Abstract
Much attention has been paid over the years to the knowledge and practices underlying effective teaching. Initially this work was neither deep nor systematic. That has shifted, and one of the lessons learned from research is that the journey to becoming an effective educator only begins during one’s teacher preparation program; ongoing professional support continues to be necessary after certification. Which practices are most salient, and where, when, and in what contexts support is needed, are still questions that deserve a longer and deeper examination (see, for example, Richmond, Floden, Bartell, & Petchauer, 2017). The articles in this issue are examples of closer examinations of not only what but also when and how to approach supporting the development of practices that make a significant difference for teachers and their students, and who is best positioned to provide such support. In this editorial, we address this issue in more detail. We then consider what we know about how widely these lessons from research are being used in teacher preparation programs.
Until relatively recently, formal opportunities for the continued professional growth of teachers were nonexistent. Professional development opportunities and the expectations concerning continued improvement in teaching practice have changed enormously, stimulated in part by the appearance of the standards movement. And while many have criticized the impact this movement has had on a broad range of issues facing the teaching profession and those institutional and individual stakeholders in K-12 education (e.g., Taubman, 2010), the fact is that as attention to standards has grown, so has the recognition that classroom teachers, like the students they teach, are also learners, and this is shifting the field in important ways. For one thing, it has prompted agreement that teachers leaving their preparation programs are not polished professionals but rather are “well-started beginners.” In fact, a number of scholars and other leaders in education have argued that while beginning and early career teachers may bring outstanding ideas and skills to the contexts in which they teach, we do them and the students they teach a disservice when we expect them to be experts and change agents, something that school leaders in particular often expect—and hope—that they be (Renard, 2003). Rather, they should be supported in continuing to develop and refine the knowledge and skills that will help them become experienced and effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2014; The Teaching Commission, 2004).
Advances in subject-specific knowledge have both shifted and compressed the content that is taught at different grade levels over time; those of us who have school-aged children and/or have worked in schools have seen evidence of this shift and compression firsthand. This puts enormous pressure on teachers to sort out what they must teach as much as how they should be teaching so that students are able to learn deeply and can use such knowledge in powerful ways. In the fields of science and mathematics education, recent work on the nature and depth of learners’ understanding of fundamental concepts has provided a set of tools that teachers can use, given the appropriate constellation of supports. In science, for example, research on learning progressions, which began appearing approximately a decade ago (e.g., National Research Council, 2007; see also Smith, Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, 2006), has provided the groundwork for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards. Parallel research on what have been termed learning trajectories has been undertaken in mathematics (Clements & Sarama, 2004; Maloney, Confrey, & Nguyen, 2014), but according to several scholars (e.g., Cobb & Jackson, 2011), this work has not yet found its way into the Common Core standards. Not only is there demonstrated power in having such research inform standards; in science, for example, an increasing number of teacher educators have made use of learning progressions research in supporting teachers’ development of developmentally appropriate, standards-aligned instructional plans, including appropriate and informative formative and summative assessment tools (Duncan, Hmelo, & Silver, 2009; Wilson, 2009).
It may be too early to expect this work to make its way into preservice program design in any substantial way. Until it does, we will not have the tools to systematically support the development of teaching skills during the pre-certification period. The support that is provided on either side of certification must be framed by an understanding of how teachers learn, and about the particular needs they have as a function of where they are in their development as educators, and the contexts in which they teach (e.g., Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2008). The bottom line is that what teachers need to be effective educators only begins with their certification work and must be continued throughout their careers with professional supports that are guided by empirically grounded knowledge of subject matter, of child and adult learning, and of the contextual factors which must be attended to in teaching.
The studies included in this issue add to the growing body of empirical results about learning to teach. They contribute additional details that flesh out general principles that have become part of the literature that can inform the design of teacher education efforts, both before and after certification. One principle is that preservice teachers come with knowledge and beliefs about pedagogy and academic content that continue to influence who they become as teachers. Another is that well-designed learning experiences for teachers do have an influence on their knowledge and skill, particularly if the experiences include active engagement over a substantial period of time. A third is that both prospective and experienced teachers find their instructors more credible if those instructors themselves have classroom experience. In short, a general framework about how teachers learn has broad empirical support, with new research providing valuable details to fill in that framework.
Research on the content and pedagogy of teacher education programs is not as far along. In a few studies, researchers have begun to document what teacher education practices are typical and how widely they vary for some geographic settings (Boyd, Grossman, Hamilton, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009) and content areas (Tatto et al., 2012), but the body of evidence is not yet large enough for criticisms of current teacher education programs to be refuted. Ericsson and Riley (2017), for example, assert that a significant shift in “how [teacher preparation] programs are designed” is needed so that programs use an “iterative cycle of goal-directed, focused practice, accompanied with feedback and reflection.” That may surprise many teacher educators, who believe that they made use of such a design years ago, adopting the model advocated by Joyce and Showers (1982) or using some form of micro-teaching (Klinzing & Floden, 1991). The current lack of nationally representative research about teacher preparation practices makes it difficult to know whether a significant change in program design is needed, or whether efforts at improvement can focus on what specific practices should be taught within current designs that already use the iterative cycle.
Additional information about what is happening in teacher preparation programs could come from the emerging state data systems (SREB Teacher Preparation Commission, 2017), if those systems were expanded to gather data on what happens within programs, in addition to currently collected data on entering students and program outcomes. Some information currently is collected as part of the various systems which exist for evaluating the quality of teacher preparation programs, but creating an accurate national picture of program practices is not a central purpose of any of those systems (Feuer, Floden, Chudowsky, & Ahn, 2013).
Research can contribute to broad improvements in teacher preparation in two ways. First, studies like those in this issue provide evidence about what particular practices of teaching and teacher education are likely to help teachers gain valuable professional knowledge and skills. Second, research on teacher education programs will reveal how widely those practices are appearing in programs, nationally and internationally. If research-supported practices are widely used, perhaps the narrative about the state of teacher education will change to champion a record of progress. Where research on programs shows that such desired practices are not being adopted, efforts at improvement can focus on those gaps. In either case, research should inform program change.