《Educator dispositions A survey of US teacher education programs.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Educator dispositions A survey of US teacher education programs.doc（10页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Educator Dispositions: A Survey of U. S. Teacher Education ProgramsIris E. EllisJulia M. LeeLarry P. WileyAbstract: Educator dispositions have become more central in personnel preparation programs in the past decade. While there appears to be a clear consensus regarding their importance, varying opi
2、nions exist regarding what target dispositions should be, how pre-service teachers should be taught proper dispositions, and how targeted dispositions should be assessed. The purpose of this study was to explore the similarities and differences in methods being used by various colleges of education
3、throughout the United States to identify, teach, and assess educator dispositions.About Authors: Dr. Ellis is an Associate Professor of Adult and Career Education at Valdosta State University; Dr. Lee is a Professor of Early Childhood and Special Education at Valdosta State University; Dr. Wiley is
4、a Professor of Psychology and Counseling at Valdosta State University. RESEARCHWhen defining the characteristics of exceptional teachers, colleges of education (COEs) historically have focused on those characteristics that can be assessed by standardized tests, checklists, and rubrics. More recently
5、, researchers have identified attributes and characteristics demonstrated by successful teachers that are not so easily assessed or taught. Helm (2006) explained that after spending more than 34 years in public elementary, secondary, and higher education, he has observed that the best-of-the-best te
6、achers seem to have been the ones who were certain that education was their calling. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESA) defines highly qualified teachers as those who have obtained full state certification (including through alternate routes) or have passed a state teacher licensing ex
7、am (Cochran-Smith, 2002). In an interview with an educator preparation candidate from a Far West region of the United States, the candidate stated that although she had earned a 3.75 grade-point average, her professors told her that she lacked the professional disposition necessary to be a good teac
8、her. Her professors explained that she was inflexible and was not open to new ideas or responsive to other cultures (Wilson, 2005). Leo (2005) opposes institutions choosing target dispositions for their candidates and contends that education schools are essentially a liberal monoculture that use dis
9、positions theory to require support for diversity and a culturally left agenda, including opposition to what schools sometimes call “institutional racism, classism, and heterosexism” (p. 1).In addition to the practical application of identifying these attributes, the National Council for Accreditati
10、on of Teacher Education (NCATE) requires that they are addressed and requires that target dispositions are outlined in each units conceptual framework (NCATE, 2006). In response to NCATEs requirement to attend to this issue, COEs throughout the United States have been experimenting with processes to
11、 identify these characteristics. NCATE requires COEs to use evidence to demonstrate that teacher candidates are gaining the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to have a positive impact on P-12 learning (NCATE, 2002). In its explanation of “dispositional target,” NCATE used the following s
12、tatement: Candidates (are able to) work with students, families, and communities in ways that reflect the dispositions expected of professional educators as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards (NCATE, 2002). Also of interest is the fact that NCATE has articulated that the
13、only two dispositions it requires are fairness and behavior reflecting the belief that all students can learn. However, in a statement from the president of NCATE, institutions were encouraged to measure dispositions by translating them into observable behaviors in school settings. In the NCATE Stan
14、dard, dispositions are defined in a nebulous manner that simultaneously touts their importance yet provides little guidance as to their implementation (Wasicsko, Callahan, & Wirtz, 2004). These authors expanded this statement by explaining that the advantage of this vagueness is that it allows insti
15、tutions tremendous liberty in how they interpret and implement the requirement (Wasicsko, et. al., 2004). Furthermore, there is no NCATE requirement that schools of education develop any dispositional pass/fail mechanism (Maylone, 2002).According to Thornton (2006), the National Board for Profession
16、al Teaching Standards (NBPTS), NCATE, INTASC, as well as content area organizations mention dispositions in their communications, but dispositions have not been a focus of the discourse on teacher quality. Knowledge, skills and dispositions are embraced within the standards of essential elements of
17、teacher preparation and teacher quality, yet dispositions remain a neglected part of teacher education (Thornton, 2006). Because dispositions address human behavior, reaching consensus and mutual agreement among educator preparation faculty regarding the teaching and assessment of candidates disposi
18、tions presents many challenges (Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007). Therefore, following the review of professional literature, it was apparent that there were multiple ways of defining, addressing, and assessing dispositions. Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of the study was to identify similarities
19、 and differences in methodologies being used by educator preparation programs within NCATE-accredited colleges and universities for selecting and assessing dispositions. InstrumentationAn instrument was developed to gather information related to the variables to be investigated. Questions or items i
20、ncluded on the survey were based on current NCATE standards. An electronic mailing list of the names and addresses of unit heads of accredited institutions was obtained from NCATEs Vice President of Communications. At the time surveys were mailed, there were 646 NCATE-accredited institutions from ed
21、ucator preparation units within eight NCATE-identified geographic regions within the United States; the deans or their designees of all of these institutions were asked to participate. All 646 NCATE-accredited institutions were mailed a cover letter, a copy of the survey instrument, and an addressed
22、, stamped envelope; 234 surveys were returned representing a response rate of 36.2 percent.Discussion of FindingsSeveral relationships among the variables investigated were found; however, the magnitude of these relationships was smaller than expected. The following is an explanation of each of the
23、descriptive data surveyed along with descriptions of relationships that were investigated.Geographic regions. The majority (37.6 percent) responded that their institutions were located in the southeast United States. The next highest response for geographic region was Great Lakes with 18.8 percent o
24、f the respondents reporting that their institutions were located in this region. These two regions also include the largest number of NCATE-accredited institutions nationally; therefore, the response rate from these geographic regions was fairly proportional to the population surveyed. The region in
25、 which the fewest institutions were located was the New England Region, with 3.0 percent of respondents reporting that their institutions were so located. Carnegie classifications. The response pool included respondents in institutions representing each of the Carnegie classifications. The number of
26、 institutions by classification ranged from 46 institutions classified as Masters M: Masters Colleges and Universities (medium programs) and 46 institutions classified as Masters S: Masters Colleges and Universities (smaller programs) to just one institution classified as Other. Enrollment size. Res
27、ponses were solicited regarding the approximate enrollment size of each units undergraduate educator preparation programs. Educator preparation enrollment size of the responding institutions ranged from 30 to 5,000 students. The mean response for enrollment was 811.4, indicating that the average edu
28、cator preparation program in this study consisted of fewer than 1,000 students.Service area label. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the three NCATE labels best described their service population. Responses were fairly evenly divided with each of the labels represented by approximately one
29、-third of the respondents (37.6 percent rural serving, 34.6 percent urban serving, 27.4 percent were suburban serving). Similarly, using statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), the percentage of students attending public schools within the United States classified as tow
30、n/rural, urban, and suburban represent approximately one-third of the United States (34.2 percent town/rural, 30.4 percent urban, and 35.4 suburban). Therefore, the response rate from the three NCATE service label regions was fairly proportional to the population surveyed.Young (2004) stated that ef
31、fectiveness in a variety of settingsurban, suburban, and ruralrequires teachers to be thoughtful and reflective practitioners who possess a willingness to learn from students, adapt to new cultures, and reinvent themselves and their teaching based on the needs of the students in a given context. In
32、this investigation, no differences were found among institutions self-identifying as rural, urban, or suburban, related to the number of dispositions in each of the three dispositions categories investigated. Instructional delivery mode. On the survey instrument, respondents were asked to indicate t
33、he percentage of their educator programs that are delivered through traditional (face-to-face) mode, off-campus mode, and online mode. Responses for percentage of programs offered through a traditional mode ranged from one institution indicating zero percent to 114 institutions (48.7 percent of the
34、population) indicating 100 percent. The mean response for percentage of programs offered through a traditional mode was 89.2 percent. Responses for off-campus mode ranged from 138 institutions indicating zero percent to one institution indicating 80 percent. The mean response for off-campus mode was
35、 7.5 percent. Responses for online mode ranged from 148 institutions indicating zero percent to one institution indicating 100 percent. This finding regarding instructional delivery mode may represent consistency with beliefs reflected in documents such as The American Federation of Teachers 2000 re
36、solution that called for face-to-face coursework in educator preparation programs. The federation published the following statement, “We believe there is something unique and important about the simultaneous visual and verbal interaction of individuals in the same place working together toward a com
37、mon educational goal” (p. 9). Because so few respondents reported offering programs through online and off-campus modes, the relationship of this variable to any of the dependent variables was not analyzed. It is interesting to note that NCATE visited its first online institution (Western Governors
38、University) in spring 2006 (and subsequently awarded it accreditation in fall 2006). Program completers. Completers are students who graduate from an educator preparation program in which they are matriculating. The percentage of program completers within the last three years who also passed their s
39、tates required content assessment was solicited in one of the survey items. Responses ranged from 80 percent of completers passing the examination reported by two schools to 100 percent reported by 107; therefore, the mean response for program completers in the last three years who also passed their
40、 state required content assessment was 97.2 percent. All institutions reported at least an 80 percent pass rate, which is the NCATE requirement of institutions. Given this NCATE expectation, it was not surprising that all respondents would report an 80 percent or higher pass rate on these content as
41、sessments. There were no differences in the pass rates among institutions of various Carnegie classification groups. In reviewing the extremely high average percentage of completers passing the examinations, the lack of any relationship between Carnegie classification group and pass rate is not rema
42、rkable. Disposition categories. Respondents were asked to list their institutions target dispositions. Most of the respondents listed their target dispositions; some made a notation stating that they had attached a sheet to the back of the survey explaining their institutions target dispositions. Be
43、cause of the wide range of responses, the three categories identified by Wasicsko, et al, (2004) were used to categorize these dispositions. Those categories were teacher behaviors, teacher characteristics, and teacher perceptions. The number of dispositions coded as behaviors per institution ranged
44、 from zero (89 institutions, 38% of all respondents) to 19 (1 institution, .4% of all respondents). The average number of dispositions coded as behaviors was 1.9 per institution. The average number of dispositions coded as characteristics was 4.3 per institution, with a range of zero (N = 17) to 16
45、(N = 3). The average number of dispositions coded as perceptions was 2.8 per institution, with a range of zero (N = 37) to 19 (N = 1). Of interest is the fact that 23 institutions left the table blank indicating that their institutions had not adopted unit-wide dispositions.The majority of the dispo
46、sitions reported were coded as characteristics, followed by dispositions coded as perceptions; the category with the fewest items was the category of behaviors. At first glance, one might question why institutions would word their target dispositions as characteristics or perceptions following the N
47、CATE recommendation that institutions should assess dispositions that are observable. Two potential explanations may account for these results. First of all, institutions completed this survey in spring and early summer of 2007. Therefore, the timing of the study may have had an impact on these resu
48、lts, because system change requires time and much work. If this study were replicated in two or three years, the results in terms of categories of dispositions might differ substantially. And, even though NCATE posits a definition for dispositions, closer examination reveals how little information t
49、he definition gives educator preparation faculty as to what constitutes a positive or effective teacher disposition (Koeppen & Davison-Jenkins, 2004). The definition originally appeared in the NCATE 2000 standards. October, 2007, NCATE issued an update to clarify its definition of professional dispositions. The amount of time necessary for system changes under these circumstances increases. It is apparent that a need exists for NCATE to continue to provide guidance to instit