PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING Preservice Teacher Learning: Implications for Research in Teacher Education For over two decades,

calls for school reform have been based on a shared premise that

the quality of teachers and teaching has a significant impact on student learning and performance (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hollins, 2011; Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009; Wang, Lin, Spalding, Klecka, & Odell, 2011; Wilson, Rozelle, & Mikeska, 2011). It is also commonly understood that access to quality teaching is unequally distributed among schools and is particularly lacking in urban schools with diverse student populations (Hollins, 2011; Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009; Wang et al., 2011). Although there is widespread activity in response to these calls for reform, there is not a clear concept of what quality teaching means nor how it works (Wang et al., 2011, p. 331) or a coherent, coordinated system for teacher learning (Wilson et al., 2011). Shulmans (2005) claim teacher education does not exist in the United States (p.7) highlights the variability in preparation programs. Wilson, Rozelle, and Mikeska (2011) further articulate three dimensions of variability. Teacher education programs lack consensus about (1) the underlying theories of learning, (2) the knowledge base of beginning teachers, and (3) the contexts for teacher learning. Feiman-Nemsers (2001) look at the criticisms of teacher preparation programs includes a discussion of the lack of common themes or goals in program coursework, a weak connection between courses and field experiences, inadequate subject matter preparation, and ineffective pedagogy. Also missing are well-designed opportunities to link theory and practice, develop skills and strategies, cultivate habits of analysis and reflection through focused observation, child study, analysis of cases, micro-teaching, and other laboratory experiences (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1020). Despite the recent focus on teacher education reform and increase in scholarship within the field, there remains important work to be done. If improvements in student learning depend

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING

on substantial, large-scale changes in how we prepare and support teachers (Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 497), then researchers in teacher education must further explore what exactly it is that teachers learn and by what mechanisms that learning takes place (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 174) in teacher preparation programs. There needs to be further discussion about how the experiences programs design for candidates cumulatively add up to a set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that determine what teachers actually do in the classroom (DarlingHammond, 2006, p. 303). A better understanding of teacher learning depends upon continued research in three interrelated areas: (1) the knowledge base of teaching, (2) the practice of teaching, and (3) teacher education pedagogies. In this paper, I first define teacher learning as a complex, contextualized process and briefly discuss the desired outcomes of new teacher preparation. Then, I review a selection of the literature related to each of the aforementioned underdeveloped aspects of preservice teacher preparation and conclude with research questions that will guide my future efforts in teacher education scholarship. Preservice Teacher Learning Complexity Teaching is a complex and multidimensional process that requires deep knowledge and understanding in a wide range of areas and the ability to synthesize, integrate, and apply this knowledge in different situations, under varying conditions, and with a wide diversity of groups and individuals (Hollins, 2011, p. 376). In their review of the literature, Opfer and Pedder (2011) found that teacher learning is influenced by the interactions of three subsystems the teacher, the context, and the learning activity in multiple ways and with varying degrees of intensity. They use complexity theory to explain that teaching is both contextualized and decontextualized. Teachers must recursively consider general principles and specific contexts

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING to learn (Opfer & Pedder, 2011, p. 380). They conclude that the research recognizes the overwhelmingly multicausal, multidimensional, and multicorrelational quality of teacher

learning and its impact on instructional practices and that future studies should investigate how the generative mechanisms of teacher learning appear in different combinations and sequences, with different weights, in different but concrete situations (Opfer & Pedder, 2011, p. 394). Desired Outcomes Given the complexity of teaching, Feiman-Nemser (2001) argues that we have to offer more powerful learning opportunities to teachers (p. 1014). She presents a reform-minded model of teachers as practical intellectuals, curriculum developers, and generators of knowledge in practice (p. 1015) and proposes a learning-to-teach continuum that delineates the central tasks of preservice preparation, induction, and professional development. Preservice teachers must first analyze their previous beliefs and form visions of teaching to guide their practice. They must develop subject matter knowledge for teaching and an understanding of learners and learning. They must begin to build a repertoire of approaches to curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the ability to determine where, how, and why to use a particular approach. Preservice teachers must acquire tools to study teaching and understand that learning is an integral part of teaching and that serious conversations about teaching are a valuable resource in developing and improving their practice (p. 1019). The central tasks identified by Feiman-Nemser (2001) make clear that preservice teachers must develop both a knowledge base of teaching and the ability to implement that knowledge in their teaching practice. The interrelationship between these two aspects of teacher learning is widely recognized in the literature (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman, Compton, Igra, & Williamson, 2009; Hollins, 2011; Lampert, 2009; Loewenberg Ball

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING & Forzani, 2009; Wang et al., 2011). Clearly, cognition and performance are interactive and interdependent such that an instance of quality teaching cannot be readily ascribed to either the knowledge or skill of the teacher alone. Said otherwise, the manifestation of the teachers knowledge is seen through the teachers performance, and in turn, the teachers performance is dependent on the teachers knowledge (Wang et al., 2011, p. 332). Nevertheless, these aspects will be discussed discretely in the sections that follow. The Knowledge Base for Teaching Conceptual Frameworks Several prominent researchers in teacher education have explained the multiple forms of knowledge required of preservice teachers. Darling-Hammond (2006) articulates a model for teaching as a profession that integrates knowledge of learners, content, and pedagogy framed by two conditions of practice. First is the fact that teaching is a profession with certain moral and

technical expectations. Second is the fact that, in the United States, the purposes of a democracy (p. 303). She contends that teachers need to have a range of practices at their disposal as they work towards different goals in different contexts. They need a deeper knowledge about teaching diverse learners and the disposition to continue to seek answers to difficult problems of teaching and learning and the skills to learn from practice (and from their colleagues) as well as to learn for practice (p. 305). In their review of the literature, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) identified three conceptions of knowledge in relation to teacher learning. The first is knowledge-for-practice which consists of formal knowledge and theory including pedagogical content knowledge to be discussed later. The second is knowledge-in-practice or practical knowledge. A third conception is knowledge-of-practice which is generated by teachers in the process of

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING investigating their individual teaching contexts. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) conclude that the multiple conceptions of teacher knowledge require that researchers do not subscribe to the theory-practice and expert-novice dualisms that characterize much of the discussion of teacher learning. Rather, they propose an inquiry as stance framework for teacher learning that expands the notion of knowledge-for-practice and emphasizes teacher learning as a long-term collective project with a democratic agenda (p. 296). Verloop, Van Driel, and Mejer (2001) define the knowledge base for teaching as all profession-related insights that are potentially relevant to the teachers activities (p. 443). They claim that the reciprocity between teachers cognition and their practices provides justification for the study of teacher knowledge. Although they recognize that teacher knowledge is highly individualized, they argue that there are shared aspects of teacher knowledge that warrant study. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is a specific area of teacher knowledge emphasized in their discussion. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Background. Shulman (1986) and colleagues laid the foundation for over twenty-five years of educational research related to pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) with their research program, knowledge growth in teaching. Shulman characterized the lack of research on teacher content knowledge as the missing paradigm. He questioned the assumption that most teachers begin with expertise in the content that they are teaching and posed the questions, How does a teacher prepare to teach something never previously learned? How does learning for teaching occur? (Shulman, 1986, p. 8). In response, he defined a perspective that highlighted the content-intensive nature of teaching (Loewenberg Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008, p. 391). Shulman called for a coherent theoretical framework and identified three

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING categories of content knowledge: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Thus, he sought to specify the ways in which content knowledge for teaching is distinct from disciplinary content knowledge (Loewenberg Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008, p. 391). Although the ideas he represented were not new, Shulman first defined the term pedagogical content knowledge as The most regularly taught topics in ones subject area, the most useful forms of representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations and demonstrations in a word, ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult;

the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons (Shulman, 1986, 9-10). Since Shulmans introduction, there has been abundant and widespread interest in the study of pedagogical content knowledge. Thousands of scholarly works have referred to the notion of PCK in relation to subjects ranging from science and mathematics to music and physical education, and regarding teaching students at all levels from preschool to graduate studies (Loewenberg Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). In sum, these authors have presented numerous conceptions of PCK and models that define its components (Barrett & Green, 2002; Park & Oliver, 2007). All of the models recognize context knowledge as well as the domains of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 1999). The National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Educations (2002) definition of PCK reflects each of these components.

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING [PCK is the] interaction of the subject matter and effective teaching strategies to help students learn the subject matter. It requires a thorough understanding of the content to teach it in multiple ways, drawing on the cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge and experiences of students (p. 55) A Framework for Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Grossman, Schoenfeld, and Lee (2005) present a framework for PCK based on a series of six inquiry-oriented questions. The questions point to an understanding of (1) concepts and definitions, (2) different purposes for teaching in schools, (3) student performance, (4) curriculum materials, (5) assessments, and (6) characteristic teaching practices related to the subject matter The questions are general and anticipated to play out differently in every subject matter based on the understanding that pedagogical content knowledge is inherently subject-specific (p. 209). Grossman et al. do not intend for teacher educators to provide definite answers to these questions but, rather, to help

prospective teachers begin to generate productive answers to these questions and to provide them with the intellectual tools to continue to inquire into these questions over their careers (p. 207208). Teacher Education Program Design The expectations for preservice teacher learning discussed to this point require that teacher education programs need not only to provide teachers access to more knowledge, considered more deeply, but also to help teachers learn how to continually access knowledge and inquire into their work (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 303). Feiman-Nemser (2001) characterizes preservice programs that make a difference in teacher learning as coherent - (a)

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING organized around a clear conceptual framework, (b) integrated courses and fieldwork, and (c) offering an appropriate mixture of challenge and support in response to students needs. She concludes that a powerful curriculum for learning to teach has to be oriented around the intellectual and practical tasks of teaching and the contexts of teachers work (p. 1048). In Powerful Teacher Education, Darling-Hammond (2006) identifies the common features of seven exemplary teacher education programs: A common, clear vision of good teaching permeates all coursework and clinical experiences. Well-defined standards of practice and performance are used to guide and evaluate coursework and clinical work. Curriculum is grounded in knowledge of child and adolescent development, learning, social contexts, and subject matter pedagogy taught in the context of practice. Extended clinical experiences are carefully developed to support the ideas and practices presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven coursework. Explicit strategies help students (1) confront their own deep-seated beliefs and assumptions about learning and students and (2) learn about the experiences of people different from themselves. Strong relationships, common knowledge, and shared beliefs link school- and university-based faculty. Case study methods, teacher research, performance assessments, and portfolio evaluation apply learning to real problems of practice (p. 41).

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING Focus on Practice A growing body of research in teacher preparation is putting practice at the core of teacher learning (Grossman et al., 2009; Grossman, Pam Haverness, Karen McDonald, 2009;

Hollins, 2011; Lampert, 2009; Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009). We claim that practice must be at the core of teachers preparation and that this entails close and detailed attention to the work of teaching and the development of ways to train people to do that work effectively (Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009). In closely examining what teacher do, Loewenberg Ball and Forzani (2009) define quality teaching as dependent on a flexible repertoire of highleverage strategies and techniques that can be deployed with good judgment depending on the specific situation and context (503). They recognize the varying interpretations of practice in the literature, yet contend that a focus on practice would elevate the professionalism of teaching. Lampert (2009) seeks to bring clarity to the varying interpretations that underlie the link between practice and learning to teach (21). She identifies four different conceptions of practice in the literature. The first conception presents practice in contrast to theory or research. The second conception portrays practice as a habitual mode of thinking and acting. A third conception equates practice with rehearsal for a future performance. The final conception depicts practice as the exercise of activities association with a profession in the development of occupational identity. Lampert (2009) discusses pedagogies of teacher preparation related to each conception and suggests that further work be done to develop a common language to guide collective work focused on practice as a centerpiece of learning to teach. Pedagogies of Practice

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING Through a cross-professional study of preparation for practice, Grossman et al. (2009) identified three key pedagogical concepts: representations, decomposition, and approximations

10

of practice. Representations of practice comprise the different ways that practice is represented in professional education and what these various representations make visible to novices. Decomposition of practice involves breaking down practice into its constituent parts for the purposes of teaching and learning. Approximations of practice refer to opportunities for novices to engage in practices that are more or less proximal to the practices of a profession (2058). Although the framework they present addresses each concept separately, the concepts overlap and underscore each other when enacted. Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009) argue that practice can be at the center of university-based teacher education if these concepts are applied to coursework in connection with field experiences. Teacher educators would need to develop their roles as clinical educators, able not only to profess about teaching, in the abstract, but able to provide the kind of skilled feedback and coaching that enables novices to improve. We would move away from a curriculum that symbolizes the separation of theory and practice through its division into foundations and methods courses toward a curriculum that puts practice at the center of all endeavors (p. 286). Further Research Wilson et al. (2011) suggest that the trend toward national standards and curriculum for students could lead towards a national standard and curriculum for teacher learning as well. They argue that we need a better response to the question, what do we now know about how and when and under what conditions teachers at different stages of their careers learn? (p. 393) then we have currently. Research questions specific to preservice teacher learning have also been posited in the literature. Hollins (2011) states there is very limited research on how or the

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING extent to which candidates develop a substantive philosophical perspective on the work of

11

teaching and how this influences the quality of their work with students from diverse experiential backgrounds (p. 401). Furthermore, the relationship between teacher learning, teacher practice, and student performance is understudied (Wang et al., 2011). This review of the literature is the beginning of my own study in the area of preservice teacher learning in university-based teacher education programs. Questions that I am now considering as a guide to my future research include: What and how do preservice teachers learn about curriculum design?, In what ways do preservice teachers incorporate curriculum related learning to their teaching practice?, To what extent does preservice teacher learning related to curriculum influence student learning?, What, how, and under what conditions do teachers learn about curriculum at different stages of their teaching career and how does this learning impact their teaching practice?

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING References

12

Barrett, D., & Green, K. (2002). Pedagogical content knowledge as a foundation for an interdisciplinary graduate program. Science Educator, 18(1), 1728. doi:10.1080/13598660120114959

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249305. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001249

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300314. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 10131055. doi:10.1111/01614681.00141 Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A crossprofessional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 20552100.

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 15(2), 273290.

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In J. Bransford & L.

13

Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 201-231). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395407. doi:10.1177/0022487111409415

Lampert, M. (2009). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 2134. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321

Loewenberg Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2007). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261284. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6

Shulman, L. S. (2005, Fall). Teacher education does not exist. Stanford Educator, (7).

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860

PRESERVICE TEACHER LEARNING Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461.

14

Wang, J., Lin, E., Spalding, E., Klecka, C. L., & Odell, S. J. (2011). Quality teaching and teacher education: A kaleidoscope of notions. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 331338. doi:10.1177/0022487111409551

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professlonal development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173209. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001173

Wilson, S. M., Rozelle, J. J., & Mikeska, J. N. (2011). Cacophony or embarrassment of riches: Building a system of support for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 383394. doi:10.1177/0022487111409416