campus (see administrators should reaffirm orRecommendations for the Higher indicate that pre-teaching advisors orEducation Community, Recommenda- advisory committees will be integraltion 3). components of the institution’s aca- Colleges and universities that do not demic and career support programsprovide formal teacher education (ACE, 1999). Again, the CSMTP con-programs should recognize that pro- curs with the conclusions of othersspective teachers of science, mathemat- (e.g., ACE, 1999; NRC, 1999h) thatics, and technology also matriculate on teacher education must become atheir campuses. At a minimum, faculty campus-wide priority, not solely theadvisors should be designated in these purview of departments or colleges ofdisciplines. These advisors should learn education. If such commitments cannotabout the procedures for credentialing be made and sustained, continuation ofin their state, alternative routes to formal programs for teacher preparationcertification, and the challenges and and professional development on thoseopportunities that K-12 teachers face so campuses should be called into question.that they can offer appropriate adviceR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 117
    • RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE that teachers can adapt to their own HIGHER EDUCATION classrooms. In addition, the teaching of COMMUNITY effective pedagogy should not be delegated to education courses. College 1. Science, mathematics, and and university faculty in the SME&T engineering departments at two- disciplines who offer courses for pro- and four-year colleges and universi- spective teachers should model effective ties should assume greater respon- teaching techniques through their own sibility for offering college-level classroom practices. In partnerships, courses that provide teachers with K-12 classroom teachers who have strong exposure to appropriate strong pedagogical knowledge and content and that model the kinds of skills could help their higher education pedagogical approaches appropriate counterparts model such approaches to for teaching that content. teaching. Postsecondary institutions that Other organizations have attempted educate teachers of science and math- to define preparation for teachers of ematics should articulate clear connec- science and mathematics in terms of tions between their programs and the subjects to be covered and amount of high standards that national profes- exposure to various disciplines. For sional organizations have established for example, a recent report from the beginning and more experienced Learning First Alliance (1998) teachers. These connections could be recommends specific content knowl- formulated by the partnership for edge that middle-school specialists in teacher education to which the mathematics should acquire. The postsecondary institutions belong and Alliance also calls for teachers of could then be used to guide the develop- middle-grades mathematics to be ment and improvement of teacher familiar with all of the mathematics education programs. taught in grades K-12, with special Science and mathematics courses for emphasis on the grade below and the preservice teachers should be rich in grade above the teacher’s own. The appropriate content. Courses should National Science Teachers Association offer fewer topics and allow students to (1998) has prepared similar criteria for explore the topics presented in greater teachers of science. depth. Content offered in science and However, as the aforementioned mathematics courses for prospective organizations and others also empha- teachers should be presented in ways size, well-prepared teachers must have a118 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • deep knowledge and understanding of teacher preparation in science, math-their discipline and of effective peda- ematics, and technology (AAAS, 1993;gogy, as well as the capacity to use NRC, 1996a; NCTM, 2000; ITEA, 2000,pedagogical content knowledge to AMATYC, 1995) can serve as guides toinfluence student learning. Research college-level educators. The CSMTPshows that students demonstrate higher also recommends that content, peda-levels of achievement when they learn gogy, and field experiences be plannedfrom teachers who are well versed in and implemented jointly with colleaguestheir subject areas (e.g., see Chapter 3). from schools of education and withA critical component of such compe- school practitioners in a partnership.tence comes from deep knowledge and These joint efforts would lead to betterunderstanding, as compared to memori- connections between content courses inzation, of the subjects that teachers science, mathematics, and technology;present to their students (Shulman, methods courses; and field experiences.1986; Coble and Koballa, 1996; Laboratory and fieldwork, includingManouchehri, 1997; and Grouws and exercises where students design experi-Schultz, 1996). ments to answer their own questions, An expanding body of research is now should be an integral component ofexploring what content teachers of every science course that prospectivescience and mathematics should know teachers take (NRC, 1999h). Learningand how they can best acquire such through inquiry and active engagementknowledge (NRC, 2000b; Ma, 1999). with subject matter should be a primaryAlthough experts have not yet reached feature of all courses that prospectiveconsensus on a core body of knowledge teachers take—disciplinary as well asthat every teacher should know to be pedagogical. Students also should beable to teach at a given grade level, they given as many opportunities as possibleagree that how teachers come to under- to solve problems collaboratively as wellstand content knowledge in their disci- as individually.plines is as important as the specific Educators of teachers, especiallyinformation they learn. those in science, mathematics, engi- College and university scientists, neering departments, must recognizemathematicians, and engineers should that teachers’ content knowledge ofemphasize conceptual understanding of science and mathematics grows andwhatever subject matter they impart to matures with time and experience.their students. National standards and Thus, teacher education programs,benchmarks for both content and especially for prospective elementaryR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 119
    • teachers, should offer some coursework dents’ learning and, therefore, should in science and mathematics that in- also help teacher educators better cludes in-depth development of basic organize their efforts to restructure and ideas of the discipline, reasoning, and improve this critically important compo- problem solving rather than just broad nent of teacher education. surveys of subject matter. Similarly, 2. Two- and four-year colleges and programs for experienced teachers universities should reexamine and should build on those teachers’ current redesign introductory college-level content knowledge and help them courses in science and mathematics acquire yet deeper understanding of the to better accommodate the needs of subject(s) they teach. practicing and future teachers. Information technology will permeate Introductory courses should be and influence virtually every aspect of structured in ways that help all students teaching and learning in the future. better understand the role and relation- Faculty in the content areas and in ship of the sciences and mathematics to schools of education together must help other disciplines, to students’ lives, and teachers learn how to use these tools to helping students make informed and how to integrate them into their decisions about issues in which science teaching. Recent reports indicate that and technology play integral roles. teacher education programs are falling Most students who do not go on to far short in providing prospective careers in the sciences do not enroll in teachers with such educational opportu- courses beyond the introductory level nities (Becker and Anderson, 1998; Kent (NSF, 1996; NRC 1999h; AFT, 2000). and McNergney, 1999; Valdez et al., Moreover, many students either do not 1999; Milken Family Foundation, 1999; know or do not declare their intention to Means, 2000). Teachers of the future become teachers until later in their will have to be as cognizant of the college careers (Seymour and Hewitt, capabilities of computers to transform 1997). Thus, faculty in the life and teaching and learning as they are physical sciences, mathematics, and knowledgeable about the primary engineering who teach lower-division subject matter they teach (e.g., NRC, courses in these subjects have a special 1999a). The national standards and obligation and responsibility to the benchmarks for information technology education of future teachers. They must (IT) education released in June 2000 are understand that any of their students designed to help teachers use IT to may elect to become teachers and that enhance their teaching and their stu- this decision may not be made until120 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • after these students have completed closely together to improve the coher-introductory courses. Accordingly, ence and integration of learning in thecollege and university faculty must offer SME&T disciplines. Teaching andcourses that engage all students and learning centers could help. For ex-provide them with an understanding of ample, in coordination with a campus’the processes as well as the content of teaching and learning center,2 the pre-their own and related disciplines. These teaching advisor or advisory committeecourses also should help all students could engage SME&T faculty in discus-develop the habits of mind, including sions about adopting new approaches incuriosity and reflection that prove their disciplinary or interdisciplinaryinvaluable for teachers throughout their introductory and lower division courses.careers. Specific recommendations 3. Universities whose primaryabout the overarching principles of mission includes education re-science that such courses could cover search should set as a priority theare available (NRC, 1999h). development and execution of peer- In short, the development of such reviewed research studies that focusintroductory and lower division courses on ways to improve teacher educa-should become a higher priority for all tion, the art of teaching, and learn-science, mathematics, engineering, and ing for people of all ages. Newtechnology programs in the nation’s research that focuses broadly ontwo- and four-year colleges and universi- synthesizing data across studies andties. Recommendations about how such linking it to school practice in acourses might be structured have wide variety of school settings wouldappeared elsewhere (NSF, 1996; be especially helpful to the improve-McNeal and D’Avanzo, 1997; NRC, ment of teacher education and1999h; AMATYC, 1995). The CSMTP professional development for bothagrees fully with those reports that call prospective and experienced teach-for SME&T faculty to work much more ers. The results of this research 2Increasing numbers of colleges and universities are establishing teaching and learning centers ontheir campuses. The University of Kansas maintains a listing of these centers around the world (<http://eagle.cc.ukans.edu/~cte/resources/websites/unitedstates.html>). The goals of the Center forTeaching Excellence at the University of Kansas are to provide opportunities for teaching faculty todiscuss students’ learning and ways to enhance it in their classrooms; to support faculty as theyimplement their ideas for improving students’ learning; to bring research about teaching to theattention of the university community; to encourage involvement in the scholarship of teaching andresearch on learning; to offer course development assistance at any stage—planning, teaching,evaluating—to foster instructional innovation; and to advocate and recognize teaching excellence.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 121
    • should be collated and dissemi- Effective ways must be found to nated through a national electronic disseminate the results of this research database or library. to teachers and to teacher educators. The National Research Council The National Science Foundation is (1999f) has called for a decade of inten- currently investing in the development sive research on how to improve educa- and construction of a national digital tion. The CSMTP recommends that a library for SME&T education (NRC, major component of this effort be 1998, 1999g; NSF, 2000). The CSMTP devoted to a comprehensive yet focused recommends that this digital library examination of how to improve teacher effort take primary responsibility for education and teaching in science, collecting, indexing, and broadly dis- mathematics, and technology, as well as seminating the results of existing and how to improve teacher retention in future research on the improvement of these subject areas.3 The presidents teacher education and teaching. and chancellors of 61 of the nation’s 4. Two- and four-year colleges and leading research universities already universities should maintain contact have committed their institutions to with and provide guidance to teach- engaging in research that will enhance ers who complete their preparation the practice of teaching (e.g., AAU, and development programs.4 1999). The members of the CSMTP With government agencies, state applaud this action and urge other legislatures, and businesses demanding institutions of higher education to make greater accountability and improve- similar commitments. ments in the quality of science and 3The primary sources of federal government support for educational research include numerous programs under the auspices of the Office of the Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Education (<http://web99.ed.gov/GTEP/Program2.nsf>), the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Educa- tional Research and Improvement (<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/funding.html>), and the National Science Foundation’s Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication (within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources: < http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/rec/default.htm>). In addition, the American Educational Research Association provides links on its website to its own grants programs and those of other organizations (<http://aera.ucsb.edu/subweb/links-FR.html>). 4This recommendation is modeled after a proposal currently under consideration by the Taskforce for K-16 Education of the Association of American Universities (AAU). Under this proposal, a new teacher who graduates from any AAU member institution and relocates to another area served by another AAU member institution would be invited to participate in a variety of professional and social activities with other teachers in the area. Such reciprocal agreements would enable teachers who have relocated to interact with other teachers with similar backgrounds and allow universities to maintain better records about the professional activities of their graduates. The CSMTP strongly supports this kind of networking and urges other higher education organizations to undertake similar ventures with their member institutions.122 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • mathematics teaching in the United tions to new teachers to join listservs orStates, it is in the interests of colleges chat rooms so that they may discussand universities to know how their common issues and concerns aboutteacher graduates are faring. Colleges teaching. Other ways to maintain suchand universities that prepare teachers contact would be to invite teachershould (1) keep track of their graduates’ alumni/ae back to the campus in sum-careers in teaching and (2) determine mer to participate in graduate-level ortheir graduates’ job performance and informal courses on topics of particularother measures of teaching success relevance to novice teachers. Thesethrough questionnaires to the teachers courses and programs might includethemselves and to leaders at the schools more in-depth study of content matter inwhere they are employed. Keeping science and mathematics; opportunitiestrack of these students would allow to undertake research projects withinstitutions of higher education to faculty, graduate students, or fellowundertake research both on the career teachers from local partnerships; andpaths of teachers and on the academic symposia and other presentations thatperformance of the teachers’ students. deal with science, mathematics, andThis information also could be used to education.target improvements in teacher educa- Given the near ubiquity of access totion programs. the Internet, teachers who are in remote New teachers also could benefit locations could still participate in elec-greatly by maintaining formal official tronic discussion groups and Webcastsand informal contacts with their alma of lectures and symposia sponsored bymater’s education programs. The their undergraduate or graduate institu-social, cultural, and intellectual environ- tions.ments of college and university cam- 5. Following a period of collabora-puses offer important opportunities for tive planning and preparation, two-new teachers to grow professionally. and four-year colleges and universi-Thus, the CSMTP agrees with the ties in a partnership for teacherAmerican Council on Education (1999) education should assume primar yin recommending that all institutions of responsibility for providing profes-higher education that educate teachers sional development opportunities tofind ways to include their graduates in experienced teachers of science,the life and activities of their campuses mathematics, and technology. Suchfor at least three years following gradua- programs would involve faculty fromtion. This contact might include invita- science, mathematics, and engineer-R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 123
    • ing disciplines and from schools of prepare future teachers. education. The CSMTP proposes that this As described elsewhere in this report, arrangement change and that, in con- two-year community colleges are play- cert with local teacher education part- ing increasingly critical roles in educat- nerships, school districts take primary ing students who are likely to pursue responsibility for developing and imple- careers in teaching. Hence, full partici- menting practicum experiences for pation will be required of two-year preservice teachers, piloting various colleges in both formal partnerships and ways to handle this responsibility over in other kinds of arrangements to time to test for the most effective promote improved teacher education. arrangements. This proposal would be Additional recommendations concern- of benefit to both districts and prospec- ing these kinds of collaborative activities tive teachers because districts have a are detailed below (see RECOMMEN- much better appreciation of their staff- DATIONS FOR THE K-12 Community, ing needs and how student teachers and Recommendation #3). teacher internships might address them than do the colleges and universities that supply those student teachers. The RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE activities to come under the direct K-12 COMMUNITY sponsorship and supervision of districts would include early field experiences for 1. Following a period of collabora- students who are just beginning their tive planning and preparation, teacher education programs, field school districts in a partnership for placement with a master or mentor teacher education should assume teacher for more prolonged student primar y responsibility for providing teaching experience, and induction-level high-quality practicum experiences internships for recent graduates with and internships for prospective baccalaureate degrees. In addition, the teachers. master or mentor teachers and school Currently, local school districts serve district administrators could work as laboratories that provide prospective through a partnership arrangement teachers with opportunities to obtain with the pre-teaching advisors from the classroom experience. However, most collaborating college or university (see of the funds to support these practicum also Recommendations for Collabora- programs come from the two- and four- tion Between Institutions of Higher year colleges and universities that Education and the K-12 Community.124 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • To support this new arrangement, the internship to work with and assistCSMTP recommends that funds previ- mentors to other new teachers whoously allocated by the institutions of enter the school or district in subse-higher education for this purpose be quent years.redirected instead to the supervising If teaching is to be viewed as compa-school districts. This loss of funds by rable with other respected professionsdepartments or colleges of education in our society, then schools, districts,would be offset by their assumption of and states must recognize that begin-primary responsibility for professional ning teachers do not possess all of thedevelopment for teachers in the partner content knowledge and pedagogicaldistricts (see also Chapter 6, Financial skills they need to be maximally effec-Support for Partnerships for Teacher tive. Novice teachers must be affordedEducation). the time and opportunities for meaning- 2. School districts in a partner- ful professional development. A numbership for teacher education should of districts and states have recognizedassume primar y responsibility for this critical need and have begun todeveloping and overseeing field implement systemically opportunitiesexperiences, student teaching, and for all beginning teachers to take work-internship programs for new teach- day time for reflection and activitiesers of science, mathematics, and outside the classroom that contribute totechnology. their effectiveness in the classroom. In cooperation with their partnership Descriptions of such programs arefor teacher education, school districts provided in Appendix D.should create infrastructures that allow The CSMTP applauds these kinds ofnew teachers sufficient time for profes- programs and urges all school districtssional development. Up to 20 percent of and states to adopt similar strategies.a beginning teacher’s workweek should Funds to support such efforts couldbe set aside for planning, discussions come from a variety of sources. Forwith mentor teachers, and for additional example, some portion of the fundscoursework in the subjects he or she is districts use to provide professionalteaching in the first year of employment. development programs for all teachersThis kind of plan would require flexible, could be reallocated to the internshipcreative, and individualized scheduling program. Professional developmentthat meets the needs of the novice funds available to schools and districtsteacher. Teachers who are given this from national programs could beopportunity would agree after their tapped. States also could be a source.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 125
    • How is professional expertise in teaching developed? Expert teachers that I have known do not acquire expertise simply by listening to lectures about content, about learning, or about pedagogy. Although I have seen gifted beginning teachers, [this] sort of expertise . . . typically requires guided practical experience and on-going professional development throughout a career. In addition to having resources and opportunities available to them, it requires significant desire and time investment on the part of the developing teacher. The development of what expertise I have as a teacher has paralleled my development as a learner. I have experienced and observed the world of the classroom, enjoyed the guidance of a mentor, interacted within a community of colleagues, and taken on my own investiga- tions in the nature of teaching and learning. The benefits I enjoyed as a developing learner about teaching are similar to those that I attempt to create in the environment for learning for my precollege students. Minstrell, 1999, page 9 The CSMTP specifically recommends programs would involve faculty from that states explore emulating science, mathematics, and engineer- California’s contributions to internship ing disciplines and from schools of programs for new teachers (Halford, education. Teachers who partici- 1998). However, the CSMTP reiterates pate in these programs would, in that the primary source of funds for such turn, offer their expertise and activities should come from multi-year, guidance to others involved with the line items in the budgets of partnerships partnership. to which all of the partners contribute. The CSMTP calls on school districts 3. School districts should collabo- to work closely with local colleges and rate with two- and four-year colleges universities in their partnership to and universities to provide profes- develop graduate-level programs for sional development opportunities to teachers of science, mathematics, and experienced teachers of science, technology. Discussions among teach- mathematics, and technology. Such ers engaged in such a program predict-126 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • ably would be high level and in-depth. also calls for professional developmentSuch collaboration also would promote of teachers that would allow them tothe establishment of learning communi- become mentors to other teachers andties and a culture of lifelong learning for to faculty counterparts and students inteachers as they progress through their higher education, as well as leaders incareers (e.g., Resnick and Hall, 1998; their districts. One avenue for leader-Fullan, 1993). By design, these pro- ship for mentor teachers would be tograms should allow practicing teachers become closely involved with theirto enhance their understanding and district/college partnership. Teachersappreciation of the subject(s) they who progressed through partnershipteach. They should be structured in programs might reasonably be expectedaccordance with guidelines that other to serve as participants or leaders inorganizations have published about policymaking arenas in their districts,what teachers of science and mathemat- such as curriculum, as well as to serveics should know and be able to do to as mentors to other teachers. Master orteach effectively at various grade levels. mentor teachers also could serve asSuch programs also should encourage liaisons to local college and universityteachers to learn about and discuss partners or in other ways that benefitedmodern educational theory, theories of the partnership’s community. Forlearning, and related subjects. example, they could provide invaluable Both two- and four-year colleges and perspective and expertise to the im-universities could be involved with these provement of design and execution ofprofessional development programs. professional development programs inThrough the kinds of partnerships the partnership. They also could workdiscussed in Chapter 6, two-and four- directly with teacher educators andyear colleges and universities could students to strengthen preservice anddecide how best to apportion responsi- other activities. Working to enhance thebility for conducting these programs. teaching profession is somethingFor example, with appropriate support teachers not only should be encouragedfrom universities in the partnership, and supported to do but something forcommunity colleges might offer courses which they should take responsibility,with graduate credit to experienced as do other professionals for theirteachers. professions. In this way, teaching could It should be noted here that the take on more of the supportive infra-model for ongoing teacher professional structure and stature that other profes-development articulated in Figure 6-4 sions enjoy.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 127
    • These types of expectations of teach- ber institutions so that colleges and ers must be coupled, however, with the universities could be notified when a district’s willingness to provide experi- newly certified teacher was moving to enced teachers with time during their their area to teach. Those colleges and work hours and throughout the school universities could then plan and offer year. The kinds of partnership or welcoming and support activities, such collaborations envisioned by the as opportunities for continued profes- CSMTP here could ease the district’s sional and intellectual growth. Models burden in this regard. For example, for this kind of support for new teachers qualified student teachers who have are described elsewhere in this report. been mentored closely through the 2. Professional disciplinar y partnership might be able to provide the societies in science, mathematics, needed classroom coverage. and engineering, higher education The CSMTP recognizes that imple- organizations, government at all mentation of this recommendation levels, and business and industr y might be difficult for school districts not should become more engaged located near colleges or universities. partners (as opposed to advisors or However, the use of distance learning overseers) in efforts to improve and other types of information technolo- teacher education. gies would allow teachers from locations 3. Professional disciplinar y that are geographically removed from societies in science, mathematics, the partnership to participate in these and engineering, and higher educa- kinds of courses (e.g., Ariza et al., 2000). tion organizations also should work together to align their policies and recommendations for improving RECOMMENDATIONS FOR teacher education in science, math- PROFESSIONAL AND ematics, and engineering. In addi- DISCIPLINARY ORGANIZATIONS tion to the societies that serve the professional needs of teachers, many 1. Organizations that represent disciplinary research organizations have institutions of higher education become more interested in improving should assist their members in science and mathematics education in establishing programs to help new grades K-12. A number of these organi- teachers. For example, databases of zations are beginning to focus on how information about new teachers would they can become more involved with be developed and shared among mem- improving teacher education. Profes-128 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Statement on the Education of Future TeachersThe scientific societies listed below urge the physics community, specifically physical scienceand engineering departments and their faculty members, to take an active role in improvingthe preservice training of K-12 physics/science teachers. Improving teacher training in-volves building cooperative working relationships between physicists in universities andcolleges and the individuals and groups involved in teaching physics to K-12 students.Strengthening the science education of future teachers addresses the pressing national needfor improving K-12 physics education and recognizes that these teachers play a criticaleducation role as the first and often-time last physics teacher for most students.While this responsibility can be manifested in many ways, research indicates that effectivepreservice education involves hands-on, laboratory-based learning. Good science andmathematics education will help create a scientifically literate public, capable of makinginformed decisions on public policy involving scientific matters. A strong K-12 physicseducation is also the first step in producing the next generation of researchers, innovators,and technical workers. American Institute of Physics American Physical Society American Association of Physics Teachers American Astronomical Society Acoustical Society of America American Institute of Physics, December 19995 5This statement and a cover letter to chairs of departments of physics and astronomy are available at<http://www.aip.org/education/futeach.htm>.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 129
    • sional societies in science, mathematics, promote consistent goals for each and engineering have the potential to discipline. The CSMTP calls on um- play a critical role in improving teacher brella organizations such as the Council education. However, the various disci- of Scientific Society Presidents or others plines must find ways to work together in specific disciplines to begin this to develop and implement teacher dialogue by convening representatives education programs and activities that from professional societies to discuss are in concert with recommendations their individual and collective roles in from national organizations and that teacher education.130 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • ReferencesAbdal-Haqq, Ismat. 1998. Professional Develop- ers. College Park, MD: Author. Available at ment Schools: Weighing the Evidence. Thousand <http://www.aip.org/education/futeach.htm>. Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. American Mathematical Association of Two-YearAccreditation Board for Engineering and Colleges (AMATYC). 1995. Crossroads in Technology (ABET). 1997. Engineering Mathematics: Standards for Introductory Criteria 2000, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Author. College Mathematics Before Calculus. Memphis,American Association for the Advancement of TN.: Author. Science (AAAS). 1989. Science for All Ameri- Anderson, R.D., and Mitchener, C.P. 1994. cans. Washington, DC: Author. Research on Science Teacher Education.AAAS. 1990. The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and for Action. Washington, DC: Author. Learning. National Science Teachers Associa-AAAS. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. tion. New York: Macmillan Publishing. New York: Oxford University Press. Apple. M. (ed.). 1997. Review of Research inAmerican Association of Community Colleges Education. Washington, DC: American (AACC). 2000. National Community College Educational Research Association. Snapshot. Washington, DC: Author. Available at Ariza, E.N., Knee, R.H., and Ridge, M.L. 2000. <> “Uniting teachers to embrace 21st centuryAmerican Chemical Society (ACS). 1989. technology: A critical mass in a cohort of Recommendations for the Education of Chemistry colleagues.” Technological Horizons in Educa- Teachers. Washington, DC: American Chemical tion. 27(10): 22-30. Society Committee on Education. Arons, A.B. 1990. A Guide to Introductory PhysicsAmerican Council on Education (ACE). 1999. To Teaching. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Asimov, N. 1999. “Neediest students get least- Teachers Are Taught. An Action Agenda for prepared teachers.” San Francisco Chronicle, College and University Presidents. Washington, Dec. 3, 1999. Also available at <http:// DC: Author. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/American Federation of Teachers (AFT). 2000. chronicle/archive/1999/12/03/ Building a Profession: Strengthening Teacher MN45594.DTL>. Preparation and Induction. Report of the K-16 Association for the Education of Teachers of Teacher Education Task Force. Washington, Science (AETS). 1997. Professional Standards DC: Author. Also available at <http:// for Science Teacher Educators. Available at www.aft.org/higher_ed/reports/ <http://www.aets.unr.edu>. K16report.html>. Association of American Universities (AAU).American Institute of Physics (AIP). 1999. 1999. “Resolution on Teacher Education.” Statement on the Education of Future Teach- Washington, DC: Association of American 131
    • Universities. Available at <http:// Order of mathematics education reform.” www.tulane.edu/~aau/TeacherEdRes.html>. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Bacon, W.S. 2000. Bringing the Excitement of 24(2): 2-23. Science to the Classroom: Using Summer Boyer, S., and Layman, J.1998. “CEPT Guide- Research Programs to Invigorate High School lines: introduction.” In NSF Collaboratives for Science. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. Excellence in Teacher Preparation: Guidelines Ball, D.L. 1988. “Research on teacher learning: for Reform. Fourth annual CEPT meeting in Studying how teachers’ knowledge changes.” Arlington, Virginia. Washington DC: National Action in Teacher Education 10(2): 17-24. Science Foundation. Ball, D.L. 1990. “Prospective elementary and Brandt, R., ed. 2000. Education in a New Era. secondary teachers’ understanding of division. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision “Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa- and Curriculum Development. tion 21: 132-144. Brennan, S., Thames, W., and Roberts, R. 1999. Ball, D.L. 1997. “Developing Mathematics “Kentucky—Mentoring for Success.” Educa- Reform: What Don’t We Know About Teacher tional Leadership 56(8): 49-52. Learning-But Would Make Good Working Brown, C.A., and Borko, H. 1992. Becoming a Hypotheses.” In Friel, S.N., and Bright, G.W. Mathematics Teacher. In Grouws, D.A. (ed.), (eds.), Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching Enhancement in Mathematics. New York: and Learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing. University Press of America. Brown, C.A., Silver, E.A., and Smith, M.S. 1995. Ball, D.L. 1998. “Unlearning to teach mathe- The Missing Link in Mathematics Instructional matics.” For the Learning of Mathematics 8(1): Reform in Urban Schools: The Assistance 40-48. Provided by Resource Partners in the QUASAR Ball, D.L., and Wilson, S.M. 1990. “Becoming a Project. Presentation at the annual meeting of Mathematics Teacher through College-Based the American Educational Research Associa- and Alternate Routes: The Relationship tion, San Francisco, April. between Knowing Your Subject and Learning Byrd, D.M., and McIntyre, S.J. 1999. Research on to Teach It.” Paper presented at the annual Professional Development Schools: Teacher meeting of the American Educational Research Education Yearbook VII. Thousand Oaks, CA: Association, April 1990, Boston. Corwin Press, Becker, H.J. 1990. “Computer use in the United Callan, P.M., and Usdan, M.D. 1999. “Two States: 1989. An initial report of U.S. participa- different worlds.” American School Board tion in the IEA computers in education survey.” Journal, December issue. pp. 44-46. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Carlsen, W.S. 1987. “Why do you ask? The effects American Educational Research Association, of science teacher subject-matter knowledge April 1990, Boston. on teacher questioning and classroom Becker, H.J., and Anderson, R. 1998. “Teaching, discourse.” Paper presented at the annual Learning, and Computing: 1998.” Available at meeting of the American Educational Research <http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/ Association (ERIC Document Reproduction findings.html>. Service NO.ED 293: 181). Biehle, J.T., Motz, L.L, and West, S.S. 1999. NSTA Carlsen, W. 1988. “The effect of science teacher Guide to School Science Facilities. Arlington, subject matter knowledge on teacher question- VA: National Science Teachers Association. ing and classroom discourse. Unpublished Boles, K., and Troen, V. 1997. “How the emer- doctoral dissertation.” Stanford University, CA. gence of teacher leadership helped build a Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Petersen, P. L., and professional development school.” In Levine, Carey, D. 1988. “Teachers’ pedagogical content M. and Trachtman, R. (eds.), Making Profes- knowledge of students’ problem solving in sional Development Schools Work. New York: elementary arithmetic.” Journal for Research in Teachers College Press. Mathematics Education 19: 385-401. Borko, H., et al. 1993. “To teach mathematics for Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, A., Peterson, P.L., conceptual or procedural knowledge? A Chiang, C., and Loef, M. 1989. “Using knowl- dilemma of learning to teach in the New World edge of children’s mathematics thinking in132 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • classroom teaching: an experimental study.” Cuban, L., and Kirkpatrick, H. 1998. “Computers Educational Research Journal 26(4): 499-531. make kids smarter, right?” Technos 7(2): 26-31.CEO Forum on Education and Technology. 1999. Darling-Hammond, L. 1997. The Right to Learn: A “Professional Development: A Link to Better Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work. San Learning.” The CEO Forum School Technol- Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ogy and Readiness Report. Washington, DC: Darling-Hammond, L. 1998. “Teachers and Author. Teaching: Testing Policy Hypotheses from aCEO Forum on Education and Technology. 2000. National Commission Report.” Educational “Repairing a New Generation of Teachers— Researcher 27(1): 5-15. Teacher Preparation STaR Chart: A Self- Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. 1998. Assessment Tool for Colleges of Education.” “Investing in Teaching: The Dividend Is Washington, DC: Author. Student Achievement.” Education Week, MayChaney, B 1995. “Student outcomes and the 27, 1998, p. 48. professional preparation of eighth-grade Darling-Hammond, L., and Macdonald, M.B. teachers in science and mathematics: NSF/ 2000. “Where There Is Learning There Is NELS.” Rockville, MD: Westat. Hope: The Preparation of Teachers at the BankCoble, C.R., and Koballa, T. R. 1996. Science Street College of Education.” In Darling- Education. Handbook of Research on Science Hammond, L. (ed.). Studies of Excellence in Teaching and Learning. National Science Teacher Education: Preparation at the Graduate Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan Level. Washington, DC: American Association Publishing. of Colleges for Teacher Education. pp. 1-95.Cochran, K.F. 1997. “Pedagogical content Del Prete, T. 1997. “The rounds model of profes- knowledge: Teachers’ integration of subject sional development.” From the Inside 1(1): 12-13. matter, pedagogy, students, and learning Dietz, M.E. 1999. “Critical Components in the environments.” Brief. Research Matters – to the Preparation of Teachers.” In Roth, R.A. (ed.) Science Teacher. No. 9702. National Associa- The Role of the University in the Preparation of tion of Research in Science Teaching. Teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press, pp.Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H.C. 1998. Instructional 226-240. Policy and Classroom Performance: The Downes, S. 2000. “Commentary: Nine Rules for Mathematics Reform in California. CPRE Good Technology.” Technology Source, July/ Research Report Series. RR-39. August issue. Also available at <http://Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2000- McPortland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfield, E.D., 07a.asp>. and York, R. 1966. “Equality of Educational Druva, C.A., and Anderson, R.D. 1983. “Science Opportunity.” Washington DC: U.S. Govern- Teacher Characteristics by Teacher Behavior ment Printing Office. and by Student Outcome: A Meta-Analysis ofConference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Research.”Journal of Research in Science (CBMS). In preparation. “CBMS Mathematical Training 20(5): 467-479. Education of Teachers Project.” Draft Report, - Edelfelt, R. (ed.). 1999. “University-School March 2000. Available at <http:// Teacher Education Partnerships: First Year www.maa.org/cbms/metdraft/index.htm> Report.” Chapel Hill, NC: University of NorthConfrey, J., Castro-Filho, J., and Wilhelm, J. In Carolina. Also available at <http:// press. “Implementation research as a means to www.ga.unc.edu/21stcenturyschools/reports/>. link systemic reform and applied psychology Education Commission of the States. 2000. In in mathematics education.” Educational Pursuit of Quality Teaching: Five Key Strategies Psychologist. for Policymakers. Denver, CO: Author.Cooney, T.J. 1994. “Teacher education as an Education Trust. 1998. “Good Teaching Matters— exercise in adaptation.” In: Aichele, D.B. and How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Coxford, A.F. (eds.), Professional Development Gap.” Thinking K-16 3(2). for Teachers of Mathematics, 1994 Yearbook Education Week. 2000. “Quality Counts 2000: Who Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Should Teach?” Available at <http:// Mathematics. pp. 9-22. www.edweek.org/sreports/qc00/>.R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 133
    • Feistritzer, C.E. 1999a. “The Evolution of Alterna- Goodlad, J. 1990. Teachers for Our Nation’s tive Teacher Certification.” The Educational Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Forum 58, Winter Edition, 132-138. Goodlad, J. 1994. Educational Renewal: Better Feistritzer, C.E. 1999b. The Making of a Teacher: Teachers, Better Schools. San Francisco: Jossey- A Report on Teacher Preparation in the U.S. Bass. Washington, DC: Center for Education Grouws, D.A., and Schultz, K.A. 1996. In Sikula, Information. J. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Feistritzer, C.E., and Chester, D.T. 2000. Alterna- Education, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. tive Teacher Certification: a State-by-State Halford, J.M. 1998. “Easing the way for new Analysis. Washington DC: National Center for teachers.” Educational Leadership 55(5): Education Information. 33-36. Fennema, E., and Franke, M.L. 1992. “Teachers’ Hanushek, E.A. 1992. “The Trade-off between knowledge and its impact.” In: Grouws, D.A. Child Quantity and Quality.” Journal of Political (ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Economy 100(1): 84-117. Teaching and Learning. Reston, VA: National Harmon, M., Smith, T.A., Martin, M.O., Kelly, Council of Teachers of Mathematics. D.L., Beaton, A.E, Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., Ferguson, R.F. 1991. “Paying for public educa- and Orpwood, G. 1997. Performance Assessment tion: new evidence on how and why money in IEA’s Third International Mathematics and matters.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 28(2): Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: International 465-498. Association for the Evaluation of Educational Ferguson, R.F., and Ladd, H.F. 1996. “How and Achievement. Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Hart, P.D. Research Associates, Inc. 1999. “Key Schools. “In Ladd, Helen (ed.), Holding Schools Findings from Research on Young Americans’ Accountable. Washington DC: The Brookings Interest in the Public School Teaching Institution. Profession.” Report commissioned by the Fetler, M. 1999. “High School Staff Characteris- Milken Family Foundation. Santa Monica, CA: tics and Mathematics Test Results.” Education Milken Family Foundation. Policy Analysis Archives 7(9): 1-19. Haselkorn, D., and Harris, L. 1998. The Essential Fideler, E.F., and Haselkorn, D. 1999. Learning Profession: a National Survey of Public Attitudes the Ropes: Urban Teacher Induction Programs Toward Teaching, Educational Opportunity, and Practices in the United States. Belmont, and School Reform. Belmont, MA: Recruiting MA: Recruiting New Teachers. New Teachers. Flexner, A. 1910. “Medical education in the Hashweh, M.Z. 1986. “An exploratory study of United States and Canada: a report to the teacher knowledge and teaching: the effects of Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of science teachers’ knowledge of subject matter Teaching.” New York: Bulletin of the Carnegie and their conceptions of learning on their Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, teaching.” Doctoral dissertation, Stanford Vol. 4. University, 1985. Dissertation Abstracts Fuhrman, H., and Massell, D. 1992. Issues and International 46:3672A. Strategies in Systemic Reform. New Brunswick, Hashweh, M. 1987. “Effects of subject matter NJ and Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for knowledge in the teaching of biology and Policy Research in Education (CPRE). physics.” Teaching and Teacher Education 3(2): Fullan, M.G. 1993. Why Teachers Must Become 109-120. Change Agents. Educational Leadership 50(6). Hawk, P., Coble, C., and Swanson, M. 1985. Gess-Newsome, J., and Lederman, N. 1993. “Certification: It Does Matter.” Journal of “Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge Teacher Education. May-June issue. structures as a function of professional teacher Hawkins, E.F., Stancavage, F.B., and Dossey, J.A. education: A year-long assessment.” Science 1998. “School Policies and Practices Affecting Education 77, 25-45. Instruction in Mathematics: Findings from the Good, T., Biddle, B., and Brophy, J. 1975. National Assessment of Educational Progress.” Teachers Make a Difference. New York: Holt, National Center for Education Statistics. Office Rinehart and Winston. of Educational Research and Improvement.134 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Office. Reston, VA: Author.Henderson, D. 2000. “Texas Teachers, Moon- Interstate New Teacher Support Consortium lighting, and Morale: 1980-2000.” Austin, TX: (INTASC). 1999. Core Standards. See <http:// Texas State Teachers Association. facstaff.uww.edu/speced/course/Heuser, D., and Owens, R.F. 1999. “Planting INTASC_Standards.htm >. See also <http:// Seeds, Planting Teachers.” Educational www.ccsso.org/intascst.html>. Leadership 56(8): 53-56. Kelley, C., Odden, A., Milanowski, A., andHirsch, E. 2000. “Teacher Pay for Performance.” Heneman III, H. 2000. “The Motivational LegisBrief Series. Washington, DC: National Effects of School-Based Performance Awards.” Council of State Legislatures. CPRE Policy Briefs. February ed. Philadelphia,Hoff, D.L. 2000. “Science Teachers’ Turnover PA: University of Pennsylvania Graduate Dissatisfaction High, Survey Finds.” Education School of Education. Week. April 19, 2000. Kent, T., and McNergney, R. 1999. Will Technol-Holmes Group. 1986. Tomorrow’s Teachers. East ogy Really Change Education? From Blackboard Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group. Summary to Web. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. available at <http://www.baylor.edu/~SOE/ King, B., and Newman, F.M. 2000. “Will Teacher SCHOLMES/TT.HTML>. Learning Advance School Goals?” Phi DeltaHolmes Group. 1990. Tomorrow’s Schools: Kappan 81(8): 576. Principles for the Design of Professional Knuth, R., Hopey, C., and Rocap, K. (eds.) 1996. Development Schools. East Lansing, MI: The Guiding Questions for Technology Planning. Holmes Group. Oak Brook, IL: North Central RegionalHolmes Group. 1995. Tomorrow’s Schools of Educational Laboratory. Available at <http:// Education. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/ Group. gqhome.htm>.Houston, W.R., Hollis, LY., Clay, D., Ligons, C.M., Koppich, J.K. 2000. “Trinity University: Preparing and Roff, L. 1999. “The Effects of Collaboration Teachers for Tomorrow’s Schools.” In Darling- on Urban Teacher Education Programs and Hammond, L. (ed.). Studies of Excellence in Professional Development Schools.” In Teacher Education: Preparation in a Five- Year Research on Professional Development Schools, Program. Washington, DC: American Associa- Teacher Education Yearbook VII. Thousand tion of Colleges for Teacher Education. pp. 1-48. Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lampert, M., and Ball, D.L. 1990. “UsingHoward Hughes Medical Institute.1996. Beyond hypermedia technology to support a new BIO 101. Chevy Chase, MD: Author. pedagogy of teacher education.” Issue paperHowey, K. 1996. “Designing Coherent and No. 90-5. Lansing, MI: National Center for Effective Teacher Education Programs.” In: Research on Teacher Education. Sikula, J., Buttery, T., and Guyton, E. (eds.). Lampert, M., and Ball, D.L. 1998. Teaching, Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Multimedia, and Mathematics: Investigations of 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. pp. 143-170. Real Practice. New York: Teachers CollegeHuling-Austin, L., 1992. “Research on Learning to Press. Teach: Implications for Teacher Induction and Learning First Alliance. 1998. Every Child Mentoring Programs.” Journal of Teacher Mathematically Proficient: An Action Plan. Education 43(3): 173-180. Washington, DC: Author.Imel, S. 1992. “Reflective Practice in Adult Lederman, N.G., and Gess-Newsome, J. 1999. Education.” ERIC Digest No. 122. Also Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. available at <http://www.ed.gov/databases/ The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ERIC_Digests/ed346319.html>. Lewis, J., and Tucker, A. In press. The Mathemat-Ingersoll, R.M. 1999. “The Problem of Under- ics Education of Teachers. See <www.maa.org/ qualified Teachers in American Secondary cbms>. Schools.” Educational Researcher 28(2): 26-37. Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E. Smerdon, B.,International Technology Education Association Cronen, S., Kaplan, J., and Greene, B. 2000. (ITEA). 2000. Standards for Technological Condition of America’s Public School Facilities:R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 135
    • 1999. NCES 2000-032. National Center for Reform: Implications for Mathematics Teacher Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Preparation.” Journal of Teacher Education Department of Education. Also available at 48(3). <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ Maryland State Department of Education. 1998. pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000032>. “Recommendations of Strategic Directions for Loucks-Horsley, S., Bybee, R.W., and Wild, E.L.C. Professional Development in Maryland’s 1996. “The Role of Community Colleges in the Public Schools, 1996-2000.” Fact Sheet 42. Professional Development of Science Teach- Annapolis, MD: Author. See also <http:// ers.” Journal of College Science Teaching 26(2): www.msde.state.md.us/fact%20sheets/ 130-134. fact42.html>. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., and Mathematical Association of America (MAA). Stiles, K.E. 1998. Designing Professional 1991. A Call for Change: Recommendations for Development for Teachers of Science and the Mathematical Preparation of Teachers of Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Mathematics. Leitzel, J.R.C. (ed.). Washington, Press. DC: Author. Loucks-Horsley, S., and Matsumoto, C. 1999. Means, B. 2000. “Technology in America’s “Research on professional development for Schools: Before and After Y2K.” In Brandt, Ron teachers of mathematics and science: the state (ed.), Education in a New Era. Alexandria, VA: of the scene.” School Science and Mathematics Association for Supervision and Curriculum 99(5): 258-271. Development. Loughran, J. 1997. “Teaching about teaching: Merseth, K.K., 1993. How old is the shepherd? principles and practice.” In Loughran, J., and An essay about mathematics education. Phi Russell, T., Teaching about Teaching: Purpose, Delta Kappan 74: 548-554. Passion, and Pedagogy in Teacher Education. Merseth, K.K., and Koppich, J.K. 2000. “Teacher Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Education at the University of Virginia: A Ma, L. 1999. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Study of English and Mathematics Prepara- Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of tion.” In Darling-Hammond, L. (ed.), Studies of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the Excellence in Teacher Education: Preparation in United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum a Five-Year Program. Washington, DC: Associates. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Mangan, K.S. 2000. “Aviation centers take off as Education. pp. 49-81. airlines face pilot shortfall.” Chronicle of Higher Milken Family Foundation. 1999. “Will New Education 46(20), A47 Teachers Be Prepared to Teach in a Digital McCullough, L., and Mintz, S. 1992. “Concerns of Age?: A National Survey on Information preservice students in the USA about the Technology in Teacher Education.” Los practice of teaching.” Journal of Education for Angeles, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Teaching 18(1): 59-67. Available at <http://www.mff.org/publica- McDiarmid, G.W., Ball, D.L., and Anderson, C.W. tions/>. 1989. “Why staying ahead one chapter doesn’t Minstrell, J. 1999. “Expertise in Teaching.” In really work: Subject-specific pedagogy.” In Sternberg, R. and Horvath, J. (eds.), Tacit Reynolds, M.C. (ed.), Knowledge Base for the Knowledge in Professional Practice. Mahwah, Beginning Teacher. New York: Pergamon. NJ: Erlbaum. McIntyre, J., Byrd, D. and Foxx, S. 1996. Field Mundry, S., Spector, B., Stiles, K., and Loucks- and Laboratory Experiences. In Handbook of Horsley, S. 1999. Working Toward a Continuum Research on Teacher Education, 171-193, 2nd of Professional Learning Experiences for ed. Sikula, J. (ed.), New York: Macmillan Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Madison, Library. WI: National Center for Science Education, McNeal, A.P., and D’Avanzo, C.D. (eds.). 1997. University of Wisconsin. Student Active Science: Models of Innovation in Murnane, R.J., and Levy, F. 1997. “The new College Science Teaching. Fort Worth, TX: basics.” American School Board Journal. April Harcourt Brace. issue, pp. 26-29. Manouchehri, A. 1997. “School Mathematics Murray, F.B. 1996. “Beyond Natural Teaching:136 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • The Case for Professional Education.” In The NRC. 1991. Moving Beyond Myths: Revitalizing Teacher Educator’s Handbook: Building a Undergraduate Mathematics. Washington, DC: Knowledge Base for the Preparation of Teachers. National Academy Press. Also available at San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/1782.html>.National Association of Biology Teachers NRC. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an (NABT). 1990. “Characteristics of an Outstand- Adaptive System. Washington, DC: National ing Biology Teacher.” Position statement of the Academy Press. Also available at <http:// Board of Directors. Reston, VA: Author. books.nap.edu/catalog/4907.html>. Available at <http://www.nabt.org/ NRC. 1996a. National Science Education characteristics.html>. Standards. Washington, DC: National AcademyNational Board for Professional Teaching Stan- Press. Also available at <http:// dards (NBPTS). 1994. What Teachers Should books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.htmll>. Know and Be Able to Do. Detroit, MI: Author. NRC. 1996b. “The Preparation of Teachers ofNational Commission on Excellence in Education Mathematics: Considerations and Challenges. (NCEE). 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Impera- A Letter Report from the Mathematical tive for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Sciences Education Board.” (MSEB) Washing- U.S. Department of Education. Also available ton, DC: MSEB. at <http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/>. NRC. 1997a. Improving Teacher Preparation andNational Commission on Mathematics and Credentialing Consistent with the National Science Teaching for the 21st Century. 2000. Science Education Standards: Report of a Before It’s Too Late. Jessup, MD: Education Symposium. Washington, DC: National Publications Center. Academy Press. Also available at <http://National Commission on Teaching and America’s books.nap.edu/catalog/5592.html>. Future (NCTAF). 1996. What Matters Most: NRC. 1997b. Science Teacher Preparation in an Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Era of Standards-Based Reform. Washington, Author. DC: National Academy Press. Also available atNCTAF. 1997. Doing What Matters Most: Invest- <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9078.html>. ing in Quality Teaching. New York: Author. NRC. 1997c. Science Teaching Reconsidered: ANational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Handbook. Washington, DC: National Academy Education (NCATE). 2000. NCATE 2000 Unit Press. Also available at <http:// Standards. Washington, DC: Author. Available books.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html>. at < http://www.ncate.org/2000/ NRC. 1998. Developing a Digital National Library pressrelease.htm> for Undergraduate Science, Mathematics,National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Engineering, and Technology Education. (NCTM). 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Also available at <http://books.nap.edu/ Author. catalog/5952.html>.NCTM. 1991. Professional Standards for Teaching NRC. 1999a. Being Fluent with Information Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Technology. Washington, DC: National Acad-NCTM. 2000. Principles and Standards for School emy Press. Also available at <http:// Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. books.nap.edu/catalog/6482.html>.National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Every- NRC. 1999b. The Changing Nature of Work: body Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Implications for Occupational Analysis. Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DC: National Academy Press. Also available at Also available at <http://books.nap.edu/ <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309039770/ catalog/9600.html>. html/97.html>. NRC. 1999c. Global Perspectives for Local Action:NRC. 1990. Reshaping School Mathematics: A Using TIMSS to Improve U.S. Mathematics and Philosophy and Framework for Curriculum. Science Education. Washington, DC: National Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Academy Press. Also available at <http:// Also available at <http://books.nap.edu/ books.nap.edu/catalog/9605.html>. catalog/1498.html>. NRC. 1999d. How People Learn: Brain, Mind,R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 137
    • Experience, and School. Bransford, John D., Teachers. Report from a National Science Brown, Ann L., and Cocking, Rodney R. (eds.). Foundation Workshop. NSF-9949. Arlington, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. VA: Author. Also available at <http:// Also available at <http://books.nap.edu/ www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf9949>. catalog/6160.html>. NSF. 2000. National Science, Mathematics, NRC. 1999e. How People Learn: Bridging Engineering, and Technology Education Research and Practice. Donovan, M.S., Digital Library (NSDL)—Program Solicitation. Bransford, J.D., and Pellegrino, J.W. (eds.). Arlington, VA: Author. Available at <http:// Washington, DC: National Academy Press. www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf0044>. Also available at <http://books.nap.edu/ National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). catalog/9457.html>. 1996. A Framework for High School Science NRC. 1999f. Improving Student Learning: A Education. Arlington, VA: Author. Additional Strategic Plan for Education Research and Its information is available at <http:// Utilization. Washington, DC: National Acad- www.nsta.org/store/ emy Press. Also available at <http:// fromoutside.asp?prodnum=PB132X>. books.nap.edu/catalog/6488.html>. NSTA. 1998. NSTA Standards for Science Teacher NRC. 1999g. Serving the Needs of Pre-College Preparation. Arlington, VA: Author. Science and Mathematics Education: Impact of NSTA. 2000. “Science Teacher Credentials, a Digital National Library on Teacher Educa- Assignments, and Job Satisfaction: Results of a tion and Practice. Proceedings from a National Survey.” Arlington, VA: Author. Also available Research Council Workshop. Washington, DC: at <http://www.nsta.org/pressrel/ National Academy Press. Also available at survey2000.asp>. <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9584.html>. Neuschatz, M., and McFarling, M. 1999. NRC. 1999h. Transforming Undergraduate Maintaining Momentum: High School Physics Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineer- for a New Millennium. College Park, MD: ing, and Technology. Washington, DC: National American Institute of Physics. Report #R-427. Academy Press. Also available at <http:// Also available at <https://webster.aip.org/ books.nap.edu/catalog/6453.html>. forms/statorder.htm> NRC. 2000a. Inquiry and the National Science Newmann, F., and Wehlage, G. 1995. Successful Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and School Restructuring. Madison, WI: Center on Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Organization and Restructuring Schools, Press. Also available at <http:// University of Wisconsin. books.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html>. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. NRC. 2000b. Knowing and Learning Mathematics 1999. “Teacher Salary and Reward Strategies.” for Teaching: Proceedings of a Workshop. Oak Brook, IL: Author. Available at <http:// Washington, DC: National Academy Press. www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/ National Science Board (NSB). 1999. “Preparing go/go3sal.htm>. our children: math and science education in Odden, A. 2000. “New and better forms of the national interest.” NSB 99-31. Arlington, teacher compensation are possible.” Phi Delta VA: National Science Foundation. Also Kappan 81(5): 361-366. available at <http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/ Odden, A., and Kelley, C. 1997. Paying Teachers documents/1999/nsb9931/nsb9931.htm>. for What They Know and Do: New and Smarter National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. Compensation Strategies to Improve Schools. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Undergraduate Education in Science, Math- Olebe, M., Jackson, A., and Danielson, C. 1999. ematics, Engineering, and Technology. Arling- “Investing in beginning teachers: The Califor- ton, VA: National Science Foundation. Also nia model.” Educational Leadership 56(8): 41-44. available at <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/ Olson, L. 1999. “Pay-performance link in getpub?nsf96139>. salaries gains momentum.” Education Week NSF. 1998. Investing in Tomorrow’s Teachers: The 19(7): 1 and 18. Also available at <http:// Integral Role of Two-Year Colleges in the Science www.edweek.com/ew/ewstor y.cfm?slug= and Mathematics Preparation of Prospective 07pay.h19&keywords=Olson>.138 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Public Agenda. 2000. A Sense of Calling: Who Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN: Teaches and Why. New York: Author. Also University of Tennessee Value-Added Research available at <http://www.publicagenda.org/ and Assessment Center. specials/teachers/teachers.htm>. Schempp, P.G., Tan, S., Manross, D., andRaizen, S.A., and Michelsohn, A.M. 1994. The Fincher, M. 1998. “Differences in novice and Future of Science in Elementary Schools: competent teachers’ knowledge.” Teachers and Educating Prospective Teachers. The National Teaching: Theory and Practice. 4(1): 9-20. Center for Improving Science Education. San Schon, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: Francisco: Jossey-Bass. How Professionals Think in Action. New York:Resnick, L.B., and Hall, M.W. 1998. “Learning Basic Books. organizations for sustainable education Schon, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitio- reform.” Daedalus 127(4): 89-118. ner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Richardson, S.W. 1994. The Professional Develop- Schon, D. 1988. “Coaching Reflective Teaching.” ment School: A Common Sense Approach to In Grimmett, P.P., and Erickson, G.L. (eds.) Improving Education. Forth Worth, TX: Said Reflection in Teacher Education. New York: W. Richardson Foundation. Teachers College Press.Rigden, D.W. 1996. “What Teachers Have to Say Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M. 1997. Talking about Teacher Education.” Washington, DC: About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Council for Basic Education. Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Riley, R.W. 1998. “An end to quiet backwaters: Shields, P.M., Esch, C., Humphrey, D.C., Young, Universities must make teacher education a V.M., Gaston, M., and Hunt, H. 1999. The much higher day-to-day priority.” Speech given Status of the Teaching Profession: Research at the National Press Club. Reprinted in Findings and Policy Recommendations. A Chronicle of Higher Education 45(5), B10. Report to the Teaching and California’s FutureRiley, R.W. 2000. “Setting new expectations.” Task Force. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Seventh Annual State of American Education Future of Teaching and Learning. Address, February 22, 2000, Durham, NC. Shulman, L. 1986. “Those who understand: Available at <http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/02- Knowledge growth in teaching.” Educational 2000/000222.html>. Researcher 15,4-14.Rodriguez, E.M. 1998. Preparing Quality Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and teaching: Teachers: Issues and Trends in the States. Foundations of the new reform.” Harvard Washington, DC: State Higher Education Educational Review 57,1-22. Executive Officers. Shulman, L., and Grossman, P. 1988. “KnowledgeRomberg, T.A. (1994). “School Mathematics: growth in teaching: A final report to the Options for the 1990s (Volume 1).” Chairman’s Spencer Foundation.” Stanford, CA: Stanford report of a conference. Washington, DC: Office University. of Educational Research and Improvement, Shroyer, M.G., Wright, E.L. and Ramey-Gassert, U.S. Department of Education. L. 1996. “An innovative model for collaborativeRothman, F., and Narum, J. 1999. “Then, Now, reform in elementary school science reform.” and in the Next Decade: A Commentary on Journal of Science Teacher Education 7(3): 151- Strengthening Undergraduate Science, 168. Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Silverstein, S.C. 2000. “Impact of Teacher Education.” Washington, DC: Project Kaleido- Participation in Columbia University’s Summer scope. Research Program for Science Teachers onRust, E. 1998. “Business Cares about Math and Interest and Achievement of Their Students in Science Achievement.” In Business Coalition Science: A Preliminary Report.” Paper for Education Reform, The Formula for Success: presented at the annual meeting of the A Business Leader’s Guide to Supporting Math American Society for Cell Biology, Washing- and Science Achievement. Washington, DC: ton, DC, December 15, 1999. National Alliance for Business. pp. 11-14. Smith, M.S., and O’Day, J. 1991. “SystemicSanders, W.L., and Rivers, J.C. 1996. Cumulative School Reform.” In Fuhrman, S. and Malen, B. and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future (eds.). Politics of Curriculum and Testing: TheR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 139
    • 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-94. Association, London: Falmer. pp. 233-267. NCES 97-460. Washington, DC: National Snyder, J. 2000. “Knowing Children—Under- Center for Education Statistics. standing Teaching: The Developmental U.S. Department of Education. 1997b. National Teacher Education Program at the University Center for Education Statistics. Digest of of California-Berkeley.” In Darling-Hammond, Education Statistics. NCES 98-015. Washing- L. (ed.), Studies of Excellence in Teacher ton, DC: National Center for Education Education: Preparation at the Graduate Level. Statistics. See also <http://nces.ed.gov/ Washington, DC: American Association of pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000031>. Colleges for Teacher Education. pp. 97-172. U.S. Department of Education. 1999. National Sparks, D., and Hirsh, S. 2000. “A National Plan Center for Education Statistics. Digest of for Improving Professional Development.” Education Statistics. Washington, DC: National Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Center for Education Statistics. See also Council. Report is available on-line at <http:// <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ www.nsdc.org/library/NSDCPlan.html>. pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000031>. Steinberg, R., Haymore, J. and Marks, R. 1985. Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, “Teachers’ knowledge and structuring content M., Hawkes, M., and Raack, L. 1999. Computer- in mathematics.” Paper presented at the Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses meeting of the American Educational Research and Expectations. Oak Brook, IL: North Association, April 1985, Chicago. Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Stigler, J.W., and Hiebert, J. 1997. “Understand- Available at <http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/ ing and improving classroom mathematics toc.htm>. instruction.” Phi Delta Kappan 79: 14-21. Wasley, P. 1999. “Teaching worth celebrating.” Stigler, J.W., and Hiebert, J. 1999. The Teaching Educational Leadership 56(8): 8-13. Gap. New York: The Free Press. Whitford, B.L., and Metcalf-Turner, P. 1999. “Of Stoddart, T., and Floden, R.W. 1995. “Traditional promises and unresolved puzzles: Reforming and alternative routes to teacher certification: teacher education through Professional issues, assumptions, and misconceptions. “In Development Schools.” In Griffin, G.A. (ed.), Zeichner, K. (ed.). Reforming Teacher Educa- The Education of Teachers: Ninety-eighth tion in the United States. New York: Teachers Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of College Press. Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Trachtman, R. 1996. The NCATE professional Press. pp. 257-278. development school study: A survey of 28 PDS Whitford, B.L., Ruscoe, G., and Fickel, L. 2000. sites. Unpublished manuscript. (Available “Knitting It All Together: Collaborative from Professional Development School Teacher Education in Southern Maine.” In: Standards Project, National Council for Darling-Hammond, L. (ed.). Studies of Excel- Accreditation of Teacher Education, Washing- lence in Teacher Education: Preparation at the ton, DC 20036. Graduate Level. Washington, DC: American Urban Teacher Collaborative. 2000. The Urban Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and pp. 173-257. Supply in the Great City Schools. Belmont, MA: Wiley, D., and Yoon, B. 1995. “Teacher Reports of Recruiting New Teachers, Council of the Great Opportunity to Learn: Analyses of the 1993 City Schools, Council of the Great City California Learning Assessment System.” Colleges of Education. Also available at <http:/ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis /www.rnt.org/quick/new.html>. 17(3): 355-370. U.S. Department of Education. 1996. National Wilson, S.M., Shulman L.S., and Richert, A.E. Center for Education Statistics. Pursuing 1987. “150 different ways of knowing: Repre- Excellence. NCES 97-198. Washington, DC: sentation of knowing in teaching.” In U.S. Government Printing Office. See also Calderhead, J. (ed.), Exploring Teachers’ <http://www.ed.gov/NCES/timss>. Thinking. London: Cassell. pp. 104-124. U.S. Department of Education. 1997a. National Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L. 1997. Center for Education Statistics. America’s “Teacher and classroom context effects on140 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • student achievement: implications for teacher Education: Elementary Teacher Education at evaluation.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Alverno College.” In Darling-Hammond, L. Education 11: 57-67. (ed.), Studies of Excellence in Teacher Educa-Yates, A. 1995. “Higher education has a link to tion: Preparation in the Undergraduate Years. real reform at the K-12 level.” The Denver Post, Washington, DC: American Association of April 29, 8b. Colleges for Teacher Education. pp. 1-66.Zeichner, K. 2000. “Ability-Based TeacherR E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 141
    • Appendix A Standards for Teacher Development and Professional ConductFrom the National Science • Address issues, events, problems, orEducation Standards topics significant in science and of(National Research Council, 1996a; interest to participants.excerpted from pages 55-73) • Introduce teachers to scientific literature, media, and technological resources that expand their sciencePROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT knowledge and their ability to access further knowledge.STANDARD A: • Build on the teacher’s current science understanding, ability, and attitudes. Professional development for teach- • Incorporate ongoing reflection on theers of science requires learning essen- process and outcomes of understand-tial science content through the per- ing science through inquiry.spectives and methods of inquiry. • Encourage and support teachers inScience learning experiences for teach- efforts to collaborate.ers must STANDARD B:• Involve teachers in actively investigat- Professional development for teach- ing phenomena that can be studied ers of science requires integrating scientifically, interpreting results, and knowledge of science, learning, peda- making sense of findings consistent gogy, and students; it also requires with currently accepted scientific applying that knowledge to science understanding. teaching. Learning experiences for teachers of science must 143
    • • Connect and integrate all pertinent collegial reflection, such as peer aspects of science and science educa- coaching, portfolios, and journals. tion. • Support the sharing of teacher exper- • Occur in a variety of places where tise by preparing and using mentors, effective science teaching can be teacher advisers, coaches, lead illustrated and modeled, permitting teachers, and resource teachers to teachers to struggle with real situa- provide professional development tions and expand their knowledge and opportunities. skills in appropriate contexts. • Provide opportunities to know and • Address teachers’ needs as learners have access to existing research and and build on their current knowledge experiential knowledge. of science content, teaching, and • Provide opportunities to learn and learning. use the skills of research to generate • Use inquiry, reflection, interpretation new knowledge about science and the of research, modeling, and guided teaching and learning of science. practice to build understanding and skill in science teaching. STANDARD D: Professional development programs STANDARD C: for teachers of science must be coher- Professional development for teach- ent and integrated. Quality preservice ers of science requires building under- and inservice programs are character- standing and ability for lifelong learning. ized by Professional development activities must • Clear, shared goals based on a vision of science learning, teaching, and • Provide regular, frequent opportuni- teacher development congruent with ties for individual and collegial exami- the National Science Education nation and reflection on classroom Standards. and institutional practice. • Integration and coordination of the • Provide opportunities for teachers to program components so that under- receive feedback about their teaching standing and ability can be built over and to understand, analyze, and apply time, reinforced continuously, and that feedback to improve their practice. practiced in a variety of situations. • Provide opportunities for teachers to • Options that recognize the develop- learn and use various tools and mental nature of teacher professional techniques for self-reflection and growth and individual and group144 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • interest, as well as the need of teach- • Posing worthwhile mathematical ers who have varying degrees of tasks; experience, professional expertise, • Engaging teachers in mathematical and proficiency. discourse;• Collaboration among the people • Enhancing mathematical discourse involved in programs, including through the use of a variety of tools, teachers, teacher educators, teacher including calculators, computers, and unions, scientists, administrators, physical and pictorial models; policy makers, members of profes- • Creating learning environments that sional and scientific organizations, support and encourage mathematical parents, and business people, with reasoning and teachers’ dispositions clear respect for the perspectives and and abilities to do mathematics; expertise of each. • Expecting and encouraging teachers• Recognition of the history, culture, to take intellectual risks in doing and organization of the school envi- mathematics and to work indepen- ronment. dently and collaboratively;• Continuous program assessment that • Representing mathematics as an captures the perspectives of all those ongoing human activity involved, uses a variety of strategies, • Affirming and supporting full partici- focuses on the process and effects of pation and continued study of math- the program, and feeds directly into ematics by all students. program improvement and evaluation. Standard 2. KnowingFrom the NCTM Standards for Mathematics and Schoolthe Professional Development of MathematicsTeachers of Mathematics The education of teachers of math-(National Council of Teachers of Math- ematics should develop their knowledgeematics, 1991, excerpted from pages of the content and discourse of math-127-173) ematics, including—Standard 1. Experiencing Good • Mathematical concepts and proce-Mathematics Teaching dures and the connections among Mathematics and mathematics them;education instructors in preservice and • Multiple representations of math-continuing education programs should ematical concepts and procedures;model good mathematics teaching by— • Ways to reason mathematically, solveAPPENDIX A 145
    • problems, and communicate math- • The influences of students’ linguistic, ematics effectively at different levels ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic of formality; backgrounds and gender on learning mathematics; And, in addition develop their per- • Ways to affirm and support full spectives on— participation and continued study of mathematics by all students. • The nature of mathematics, the contributions of different cultures Standard 4. Knowing toward the development of mathemat- Mathematical Pedagogy ics, and the role of mathematics in The preservice and continuing culture and society; education of teachers of mathematics • The changes in the nature of math- should develop teachers’ knowledge of ematics and the way we teach, learn, and ability to use and evaluate— and do mathematics resulting from the availability of technology; • Instructional materials and resources, • School mathematics within the including technology; discipline of mathematics; • Ways to represent mathematics • The changing nature of school math- concepts and procedures; ematics, its relationships to other • Instructional strategies and classroom school subjects, and its applications in organizational models; society. • Ways to promote discourse and foster a sense of mathematical community; Standard 3. Knowing Students • Means for assessing student under- as Learners of Mathematics standing of mathematics. The preservice and continuing education of teachers of mathematics Standard 5. Developing as a should provide multiple perspectives on Teacher of Mathematics students as learners of mathematics by The preservice and continuing educa- developing teachers’ knowledge of— tion of teachers of mathematics should provide them with opportunities to— • Research on how students learn mathematics; • Examine and revise their assumptions • The effects of students’ age, abilities, about the nature of mathematics, how interests, and experience on learning it should be taught, and how students mathematics; learn mathematics;146 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • • Observe and analyze a range of • Reflecting on learning and teaching approaches to mathematics teaching individually and with colleagues; and learning, focusing on the tasks, • Participating in workshop, courses, discourse, environment, and assess- and other educational opportunities ment; specific to mathematics;• Work with a diverse range of students • Participating actively in the profes- individually, in small groups, and in sional community of mathematics large class settings with guidance educators; from and in collaboration with math- • Reading and discussing ideas pre- ematics education professionals; sented in professional publications;• Analyze and evaluate the appropriate- • Discussing with colleagues issues in ness and effectiveness of their teach- mathematics and mathematics teach- ing; ing and learning;• Develop dispositions toward teaching • Participating in proposing, designing, mathematics. and evaluating programs for profes- sional development specific to math-Standard 6. The Teacher’s Role ematics;in Professional Development • Participating in school, community, Teachers of mathematics should take and political efforts to effect positivean active role in their own professional change in mathematics education.development by accepting responsibilityfor— Schools and school districts must support and encourage teachers in• Experimenting thoughtfully with accepting these responsibilities. alternative approaches and strategies in the classroom;APPENDIX A 147
    • Appendix B Overview of Content Standards from the National Science Education Standards and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics Science Content Standards for Unifying Concepts and Processes Grades K-12 Standard (From the National Science Education Unifying concepts and processes Standards, National Research Council, include 1996a, excerpted from pages 103-119) • Systems, order, and organization • Evidence, models, and explanation RATIONALE • Change, constancy, and measurement • Evolution and equilibrium The eight categories of content • Form and function standards are Science as Inquiry Standards • Unifying concepts and processes in Engaging students in inquiry helps science students develop • Science as inquiry • Physical science • Understanding of scientific concepts • Life science • An appreciation of “how we know” • Earth and space science what we know in science • Science and technology • Understanding of the nature of • Science in personal and social per- science spectives • Skills necessary to become indepen- • History and nature of science dent inquirers about the natural world • The dispositions to use the skills,148
    • abilities, and attitudes associated with and social perspectives standards help science students develop decision-making skills. Understandings associated with thesePhysical Science, Life Science, concepts give students a foundation onand Earth and Space Science which to base decisions they will face asStandards citizens. The standards for physical science,life science, and earth and space science History and Nature of Sciencedescribe the subject matter of science Standardsusing three widely accepted divisions of In learning science, students need tothe domain of science. Science subject understand that science reflects itsmatter focuses on the science facts, history and is an ongoing, changingconcepts, principles, theories, and enterprise. The standards for themodels that are important for all stu- history and nature of science recom-dents to know, understand, and use. mend the use of history in school science programs to clarify differentScience and Technology aspects of scientific inquiry, the humanStandards aspects of science, and the role that The science and technology stan- science has played in the developmentdards establish connections between of various cultures.the natural and designed worlds andprovide students with opportunities todevelop decision-making abilities. They FORM OF THE CONTENTare not standards for technology educa- STANDARDStion; rather, these standards emphasizeabilities associated with the process of Below is an example of a contentdesign and fundamental understandings standard.about the enterprise of science and itsvarious linkages with technology. Physical Science (Example) As a result of the activities in gradesScience in Personal and Social K-4, all students should develop anPerspectives Standards understanding of An important purpose of scienceeducation is to give students a means to • Properties of objects and materialsunderstand and act on personal and • Position and motion of objectssocial issues. The science in personal • Light, heat, electricity, and magnetismAPPENDIX B 149
    • Content is fundamental if it USE OF THE CONTENT STANDARDS • Represents a central event or phe- nomenon in the natural world. Persons responsible for science • Represents a central scientific idea curricula, teaching, assessment and and organizing principle. policy who use the Standards should • Has rich explanatory power. note the following • Guides fruitful investigations. • Applies to situations and contexts • None of the eight categories of con- common to everyday experiences. tent standards should be eliminated. • Can be linked to meaningful learning For instance, students should have experiences. opportunities to learn science in • Is developmentally appropriate for personal and social perspectives and students at the grade level specified. to learn about the history and nature of science, as well as to learn subject matter, in the school science program. CRITERIA FOR THE CONTENT • No standards should be eliminated STANDARDS from a category. For instance, “bio- logical evolution” cannot be elimi- Three criteria influence the selection nated from the life science standards. of science content. • Science content can be added. The connections, depth, detail, and selec- • The first is an obligation to the domain tion of topics can be enriched and of science. The subject matter in the varied as appropriate for individual physical, life, and earth and space students and school science program. science standards is central to sci- • The content standards must be used ence education and must be accurate. in the context of the standards on • The second criterion is an obligation teaching and assessments. Using the to develop content standards that standards with traditional teaching appropriately represent the develop- and assessment strategies defeats the ment and learning abilities of students. intentions of the National Science • The third criterion is an obligation to Education Standards. present standards in a usable form for those who must implement the standards.150 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Mathematics Content Standards • Represent and analyze mathematicalfor Grades K-12 situations and structures using(From National Council of Teachers of algebraic symbols;Mathematics, 2000, excerpted from • Use mathematical models to repre-pages 28-71) sent and understand quantitative relationships; • Analyze change in various contexts.PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH Geometry StandardGRADE 121 Instructional programs from prekindergarten through grade 12Number and Operations should enable all students to—Standard Instructional programs from • Analyze characteristics and proper-prekindergarten through grade 12 ties of two- and three-dimensionalshould enable all students to— geometric shapes and develop math- ematical arguments about geometric• Understand numbers, ways of repre- relationships; senting numbers, relationships • Specify locations and describe spatial among numbers, and number systems; relationships using coordinate geom-• Understand meanings of operations etry and other representational and how they relate to one another; systems;• Compute fluently and make reason- • Apply transformations and use sym- able estimates. metry to analyze mathematical situations; • Use visualization, spatial reasoning,Algebra Standard and geometric modeling to solve Instructional programs from pre- problems.kindergarten through grade 12 shouldenable all students to— Measurement Standard• Understand patterns, relations, and Instructional programs from functions; prekindergarten through grade 12 should enable all students to— 1Excerpted from National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) pages 29-71.APPENDIX B 151
    • • Understand measurable attributes of ate strategies to solve problems; objects and the units, systems, and • Monitor and reflect on the process of processes of measurement; mathematical problem solving. • Apply appropriate techniques, tools, and formulas to determine measure- ments. Reasoning and Proof Standard Instructional programs from prekindergarten through grade 12 Data Analysis and Probability should enable all students to— Standard Instructional programs from pre- • Recognize reasoning and proof as kindergarten through grade 12 should fundamental aspects of mathematics; enable all students to— • Make and investigate mathematical conjectures; • Formulate questions that can be • Develop and evaluate mathematical addressed with data and collect, arguments and proofs; organize, and display relevant data to • Select and use various types of rea- answer them; soning and methods of proof. • Select and use appropriate statistical methods to analyze data; • Develop and evaluate inferences and Communication Standard predictions that are based on data; Instructional programs from • Understand and apply basic concepts prekindergarten through grade 12 of probability. should enable all students to— • Organize and consolidate their Problem Solving Standard mathematical thinking through Instructional programs from communication; prekindergarten through grade 12 • Communicate their mathematical should enable all students to— thinking coherently and clearly to peers, teachers, and others; • Build new mathematical knowledge • Analyze and evaluate the mathemati- through problem solving; cal thinking and strategies of others; • Solve problems that arise in math- • Use the language of mathematics to ematics and in other contexts; express mathematical ideas precisely. • Apply and adapt a variety of appropri-152 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Connections Standard Representation Standard Instructional programs from Instructional programs fromprekindergarten through grade 12 prekindergarten through grade 12should enable all students to— should enable all students to—• Recognize and use connections • Create and use representations to among mathematical ideas; organize, record, and communicate• Understand how mathematical ideas mathematical ideas; interconnect and build on one another • Select, apply, and translate among to produce a coherent whole; mathematical representations to solve• Recognize and apply mathematics in problems; contexts outside of mathematics. • Use representations to model and interpret physical, social, and math- ematical phenomena.APPENDIX B 153
    • Appendix C Overview of Teaching Standards from the National Science Education Standards and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics Science Teaching Standards TEACHING STANDARD A: (From the National Science Education Teachers of science plan an inquiry- Standards, National Research Council, based science program for their stu- 1996a, excerpted from pages 27-53) dents. In doing this, teachers • Develop a framework of yearlong and The standards for science teaching short-term goals for students. are grounded in five assumptions. • Select science content and adapt and design curricula to meet the interest, • The vision of science education knowledge, understanding, abilities, described by the Standards requires and experiences of students. changes throughout the entire system. • Select teaching and assessment • What students learn is greatly influ- strategies that support the develop- enced by how they are taught. ment of student understanding and • The actions of teachers are deeply nurture a community of science influenced by their perceptions of learners. science as an enterprise and as a • Work together as colleagues within subject to be taught and learned. and across disciplines and grade • Student understanding is actively levels. constructed through individual and social processes. TEACHING STANDARD B: • Actions of teachers are deeply influ- Teachers of science guide and facili- enced by their understanding of and tate learning. In doing this, teachers relationships with students.154
    • • Focus and support inquiries while TEACHING STANDARD D: interacting with students. Teachers of science design and• Orchestrate discourse among stu- manage learning environments that dents about scientific ideas. provide students with the time, space,• Challenge students to accept and share and resources needed for learning responsibility for their own learning. science. In doing this, teachers• Recognize and respond to student diversity and encourage all students • Structure the time available so that to participate fully in science learning. students are able to engage in ex-• Encourage and model the skills of tended investigations. scientific inquiry, as well as the • Create a setting for student work that curiosity, openness to new ideas and is flexible and supportive of science data, and skepticism that characterize inquiry. science. • Ensure a safe working environment. • Make the available science tools,TEACHING STANDARD C: materials, media, and technological Teachers of science engage in ongo- resources accessible to students.ing assessment of their teaching and of • Identify and use resources outside thestudent learning. In doing this, teachers school. • Engage students in designing the• Use multiple methods and systemati- learning environment. cally gather data about student understanding and ability. TEACHING STANDARD E:• Analyze assessment data to guide Teachers of science develop commu- teaching. nities of science learners that reflect the• Guide students in self-assessment. intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry• Use student data, observations of and the attitudes and social values teaching, and interactions with conducive to science learning. In doing colleagues to reflect on and improve the, teachers teaching practice.• Use student data, observations of • Display and demand respect for the teaching, and interactions with diverse ideas, skills, and experiences colleagues to report student achieve- of all students. ment and opportunities to learn to • Enable students to have a significant students, teachers, parents, policy voice in decisions about the content makers, and the general public. and context of their work and requireAPPENDIX C 155
    • students to take responsibility for the Standard 1. Worthwhile learning of all members of the com- Mathematical Tasks munity. The teacher of mathematics should • Nurture collaboration among students. pose tasks that are based on— • Structure and facilitate ongoing formal and informal discussion based • Sound and significant mathematics; on a shared understanding of rules of • Knowledge of students’ understand- scientific discourse. ings, interests, and experiences; • Model and emphasize the skills, • Knowledge of the range of ways that attitudes, and values of scientific diverse students learn mathematics; inquiry. And that TEACHING STANDARD F: Teachers of science actively partici- • Engage students’ intellect; pate in the ongoing planning and • Develop students’ mathematical development of the school science understandings and skills; program. In doing this, teachers • Stimulate students to make connec- tions and develop a coherent frame- • Plan and develop the school science work for mathematical ideas; program. • Call for problem formulation, problem • Participate in decisions concerning solving, and mathematical reasoning; the allocation of time and other • Promote communication about resources to the science program. mathematics; • Participate fully in planning and • Represent mathematics as an ongoing implementing professional growth human activity; and development strategies for • Display sensitivity to, and draw on, themselves and their colleagues. students’ diverse background experi- ences and dispositions; • Promote the development of all stu- dents’ dispositions to do mathematics From the Principles and Standards for School Standard 2. The Teacher’s Role Mathematics in Discourse (National Council of Teachers of Math- The teacher of mathematics should ematics, 2000, excerpted from pages orchestrate discourse by— 25-67).156 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • • Posing questions and tasks that elicit, • Explore examples and counter- engage, and challenge each student’s examples to investigate a conjecture; thinking; • Try to convince themselves and one• Listening carefully to students’ ideas; another of the validity of particular• Asking students to clarify and justify representations, solutions, conjec- their ideas orally and in writing; tures, and answers;• Deciding what to pursue in depth • Rely on mathematical evidence and from among the ideas that students argument to determine validity. bring up during a discussion;• Deciding when and how to attach Standard 4. Tools for Enhancing mathematical notation and language Discourse to students’ ideas; The teacher of mathematics, in order• Deciding when to provide informa- to enhance discourse, should encourage tion, when to clarify and issue, when and accept the use of— to model, when to lead, and when to let a student struggle with a difficulty; • Computers, calculators, and other• Monitoring students’ participation in technology; discussions and deciding when and • Concrete materials used as models; how to encourage each student to • Pictures, diagrams, tables, and participate. graphs; • Invented and conventional terms andStandard 3. Students’ Role in symbolsDiscourse • Metaphors, analogies, and stories; The teacher of mathematics should • Written hypotheses, explanations, andpromote classroom discourse in which arguments;students— • Oral presentations and dramatiza- tions.• Listen to, respond to, and question the teacher and one another; Standard 5. Learning• Use a variety of tools to reason, make Environment connections, solve problems, and The teacher of mathematics should communicate; create a learning environment that• Initiate problems and question; fosters the development of each• Make conjectures and present solu- student’s mathematical power by— tions;APPENDIX C 157
    • • Providing and structuring the time engage in ongoing analysis of teaching necessary to explore sound math- and learning by— ematics and grapple with significant ideas and problems; • Observing, listening to, and gathering • Using the physical space and materi- other information about students to als in ways that facilitate students’ assess what they are learning; learning of mathematics; • Examining effects of the tasks, • Providing a context that encourages discourse, and learning environment the development of mathematical on students’ mathematical knowl- dispositions; edge, skills, and dispositions; And by consistently expecting and In order to— encouraging students to— • Ensure that every student is learning • Work independently or collaboratively sound and significant mathematics to make sense of mathematics; and is developing a positive disposi- • Take intellectual risks by raising tion toward mathematics; questions and formulating conjec- • Challenge and extend students’ ideas; tures; • Adapt or change activities while • Display a sense of mathematical teaching; make plans, both short- and competence by validating and sup- long-range; porting ideas with mathematical • Describe and comment on each argument. student’s learning to parents and administrators, as well as to the Standard 6. Analysis of students themselves. Teaching and Learning The teacher of mathematics should158 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Appendix D Examples of Local and Statewide Programs That Provide Ongoing Professional Development Opportunities to Beginning and Experienced TeachersNote: The examples provided in this a result, California has instituted theappendix are included to provide readers Beginning Teacher Support and Assess-with an appreciation for the breadth and ment System for first- and second- yearvariety of current programs. They are teachers, which involves an extensivenot intended to provide detailed case and systematic mentoring program forstudies. See footnotes for URLs for new teachers by their more experiencedfurther information. colleagues. For example, mentors work with new teachers to develop lesson plans that are based on the state’sCALIFORNIA BEGINNING standards for teaching.TEACHER SUPPORT ANDASSESSMENT SYSTEM1 TEACHERS 212 A longitudinal study conducted inCalifornia has found that the most At the national level, Teachers 21 andeffective approaches for supporting new its affiliate organization, Research forteachers emphasize optimizing the Better Teaching, are dedicated torelationship between new teachers and strengthening the practice of teachingteachers who provide support and for both new and experienced teachers.mentoring to them (Halford, 1998). As These not-for-profit organizations also 1Additional information about this program is available at < http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/coe/curins/sbtsa/>. 2Additional information about this program is available at < http://www.teachers21.org/>. 159
    • are working to help administrators Teachers 21, the success of beginning become more involved in systemic teachers depends on the support of improvements in schools. everyone in a school. Structures, time, Teachers 21 features ongoing space, and the availability of collegial seminars and courses that train begin- practice that support observations, joint ning teachers to network, build partner- lesson planning, and curriculum devel- ships with parents, engage in positive opment are important components to classroom management, link curriculum the success of new teachers. The and assessment to curriculum frame- organization further contends that such works, and explore ranges of pedagogi- plans must be embraced and publicized cal approaches to teaching science and by districts in order to ensure that mathematics. This organization also mentoring programs are seen as vital to works to establish support groups for the community. beginning teachers that focus on profes- sional growth. These support groups meet on a regular basis throughout the BOSTON PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE year and help novice teachers reflect on IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS3 their teaching and on their students’ learning. On a district level, the City of Boston Another key component to the suc- has developed a five- year, $5-million cess of the approach by Teachers 21 is program called The Boston Plan for the training of mentors. The third Excellence in the Public Schools. Now element is including principals and in its third year, this program combines other administrators in all phases of the and integrates improved professional programs. In addition, Teachers 21 preparation of its teachers with pro- commits to building school culture that grams to raise academic achievement of engage school administrators, new and its students. Twenty-five schools are veteran teachers, and others in the currently involved. Key components of community in improving schools. this program include: Teachers 21 maintains that the districts it considers progressive are • Provision of an on-site coach for those that care about both the profes- teacher professional development sional growth of their teachers and the • One day per week in each school for quality of their teaching. According to these programs 3Additional information about this program is available at < http://www.bpe.org/>.160 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • • Creation of and instructional leader- 1. increased time for preservice teachers ship team in each school to experience earlier, longer, and• Decision-making by cluster groups of more intensive field-based place- teachers ments in the public schools, con-• Liaisons to each school made up of nected to methods classes and retired principals, teacher-consultants, clinical teachers at school sites; and others 2. jointly-crafted professional develop-• On-site workshops for teachers ment programs for teachers, admin- istrators, and others in the public NOTE: The following examples are schools and universities; from states that entered into partner- 3. increased communication between ship with the National Commission public schools and higher education on Teaching and America’s Future for the purpose of sharing and (1997) and demonstrate the range disseminating best practices; of approaches that can impact on 4. generation and application of research teacher development and preparation. and new knowledge about teaching and learning; 5. joint involvement of university andNORTH CAROLINA UNIVERSITY- school personnel in curriculumSCHOOL TEACHER EDUCATION planning and program development.PARTNERSHIPS 4 (quoted verbatim from Edelfelt, 1999, page 2). Three years ago, North Carolinaestablished the University-SchoolTeacher Education Partnerships, an OHIO’S PROGRAM FOR TEACHERinitiative that will create “clinical EDUCATIONschools” for novice and veteranteachers at all of the 15 public teacher Since September 1996, Ohio has hadeducation institutions in that state. in place through its association with theMany of these universities also are National Commission on Teaching andplanning to establish more elaborate America’s Future, a “comprehensiveProfessional Development Schools. new infrastructure for preparing, licens-These partnerships are operated based ing, and promoting the professionalon five guiding principles: development of teachers.” Within this 4Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.ga.unc.edu/>.APPENDIX D 161
    • statewide infrastructure, mentors are Preparation to launch professional provided for all beginning teachers and development institutes that focus on the principals. Peer review of and assistance teaching of mathematics, the teaching of with teaching skills are encouraged inquiry-based science, the use of tech- through competitive grants to school nology in the classroom, and the train- systems. In addition, funds are available ing of mentors for beginning teachers.5 to implement peer review programs and In Maryland, 240 new Professional for the training of mentor teachers at Development Schools will be launched, regional professional development expanding the current efforts of its 13 centers. The Ohio State Board of public universities. All prospective Education has authorized a waiver of its teachers in the state of Maryland rules on teacher professional days to ultimately will be expected to complete provide the flexibility needed to create a year-long internship in connection time for professional development, and with these PDSs (Maryland State this has had beneficial effects. For Department of Education, 1998). example, Ohio’s Centerville School Kansas also has committed to ongo- District was able to negotiate with the ing professional development and new local teachers’ union to provide release induction programs that hold teacher time and $1,000 stipends for mentor education programs accountable for the teachers (Halford, 1998). Tangible performance of their graduates. The incentives, district support, specialized Kansas Teacher Development Coali- professional support for mentors, and tion,6 a collaboration of state agencies, careful attention to the matches between higher education institutions, and other mentors and new teachers are key educators, has been working to align components of Centerville’s program. preservice education and induction- related professional development with that state’s redesign of teacher licen- SUPPORT FOR TEACHERS IN sure. Meanwhile, each of six Regents OKLAHOMA, MARYLAND, institutions in Kansas has established KANSAS, AND MISSOURI professional development school part- nerships for the clinical preparation of Oklahoma has provided additional new teachers. funds to its Commission for Teacher Missouri has established a Super- 5Additional information about these institutes is available at < http://sde.state.ok.us/pro/ teach.html>. 6Additional information is available at < http://www.usd259.com/staff/teacher-dev-coalition.htm>.162 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • intendents’ Institute to help prepare practices that have been found to beteacher leaders become more knowl- successful elsewhere (NCTAF, 1997).edgeable about innovation, the process The state also has created Professionalof change, and successful practices. Development Schools and is consider-New incentive grants for innovation will ing PDS standards, a statewide supporthelp schools and districts use educa- network, and a stable funding structuretional research and adopt teaching of PDSs.7 7Additional information is available at < http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divurbteached/rpdc/>.APPENDIX D 163
    • Appendix E Examples of Formal and Informal Partnerships Between Institutions of Higher Education and School Districts to Improve Teacher Education Note: The examples provided in this collaboration among the various faculty appendix are included to provide read- of the college, and multiple forms of ers with an appreciation for the breadth partnerships with the urban school and variety of current programs. These system of Milwaukee. Since the incep- types of programs might serve as tion of the program in the late 1970s, prototypes for the types of partnerships Alverno has continued to seek to link envisioned in this report (see Chapters the program components and create a 6 and 7). See URLs in text and in teacher preparation program that is footnotes for further information. based on the scholarly literature for the profession, the experiences of the Alverno College (Milwaukee, Wis- college’s faculty and students, and consin)1 is a four-year private liberal empirical studies. Tenets of the new arts college whose teacher preparation teacher development program are based program reflects recent research about on what the faculty has come to call how prospective teachers should be “assessment-as-learning.” The essential educated. The approach includes characteristics of this concept are defining clearly what candidates for licensure need to know, understand, and • Candidates are aware of the expected be able to do as teachers. Alverno’s outcomes; teacher education program supports a • Faculty provide continuous, careful, coherent curriculum, a supportive and productive feedback to candidates system of performance assessments, based on evidence that has been 1See also <http://ww.alverno.edu/academics/departments/ac_elemented.html>.164
    • collected about their performance; as Professional Development Schools.• Students engage in self-assessment; However, the overseers of these pro-• Multiple measures and evidence of grams at Alverno believe that this high performance by teacher candi- approach to teacher education is having dates are required throughout the an impact similar to the impacts of other undergraduate curriculum. Professional Development Schools (Dietz, 1999; Zeichner, 2000). These high expectations, in turn,cultivate communication across the Clark University-Worcester Publicdisciplines at Alverno. The college also Schools (Worcester, Massachusetts)2recognizes and supports this level ofcollaboration through its promotion and Clark University and the Worcesterperformance review systems. Public Schools have established a K-16 In addition, Alverno has sought to collaborative that uses a “rounds” modelbridge the gap between theory and of professional development. Thepractice by establishing partnerships concept of “rounds” is based on thewith a number of schools in the Milwau- training model used in teaching hospitals.kee public school system. At each This partnership version of roundspartner school, Alverno students work engages small groups of school-basedwith the K-12 staff and are guided by an teachers, university teachers, andAlverno faculty member. Students’ students involved with teacher educa-work in the partner schools does not tion in learning together about specificfocus exclusively on meeting their own aspects of teaching practice. Aspectsneeds but, rather, is guided, in part, by include learning about how to imple-the needs of the Milwaukee public ment a specific curriculum, understand-school system. Several middle and high ing how children learn, and knowledgeschools, for example, are learning from building in a particular context, or all ofAlverno faculty and students how to these domains of classroom activity atimplement the assessment-as-learning once. A round also might serve as amodel and are engaged in research way to share and examine one’s teach-studies of the implementation of the ing practice with colleagues. Duringpartnership programs in their schools. student teaching, students typically takeAlverno does not refer to its programs weekly turns conducting rounds. The 2Additional information about this program is available at< www2.clarku.edu/departments/education/>.APPENDIX E 165
    • rounds process gives them the collec- and their students have increased as tive confidence to engage their own well (Houston et al., 1999). Data from students in learning (Del Prete, 1997). this 1999 study indicates that the Profes- The rounds also reflect a shift toward sional Development School program more collaborative relationships, reflec- preservice candidate teachers interacted tive dialogue, research, and study, and a with students more often than process of open, active and continuous preservice candidates who were not in expansion of professional knowledge on the program. They also spent signifi- the part of the entire community (Del cantly more time responding to student Prete, 1997). signals, checking student work, encour- aging student self-management, praising Houston Consortium (Houston, student performance and behavior, and Texas) correcting student performance. To better prepare prospective urban Kansas State University (Manhattan, teachers, a consortium of four universi- Kansas) ties (University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Baptist Since 1989, Kansas State University’s University, and University of St. Thomas), College of Education has been engaged three school districts, and two interme- in partnerships with three local school diate school agencies designed and districts, establishing Professional implemented a Professional Develop- Development Schools in twelve elemen- ment School program located in several tary schools, four middle schools, and Houston area K-12 schools. The con- one high school. The Kansas State sortium has been operating for more University (KSU) PDS Model is based than five years and uses twelve mutually on the belief that teacher preparation agreed upon characteristics to guide its and school reform are the joint responsi- work, including flexibility, cultural bility of institutions of higher education diversity, learner-centered instruction, and school systems. All teachers and technology, and authentic assessment. principals from the 17 PDS sites are now Recently reported research on the collaborative partners. The PDS and model indicates that 43 percent of the KSU faculty members are involved with teacher participants believe that they all phases of the KSU teacher prepara- now teach differently, and classroom tion program. At the building level, each observations confirm this. Achievement PDS has identified at least one clinical levels for both the preservice candidates instructor and KSU faculty member to166 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • work with the building principal to University of Massachusetts-coordinate the PDS activities and Boston/Graham and Parksexperiences. The goal is to create new Alternative School (Cambridge,roles for all PDS and KSU partners and Massachusetts)to establish a joint community of learn-ers. The program implements this goal This group has been collaborating forby using teachers, administrators, and the past five years on a professionalKSU faculty as co-planners, teachers, development site. The Graham andand evaluators of methods courses and Parks School (G&P) is diverse ethni-field experiences; on-site PDS seminar cally and racially. It has demonstrated aleaders; and supervisors and mentors of commitment to ongoing professionalpracticing teachers. Teachers, adminis- development of its staff and to involvingtrators, and faculty also are jointly parents in the school’s mission andinvolved in school improvement efforts, activities. The school administrationcurriculum development, program supports an innovative, reflectiveevaluation, professional development attitude towards teaching and learning.activities, and collaborative action The University of Massachusetts atresearch projects. Boston (UMB) has long espoused a The project has published its results commitment to its urban setting. Thethrough a number of doctoral disserta- campus attracts a diversity of teachertions and other reports (see, for example, candidates who reflect the range ofShroyer et al., 1996). The project has students in the cultural makeup of thecreated a climate of experimentation K-8 school. These two institutionsand risk taking that has helped build a selected each other as partners becausejoint culture of inquiry among PDS of these attributes and their commit-partners, whereby faculty and teachers ment to improving teacher educationconstantly experiment with new ideas, and professional development.evaluate teaching strategies, and revise Over the five years of the partnership’stheir practices. Research indicates existence, UMB has offered three on-that this type of culture is a critical site graduate seminars for teachers andcomponent of both successful profes- staff, including the school principal, insional development and educational which issues such as “effective teaching”improvement. and the “teaching and assessment of writing” have been evaluated. In addi- tion to entering into graduate seminar dialogues on teaching and learning,APPENDIX E 167
    • G&P teachers have served on overview operated jointly by the College of Educa- committees for the development and tion (CE) and the College of Natural revision of courses at UMB for students Resources (CNR). UTeach was designed preparing to become elementary and to attract more students to science and middle school teachers. These commit- mathematics teaching at the secondary tees bring together university faculty level. The program introduces students from science and mathematics depart- to teaching with a one-hour course and ments, schools of education, and public then builds on that experience through school teachers and administrators to a series of three-hour courses that discuss ways to revise existing courses culminate in a full-time commitment to and design new courses in the UMB teacher education. The program attracts teacher preparation program. more women and minorities than other Since the spring of 1996, six G&P teacher-education programs in the state teachers have been meeting monthly of Texas and relies on close collabora- with UMB faculty to develop further tion with and guidance from locally and teacher education programs for UMB nationally recognized master teachers. students. Results include an on-site UTeach emphasizes collegiality by seminar at G&P, which is co-taught by having entering cohorts of students the teachers and the on-site supervisor work together on virtually all aspects of and which links the course and field- their education in teaching. work. A G&P teacher teaches another Students who complete the program on-site course on structured reading earn a degree in science or mathematics and special needs students. Teachers (under the auspices of CNR) and and UMB faculty also co-teach a year- teacher certification (through CE) at the long internship program that requires end of four years. Students acquire UMB interns to document their growth initial teaching experience in public as teachers through analysis of video- schools by giving presentations about taped teaching sessions and creation of science to elementary school children in teaching portfolios. the Austin area and then moving on to the middle- and high-school levels later University of Texas at Austin in their coursework. UTeach was the first teacher preparation program in In 1997, the University of Texas at Texas to meet the state’s revised stan- Austin established UTeach,3 a program dards for certification. 3Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.utexas.edu/cons/admin/ publications/focus/spring99/teach.html>.168 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Wheelock College and Brookline Time” (APT). In APT, year-long teach-Public Schools (Brookline, ing interns assume responsibility for aMassachusetts) classroom one day a week while regular teachers undertake research, improve The Learning/Teaching Collaborative courses, work in teams to restructurebetween Wheelock College and the curriculum and improve school pro-Brookline Public Schools has been in grams, and engage in college teachingexistence since the 1980s. Like other and other endeavors that promoteProfessional Development Schools, its improved teaching.stated purpose is the improvement of Chief among the findings fromthe preservice education of teachers evaluations of the collaborative is thatand the enhancement of teaching. This teaching practices have changed signifi-collaborative was among the first to cantly and involve more active learning.reinforce the ideas of teachers as Also, the partnership has been found to“boundary spanners,” that is, teachers be fragile, due to uncertainties aboutassume a variety of roles that usually sustainable funding (Boles and Troen,are reserved either for grades K-12 or 1997).for higher education. For example,many teachers in the collaborative have Informal Partnershipsbecome leaders in formulating class-room-based action research and have Not all teacher education reform isparticipated in the development of the occurring through PDS models. Thisstatewide language arts curriculum section briefly describes several otherframework, as well as developed new approaches to the preparation of teach-curricula. They have worked at the ers that contain elements of reformcollege level by presenting staff develop- (such as those suggested in Raizen andment workshops to both school and Michelsohn, 1994). These elementscollege faculty members. One of the include approaching teacher educationcollaborative’s most consistent tenets more coherently through collaborationhas been that all teachers must assume with school districts across grades (K-a leadership role and be active in the 12), encouraging clinical experiencecollaborative’s governance, making collaboration among science, education,decisions about everything from budget and school faculty, and creatingto personnel. smoother transitions for new teachers The collaborative also introduced the from their university experiences toconcept of “Alternative Professional first-time employment.APPENDIX E 169
    • Colorado College (Colorado Springs, second semester, contingent upon Colorado) demonstrated performance during student teaching and receipt from the Colorado College has long held that state of a Letter of Authorization, which students’ depth of knowledge in the permits these candidates to teach on liberal arts is a significant part of their own with limited supervision. teacher education and needs to be Additional coursework in education is balanced with an equally strong empha- taken during the second summer, sis on clinical preparation. In order to completing the candidate’s program. accomplish these two goals, the college Since 1997, faculty in the secondary has established several fifth-year Master science MAT program have used funds of Arts in Teaching (MAT) degree from the MacArthur Foundation programs that lead to initial licensure in (through the American Association for K-6 teaching and in secondary science the Advancement of Science) to imple- or mathematics teaching. The fifth year ment changes that link methods design allows the college to recruit well- coursework, the student teaching/ qualified candidates from a national pool internship, and the induction period of a of prospective teachers who have depth candidate’s first year of teaching in local of content knowledge as well as initial schools. Additional information about experience in K-12 classrooms. this program is available at <http:// Using a 15-month design, elementary www.coloradocollege.edu/education>. MAT candidates take education courses and engage in working with children Georgia Southern University their first summer, while secondary (Statesboro, Georgia) candidates take additional subject matter courses in science or mathemat- Georgia Southern University’s middle ics. Both programs work with several grades science program is based exten- local schools to identify appropriate sively on team teaching and collabora- placements that begin with the school tion. The science methods course is year in late August for each cohort. In team-taught by faculty in both the the first two months, candidates work College of Education and the College of half days as teachers’ aides at the school Science and Technology. In addition, while completing two educational the students in this course are blocked methods courses. They then complete together in a mathematics methods 8-10 weeks of full-time student teaching. course. Activities and field trips are A full-time internship follows in the planned and shared by both courses and170 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • all instructors, providing a strong of excellence” model for preparingintegration of content and pedagogy in secondary science teachers. Theboth science and mathematics. “professional core” of this program is a three-semester sequence of coursework,Purdue University (West Lafayette, numerous field experiences, and stu-Indiana) dent teaching placements. One goal is to provide a set of integrated and coher- Purdue University recently has ent experiences that will continuallyrevised its elementary teacher prepara- strengthen the candidates’ professionaltion program using a block schedule development as science teachers. Eachdesign (rather than a design where stage (semester) affords candidatesstudents take course independently of opportunities to consider their currentone another) and field placements in a conception of effective science teachingselected “host school.” Students are in and learning and to reflect on theirthe field for six semesters, beginning in growth and change as their ideastheir sophomore year and extending develop over time.through student teaching. Students in Candidates initially complete ancohort groups take “blocks” of courses entrance portfolio, in which they detaileach semester while engaging in field their emerging philosophy of teaching.experience at the host school. A team When they take science methods duringconsisting of K-5 teacher liaisons from the second semester, candidates formal-the schools, Purdue education faculty, ize their ideas about teaching and theand graduate students in education decisions they will make in the class-teaches the courses. The content of the room based on “best practices.” Thisprogram is guided by INTASC guide- includes writing an extensive research-lines and emphasizes diversity training, based rationale for how they will teachapplication of technology, and the use of science. In the final stage of the cycle,student portfolios. Additional informa- candidates then explore an element oftion about this program is available at their paper through collaborative action<http://www.soe.purdue.edu/ research with their host teacher duringvolkmann/edci205/TiP.html>. their semester of student teaching. Their action research frequently causesSyracuse University (Syracuse, them to revise their rationale for teach-New York) ing science, to implement new teaching strategies, and to change their teaching Syracuse University employs a “cycle portfolios.APPENDIX E 171
    • University of Arizona (Tucson, work with experienced teachers on Arizona) projects and course content. Candidates complete an exit project to demonstrate The University of Arizona has de- new knowledge in science education. signed a program, initially funded through the U.S. Department of The University of Wisconsin- Education’s Eisenhower program, that Milwaukee has reformed its middle/ specifically bridges the gap between secondary science teacher education teacher preparation and the first few program and has doubled the number of years of teaching. The program sup- students to 35 per year, adding many ports beginning teachers in meeting post-baccalaureate candidates with prior once a month on Saturdays and also experience in business and industry. visits by a university science educator Prior to reform, the program offered a and teaching assistants five to six times number of traditional courses, but they the first year. School districts also were not part of a holistic program. support released time so that beginning Rather they were disparate, stand-alone teachers can observe each other’s entities, lacking articulation with other teaching and participate in local science courses in the program. Over time, this education conferences. caused gaps and redundancies in the The university also has created a candidate’s program. Today, highly combined Master’s in Science Educa- coordinated courses and field experi- tion and certification program with ences are delivered through a cohort of several unique features, including a instructors as a result of the joint efforts yearlong student teaching experience, of practicing teachers, education faculty, where candidates teach two classes science faculty, and former students. each day. Half of the year is spent at the The modified program now occupies middle-school level and half at the high- three major blocks, with each block school level. Practicum experience containing a core of field experience precedes this year of student teaching, occurring at the middle- and high- and four core courses supplement and school levels. There are reflective build upon the field experience: science seminars and field experiences that are methods, advanced science methods, closely joined with coursework and with history and philosophy of science, and greater involvement by practicing how children learn science. The non- teachers. A technology component is methods courses also enroll graduate included. The program also has check- teachers, allowing future teachers to points and accountability.172 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Other Informal Partnerships: NSF’s program recognizes the importance ofCollaboratives for Excellence in retaining new teachers, mentoring ofTeacher Preparation (CETP)4 new teachers by master teachers, and providing all teachers of science, math- In the early 1990s, the National ematics, and technology with opportuni-Science Foundation established the ties for continuing professional develop-Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher ment and growth.Preparation (CETP) program to encour- Each CETP-based program repre-age active reform of teacher preparation sents a unique effort to improve theprograms. The goals of CETP include quality of teacher education in scienceincreasing the numbers of K-12 teachers and mathematics. It has been observedwho are well prepared in science, that the uniqueness of each collabora-mathematics, and technology and tive allows each one to serve as a modelencouraging faculty from the arts, that potentially could be scaled up to asciences, engineering, and education to much larger level (Boyer and Layman,work together on improving science and 1998). There is a great deal to bemathematics teacher preparation. The learned from the characteristics andcollaboratives seek to broaden the pool lessons of these collaboratives, bothof students who are interested in pursu- individually and collectively. Examplesing careers in teaching, including those of programs that have some degree ofmajoring in science, mathematics, CETP funding are provided below.engineering, and technology and thosetraditionally underrepresented in those Green River Community Collegefields. A feature of most collaboratives (Auburn, Washington) 5is the integral involvement of two-yearcommunity colleges as partners with Green River Community College hasfour-year institutions and K-12 school initiated Project TEACH (Teacherdistricts. CETP also seeks to improve Education Alliance of Colleges andundergraduate teaching and learning High Schools), a teacher preparationand to link undergraduate preparation of collaborative that demonstrates the roleteachers to national standards in science that community colleges can play inand mathematics. In addition, the CETP teacher preparation. The project in- 4Descriptions of the individual CETP programs can be accessed at <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf9996>. 5Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.projectteach.org>.APPENDIX E 173
    • cludes recruitment and preparation Other components of Project TEACH programs in six local school districts include (1) teacher clubs and recruit- and Central Washington University. A ment activities in area high schools and significant goal of Project TEACH is to at the community college; (2) tutoring at strengthen science and mathematics area schools and at a new, on-campus education in elementary schools mathematics summer camp for fourth through new interdisciplinary, stan- and fifth graders; (3) alternative path- dards-based courses for future teachers ways for teacher assistants and para- that model interactive teaching and educators; and (4) strong advising links active learning. Together, the commu- and articulation with the teacher prepa- nity college and the university faculty ration program at the university. have designed a new Pre-Professional Project TEACH is funded by a grant Associate of Arts Degree in Elementary from the NSF through the CETP initia- Education that builds a strong founda- tive and by the Washington State Office tion for the university’s certification of Public Instruction, the Green River program. The new two-year degree has College Foundation, and individual the following components: contributors. (1) a strong liberal arts foundation; Henr y Ford Community College (2) introductory teacher education (Dearborn, Michigan) 6 courses with embedded field-based assignments in diverse settings; Henry Ford Community College (3) a three-quarter mathematics (HFCC) has designed Pre-Education sequence specifically designed for Programs that articulate to teacher elementary teachers (number theory, preparation programs at four-year geometry, and probability/statistics) institutions in the state. Motivated by that includes embedded field-based the challenges presented by the Michi- assignments with mentor elementary gan Statewide Systemic Initiative, the teachers; and HFCC programs are designed to (4) a newly designed, three-quarter (1)r ecruit students from under- interdisciplinary and thematically-based represented groups, (2) provide math- science sequence that blends physics, ematics courses that implement the geology, chemistry, and biology. NCTM Standards and the Michigan 6Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.hfcc.net/catalog/ programs_de.htm#Education>.174 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Curriculum Frameworks, (3) provide mathematics curriculum, one Africanprograms that articulate to teacher American student stated, “I can honestlytraining institutions, and (4) incorporate say that I enjoy math now, and I amearly field experiences for all students. looking forward to teaching it. I hope toIn addition, special initiatives developed be able to inspire someone else….by HFCC in conjunction with the Thank you so very much!”University of Michigan-Dearborn,Eastern Michigan University, and Cerritos College (Norwalk,Schoolcraft College (and made possible California)7by NSF and Eisenhower Grant funds)have resulted in the development of Cerritos College recently began aMathematics for Elementary Teachers partnership with California State Univer-courses implementing the Triesman sity, Long Beach (CSULB), to launchmodel as well as mentorship activities the Cerritos College Teacher TRainingwith teachers from urban districts, and ACademy (Teacher TRAC). Teacheruniversity/community college team TRAC gives future K-8 teachers anfield experiences in urban and bilingual opportunity to complete their bachelor’sclassrooms. These projects have degree and multi-subject teachingstrengthened the community college credential in four calendar years. Edu-students’ experiences and provided a cational technology courses that help tobridge from the community college to enhance a K-8 teacher’s ability andthe university environments. technology-proficiency in the classroomCommunities of mathematics educators are a special feature of Teacher TRAC.and students from school districts, Cerritos College faculty members areuniversities, and community colleges partnering with CSULB faculty tohave formed. The success of the Pre- ensure that national, state, and localEducation Programs at HFCC is par- standards as well as technology aretially documented by the programs’ infused in core content courses. Indramatic increase in pre-education addition, pedagogical practices aredeclared majors, from 354 students in being rethought in light of inquiry-1994 to 1,054 in 1998, with a proportion- based, hands-on instructional practices.ate increase in students designating Cerritos College recently received grantminority status. funds from the California Chancellor’s Summarizing the success of the Office for a significant expansion of 7Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.teachertrac.org>.APPENDIX E 175
    • Teacher TRAC. Funds will be used to college system who want to become address the critical need for recruitment teachers. A statewide colloquium for of high school and community college arts and sciences and college of educa- students into educational programs tion representatives from two- and four- leading to K-8 teaching careers. The year institutions produced policy recom- grant also focuses on student develop- mendations for the community college ment, faculty development, curriculum system in the areas of recruitment, design, and fieldwork experiences for collaboration, curriculum and advising, students. Cerritos College also is a articulation with four-year institutions, partner with CSULB in an NSF CETP early field experiences, and Praxis I grant and a U.S. Department of Educa- preparation. Next steps include focus- tion technology grant. ing on implementation of the policy recommendations and replicating Virginia Community College System programs that have been successful in (Richmond, Virginia)8 targeting and supporting prospective teachers enrolled in the state’s commu- Virginia’s community college system nity colleges. Programs already identi- has launched a system-wide Teacher fied as successful include specially Preparation Initiative involving a faculty- designed orientation and career devel- in-residence position and a statewide opment courses, a teacher apprentice Task Force with representatives from program, a baccalaureate transition each of the Virginia higher education program, and activities that stem from system’s 23 community colleges. The participation in the NSF-funded Virginia goal of the initiative is to create new Collaborative for Excellence in the pathways for students in the community Preparation of Teachers (VCEPT). 8Additional information about this program is available at <http://www.so.cc.va.us/vccsasr/ teacher.pdf>.176 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Appendix F Biographical Sketches of Committee MembersHerbert K. Brunkhorst (Co-chair) is Education and Office of Educationalprofessor of Science Education and Research and Improvement projectBiology at California State University- called the Salish Consortium, a multidi-San Bernardino, and chair of the De- mensional collaborative research effortpartment of Science, Mathematics, and for improving science and mathematicsTechnology Education in the College of teacher education. In 1998, Dr.Education. He carries a joint appoint- Brunkhorst was selected as a Californiament in the Department of Biology in State University Chancellor’s Teacherthe College of Natural Sciences. Dr. Preparation Scholar to serve as aBrunkhorst earned a Ph.D. with majors member of a statewide teacher prepara-in science education and plant physiol- tion curriculum development team toogy at The University of Iowa. He has produce an Internet-based elementarybeen a science educator for the past 33 teacher preparation program. For theyears; 17 years at the precollege level past 11 years, Dr. Brunkhorst hasand 16 at the college level. Dr. served as co-director of the Inland AreaBrunkhorst was co-principal investiga- Science Project, a regional collaborativetor of the National Science Foundation professional development program in(NSF)-funded California State Univer- science for K-12 teachers under thesity Science Teaching Development sponsorship of the California SubjectProject from 1993-1995, a university Matter Projects.system-wide collaboration to improvescience teacher preparation. From 1995- W. J. (Jim) Lewis (Co-chair) is chair1997, he served as a senior faculty of the Department of Mathematics andresearcher on a U.S. Department of Statistics at the University of Nebraska- 177
    • Lincoln, where he has been a member projects she has worked on include of the faculty since 1971. Dr. Lewis sense-making in science and inquiry in holds B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in math- mathematics (involving videotape and ematics from Louisiana State University. other technologies). Ms. Caplin works His leadership in mathematics educa- in many capacities for her school’s tion includes a number of local, state, professional development relationship and national activities aimed at improv- with the University of Massachusetts- ing K-12 education and teacher prepara- Boston; she serves as a graduate semi- tion. He currently serves as chair of the nar developer and co-teacher for Mathematical Association of America’s practicum students and was the liaison Steering Committee on the Mathemat- between the two institutions for many ics Education of Teachers. Dr. Lewis years. was co-principal investigator of the Nebraska National Science Foundation Rodney L. Custer has chaired the State Systemic Initiative from 1991-1997, Department of Industrial Technology at and he regularly gives invited talks Illinois State University in Normal, about education to new mathematics Illinois, since joining the faculty there in department chairs and new mathemat- 1997. Dr. Custer earned a Ph.D. in ics faculty members (via Project NeXT). Industrial Education at the University of Missouri-Columbia then joined the Toby Caplin has been a teacher since faculty there in 1991 as Assistant Profes- 1973. In 1974, she joined the Graham sor in the Department of Practical Arts and Parks School, which is a racially, and Vocational-Technical Education. He ethnically, economically diverse K-8 is a national leader in technology educa- alternative public school in Cambridge, tion, and he chaired the secondary level Massachusetts. In addition to teaching, standards development team for the Ms. Caplin is a staff developer for the Technology for All Americans project. Cambridge Public Schools mathematics He has been a member of the review department, for which she runs numer- board for the Journal of Industrial ous inservice workshops on learning Teacher Education. and teaching in mathematics. She also served as an educational consultant, Penny J. Gilmer is professor of Chem- primarily with Bolt Baranek and istry at Florida State University, where Newman in Cambridge, where she was she has been a member of the faculty the education specialist. The National since 1977. She holds a Ph.D. in Bio- Science Foundation (NSF)-funded chemistry from the University of Cali-178 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • fornia-Berkeley and is currently work- teacher education department chargeding toward a second doctorate, with preparing elementary, secondary,D.Sc.Ed., at Curtin University, Perth, college, and university teachers in aAustralia. In addition to holding faculty variety of content areas, includingpositions, she has served as associate science and mathematics education. Hisdepartment chair and interim associate work in mathematics education includesdean of the College of Arts and Sci- numerous peer-reviewed publications,ences. Dr. Gilmer has received funding leadership roles in mathematics educa-from the National Science Foundation tion and minority educational organiza-(NSF) for science teacher preparation tions, and consulting positions with bothand enhancement programs, which she K-12 and postsecondary educationhas co-directed with colleagues in the institutions. He has served as SeniorCollege of Education. Her publications Researcher for two National Scienceon science teacher preparation and Foundation (NSF)-sponsored projects inprofessional development include action mathematics education. In addition toresearch investigations with preservice his scholarship, Dr. Johnson has super-and inservice teachers. Her awards and vised more than 15 doctoral disserta-distinctions include election as a fellow tions in mathematics education duringof the American Association for the his career at the University of Maryland.Advancement of Science (AAAS) andthe Innovation in Teaching Science Harvey B. Keynes is a professor ofTeachers award from the Association Mathematics, past director of educationfor the Education of Teachers of Sci- in the Geometry Center, and director ofence (AETS). education programs for a new Institute of Technology Center at the UniversityMartin L. Johnson is professor of of Minnesota. His research interests areMathematics Education at the Univer- in dynamical systems. Professorsity of Maryland. He began his career Keynes has directed the followingas a junior and senior high-school projects: The University of Minnesotamathematics and science teacher, then Talented Youth Program; the Nationalwent on to receive the M.Ed. and Ed.D. Science Foundation (NSF) Teacherdegrees. He joined the faculty at the Renewal Project; the NSF-supportedUniversity of Maryland in 1972 and was Minnesota Mathematics Mobilizationpromoted to full professor in 1986. He is project; the Ford Foundation Urbancurrently chair of the Department of Mathematics Collaborative; the NSF-Curriculum and Instruction, a large supported Young Scholars Project; theAPPENDIX F 179
    • Bush Foundation Project to increase Education Committee of the Society for female participation in the University of Sedimentary Geology (SEPM). She Minnesota’s Talented Youth Program; received the Biggs Earth Science the NSF-funded Early Alert Initiative; Teaching Award from the Geological and a new, reformed calculus program Society of America and the Thomas for engineering students. Professor Jefferson Teaching Award from the Keynes also has taught calculus in the College of William and Mary. Dr. University of Minnesota’s Talented Macdonald received a B.A. in geology Youth Program and has been a teacher from Carleton College and her M.S. and in the NSF Teacher Renewal Project. Ph.D. degrees in geology from the He has extensive contacts in Minnesota University of Wisconsin, Madison. and national mathematics education and high technology committees. He was a Mark Saul is a teacher at Bronxville member of the National Research High School, New York. He has taught Council’s Mathematical Sciences Educa- high school for 28 years and has been tion Board (MSEB) and is the recipient an adjunct associate professor of Math- of the American Mathematical Society’s ematics at City College of New York for 1992 Award for Distinguished Public 9 years. He also is director of the Service. American Regions Mathematics League Russian Exchange Program. He re- R. Heather Macdonald is associate ceived his Ph.D. in Mathematics Educa- professor of Geology and chair of the tion from New York University in 1987. Department of Geology at the College of In 1981, he received the Sigma Xi William and Mary, where she recently Recognition for Outstanding High- served as dean of Undergraduate School Science Teacher, Lehman Studies, Arts and Sciences. She is a College Chapter, and, for 1980-83, a past president of the National Associa- Westinghouse Science Talent Search tion of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) Certificate of Honor. In 1984, he re- and has co-organized numerous NAGT ceived the Presidential Award for workshops on innovative and effective Excellence in the Teaching of Math- teaching and course design in the ematics, National Science Foundation. geosciences, as well as workshops for In 1985, he received the Admiral Hyman early career faculty. She also has L. Rickover Foundation Fellowship, was served as chair of the Education Com- a Tandy Scholar in 1994, and received mittee of the Geological Society of the Gabriella and Paul Rosenbaum America and of the K-12 Earth Science Foundation Fellowship in 1995. Dr. Saul180 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • is a member of the Mathematical also has served as a member of theSciences Education Board (MSEB) of Advisory Board of the Association forthe National Research Council (NRC) the Education of Teachers in Scienceand is a fellow of the American Associa- (AETS).tion for the Advancement of Science(AAAS). He has extensive experience as Larry Sowder is professor of Math-a judge of mathematical competitions ematics at San Diego State University.and is an expert on Russian mathemat- He received the B.S. and M.A.T. de-ics education. He is a member of the grees from Indiana University, and thenAmerican Mathematical Society (AMS) taught high-school mathematics andand is active in the mathematics teach- physics. After completing his Ph.D. ining standards revision effort of the mathematics education at the UniversityNational Council of Teachers of Math- of Wisconsin, he joined the faculty atematics (NCTM), currently chairing the Northern Illinois University and wasStudent Services Committee. Dr. Saul promoted to full professor in 1984. Hehas been continuously active in profes- moved to San Diego State University insional workshops and presentations 1986, where he continues to devotethroughout his career and has authored much of his attention to developingover 20 publications. mathematics courses for preservice and inservice elementary and secondaryM. Gail Shroyer is associate professor mathematics teachers.of Science Education at Kansas StateUniversity (KSU). She holds a B.A. in Dan B. Walker is professor of BiologyBiology from University of California - and Science Education at San Jose StateSanta Cruz and the M.S. and Ph.D. University. Dr. Walker is currently co-degrees in Curriculum and Instruction principal investigator of the San Fran-from KSU. She has an extensive back- cisco Bay Area Collaborative for Excel-ground in science teacher preparation, lence in Teacher Preparation. He hasincluding as coordinator of Professional won awards for teaching from both theDevelopment Schools at KSU, as co- University of Georgia and the Universityeditor of the Journal of Science Teacher of California at Los Angeles. Dr. WalkerEducation, and as principal investigator developed an off-campus program foror director of numerous teacher educa- the employees of Lawrence Livermoretion improvement projects supported by Laboratory to obtain a Single Subjectthe U.S. Department of Education and Teaching Credential in Science inthe National Science Foundation. She California and is currently co-director ofAPPENDIX F 181
    • this program. He has published articles Science Subject Matter Project and about this work, most recently in the SETI’s Voyage Through Time Project form of essays in a volume on preparing and is currently completing her doctor- scientists and mathematicians to be- ate in Teaching and Learning at the come teachers. University of Southern California. VivianLee Ward is director of the Lucy West is director of Mathematics, Access Excellence program (founded by K-12, in New York City’s Community Genentech, Inc.), director of School District 2. She is presently CyberEducation at the National Health principal investigator for a National Museum, and a former high-school Science Foundation Local Systemic biology teacher. She has presented Change project on teacher enhance- numerous papers on science teacher ment that involves over l,200 teachers in development at meetings of the National 48 schools. Ms. West is a District Science Teachers’ Association (NSTA), Fellow at the Learning Research and the American Association for the Ad- Development Center, University of vancement of Science (AAAS), the Pittsburgh, where she is working on a National Association of Biology Teach- research project that centers around the ers (NABT), the American Educational development of effective coaching Research Association (AERA), and strategies for practicing teachers: Sigma Xi. During her decade of partici- Content Focused Coaching. She is an pation in the Stanford Teacher Educa- adjunct instructor teaching mathematics tion Project, she supervised 13 student methods courses at City College of New teachers and interns. Ms. Ward has York and at Bank Street College of consulted nationwide in relation to Education. Ms. West has consulted science education, professional develop- nationwide in relation to mathematics ment, and uses of technology in educa- education and professional develop- tion. She has received many accolades ment. She is a member of the National for her teaching and other contributions Council of Supervisors of Mathematics to life science education, including the (NCSM), the National Council of Teach- Labosky Award for Outstanding Contri- ers of Mathematics (NCTM), the bution to Teacher Education (1989), the Association for Supervision and Cur- California Outstanding Biology Teacher riculum Development (ASCD), and the Award (1992), and Mentor Teacher of National Council of Staff Developers the Year Award (1994). She is on the (NCSD). Advisory Boards of the California182 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • Susan S. Wood is professor of Math- Mathematics, 1995; Faculty Develop-ematics, J. Sargeant Reynolds Commu- ment Grant, 1995; Chancellors Com-nity College, Richmond, Virginia, and monwealth Professor, 1994; Employeepresident of the American Mathematical Recognition, 1990 and 1994; StateAssociation of Two-Year Colleges Council of Higher Education for Vir-(AMATYC). She was a member of the ginia Outstanding Faculty Award, 1992;Mathematical Sciences Education Board and Outstanding Work in Developmen-(MSEB) of the National Research tal Studies, 1989. Dr. Wood has strongCouncil (NRC) from 1998-2000. She ties to several mathematics professionalreceived her Ed.D. in Mathematics organizations, is significantly involved inEducation from the University of Vir- mathematics education reform at theginia in 1979. She has taught mathemat- national level, and has made more thanics at the community college level for 100 conference presentations to stu-the past 27 years. Her awards include dents and teachers since 1990. She is athe first J. Sargeant Reynolds Commu- member of the Mathematical Associa-nity College Sabbatical, 1996; Distin- tion of America (MAA) and the Nationalguished Service in Mathematics Educa- Council of Teachers of Mathematicstion Award, 1995; William C. Lowry (NCTM). For six years she served asOutstanding Mathematics Teacher the Mid-Atlantic Vice President ofAward, Virginia Council of Teachers of AMATYC.APPENDIX F 183
    • Glossary of Education Terms Like all other professionals, educators use language and terms that are specific tothe profession. In fact, many people inside and outside of education claim that therecan be no “profession” without a special language. This glossary is provided forreaders who may not be familiar with some of the words and concepts commonlyused by professional educators. As with other professions, in education, the use and meaning of certain terms isconstantly evolving. Indeed, a given term in education might be defined in morethan one way, in part because so many different professional communities influenceeducation. Therefore, this glossary points out many nuances but does not necessarilyprovide all the definitions or usages of a given term.Term DefinitionAccreditation The granting of approval by an official accrediting body for a college or university to conduct its programs at the under- graduate level. For preservice education, there are two primary organizations that provide such accreditation to colleges and universities: the National Council for Accredita- tion of Teacher Education (NCATE)1 and the Teacher Educa- tion Accreditation Council (TEAC)2 . 1Additional information about NCATE is available at <http://www.ncate.org/>. Information about therecently released NCATE standards is available at http://www.ncate.org/2000/pressrelease.htm. 2Additional information about TEAC is available at <http://www.teac.org/>. 185
    • Conceptual Assists in drawing distinctions between knowing how to do Understanding something (procedural or skill understanding) and knowing what something means (conceptual understanding). For example, understanding 1 3 divided by 1 should include both 4 2 how to do the calculation (procedural understanding) and what 1 3 divided by 1 means (conceptual understanding); i.e., 4 2 being able to calculate a derivative of a function is different from knowing what that derivative means. Content Specialist A person who has extensive training in and knowledge of a subject area and can both teach that subject to students and help other teachers become more knowledgeable about the subject. Most commonly, this term is used to describe teach- ers in grades K-12 who have focused their education on mastering the content of specific disciplines. In science and mathematics education, there has been an ongoing debate about whether content specialists are needed and appropriate to teach these subjects effectively in the primary and middle grades. Endorsement In a subject area—acknowledges that a teacher has studied that subject area at such a level and with enough demon- strated proficiency to be able to teach it effectively. Teachers may seek endorsements in more than one area of expertise that complements or expands understanding of their primary content area of knowledge. For example, in some states a teacher may be certified to teach in the secondary grades with an endorsement in science. In other cases, a teacher may be certified to teach science with an endorsement in physics. Field Component The time that preservice teachers spend in schools and of Teacher classrooms working with mentor teachers. The practicum is Education considered to be one part of a preservice teacher’s field component of teacher education. Commonly, a faculty mem- ber from the student teacher’s college or university oversees field components. Increasingly, field components of teacher186 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • education may involve longer term, intensive, paid or unpaid internships. In some teacher education programs, field experiences also may begin well before the senior year or be scheduled during a fifth undergraduate year.Induction Phase Encompasses the first years of teaching after a student completes a preservice teacher education program (com- monly the first one to three years of teaching). A great deal of research points to the induction phase or period as critical in a new teacher’s decision to continue in or leave the profession.Inquir y Although used in different ways by different authors, most generally refers to the myriad ways in which scientists study nature and propose explanations for natural phenomena based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also can refer to the abilities that students and teachers need to develop to be able to design and conduct scientific investiga- tions. It also refers to the kinds of understandings they develop about the nature of science and how scientific investi- gation is undertaken. “Inquiry” also can refer to approaches and strategies for teaching and learning that enable learners to master scientific concepts as a result of carrying out scientific investigations. For further information about the nature and role of inquiry in teaching and learning, see National Research Council (2000b).Inservice The professional development programs that are offered toEducation practicing classroom teachers. There is little agreement about what should constitute inservice education. Programs range from workshops held as part of teacher professional develop- ment days during the school year to formal courses offered by peers or at colleges and universities.Lower Division A course offered by a college or university that typicallyCourse would be taken by first or second year undergraduate students.G L O S S A R Y O F E D U C AT I O N T E R M S 187
    • Usually, lower division courses fulfill a college- or university- wide requirement (such as a distribution or general education requirement) for graduation. Master/Mentor A teacher with extensive levels of teaching experience and Teacher demonstrated effectiveness in the classroom who may provide mentoring and professional guidance to less experienced colleagues in a variety of ways. Currently, few guidelines exist for determining which teachers qualify as master or mentor teachers. Increasingly, master teachers are being called upon to work with their colleagues in colleges and universities to improve teaching practice or the content of specific courses or curricula. For example, master teachers may team-teach courses for preservice teachers or may offer a variety of professional development activities for more experienced teachers. Out-of-Field Teachers teaching subject areas in which they do not have Teaching endorsement and in which they have little or no formal training. Although the definition is not precise, out-of-field teaching often refers to teaching in subject areas in which the teacher did not earn a major or minor during the under- graduate years and in which he or she does not have an endorsement. PDS Professional Development School (see Chapter 5 for a more complete description). Also see definition below. Pedagogical Shulman (1986) was the first to propose the concept of peda- Content gogical content knowledge, stating that it “…embodies the Knowledge aspects of content most germane to its teachability … peda- gogical content knowledge includes for the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject188 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • that makes it comprehensible to others.... [It] also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific con- cepts easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning.” Thus, pedagogical content knowledge is a type of knowledge that may be unique to teaching. It is based on the ways that teachers relate what they know about what they teach (sub- ject matter knowledge) to what they know about effective teaching (pedagogical knowledge). The synthesis and inte- gration of these two types of knowledge characterize peda- gogical content knowledge (Cochran, 1997). Different disciplines may require a variety of approaches to teaching in order for students to learn the content of that discipline effectively. Pedagogical content knowledge implies that teachers know the content of the discipline and that they teach, organize, and represent that content in ways that address students’ needs and enhance learning.Practicum Usually refers to the time toward the end of the preservice education experience that student teachers are able to work with teachers and engage in actual classroom teaching as well as a variety of related experiences. In some cases, practicum refers to “student teaching.” However, it also may refer to shorter periods of time when students, especially those who are beginning in teacher education, can gain experience in schools to help them decide whether they would like to continue pursuing teaching as a career.Praxis A series of examinations administered by the Educational Testing Service that are used to assess qualifications both for admission into teacher education programs at some colleges and universities and for certification following the completion of a preservice program. Thirty-five of the 43 states that nowG L O S S A R Y O F E D U C AT I O N T E R M S 189
    • require an examination for new teachers use the Praxis series. Additional information about this examination is available at <http://www.teachingandlearning.org/licnsure/ praxis/prxfaq.html>. Preser vice The programs at institutions of higher education (typically Education through schools or colleges of education) that prepare new teachers for grades K-12. Professional The community that is responsible for preparing, providing Community professional development for, and supporting teachers throughout their careers. Recent efforts to improve teacher education and professionalism have involved engaging mem- bers of the K-12, higher education, and business and industry communities. Professional A formal collaboration between a college or university and the Development K-12 sector for the specific purpose of improving teacher School education and school renewal. Reflective “… a mode that integrates or links thought and action with Practice reflection. It [reflective practice] involves thinking about and (Practitioner) critically analyzing one’s actions with the goal of improving one’s professional practice. Engaging in reflective practice requires individuals to assume the perspective of an external observer in order to identify the assumptions and feelings underlying their practice and then to speculate about how these assumptions and feelings affect practice” (Imel, 1992). School Anyone who engages in the act of teaching. Most often the Practitioner term refers to teachers of grades K-12, but it also is occasion- ally used to refer to those who instruct in higher education. Teacher Used to describe either preservice or inservice education but Education also sometimes used to describe the continuum of teacher preparation and professional development. As emphasized in190 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • this report, teacher education is a concept that would sup- plant the separation of various phases of a teacher’s profes- sional life (preservice education, induction, and inservice education or professional development). The concept of teacher education would weave these phases into a much more seamless and integrated continuum of education that helps all teachers grow and develop professionally.Teacher Educator Traditionally, faculty in schools and colleges of education who prepare new teachers, provide professional development for practicing teachers, and conduct research on the improve- ment of education and teaching. However, this report calls for a broadening of the concept of teacher educator to include all educators who are involved with teacher education. For teachers of science, mathematics, and technology, this would include faculty in the life and physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering. It also would include master teachers who work in any capacity with faculty in higher education to provide high-quality teacher education programs.Teacher Intern Someone who undertakes one of several different kinds of learning opportunities for prospective or practicing teachers. In some cases, practicing teachers intern formally in busi- ness, industry, or a research laboratory to learn more about the needs of the workplace and how their teaching might better prepare students for these kinds of challenges and opportunities. In some cases, teacher interns are prospective teachers who through their internships can pursue much longer and more intense teaching experiences than might be available in a practicum or other field experience. Interns are often provided with stipends—an increasingly important practice for those who are considering teaching as a career but who also have family and other obligations that require them to earn income before becoming employed as teachers.G L O S S A R Y O F E D U C AT I O N T E R M S 191
    • Teacher Licensing The granting of official recognition, usually by a state’s and Certification department of education, that an individual teacher is quali- fied to teach at one or more grade levels or in one or more subject areas. In some states, new teachers may receive provisional certification until they have completed additional study or have demonstrated in some way their ability to teach at a given grade level in a given subject area. Teaching Practice The art of teaching that involves employing content knowl- edge and pedagogy that is appropriate for a given subject area and for the developmental level of the students being taught, as well using one’s knowledge of students’ abilities and learning styles. Teaching practice is influenced by a host of factors such as a teacher’s own educational background and experiences, his or her knowledge and use of the research literature on teaching, and the condition of the school and community where teaching and learning are taking place. Teaching as A phrase sometimes used by educators to describe an approach Telling or to teaching that is characterized by excessively formal presen- Teaching Is tation. Often this kind of teaching involves little or no solicita- Telling tion of student input. Explicit connections are not made to students’ prior or related knowledge. The learning that results and is measured may emphasize memorization more than conceptual development.192 E D U C A T I N G T E A C H E R S O F S C I E N C E , M A T H E M AT I C S , A N D T E C H N O L O G Y
    • IndexA content preparation, 20 Project 2061, 16-17, 66 American Association of Community Colleges, 93Accountability American Association of Physics Teachers, 129 benchmarks, 31, 17, 31, 32, 66, 119 American Astronomical Society, 129 colleges and universities, 8, 17; see also American College Testing program, 48 Accreditation, institutions American Council on Education, 66, 74-75, 85, 93, students, 86 123 teachers, 113, 122-123 American Educational Research Association,Accreditation, institutions, 32, 35, 88, 106, 117, 122(n.3) 185 American Federation of Teachers, 57 defined, 185 American Institute of Physics, 51(n.5), 129Acoustical Society of America, 129 American Physical Society, 129Administrators and administration, 6-7, 82, 88 Analogies, 64, 157, 188 attitudes toward profession, 40-41 Assessment, see Accountability; Accreditation, collaborative partnerships, involvement in, 76, institutions; Benchmarks; Evaluation of 79, 83, 92(n.1) students; Evaluation of teachers; institutional integration, 8, 76, 79, 88 Licensing and certification; Standards out-of-field teachers hired by, 82 Association for the Education of Teachers of Professional Development Schools, 76, 79 Science, 5, 66 salaries, 3 Association of American Universities, 85, 93, teacher support by, 40, 159-161 122(n.4)Age factors, pedagogical content knowledge Attitudes defined, 189 of administrators toward profession, 40-41 see also Grade-level factors; Life-long learning parental, 39-40Algebra, 50(n2), 151 of students, 69, 83, 155-156Alternative teacher education/certification about teacher education, 22, 28, 35 programs, 23, 37-38, 51-52, 61-62, 107 of teachers, 11(n.5), 19-20, 40, 67, 69-70, 81,Alverno College, 164-165 95-96, 154American Association for the Advancement of about teaching as telling, 23 Science, 170 see also Motivation; Public opinion Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 17, 32 193
    • B Colleges and universities, xiv, 2, 5, 10, 11-12, 41, 42, 45, 74-75, 109, 111-112, 116-128 accountability, 8, 17 Background factors accreditation, 32, 35, 88, 106, 117, 185 students, 24, 25, 39, 69, 146, 155, 156 advisors, 35, 116-117 teachers, 48, 49, 100, 192 career advising, 35, 116-117 see also Socioeconomic status certification of teachers, 96, 116-117 Beginning teachers, see Induction phase curriculum development, 78, 95 Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment lower division courses, 95, 120, 121-122 Project, 92(n.1) defined, 187-188 Benchmarks, 17, 31, 32, 119 partnerships, x, xiv, 8-10, 11, 19, 22, 28, 43, 74, Project 2061, 16-17, 66 75, 81, 82-83, 87-108 (passim), 109, 111, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 17, 32 112, 116-117, 118, 119, 123-128, 129, 161, Biology, 61, 148, 149 164-176 Boston Plan for Excellence in the Public Schools, beginning teachers, induction assistance, 160-161 91, 92(n.1), 96, 107 clinical schools and training, 7, 19, 22, 75, 161, 162, 166 information technology, 98, 103 C inservice education, 76, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 97, 98-99, 100-103, 107, 126-128, 161 post-graduate programs, 98, 170 California, 63, 72 preservice education, 88, 92-97 (passim), California Beginning Teacher Support and 107, 164-176 Assessment System, 159 Professional Development Schools (PDS), California Commission on Teacher 5-6, 22, 75-79, 81, 166-167, 169-170 Credentialing, 92(n.1) standards, 100-101, 174 California Learning Assessment System, 63 pedagogy, 11-12, 23, 118, 119, 175 California State University, 175 professors, selection criteria, 23 Career-long professional development, 5, 7, 10, professors, tenure and promotion, 105, 106 16, 19, 23-24, 28, 37, 67, 75, 88, 108, 109, Project 2061, 66 114(n.1), 144 reform movement, general, 17, 19, 20, 22, 85 Carolina Teacher Performance Assessment research by, 12, 43, 111, 121-122 System, 50 standards, 17, 35-36, 100-101, 174; see also Center for Teaching Excellence (University of “accreditation” supra Kansas), 121(n.2) see also Community colleges; Post-graduate Cerritos College, 175-176 programs; Preservice education; Certification, see Accreditation, institutions; Professional development; Teacher Licensing and certification educators China, 62-63 Colorado, 56 Clark University-Worcester Public Schools, 165- Colorado College, 170 166 Columbia University, 8(n.3) Class size, 45, 48, 72 Community colleges, x, xiv, 93, 94, 124, 173-175, Clinical schools and training, 7, 19, 22, 75, 161, 176 162, 166 recruitment and retention, 93, 173-174, 176 see also Practicum experiences see also Colleges and universities Cognitively Guided Instruction, 64 Computer technology, see Information Collaborations and partnerships, see Partnerships technology; Internet and collaborations Conceptual understanding, 68 Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher defined, 186 Preparation, 173 inquiry-based education, 21194 INDEX
    • partnerships, 7, 83 teaching practice, defined, 192 pedagogical content knowledge defined, 189 see also Curriculum development student misconceptions, 61 Content specialists, 4, 55, 69, 79-80 teacher educators and education, 32, 60, 68 defined, 186 teachers, general, 59, 60, 61, 62(n.13), 119, Chinese vs U.S., 62-63 148 master teachers, 39, 91, 96, 97, 107, 124, 126, teachers, international comparisons, 54 127, 188; see also Mentoring teacher standards, 58 professional societies role, 80, 118-119 teaching as telling vs, 192 recruitment and retention, 80, 111 see also Preconceptions Continuing education, see Inservice educationConcerns-Based Adoption Model, xvii Council of Basic Education, 18Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Council of Chief State School Officers, see 5, 56 Interstate New Teacher AssessmentContent knowledge, general, 18, 35, 68-69 and Support Consortium alternative teacher education programs, 23, Council of Scientific Society of Presidents, 130 61-62 Council of the Great City Colleges, 37(n.4) career-long education, 10, 67 Council of the Great City Schools, 37(n.4) endorsement of teachers, 186 Credentialing, general, 175 grade-level factors, ix, 55-56, 60, 80, 118, 119- national consensus, 34, 115-116 120 out-of-field teaching, 50, 188 inservice education, 33, 63, 64, 65, 123, 145 professors, selection criteria, 23 international perspectives, 54, 62-63 professors, tenure and promotion, 105, 106 lacking among teachers, 2, 33 teachers, 18, 37-38, 101 memorization, 26, 61, 119; see also Teaching as see also Accreditation, institutions; Licensing telling and certification; “teachers, other” under out-of-field teaching, 50-53, 54, 72, 79, 82, 188 Standards parental attitudes, 39-40 Cultural factors, 62-63, 146 partnerships, 88, 95, 96 culture of education, 43, 101-102, 123, 145, 160 pedagogical content knowledge, ix, 11-12, 60, partnerships, 43, 101-102 64, 67, 118 professional training requirements, attitudes defined, 188-189 toward, 15-16, 22-23 preservice education, 49-65 (passim), 79-81, student background, 25, 69 118, 119-120, 145 see also Public opinion problem solving and teacher content Current practices, x, xiv, 1-3, 7, 18, 28, 41, 46 knowledge, 60, 62(n.13), 63 partnerships vs, xv, 76, 108 reform of content, xiii, xv, 1-2, 17-18, 20 practicum experiences, 18 scientists and engineers, 8, 70 Professional Development Schools and, 76 standards, 1(n.1), 2, 5, 17-18, 19, 23, 24, see also Reform of education 30(n.1), 31, 55-59, 69, 70, 119-120, 143, Curriculum development, 70 144, 145, 148-153 master/mentor teachers, 188 state standards for teacher education, 3, 5, 17- partnerships, 77-78, 90, 91-92, 96, 98, 176 18, 19, 23, 33, 34, 56-57 Professional Development Schools, 77-78 curriculum frameworks, 17-18, 25-26, 31, Project 2061, 66 63, 160, 174-175 standardized test achievement, 54 teacher input into content development, 39, standards, 17-18, 25-26, 28, 147, 156 52, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 state curriculum frameworks, 17-18, 25-26, 31, teachers lacking, 31 63, 160, 174-175 out-of-field teaching, 50-52, 54, 72, 79, 82, teacher content knowledge and, 61, 63, 64 188 teacher decision- and policy-making, 38-39, 96, teacher quality and student achievement, 49- 103, 147, 156, 160 65 teacher education, 19, 61, 63, 64, 77-78, 90, 91- teaching as telling and, 10, 23, 24, 27, 192 92, 96, 98, 147, 156, 160INDEX 195
    • teacher quality and student achievement, 49, hours of work, 62, 103, 108 61, 63 internships, 191 teacher teams, 77 job dissatisfaction, 11(n.5) see also Content knowledge professors, selection criteria, 23 professors, tenure and promotion, 105, 106 unions, 6-7, 83 working conditions, 39, 40, 65, 82(n.4), 95-96, D 108, 113 class size, 45, 48, 72 see also Interns and internships; Licensing and Databases, 12, 13, 47, 111, 112, 114-115, 116, 122, certification; Recruitment and retention; 128 Stipends; Wages and salaries Demographic factors Equipment, 40, 95, 98, 103-104 students, 24, 25, 39, 69, 146, 155, 156 see also Laboratories teachers, 48, 49, 100, 192 Ethnicity, see Race/ethnicity see also Socioeconomic status Evaluation of students, general Department of Education, 16, 85, 122(n.3) national standards, 24, 25 content specialists, 80 partnerships, 97, 164, 165 database of teaching jobs, 115 self-assessment, 155 standards, 17 see also Standardized testing; “students” under Descriptive Tests of Mathematics Skills, 50(n.4) Standards Designing Professional Development for Teachers Evaluation of teachers, general, 50, 68 of Science and Mathematics, xvii examinations, other than Praxis examinations, Digest of Education Statistics, 38 2, 8(n.3) Disabled students, 39, 168 novice teachers, 92 see also Special education partnerships, 92, 164 Discipline, student, 23, 26 Praxis examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190 Professional Development Schools, 78 see also Licensing and certification; Standards; Teacher quality E Extra-curricular activities, 8(n.3) East Carolina University, 78 Economic factors, 11 career choice, general, 38 F inservice education, 34, 37, 89, 98 partnerships, xv, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98 Facilities, see Equipment; Laboratories student loans, 11, 110, 111, 113 Federal government, 110-112, 113, 116 see also Employment factors; Funding; databases, 114-115 Incentives; Socioeconomic status; partnerships, funding, 98-99 Stipends; Wages and salaries reform of education, 11, 85 Educational Testing Service, Praxis see also Department of Education; Funding examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190 Feedback Education Trust, 44 inservice, 41, 50(n.3), 92, 144 Eisenhower Act for Improving Science and preservice, 71, 76, 92, 164 Mathematics Education, 99, 113-114, Field experiences, students, 79, 95 172, 175 Field experiences, teachers, 56, 68, 81, 104, 112, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 113 161, 170, 171 Employment factors, teachers alternative teacher education programs, 23 databases, 115, 116 defined, 186-187 decision- and policy-making by teachers, 38- see also Interns and internships; Practicum 39, 96, 103, 147, 156, 161 experiences196 INDEX
    • Flexner Report, 22 school environment, 145Foreign countries, see International perspectives; science, history of, 148, 149, 172 specific countries teacher quality and student achievement, 49Funding, 11 Holistic learning, 83-84, 172 committee study at hand, 27 Holmes Group reports, 20, 22, 74 equipment, 104 Hospitals, 7, 165-166 inservice education, 36, 73, 95, 98-99, 111, 113- Houston Consortium, 166 114, 125, 162-163 internships, 125-126 mentor payments, 19, 162 partnerships, xv, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98- I 99, 104-106, 110, 111, 113, 114, 162, 163, 172, 175-176 practicum experiences, 124, 125 Illinois, 92(n.1) preservice education, 89, 104-105, 125, 162, Incentives, xi, 7, 11, 33, 37, 38, 39, 82(n.4), 88, 175, 176 110, 113 research on education, 92, 98, 122(n.3) see also Wages and salaries retention of teachers, 36, 89 Income, see Socioeconomic status; Wages and state content standards and, 19 salaries Induction phase, xi, 1, 3, 18, 35, 37, 81, 92(n.1), 109-110, 112, 128, 159-163 attitudes of new teachers, 11(n.5)G defined, 187 partnerships, 6, 76, 77, 91, 92(n.1), 96, 107, 169Geometry, 151 pedagogy, 18, 23Georgia Southern University, 170-171 Professional Development Schools (PDS), 6,Germany, 54 76, 77, 169Government role, see Federal government; reform of education, 18, 85 Funding; Local government; State retention of new teachers, 33, 72, 187 government special education training, 19Grade-level factors state role, 75 content knowledge requirements, ix, 55-56, teacher education defined, 191 60, 118, 119-120 see also Interns and internships; Mentoring content specialists, 80 Information technology, 40, 157 defined, 55(n.10) accreditation, institutions, 32 Professional Development Schools, 81 databases, 12, 13, 47, 111, 112, 114-115, 116,Graduate programs, see Post-graduate programs 122, 128Green River Community College, 173-174 partnerships, 98, 103Group learning, 25, 147, 158 see also Internet Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, 59 Inquiry-based education, 21, 67, 68, 70, 95, 162H defined, 187 partnerships, 95 standards, 5, 18, 20, 24, 26, 58, 67, 143, 144,Handicapped students, see Disabled students; 145, 148-149, 154, 155-156 Special education see also Problem solvingHenry Ford Community College, 174-175 Inservice education, 30, 33-34, 36-37, 46, 48, 65,High-stakes examinations, ix, 26, 34, 108 71, 73, 81-82, 110, 111, 122-124, 143, 159-Historical perspectives, 24, 66, 68 163 education reform movement, 16-22, 60(n.12) career-long, 5, 7, 10, 16, 19, 23-24, 28, 37, 67, Loucks-Horsley, Susan, xvii 75, 88, 108, 109, 114(n.1), 144INDEX 197
    • content knowledge, 33, 63, 64, 65, 123, 145 inservice education funding, 99(n.2, n.3) defined, 187 inservice education, other, 42(n.10), 159(n.1, economic factors, 34, 37, 89, 98; see also n.2), 160(n.3), 161(n.4), 165(n.2), 170 “funding” infra preservice education, 42(n.10), 60(n.12), 129, feedback, 41, 50(n.3), 92, 144 164(n.1), 168(n.3), 175-176 funding, 36, 73, 95, 98-99, 111, 113-114, 125, Professional Development Schools Standards 162-163 Project, 77(n.3) incentives, xi, 7, 11, 33, 37 Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying informal, 101-102, 123, 156, 164-176 Student Achievement, 64 Internet, web sites, 42(n.10), 99(n.2, n.3), research funding, 122(n.3) 159(n.1, n.2), 160(n.3), 161(n.4), state content standards, 31(n.2) 165(n.2), 170 university teaching and learning centers, partnerships, 76, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 97, 98-99, 121(n.2) 100-103, 107, 126-128, 161, 164-176 Urban Teacher Collaborative, sponsors, 37 peers/colleagues, 6, 11, 71, 78, 82, 102, 140, Interns and internships, 11, 78, 111, 112, 113, 142, 144, 152, 158, 162, 167, 187 162, 168, 170, 186, 187, 191 preservice/inservice gap, 19, 27(n.5), 172 defined, 191 Professional Development Schools, 76 funding, 125-126 research by teachers, 71, 98, 102 partnerships, 12, 78, 89, 96, 100, 101, 107, 124- school districts, 34, 73, 75, 96, 98, 99, 113, 126- 125, 126, 170 128 stipends, 11, 111, 113, 124-125, 191 standards, 33-34, 100-101, 143-147 Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support state government role, 33, 37, 73, 75, 81, 97, Consortium, 5, 42(n.10), 57-58, 68 98, 161-163 teacher education, defined, 190-191 see also Induction phase; Mentoring; Post- graduate programs; Workshops J Institutional factors, 5-7, 85, 144 see also Accreditation; Administrators and administration; Colleges and Japan, 53-54, 103 universities; Organizational factors; Partnerships and collaborations; Reform of education Interdisciplinary approaches, 58, 98, 121, 173, K 174 International perspectives conceptual knowledge of teachers, 54 Kansas, 162 content knowledge of teachers, 54, 62-63 Kansas Sate University, 166-167 teacher compensation, 103 Kentucky, 92(n.1) teaching practices, 53-55 Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 16, 53-55 see also specific countries L International Society for Technology in Education, 32(n.3) Laboratories, 20, 40, 67, 115(n.1) International Technology Education Association, partnerships, 76, 95, 103-104 1(n.1), 30(n.1) preservice education, 57, 58, 59 Internet Professional Development Schools, 76 attitudes toward teaching as a profession, safety codes, 40 40(n.8) Language factors, 25, 39, 48, 146, 152, 175 Columbia University, 8(n.3)198 INDEX
    • Learning First Alliance, 118 partnerships and, 87, 90, 92(n.1), 96, 100, 104,Licensing and certification, 4, 18, 31-32, 37-38, 107, 124, 125, 127, 161-162 92(n.1), 106, 168 practicum experiences, 87 alternative programs, 23, 37-38, 51-52, 61-62, standards, 19, 144 107 see also Interns and internships defined, 192 Metropolitan areas, see Urban areas examinations, general, 2, 31, 32-33, 34, 48 Michigan, 174-175 national standards, 34, 115-116 Minority groups, see Race/ethnicity out-of-field teaching, 50-53, 54, 72, 79, 188 Missouri, 162-163 post-graduate requirements, 34, 37 Model Clinical Teaching Program, 78 Praxis examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190 Motivation teacher interest in subject vs, 82 student, ix, 54, 69 teacher quality and student achievement, 48, teachers, general, 97; see also Recruitment and 49-53, 54, 56 retentionLife-long learning, xiv, 37, 111, 114(n.1) teacher support by administrators, 40, 159-161 research on, 43, 121-122 teachers, career-long learning, 5, 7, 10, 16, 19, 23-24, 28, 37, 67, 75, 88, 108, 109, 114(n.1), 144 NLoans, 11, 110, 111, 113Local government, 110, 111 partnerships, 91, 94, 106, 110 National Assessment of Educational Progress reform of education, 11 (NAEP), 16, 52-53, 54 see also School districts National Association of Biology Teachers, 4-5, 66Loucks-Horsley, Susan, xvii National Board for Professional TeachingLower division courses, 95, 120, 121-122 Standards, 3, 5, 34, 35, 68, 69 defined, 187-188 National Center for Education Statistics, 38 National Center for Improving Science Education, 66, 81 National Commission on Mathematics andM Science, 66 National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 19, 44, 82, 161MacArthur Foundation, 170 National Council for Accreditation of TeacherMaryland, 79, 162 Education, 185Mass media, ix National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 5,Master teachers, 126 66 decision- and policy-making by, 39 standards, 17, 25, 51, 55, 67, 145-147, 174-175 defined, 188 National Education Goals Panel, 17 partnerships, involvement in, 91, 96, 97, 107, National Governors’ Association, 17 124, 127 National Science Board, 45 see also Mentoring National Science Education Standards, 17, 20, 24-Mathematical Association of America, 5 25, 55, 56, 57, 66-67, 143-147, 148-158,Mathematicians, professional, see Scientists and 173, 175 mathematicians, professional inservice education funding, 99(n.3)Medical education, 7, 21, 36, 81, 165-166 teacher licensing examinations, 32Memorization, 26, 61, 119 National Science Foundation, 5, 27, 66, 74, 174, see also Teaching as telling 176Mentoring, 36-37, 71, 89, 103, 117, 159 databases 114-115, 122 alternative teacher education programs, 23 standards, 17 compensation for, 19, 162 National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and defined, 188 Technology Education Digital Library, 114-115(n.1)INDEX 199
    • National Science Teachers Association, 5, evaluation of teachers, general, 92, 164 11(n.5), 17, 66, 118 funding, xv, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98-99, A Nation at Risk, 16, 79-80 104-106, 110, 111, 113, 114, 162, 163, New teachers, see Induction phase 172, 175-176 New York City, 8(n.3) induction of new teachers, 6, 76, 77, 91, New York State Regents Examination, 8(n.3) 92(n.1), 96, 107, 169 North Carolina, 19, 78-79 information technology, 98, 103 North Carolina University-School Teacher inquiry-based education, 95 Education Partnerships, 161 inservice education, 76, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 97, Novice teachers, see Induction phase 98-99, 100-103, 107, 126-128, 161, 164 internships, 12, 78, 89, 96, 100, 101, 107, 124- 125, 126, 170 laboratories, 76, 95, 103-104 O local factors, 91, 94, 106, 110 master teachers, 91, 96, 97, 107, 124, 127 mentoring, 87, 90, 92(n.1), 96, 100, 104, 107, Ohio, 161-162 124, 125, 127, 161-162 Oklahoma, 162 pedagogy, 81, 95, 96, 175 Organizational factors, 1-2, 5-7 post-graduate programs, 98, 170 collaborative efforts, x, xiv-xv, 8-10; see also preservice education, 88, 92-97 (passim), 107, Partnerships and collaborations 164-176 see also Institutional factors; Reform of Professional Development Schools (PDS), education 6, 75-76, 77, 78-79, 81, 161, 166-167, 169- Out-of-field teaching, 50-53, 54, 72, 79, 82 170 defined, 188 private sector involvement, 74, 91, 92-93, 94, 112 Professional Development Schools (PDS), 5-6, 22, 75-79, 81, 169-170 P professional societies, role of, 42-43, 90, 92, 112, 145 recruitment and retention, 81, 89, 93, 99-100, Parents, 7, 8, 39-40 110, 111, 168, 170, 173-174, 176 teacher engagement of, 69, 70, 158, 160 research, x, 76, 77-78, 81, 82, 90, 91-93, 98, 101, Partnerships and collaborations, 28, 41, 42-43, 83, 102 84, 87-108, 164-176 Professional Development Schools, 76, 77- administrators involvement in, 76, 79, 83, 78, 81 92(n.1) school districts, involvement in, x, xi, xiv-xv, 5- clinical schools and training, 7, 19, 22, 75, 161, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 28, 83, 87, 88, 91-105 162, 166 (passim), 108, 109, 112, 114, 124-128, colleges, involvement in, see “partnerships” 165-168, 174, 175 under Colleges and universities scientists and mathematicians, professional, x, conceptual knowledge, 7, 83 xi, xiv, xv, 5, 6, 8, 17, 28, 42, 68, 75, 82, content knowledge, 88, 95, 96 88, 90, 91, 103 contractual agreements, 97, 104, 105, 106 standards, 77, 100-101, 174 culture of education, 43, 101-102 state government involvement in, 9, 97, 110 current practices vs, xv, 76, 108 teacher quality and, general, 78, 92 curriculum development, 77-78, 90, 91-92, 96, teaching practices and, 78, 83, 91-92, 96, 171, 98, 176 175 economic factors, xv, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95, 97, see also Professional Development Schools 98; see also “funding” infra (PDS) equipment, 95, 98, 103-104 Pedagogy, 8, 24, 25, 146 evaluation of students, general, 97, 164, 165 alternative teacher education programs, 23200 INDEX
    • colleges and universities, 11-12, 23, 118, 119, content knowledge of teacher and student 175 achievement, 49-65 (passim) content knowledge, ix, 11-12, 60, 64, 67, 74, 79, content knowledge, other, 79-81, 118, 119-120, 81, 118 145 defined, 188-189 defined, 190-191 induction phase, 18, 23 feedback, 71, 76, 92, 164 internships, 100 funding, 89, 104-105, 125, 162, 175, 176 partnerships, 81, 95, 96, 175 grades of student teachers, 4 post-graduate university programs, 2, 20, 22 information technology, 103 research on, 49, 60 inquiry-based teaching, 95 specialists, 80-81 inservice/preservice gap, 19, 27(n.5), 172 teacher input, 39 Internet, web sites, 42(n.10), 60(n.12), 129, teacher quality and student achievement, 49, 164(n.1), 168(n.3), 175-176 60 laboratories, 57, 58, 59 teaching practice, defined, 192 partnerships, 88, 92-97 (passim), 107, 164-176 see also Teaching as telling; Teaching Professional Development Schools (PDS), practices 6, 75-76, 77, 78-79, 81, 161, 166-167, 169Peer review, research, x, 12, 111, 121-122 professional education curriculum strands, 20Peers/colleagues professional organization oversight, 35-36, 42- students, 44, 69, 168 43 teachers, 6, 11, 71, 78, 82, 102, 140, 142, 144, reform of education, 18, 19, 20, 75, 85, 86 152, 154, 155, 158, 160, 162, 167, 168 research by preservice teachers, 78, 98Performance standards, general research on, x, 47-55, 59-65 international, 16 school districts, general, 9, 97, 100, 112 student, ix, 16, 17 standards, 32, 33-34, 42, 56-57, 100-101, 143- teacher, 3, 68, 77, 123 147 see also Standardized testing teacher education, defined, 190-191Physical science, 51, 61, 67, 129, 148, 149-150 see also Colleges and universities; FieldPortfolios, 144, 168, 171 experiences; Interns and internships;Post-graduate programs, 2, 4, 20, 22, 33, 34, 123 Mentoring; Practicum experiences licensing requirements, 34, 37 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, partnerships, 98, 170 25, 32, 56 pedagogy and, 2, 20, 22 Private schools, 80 research by, 92 Private sector, 8, 43 teacher qualifications and student partnerships, 74, 91, 92-93, 94, 112 achievement, 48 see also Scientists and mathematicians, see also Inservice education professionalPracticum experiences, 56, 96, 124-125, 172 Problem solving, 68, 70 defined, 189 content knowledge of teachers and, 60, funding, 124, 125 62(n.13), 63 mentoring, 87 standards, 5, 18, 20, 70, 145-146, 152, 156, 157 problems in current practices, 18 see also Inquiry-based educationPraxis examinations, 2, 3, 31 Procedural knowledge, 23, 132 defined, 189-190 conceptual understanding vs, 186Preconceptions Professional and disciplinary organizations, 13, pedagogical content knowledge defined, 189 46, 66-71, 112, 128-130, 145-147, 161 teacher content knowledge and, 61 committee study at hand, methodology, 27, 29Preservice education, ix, 18, 30, 31-32, 45, 71, 72, content specialists, 80, 118-119 74-75, 78, 87, 102, 111, 116-124 conventions, 24 advisors, 35, 116-117 partnerships, 42-43, 90, 92, 112, 145 attitudes of participants toward, 19-20 preservice program oversight by, 35-36, 42-43 committee study, topics, 28 see also specific organizationsINDEX 201
    • Professional development, general, ix, xiv, 1-3, 8- Reasoning, 70, 145-146, 152, 156 9, 30, 32, 83-84 see also Inquiry-based education; Problem career-long professional development, 5, 7, 10, solving 16, 19, 23-24, 28, 37, 67, 75, 88, 108, 109, Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., 37(n.4) 114(n.1), 144 Recruitment and retention, ix, 1, 11, 35, 40-41, 52, professional community, defined, 190 72, 73, 81, 109, 111, 122 see also Colleges and universities; Field community colleges, role of, 93, 173-174, 176 experiences; Induction phase; Inservice content specialists, 80, 111 education; Master teachers; Mentoring; funding, 36, 89 Preservice education incentives, xi, 7, 11, 33, 100, 113 Professional Development Schools (PDS), 5-6, induction phase, 33, 72, 187 22, 75-79, 81, 166-167, 169-170 loan forgiveness, 110, 113 administrators, 76, 79 partnerships, 81, 89, 93, 99-100, 110, 111, 168, curriculum development, 77-78 170, 173-174, 176 induction of new teachers, 6, 76, 77, 169 Professional Development Schools, 78 preservice education, 6, 75-76, 77, 78-79, 81, reform of education, 85, 86 161, 166-167, 169 school districts, 99-100 recruitment and retention, 78 workforce distribution and, 82(n.4), 99, 115 research, 76, 77-78, 81 working conditions, 39, 40, 65, 82(n.4), 95-96 standardized testing, 78 see also Wages and salaries standards, other, 77, 163 Reform of education, xiii, xv, 1-2, 11, 30, 74, 85-87 state government role, 9, 75 colleges and universities, general, 17, 19, 20, Professional Development Schools Standards 22, 85 Project, 77 content knowledge, xiii, xv, 1-2, 17-18, 20 Professional organizations, see Professional and historical perspectives, 16-22, 60(n.12) disciplinary organizations induction of new teachers, 18, 85 Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics, international perspectives, 53 25 preservice education, 18, 19, 20, 75, 85, 86 Project 2061, 16-17, 66 recruitment and retention, 85, 86 Project TEACH, 173-174 state government, 11, 17-18, 19, 30, 85 Public opinion, 15-16 see also Partnerships and collaborations; about education, general, ix, 22-23 Standards about teachers, 2, 7-8, 15-16, 19, 22-23, 28, 40- Research for Better Teaching, 159-161 41, 45 Research on teaching, x, 4, 17, 27, 43, 111 Purdue University, 171 attitudes toward profession, 40-41 classroom, 44 databases, 12, 13, 47, 111, 112, 114-115, 116, 122, 128 Q funding, 92, 98, 122(n.3) inservice teachers performing, 71, 98, 102, 143, 144 Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student life-long learning, 43, 121-122 Achievement, 64 partnerships, x, 81, 82, 76, 77-78, 81, 90, 91-93, Questioning, 25, 157, 158 98, 101, 102 see also Inquiry-based education; Problem Professional Development Schools, 76, 77- solving 78, 81 pedagogy training, 49, 60 peer review, x, 12, 111, 121-122 teacher education, 47-55, 59-65, 111, 144, 155 R teacher quality and student achievement, 44, 46, 47-55, 59-65, 99 by teachers, 71, 98, 102, 143, 144 Race/ethnicity, 25, 48, 69, 73, 146, 168202 INDEX
    • working conditions, 82(n.4) Stakeholders, general, 9, 81-82 see also Peer review committee study at hand, methodology, xReflective practice, 37, 62, 64, 67, 71, 83, 103, 121, see also Partnerships and collaborations 160, 167, 171, 172 Standardized testing, ix defined, 190 American College Testing program, 48 standards, 144, 147, 152, 155 high-stakes examinations, ix, 26, 34, 108Retention, see Recruitment and retention National Assessment of Educational Progress,Rote learning, see Memorization 16, 52-53, 54Rubrics, 63 Praxis examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190Rural areas, 33 Professional Development Schools, 78 statewide testing of students, 34 teacher quality and scores, 48 Third International Mathematics and ScienceS Study, 16, 53-55 Standards, 18 colleges and universities, 17, 35-36, 100-101,Salaries, see Wages and salaries 174School districts, 12-13, 45, 71, 79, 112, 147 accreditation, 32, 35, 88, 106, 117, 185 career-long professional development, 23-24 content knowledge, 1(n.1), 2, 5, 17-18, 19, 23, decision- and policy-making by teachers, 38- 24, 30(n.1), 31, 55-59, 69, 70, 119-120, 39, 96, 103, 147, 156, 161 143, 144, 145, 148-153 demographics, 72-73 state standards for teacher education, 3, 5, evaluation of, 92 17-18, 19, 23, 31(n.2), 33, 34, 56-57 funding, 11, 98, 99, 104, 105, 113, 114 curricular, 17-18, 28, 147, 156 induction phase, 75, 96, 112, 113 curriculum frameworks, 17-18, 25-26, 31, inservice education, 34, 73, 75, 96, 98, 99, 113, 63, 160, 174-175 126-128 field components, 23 mentoring programs, 37 inquiry-based education, 5, 18, 20, 24, 26, 58, out-of-field teachers, 82 67, 143, 144, 145, 148-149, 154, 155-156 partnerships, x, xi, xiv-xv, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 28, 83, International Technology Education 87, 88, 91-105 (passim), 108, 109, 112, Association, 1(n.1) 114, 124-128, 165-168, 174, 175 laboratory safety, 40 preservice education, 9, 97, 100, 112 national, 5, 17-18, 20, 24-26, 28, 31, 32-33, 41, recruitment of teachers, 99-100 46, 55-59, 66-69, 119, 143-158 teacher incentives, 39(n.7) partnerships, 77, 100-101, 174Science Work Experiences for Teachers, 8(n.3) problem solving, 5, 18, 20, 70, 145-146, 152,Scientists and mathematicians, professional, x, xi, 156, 157 xiv, xv, 5, 6, 8, 17, 28, 42, 68, 75, 82, 88, Professional Development Schools, 77, 78, 163 90, 91, 103 students, 5, 17-18, 20, 24-26, 28, 31, 32-33, 46,Skill acquisition 70 conceptual understanding vs, 186 teacher education, 32, 33-34, 55-59, 66-67, 100- teacher education standards, 144 101, 118, 119, 143-147 teaching practices, international perspectives, preservice, 32, 33-34, 42, 56-57, 100-101, 53-54 143-147Social factors, 68, 69, 71, 123, 146, 148, 149, 154- inservice, 33-34, 100-101, 143-147 156 skill acquisition, 144 see also Cultural factors; Mentoring; Parents; state, 2, 3, 5, 17-18, 19, 23, 31-33, 34, 56-57, Peers/colleagues; Public opinion 159Socioeconomic status, 44, 48, 51, 52, 72-73, 100, see also Accreditation, institutions 113 teachers, other, 3, 17, 20, 34, 41, 42, 46, 55-59, see also Wages and salaries 66-70, 115-116, 148-158Special education, 19, 39, 169 mentoring, 19, 144INDEX 203
    • national, 28, 34, 55-59, 115-116, 143-158 Teacher quality, ix, xi, 3, 4, 5, 17-18, 19, 28, 44-65, performance, general, 3, 68, 77, 123 71, 86, 87, 99 reflective practice, 144, 147, 152, 155 competence requirements, general, 30 teacher quality and, general, 17, 55-59, 69- curriculum development, 49, 61, 63 70 licensing and, 48, 49-53, 54, 56 see also Licensing and certification partnerships, 78, 92 see also Accreditation, institutions; pedagogy, 49, 60 Benchmarks; Performance standards; Professional Development Schools, 78 Reform of education public opinion, 15, 16 Stanford Achievement Test, 50(n.2), 51 research on student achievement and, 44, 46, Stanford Test of Academic Skills, 50(n.2) 47-55, 59-65, 99 State government, 3, 110-112, 113-114 standards and, 17, 55-59, 69-70 content standards for teacher education, 3, 5, teacher educators, 18-19 17-18, 19, 23, 33, 34, 56-57 see also Evaluation of teachers curriculum frameworks, 17-18, 25-26, 31, Teaching as telling, 20, 23, 24, 27 63, 160, 174-175 attitudes toward, 23 databases, 114 defined, 192 examinations, general, 4 Teaching practices, x, xi, xii, 5, 12, 18, 25, 26, 54, induction phase, 75 67, 69, 81, 146, 147, 163 inservice education, 33, 37, 73, 75, 81, 97, 98, defined, 192 161-163 group learning, 25, 147, 158 internships, 125-126 information technology and, 32 mentoring programs, 37 international perspectives, 53-55 partnerships, 9, 97, 110 lecture-based, 20, 26, 60, 67 Praxis examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190 national standards, 28, 146 Professional Development Schools, 9, 75 parental attitudes, 39-40 reform of education, general, 11, 17-18, 19, 30, partnerships, 78, 83, 91-92, 96, 171, 175 85 Professional Development Schools, 78 standards, 3, 5, 17-18, 19, 23, 25-26, 31-33, 36, teacher quality and student achievement, 56-57, 159; see also “curriculum 50(n.4), 43, 58 frameworks” supra team teaching, 77, 80 statewide testing of students, 34 video tapes, 53, 54-55 teacher education standards, 2, 3, 5, 17-18, 19, see also Inquiry-based education; 23, 31-33, 34, 56-57, 159 Memorization; Pedagogy; Problem teacher incentives, 39(n.7) solving; Teaching as telling see also Licensing and certification; specific Team teaching, 77, 80 states see also Mentoring Stipends Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, 47 inservice education, 37 Tests and testing interns, 11, 111, 113, 124-125, 191 high-stakes examinations, ix, 26, 34, 108 Summer Research Program for Science School teacher, 2, 8(n.3) Teachers (Columbia University), 8(n.3) attitudes of high-scoring novices, 11(n.5) Syracuse University, 171 Praxis examinations, 2, 3, 31, 189-190 see also Standardized tests Texas, 56-57, 78, 166, 168-169 Texas State Teachers Association, 11(n.5) T Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 16, 53-55 Tomorrow’s Schools of Education, 74 Teacher Education Accreditation Council, 185 Teacher educators, 32, 82, 90, 93, 112 defined, 191 student teacher advisors, 35, 116-117204 INDEX
    • U WUnions, teacher, 6-7, 83 Wages and salaries, 3Universities, see Colleges and universities; administrators, 3 specific institutions student teacher advisors, 117University of Arizona, 172 teachers, 3, 11, 19, 38, 103, 111, 113University of Kansas, 121(n.2) see also Incentives; StipendsUniversity of Maryland, 79 Westinghouse/Intel Talent Search Projects,University of Massachusetts, 167 8(n.3)University of Texas, 169-169 Wheelock College, 169University of Wisconsin, 64, 172 Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 80Urban areas, 8(n.3), 33, 37, 160-161, 175 Workshops, 24, 63, 73, 147, 187, 161Urban Teacher Collaborative, 37 Project 2061, 16-17, 66 World Wide Web, see InternetVVideotapes, teaching practices analyzed, 53, 54- 55Virginia, 176INDEX 205