Improving The Professional Knowledge And Skills Of Teachers

The realization that teachers of young adolescents need specialized professional preparation is not a recent phenomenon. For over seventy-five years, the literature has included calls for these preparation programs. Unfortunately however, significant numbers of teacher preparation institutions, state departments of education, licensure agencies, and others have chosen to ignore the need for these teachers and have promoted the widespread idea that when qualifications for teaching young adolescents are considered, the response is often "no specialized preparation needed."

 

As a result, many of today's middle level students are taught by teachers who are not sufficiently prepared to be successful in the challenging and rewarding responsibility of understanding and teaching young adolescents.

 

A complex set of reasons has caused and perpetuated the failure to recognize the importance of specialized professional preparation for middle level teachers. It is important to examine some of the barriers that have prevented full success in implementing specialized middle level teacher preparation to help prevent the same mistakes from reoccurring. Some of the major barriers are: (a) the negative stereotyped image of young adolescents; (b) too few advocates at teacher preparation institutions and state agencies; (c) desire for flexibility in assignment of middle level teachers; (d) lack of knowledge of the public about appropriate middle level schooling; and (e) the limited number of instructors in teacher preparation programs who have the depth of knowledge and experience needed. These and other barriers must be carefully considered in the movement to establish strong middle level teacher preparation programs. The most destructive barrier to specialized middle level teacher preparation, however, is the failure of states to establish mandatory middle level teacher licensure.

 

A close relationship exists between the type of licensure available and the number of teacher preparation institutions that offer special middle level teacher preparation programs. Special mandatory middle level teacher licensure leads to the development, implementation, and continuation of special middle level teacher preparation programs. Therefore, a major reason specialized middle level teacher preparation programs are not universally available in the nation lies in the failure of many states to design and implement licensure regulations which promote the specialized knowledge, dispositions, and performances needed to successfully teach young adolescents. As well, many states with specialized middle level licensure have plans with wide overlapping grade levels. The result of such plans is that most prospective teachers select options with the widest range of job possibilities instead of choosing to focus on specialized preparation for a single developmental age group.

 

The following essential elements of middle level teacher preparation programs are based on current trends in the field, best practice of middle level teacher preparation, and the field's growing knowledge/research base. This discussion is limited to those elements unique to middle level teacher preparation and does not include other elements that are essential to all quality teacher preparation programs (e.g., diversity, technology). While the elements include a variety of traditional focuses (e.g., curriculum, instruction), they are set within a matrix of current and future concerns.

 

The movement toward collaboration in teacher preparation with school-based faculty is a relatively new phenomenon and is a movement against the historical tide of separation of teacher preparation program from school sites. In the case of middle school preparation, with their own short but unique history as both schools and teacher preparation programs, middle schools preceded the establishment of middle level teacher education programs. To further complicate matters, often when middle school teacher education programs have developed, they have often done so without developmentally responsive middle school sites to use as clinical settings. For these and related reasons, to a large extent, middle schools and middle school teacher preparation have developed on similar parallel tracks, each fighting for recognition and legitimacy, but relatively uninvolved with each other.

 

To reverse this pattern, collaborative partnerships which move in two simultaneous directions are essential. First, the collaboration with middle school faculty (school sitebased teacher educators) and university-based middle school teacher educators should integrate both faculties in planning, implementation, direct teaching, assessment, and continuing oversight of the program.

 

A second direction that partnerships should move in is the creation of site-based delivery of middle level teacher preparation programs. To achieve high levels of success, delivery of the program should move out of the university setting to the school where the work of real middle level teachers and young adolescents is an ongoing, daily event and where middle school interns have numerous opportunities for authentic teaching performances with appropriate audiences.

 

To have the middle level teacher preparation program be totally university based is to: (a) continue to have it be cutoff from the day-to-day realities of school life; (b) avoid interactions between two cultures (university and school-based teacher educators) that have much to offer each other; and, (c) move induction to after graduation rather than having it be a part of the preparation program. To collaborate on teacher preparation means to: (a) establish a dialogue and mutual trust between two important elements of the profession (middle level schools and teacher preparation programs); (b) initiate positive change that will influence all participants; (c) improve the professional knowledge and skills of teachers resulting in increased student reaming; (d) provide opportunities for conducting joint research projects; (e) offer leadership opportunities for teachers, professors, and administrators, and other stakeholders; and, (f) attract resources to the school site. The movement toward professional development school initiatives and school-university partnership programs which emphasize the performance of critical teaching aspects with authentic audiences and settings is already underway in some middle school teacher preparation programs.

 

Middle school teachers, at their most fundamental level, must be experts in the development and needs of young adolescents. Prospective middle level teachers attain this expertise through formal study of young adolescent development and opportunities to work directly with young adolescent students and to apply this knowledge, all the while reflecting upon the implications of developmental realities. Without a solid grounding in knowledge and experience of young adolescent development, the success of the individual middle school teacher and middle schools as a whole is limited.

 

Interns should be afforded opportunities to study and observe individual aspects of young adolescent development and then to integrate this knowledge into a usable whole by working in authentic situations with individual young adolescents who have these developmental characteristics in unique combinations. Emphasis should be placed on the creation of a knowledge, skills, and dispositions in middle school curriculum, instruction, assessment, student-teacher relationships, and programs emphasized in performance based assessment.

 

As well, developmental realities of young adolescents should be set within a matrix of social, cultural and societal contexts. Teachers should know about how developmental realities play themselves out against a backdrop of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, family, and community. The intended outcome of this focus is the creation of developmentally responsive programs and practices for young adolescents.

 

Just as young adolescents are different from young children and older adolescents, middle schools are different from their counterparts at the elementary and high school levels. This difference is much more than that of appearance, however, and extends to the philosophical foundations of middle level education and the organizational structure that grows from and supports this philosophy. A thorough study of middle level philosophy and organization, therefore, must be a primary element of the student's preparation program and not merely a superficial exploration. Middle level teacher preparation programs should be anchored within a context that supports and extends young adolescent development. A study of middle level philosophy and organization provides just such a mooring. A prospective middle level teacher's preparation program should include opportunities concerning formal study of these essential elements as well as opportunities to work in middle level schools that implement middle level philosophy and support it with distinct developmentally responsive middle level organizational structures.

 

Working in these kinds of schools affords prospective middle level teachers valuable opportunities to experience school organizations that utilize: (a) teams, (b) advisories, (c) exploratories, (d) textbooks, (e) intramurals, (f) flexible block schedules, (g) heterogeneous grouping, and, (h) interdisciplinary and integrative curriculum. The emphasis of formal study of middle level philosophy and organization and site-based opportunities to work within these structures should be placed upon a school organization for young adolescents where the creation of a personalized environment that supports and extends their healthy development is the goal.

 

The focus of the study of the middle level curriculum is the uniqueness of the curriculum at this level. Rather than relying on subject matter or disciplinary curriculum organization, the middle level curriculum should be organized around and emphasize interdisciplinary and integrative approaches, approaches that also incorporate young adolescent interests as starting points for curriculum planning.

 

Prospective middle level teachers should learn about middle level curriculum through both formal study of curriculum and opportunities to work directly with the curriculum in a variety of forms and formats. Students of curriculum should: (a) study past and present theorists of middle school curriculum; (b) learn about different curriculum designs, formats, and propositions; and, (c) examine a wide variety of curriculum documents at various levels (national, state, district, school, team, and classroom). Part of the intern's onsite experience should provide opportunities, as members of interdisciplinary teams, to develop curriculum. They need to understand the "big picture" view of middle level curriculum. This view should include, but not be limited to: (a) the advisory curriculum; (b) the exploratory curriculum; (c) curricula in the interns' teaching fields; and, (d) other curriculum areas outside the interns' teaching fields. The program should also place emphasis upon how different parts of the total school curriculum support and extend young adolescent learning. To accomplish this, opportunities should be included that place emphasis on the common core curriculum which provides, at the middle school level, a general education for students.

 

It is important that prospective middle level teachers enter a curriculum organization that emphasizes a general education which includes interdisciplinary and integrative reaming. Therefore interns' content preparation should expand beyond one field (discipline) to two or more teaching fields. As well, these fields should be broad and integrative. The preparation in the multiple fields should have a thorough academic underpinning of content, content pedagogy, and the connections and interrelationships among the fields (disciplines) and other areas of knowledge. Even while students are working in or studying a single field, they should be on the constant lookout for interdisciplinary connections to utilize in their teaching.

 

Interns should operationalize their learning by working in interdisciplinary teams with students as they teach their subject (discipline) knowledge to young adolescents. It is essential that they teach in their own disciplines as individual subjects as well as create and teach interdisciplinary and integrative lessons and units that incorporate their knowledge of broad fields.

 

While middle level teacher preparation programs are founded on the developmental aspects of early adolescence, this foundational knowledge must find its way into action. Planning, teaching, and assessment offer opportunities to translate this developmental knowledge into practice. Opportunities, therefore, should be offered in both systematic study and in practice in authentic settings.

 

Systematic study of planning, teaching and assessment should include the wide range of developmentally appropriate instructional techniques and the research that examines their most appropriate use. This element should also include short and long-term planning techniques that middle level teachers employ in both daily lessons and interdisciplinary units. As well, the range of assessment techniques should be an essential focus-from traditional testing to alternative assessments, portfolios, exhibitions, open-ended problems, and learning to construct and apply each of these appropriately. Finally, the role of technology as a form of planning, instruction, and assessment should be examined and appropriate techniques developed.

 

Early and continuing field experiences provide the context for learning about young adolescents, their appropriate instruction and assessment, and how teachers and schools can further development and reaming. Early and continuing field experiences provide a learning laboratory for interns for formal study and application where education faculties (school site and university-based) can teach, supervise, and advise.

 

Because collaborative partnerships are designed as induction programs, interns should begin their school site work early in their college careers. With early middle level immersion experiences, prospective middle level teachers and teacher preparation personnel can make informed decisions about each other. Early field work also provides a developmental sequence for the program, in this case a developmental sequence based upon interns' development. This sequence should follow a pattern of increasing complexity and involvement, culminating in an extended internship experience where prospective middle level teachers are functioning as site-based teachers responsible for groups of young adolescents. By having a developmental sequence over an extended period of time, prospective middle level teachers can move through various aspects of the essential elements of programs in a three-part organization-introduction, development, and maintenance. Another extremely valuable aspect of field work is that it allows multiple mentors, coaches, and teachers to work with prospective middle level teachers while reflecting and evaluating on their development with these individuals.

 

One of the unique elements of middle level schools for teachers is the heavy emphasis on collaboration. This emphasis is on the day-to-day aspects of teaching with colleagues as well as external constituencies of families and community members. This focus on collaboration should flow from the philosophy and organization of the school where all of the school's resources are mobilized to support young adolescents and their development. By collaborating with internal and external audiences, teachers are not operating in isolation. This permits insights and understandings about students to be shared with others and therefore maximized.

 

A second element of the collaborative role is concerned with the multiple audiences with which they must collaborate. These audiences include colleagues, families, and communities to further the education of young adolescents.

 

A major focus of middle level teacher preparation programs should be providing opportunities for interns to experience and reflect upon the knowledge that they are not isolated individuals-either in schools, in working with families, or functioning within communities. They should come to understand and appreciate the fact that they exist within a complex web of relationships with responsibilities and obligations, and yet with support and resources from others.

 

Mandatory middle level teacher licensure that does not overlap with the elementary or senior high school grades (e.g., grades 5-8) is also strongly supported because of the realization that quality middle level teacher preparation programs are very unlikely to be established or maintained in states where no middle license is required, or even available, to award those who successfully complete professional preparation programs. Only when middle level licensure becomes universally required will young adolescents be assured of having teachers who have received the specialized preparation needed to be highly successful.

 

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/improving-the-professional-knowledge-and-skills-of-teachers/

Research In Science Education Utilizes The Full Range Of Investigative Methods

 

While our understanding of the process of teaching, learning, and schooling has improved recently, more must be accomplished. Rapid societal changes are necessitating that we construct a new image of the process of schooling in general, and the process of teaching and learning science in particular.

An interdisciplinary cadre of researchers and educators is building an infrastructure from which new themes for research in science education are emerging.

Our research agenda must embrace collaboration and relevancy around a vision that celebrates not what is, but what can be!

A new image of the role of the teacher is emerging as well. In addition to possessing discipline specific knowledge and knowledge about effective pedagogy, teachers must be afforded the time to share ideas with colleagues, participate in professional development, and inquire about teaching and learning. Teachers must be active, reflective practitioners who engage in constructing a curriculum to enhance the development of all students. Similarly, science education research ought to be relevant and should inform the practice of science teaching. Research on teaching and learning should contribute new insights for both practice and future research.

Fundamentally, we believe that research should guide and inform policy formation and decision-making regarding science teaching, preschool through college. We wish to clarify the breadth of research and to identify key issues. Moreover, we wish to warn against policies and decisions governed by marketing concerns rather than by systematic study or reasoned analysis or information important to teachers.

A realistic view of the scientific enterprise is paramount both to the success of research on science teaching and as a goal for students studying science. For example, traditional science experiences often result in students constructing a distorted view of the scientific enterprise. Students believe that: (a) science is a collection of facts to be memorized, (b) all the information in the science textbook is true, (c) the sum total of scientific knowledge is known, (d) science is a quantitative, value-free, empirical discipline. Moreover, students often fail to understand that: (a) science proceeds by fits and starts, (b) ideas based on evidence are still fallible, (c) scientific ideas are enhanced through a process of sharing, negotiation, and consensus building, and (d) continual inquiry is a fundamental attribute of the scientific enterprise. Today's science is more accurately portrayed as a value-laden discipline in which there are moral and ethical dimensions. The changing nature and ethos of science has led to the acceptance of more diverse investigative methods.

Research in science education utilizes the full range of investigative methods, embracing quantitative research and qualitative/ethnographic/naturalistic research to address either basic or applied questions. Innovative ideas can and should be generated from small scale research investigations focusing upon such issues as: new images of the nature of learning or characteristics of the learner, new images of the nature of teaching and the role of the teacher, or ideas regarding the development and implementation of innovative curricular materials or instructional strategies, including the use of existing and emerging technologies. Accordingly, effective science programs are likely to emerge when teachers become engaged in the process of developing or critically appropriating curricula to fit specific pedagogical concerns vs, merely serving as technicians who manage and implement "teacherproof" curricular programs; and when teachers become transformative intellectuals who combine scholarly reflection and practice in the service of educating students to be thoughtful, active citizens. These actions embrace the notion of teacher-as-scholar and acknowledge the importance of teacher-as-researcher.

We recognize that a broad range of expertise is required to incorporate new ideas into science teaching and to conduct investigations that have an impact on science education. We advocate the formation of collaborative research groups representing this broad range of expertise. Such groups would include teachers, discipline specialists, cognitive scientists, researchers, as well as members of the school/community science leadership, including administrators, supervisors, lead teachers, community members, representatives of local business and industry - all active participants in the process of school reform.

In light of the emerging goals for science education, it is imperative that we begin the process of researching and re-examining the relationships among the science curriculum, schools, colleges/universities, and society. Within the context of the new image of teachers and research being offered, teachers must assume responsibility for raising serious questions about what they teach and how they are to teach. Teachers must be collaborative partners in shaping the purposes and conditions of schooling. We must rethink and reform the traditions and conditions that have prevented teachers from assuming their full potential as active, reflective scholars and practitioners. Teachers must educate students to be active, critical thinkers in a rapidly changing scientific and technological society.

We anticipate that these investigations will go on in an environment involving much conjecture and discussion, serious analysis of evidence, considerable sharing of information, and a process of consensus-building. We envision, in short, the creation of an experimenting society. New advances and new ideas must be investigated in relevant settings and findings must be shared, discussed, refined and re-evaluated. Ultimately, we must meet the needs of individuals and groups of students in their various cultural, historical, socioeconomic, racial and gender settings. We realize that such a process is slow and that the process involves proceeding down blind alleys and trying out ideas that ultimately fail, as well as refining and institutionalizing ideas that have the possibility of success. There is no greater failure, however, than failure to address the critical issues of reform.

The many perceived problems in science education do not stem from our inability to discover in laboratory or controlled settings what is effective or what should be occurring in the science classroom. While much knowledge has been accumulated from such basic research, we have only begun to ensure that the needed innovations are integrated into the culture of schooling. Much of our recent progress, however, can be attributed to the fact that more research is being conducted by and with teachers in relevant environments, and attention is being paid to the social context of the process of schooling. We must continue to synthesize our research finding and put our research to work in real educational settings. The role of research in science teaching is to increase our understandings of teaching and learning to ensure that all students, preschool through college, acquire the scientific literacy requisite for lifelong learning.

To increase our understandings of science teaching and learning, we offer the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 1: RESEARCH SHOULD BE A COLLABORATIVE ENDEAVOR

Research on science teaching and learning should involve the collaboration of preschool through college teachers, the school/community science leadership, researchers, discipline specialists, and others concerned with science education.

Teachers play a special role in these collaborations because they have far more experience regarding educational principles and practices than others. Teachers should be afforded opportunities to be active participants in identifying the key questions, establishing the research agenda, and interpreting the findings.

Partnerships between schools, communities, colleges, and universities offer a mechanism for achieving more robust and cohesive research conclusions by means of investigations in environments that are likely to be credible to a broad range of individuals. The purpose of collaborative alliances is to achieve what could not otherwise be achieved through individual inquiry, knowledge constructed in different contexts and from different perspectives, perhaps with different goals in mind, can be synthesized and what emerges may be very unique and revealing.

RECOMMENDATION 2: TEACHERS SHOULD BE ACTION-RESEARCHERS

Action-research focuses upon the problem of understanding our own and others' understanding of schooling, teaching, and society. Reflective thinking is the most central element in this process. The goal is to improve practices and our understanding or practices. Action-research is dynamic and participatory, allowing the inquiry into one's own practice and subsequent reflection-in-action to become the basis for curricular and instructional reform.

Teacher education programs should provide prospective teachers with the research skills to engage in action-research. In particular, teacher education programs should emphasize and afford prospective teachers the opportunity to engage in critical thinking of a theoretical and practical nature. Schools need prospective teachers who can combine theory, imagination, and techniques. In fact, school systems should sever their relationships with teacher preparation institutions that fail to prepare teachers able to assume their full potential as active, reflective scholars and practitioners. The process of schooling in our society can no longer afford the reproduction of critical illiteracy and incompetency.

Teachers should initiate personal and professional development action-research programs. At the pre-college level, these professional development activities should be sponsored by school districts and supported by the school/community Science leadership. Colleges and universities must begin to encourage, support, and reward faculty who engage in research and development activities related to science teaching and learning. Schools, colleges, and universities should value creative, reflective, action-researchers.

RECOMMENDATION 3: RESEARCH HAS TO BE CLOSE TO THE CLASSROOM

Research close to classrooms has great potential for influencing science education. Advances in science education are likely to be realized when investigations, in real educational contexts, are conducted by research teams collaborating to improve science education.

Research organized by collaborating teams should engender and encourage investigations involving much larger entities than has typified past research endeavors. These investigations should contrast educationally defensible alternatives to instruction, rather than creating artificial control groups that receive no treatment thereby demonstrating that treatments are better than none at all.

Researchers have begun to realize the need to study learning and teaching by closely observing teachers and learners in real settings. Teachers have a wealth of knowledge and insights to make research findings more realistic, reliable, and generalizable. In addition, the insights of researchers are likely to be relevant to preschool through college science programs, especially as teachers and researchers work jointly to achieve common goals.

RECOMMENDATION 4: AN EXPERIMENTING SOCIETY SHOULD BE CREATED

An experimenting society should be created for the improvement of science teaching. Research is an on-going dynamic process. We call for the creation of a culture of schooling in which educators are much more inquiry oriented than they are now. Practitioners must change their general lack of belief in the practical value of research. Researchers must better formulate research questions, design studies, and translate findings into images that challenge and change policymakers' and practitioners' cognition. Moreover, all members of society must enhance their attitude toward the value of doing research as part of everyday behavior.

By viewing the improvement of science education as the result of efforts of an experimenting society, we will be most likely to incorporate effectively curricular innovations and technological advances into the schooling process. The creation of such a society would serve as a good model for students as they acquire the skills for active, critical citizenry.

RECOMMENDATION 5: RESEARCH SHOULD INFORM POLICY

Research in science education should inform science education policy decisions. We call for a research-driven rather than a market-driven approach to science curriculum design, science teaching and the assessment of students/understandings of science.

Research should have an impact on state legislative directives and mandates, the development of curricular materials, as well as the assessment of student performance. Yet, a widening gulf has emerged between research regarding effective teaching and the nature of learning and the proliferation of state/legislative mandates, curricular materials, and assessments that are market-driven and to the contrary. In general, the efforts of policy makers, publishing companies, and evaluation specialists fail to integrate appropriate research findings regarding the processes of teaching and learning.

It is ultimately the responsibility of preschool through college teachers and the school/community science leadership to ensure that the science education that students receive is the best that can be offered. Ensuring the congruence between what is needed and what is offered can be accomplished through rigorous adherence to policies that are research supported. A more reasoned and reasonable approach to curricular, instructional, and evaluative decisions must be undertaken.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/research-in-science-education-utilizes-the-full-range-of-investigative-methods/