Faculty Members' Perceptions of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abstract

This research study examined faculty members' reaction to criticisms about the quality and design of teacher preparation programs at schools and colleges of education. The researchers found that there is confusion among teacher preparation professionals about their programs and research. The study also showed that, in general, teacher educators are resistant to change.

Blackwell, Futrell, and Imig (2003), in their article "Burnt Water Paradoxes of Schools of Education," presented a rather dismal picture of the challenges and inconsistencies facing schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) in the United States. The authors (2003, 360) noted that criticisms of SCDEs have accelerated within the past few years and "reflect the paradox of change without any actual'change." Such criticisms have been fueled by the current federal government's position on institutions that prepare future teachers. For example, in a statement to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Lyon (2000) asserted:

While research trustworthiness and teacher preparation play significant roles in determining how well research accurately informs educational policies, a critical problem lies in our failure to identify and understand the conditions under which the results of trustworthy research can be implemented and sustained in complex,-'real-life'school systems and classrooms.

Blackwell et al. (2003) delineated these criticisms into five basic areas. First, teacher preparation programs have an inadequate or weak knowledge base, and there is an inability among school of education faculty members to agree on a professional knowledge base. second, teacher education faculty members conduct research that is related to academic discipline issues, rather than research that is related to pedagogy. Third, education faculty members fail to engage in school and teacher education reform in significant ways. Fourth, schools of education have structural design flaws, such as courses without a public school component and a lack of sufficient time for preservice teachers to learn about student learning. Finally, teacher education courses lack relevance in the real work of teachers because the curriculum does not cover the complexities of teaching in depth.

The research study described here focused on these five areas in an attempt to discern the attitudes of SCDE faculty members, specifically their perceptions about the criticisms levied against them. Citings from relevant literature are provided in support or challenge of each of the five claims.

Professional Knowledge Base

Though the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2000) has established standards related to an accepted knowledge base in professional education, teacher preparation programs have been criticized severely over the past decade for their inadequate or weak knowledge base (Darling-Hammond 1996). Further, faculty members in these programs have been criticized for their inability to agree on a professional knowledge base even though they "continually assess their students, their programs, their graduates, and themselves to guide instructional decision making and program development" (International Reading Association 2003, 3).

Teacher preparation programs have been labeled academically unchallenging and inadequate in their ability to prepare teachers for the classroom (Keller 2003). These programs often are seen as merely providing technical and managerial skills to preservice teachers (Romanowski and Oldenski 1998). Preservice teachers learn how to "manage" a classroom, but often fail to grasp how students learn and how to teach so that students do learn.

Labaree (1994) maintained that the market drives teacher education programs. According to this author (1994), SCDEs are forced to choose between providing a rigorous and challenging curriculum and having fewer graduates or a curriculum that is superficial, concise, simple, and accessible to many students and produces more graduates. Teacher preparation programs traditionally have been moneymakers for higher education and have enabled smaller or more prominent programs to exist (Howard, Hitz, and Baker 1999).

Research

The second criticism delineated by Blackwell et al. (2003) centered on the type of research that teacher education faculty members conduct. According to the authors (2003), critics noted that faculty members conduct research related to academic discipline issues, rather than to pedagogy. As a result, there is a lack of alignment between what is taught in teacher preparation programs and what actually makes a difference in Pre-K-12 instruction. In a comprehensive study, Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2002) conducted a review of high-quality research on five questions concerning teacher preparation. These questions were related to subject matter, pedagogical preparation of preservice teachers, the content and character of highquality field experiences, alternative certification routes, and the effects of policies on the enhancement of teacher preparation. Wilson et al. (2002,201) concluded that there were "gaps between claims we, as teacher educators, would like to make and evidence that those outside our field would find persuasive."