Certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) offers experienced teachers opportunities through a written portfolio to “match” their practice to the Board's standards. In creating standards and requiring teachers to argue in writing that they have realized the standards in their teaching, the NBPTS may offer a national discourse about teaching, and as such may form a “discourse community.” However, since teachers’ working knowledge is local, contextualized, personal, and oral, teachers may find difficulties in entering such a discourse. Using interviews and qualitative analysis, this study of four teachers applying for NBPTS certification found that teachers have difficulty representing their knowledge about practice in writing. Those candidates who were most successful were able to assume the NBPTS discourse values, which may be at odds with teachers’ “working knowledge.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA. D. (1988). The systems of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndersonW., BestC., BlackA., HurstJ., MillerB., & MillerS. (1990). Cross-curricular underlife: A collaborative report on ways with academic words. College Composition and Communication, 41, 11–36.
3.
ApplebeeA. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BallouD., & PodgurskyM. (1998, April). Some unanswered questions concerning National Board certification of teachers. Education Leaders Council, pp. 1–3.
5.
BartholomaeD. (1985). Inventing the university. In RoseM. (Ed.), When a writer can't write.New York: Guilford.
6.
BazermanC., & RussellD. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum.Davis, CA: Hermagnas Press.
7.
BeaufortA. (1997). Operationalizing the concept of discourse community: A case study of one institutional site of composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 486–529.
8.
BerkenkotterC., HuckinT., & AckermanJ. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9–44.
9.
BizzellP. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. PRE?TEXT, 3, 213–243.
10.
BondL. (1998, April). Validity and equity in the assessment of accomplished teaching: Studies of adverse impact and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11.
BrownJ., CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.
12.
BrownJ. S., & DuguidP. (1996). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In CohenM. D., & SproullL. S. (Eds.), Organizational learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
ClandininD. (1989). Developing rhythm in teaching: The narrative study of a beginning teacher's personal practical knowledge of classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 19 (2), 121–141.
14.
DelandshereG., & PetroskyA. R. (1998). Assessment of complex performances: Limitations of key measurement assumptions. Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 14–24.
15.
DurstR. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347–376.
16.
FaigleyL., & HansenK. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. College Composition and Communication, 36, 140–149.
17.
FishS. (1980). Is there a text in this class?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
GunnarrsonB. L. (1997). The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written Communication, 14, 139–188.
19.
HerringtonA. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331–361.
20.
HymesD. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
21.
IrvineJ. J., & FraserJ. W. (1998, May 13). Warm demanders. Education Week, p. 35.
22.
KingB. M. (1994). Locking ourselves in: National standards for the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (1), 95–108.
23.
LampertM. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3 (4), 305–342.
24.
LangerJ. A. (1992). Speaking of knowing: Conceptions of understanding in academic disciplines. In HerringtonA., and MoranC. (Eds.), Research and scholarship in writing across the disciplines.New York: Modern Language Association.
25.
LaveJ., & WengerE. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (IRL report 90–0013). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.
26.
ListonD., & ZeichnerK. M. (1991). Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling.New York: Routledge.
27.
McCarthyL. (1987). Stranger in a strange land. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 233–265.
28.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
MooreD. M. (1999). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) assessment: Learning style and other factors that lead to success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of CincinnatiCincinnati, OH.
30.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1996a). Early adolescence/generalist: Standards for national board certification.Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
31.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1996b). Middle childhood generalist portfolio.Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
32.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1997). Introductory overview workshop handout.Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
33.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do.Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
34.
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future.New York: National Commission of Teaching & America's Future.
35.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
36.
RotbergI. C., FutrellM. H., & LiebermanJ. M. (1998). National board certification: Increasing participation and assessing impacts. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (6), 462–466.
37.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.
38.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
WeinerL. (1993). Preparing teachers for urban schools: Lessons from thirty years of reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
YingerR. J. (1999). The role of standards in teaching and teacher education. In GriffinG. A. (Ed.), The education of teachers: Yearbook of the National Society for Study of Education (98th ed., Pt. 1, pp. 85–113) Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
41.
YingerR. J., & Hendricks-LeeM. S. (1993). Working knowledge in teaching. In DayC., CalderheadP., & DenlicoP. (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development (pp. 100–123). London: Falmer Press.
