This paper focuses on how prospective teachers describe what they are learning in teacher education. Voices of five prospective elementary teachers invite teacher educators to listen as they communicate their learning experiences across a two-year teacher education program. Interview data from four interviews across two years reveals that on-campus and practicum components of a teacher education program contributed differentially to their learning to teach. A teacher educator listens and responds to prospective teachers' comments throughout the paper attempting to examine their responses and to propose how teacher educators and teacher education might respond to their expressed needs. Finally, some critical elements that contribute to the changing paradigm of teacher education serve as a beacon calling for attention. Ultimately the voices of five prospective teachers assist and encourage teacher educators to continuously examine how they design learning experiences within teacher education programs and how they value prospective teachers' practicum experiences.
It is widely assumed that the purpose of teacher education programs is to prepare prospective teachers to teach in our schools. It seems simple. Generally candidates with high academic standings and a broad range of teaching experiences are selected for admission. Thereupon they complete a teacher education program and become certified teachers. But the question of how they are prepared to teach and what they are learning remains unanswered in the research. Moreover, how effective teacher education programs are at preparing future teachers is debated in the educational literature (Ashton, 1996; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). A diversity of programs prepare future teacher professionals in distinct ways. Prospective teachers in Canada, for example, enter teacher education programs with a wide range of academic and cultural backgrounds, experiences, and represent different age groups. Similarly, they are taught by a diverse field of individuals at universities including pre-tenure and tenured faculty, seconded teachers, adjunct faculty, graduate students, and by both experienced and inexperienced associate teachers in schools . Unquestionably, prospective teachers will leave teacher education programs with varied experiences and varied degrees of preparedness to teach.
Recent articles call attention to a need for change in the pedagogy of teacher education (Ball, 2000, Korthagen and Kessels,1999; Jones, 1998; Wise & Leibbrand, 2001). Korthagen and Kessels (1999, p4), for example, suggest teacher education programs need to link theory and practice and insist the important question is "how to integrate the two in such a way that it leads to integration within the teacher". Similarly, Ball (2000) argues for intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. She maintains that teachers are often left with the challenge of integrating subject matter knowledge and pedagogy in their work. In reality, it is not so simple. "We must understand better the work that teachers do and analyze the role played by content knowledge in that work" (Ball, 2000, p.244). A recent article in the Teacher Education Quarterly (Jones, 1998) lists ten points of current debate in teacher education prompting teacher education communities to respond. The article closes with the following question: "What can and should we in teacher education do to best fulfill our role of preparing the highest quality teachers possible for our community's and our nation's public schools?" (p.15). Cochran-Smith(2000) also alerts us to the complex demands on the teacher education profession. Clearly, there are compelling reasons to examine the pedagogy of teacher education in various contexts and to obtain qualitative data from prospective teachers who are participants in these programs. What are the needs of prospective teachers and how are their needs addressed in teacher education programs? How might better links be developed between university-based courses and school-based practica when preparing prospective teachers to teach in schools?
A longitudinal professional growth study was conducted in B.C., Canada and in NSW, Australia. Recent manuscripts (Skamp & Mueller, 2001a; Skamp & Mueller, 2001b) report findings from this study specific to teacher candidates' changing perceptions of themselves and others as "good" teachers of elementary science. However, this paper is particularly interested in reporting on a component of the B.C. study that has not yet been addressed, as its significance was only realized during data analysis. That is, interview data provides a rich opportunity to report on how prospective teachers described their learning experiences inside a teacher education program and on how they changed across a two year program. This paper provides details of interview responses from a small number of British Columbia participants in order to closely examine the underlying messages communicated by teacher candidates about their learning and about teacher education as a whole. In turn, prospective teachers' comments issue a challenge for teacher educators to respond.
A two-year elementary teacher education program in British Columbia, Canada requires the completion of a first degree as a prerequisite for entry and consists of four semesters. The first semester (Sept.-Dec.) includes several foundational courses. The second semester (Jan.-Apr.) consists of eight different curriculum methods courses. This coursework is intended to provide some preparation for the extended practicum. Following a four month summer break, the third semester (Sept.-Dec.) of the program includes an extended practicum of 13 weeks. The final semester of the program (Jan.-Apr.) offers several elective courses where teacher candidates are encouraged to specialize in the arts or science, math, & technology, for example. Therefore 75% of the teacher education program consists of on-campus coursework and 25% of the program is field-based in a school practicum placement.
Participants in the B.C. study include twelve volunteer prospective teachers enrolled in the above two-year teacher education program. Teacher candidates participated in four semi-structured interviews across two years. A graduate research assistant conducted all interviews at the following intervals: at the beginning of the program; after a 13-week elementary science methods course; after the 13-week extended practicum placement; and at the completion of the teacher education program. Although interview protocols were designed to elicit specific responses about elementary science, teacher candidates' explanations paint a rich picture of their learning experiences. Often teacher candidates spoke of the teacher education program in general and of their learning as future teachers. These details provide the ground for this paper.
It is noteworthy that elementary teachers in Canada are generally expected to teach eight different subject areas and teacher education programs across the country attempt to prepare prospective teachers for this reality in programs ranging from eight months to eighteen months. More specifically, teacher candidates who will teach K-7 in British Columbia, for example, are required to complete curriculum methods courses in each subject area at the elementary level (e.g., language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, physical education, visual arts, drama, music). These elementary teacher candidates usually have one subject area of specialization in their undergraduate degrees. In contrast, teacher candidates who will teach Grade 8-12 are required to have a prerequisite number of undergraduate courses in two specialized areas which they then focus on in the teacher education program at the secondary level.
This paper concentrates on listening to the voices of five teacher candidates who participated in this two-year study. It is critical for teacher educators and teachers to listen, so that they might gain a better understanding about some of the needs of our future teaching professionals. What role did the on-campus course play and what role did the extended practicum play in their learning? Did prospective teachers see these components of the program as integrated or as separate and for what reasons? Although interviews focused on perceptions of elementary science and elementary science teaching, the interviews also provide a chronicle of how new professionals developed across a two-year teacher education program, and if and how they changed their thinking about teaching elementary science, and teaching in general. What did prospective teachers see as critical to their development as future teachers? Moreover, did they provide any suggestions about how to improve teacher education programs?
The paper is organized to reflect the timing of the four interviews conducted with prospective teachers across the two-year teacher education program. Each section begins with interview data of teacher candidates' voices as they respond to specific interview questions. Selected questions have been chosen from the protocols to highlight teacher candidates' descriptions of their learning across the teacher education program. At the end of each section, a teacher educator, who currently teaches elementary science and technology curriculum courses and supervises teacher candidates in their practicum placements as part of her faculty responsibilities, reflects upon prospective teachers' comments. Her analyses in the form of reflections spark questions for further investigation and consideration in teacher education communities seeking to restructure or redirect the pedagogy of teacher education. These reflections are titled "what does a teacher educator hear?" and are written in italics. This part of the paper is intended to engage the reader to interact with the text (Rosenblatt, 1978). In conclusion, salient comments made by teacher candidates invite teacher educators to respond. How might teacher educators in general respond to the voices of experience from within a teacher education program? The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changing paradigm of teacher education and about how teacher education programs might adapt to meet the needs of a diverse population of prospective teachers.
Ellie was 24 years old at the first interview and she studied physics 11 and chemistry 12 in high school. She remarked, "I remember hating my science teacher in Grade 8. My physics teacher was a male chauvinist...he didn't really teach...he didn't teach the girls at all. Really he'd say to the guys don't even bother wasting your time talking to the girls anyway cause they don't know anything...he was awful. That's why I didn't do physics full because of that teacher. I said no I'm not doing that again." Ellie completed a Fine Arts degree and required a university science course to enter the teacher education program.
Matt was 24 years old at the first interview and indicated that he had studied biology 11 & 12, chemistry 11 & 12 and physics 11&12 in high school and "loved it." Moreover, he "liked the creativity in science" and the fact that it was "not so formal" when doing experiments in class, for example. He graduated with a degree in cell and developmental biology. In order to meet the prerequisites for the teacher education program he completed a university level English course.
Hilda was 24 years old at the first interview and stated that she had studied biology and geography in high school. She particularly enjoyed studying animals and plants. Her university anthropology degree included inheritance genetics, earth & ocean sciences and arts. She exclaimed "I loved genetics...it makes sense to me." Hilda had all the required course background to enter the teacher education program after her undergraduate degree.
Irene was 25 years old at the first interview and completed biology 11 in high school remarking that she remembered "lots of dissections." She recollects, "I did do well in science in elementary school cause it was rather basic. In high school I think I did really well in Grade 8 science because I had a very good teacher and then Grade 9 was okay; Grade 10 wasn't so great. I hated it and by Grade 11 I couldn't stand it--I had a really awful teacher though; he didn't care either. I never had really good science teachers in high school except for in Grade 8. They weren't really interested in what they were teaching. It was just about facts--at that point I was no longer motivated." Moreover, "I can't remember anything about elementary school." Irene completed an undergraduate degree in geography remarking, "I didn't take any more science than was necessary." She had a required science course to enter the program.
Carol was 26 years old at the first interview and she completed physics 11 and chemistry 11 in high school but revealed that for her "science was a failure." Further to this she explained, "we needed science 11...biology and dissecting blood turned me off biology; and chemistry wasn't that exciting." Moreover, "I thought you need a science" and asked myself "which is the best of the worst." I also " had to take science to get into the teaching program" and "I took a lab geography." Carol completed a three year B.A. and had no sciences in this undergraduate degree. Before applying to the teacher education program, Carol "spent five years working full time in the school system with teachers (special education)."
What does a teacher educator hear?
Overall, these five teacher candidates' appear to have had minimal high school science experiences and three female teacher candidates remember these experiences as negative. Moreover, science courses in their undergraduate degrees are an exception. It is noteworthy that the idea of having a "good teacher" or an "awful teacher" is woven into initial memories of science at school. The idea that one loves science or hates it is also heard in these first impressions. I wonder how this love or hate for a subject is learned?
I wonder if first impressions of science at school remain with teacher candidates whether positive or negative? I wonder how many teacher educators ask teacher candidates about the details of their past school science and school experiences in general? I think about how this type of knowledge might help teacher educators plan their courses. I think about whether or not teacher candidates need more science content courses or if they just need more positive experiences engaging in scientific activities. Do they need both?
Q-3: At this stage of your university studies do you think you are going to be a 'good' elementary science teacher?
All five teacher candidates respond to this question in different ways, revealing their degrees of confidence as they entered the teacher education program. Matt, for example, emphatically stated " yes" and explained, "I want to get kids to question their surroundings and question things that go on" and to "realize that science is not about memorization of facts and numbers and stuff like that." Moreover, "all scientific experiments and questions begin with saying I don't know" and "I want them (children) to go out and actually manipulate different variables." Finally he declared, "I think it's important in science that they (children) know they can make mistakes." Correspondingly, Hilda convincingly remarks, "Yes. I think I have a real interest in it. I love that sort of hands-on and getting students involved in experimenting and things like that where they are actually doing something rather than listening to me." Moreover, "I think I have some of those qualities that I said like I'm approachable and understanding and empathetic." Both prospective teachers feel very confident even though Matt has a very in-depth science background and Hilda has a minimal science background. Consequently, they begin with a positive perspective towards teaching elementary science to children.
In sharp contrast, the other three teacher candidates seem quite uncertain about their capabilities. Irene exclaims, "At this stage I don't know. I don't think so. Because I have no confidence in that area. I think that in order to be a good teacher like I said you have to know what you are doing and you have to have confidence and conviction and believe that what you are teaching is right." Similarly, Ellie admits, "I hope so. I hope so. I haven't taken any of those methods classes yet so I'm not really sure how to teach them but I would hope that I would be." Carol responds, "Um I don't know. I don't think; I don't think it's going to be one of my favourite things...I know it's going to be a weakness so you try to make that extra up for it to work." She reiterates, "I don't think it will be a strength" relating this feeling to her lack of "experience and positive memories." Accordingly, these three teacher candidates begin the teacher education program wondering about how they will learn to teach elementary science to children.
What does a teacher educator hear?
I wonder if teacher educators know enough about the population they are teaching? Do they elicit this information for example? And if they do, how do they design their instructional strategies to address these diverse backgrounds and needs? Also, I wonder if the teacher candidates know about each other's experiences so that they have a sense of the diversity in the classroom and of their mutual positive and negative experiences. Beattie (2001) reminds us that "we come to know ourselves and construct our professional identities through dialogue, conversations, and interactions with others" (p.68).
Q-5: Having just commenced your teacher education degree what do you perceive could be done to help you become a "good" (or better) teacher of elementary science?
Matt suggests, "I hope a lot of the stuff that I've been saying as far as getting kids involved in experimentation. I hope that when they are teaching us little things you can do that they actually have us do them because when you're actually doing something you learn it a lot better than if they sort of say this is a good thing to do with kids." Similarly, Carol suggests, "I think more ideas on varied, I guess you could say centre or experimental approach with the different...you know themes or units about different experiments that can be done independently." She continues, "well basically I'd like to figure out, you know, what some of this curriculum has to say." Moreover, Carol emphasizes that she would "like to be involved in doing some of the basic things that we (teachers) are asking kids to do." Ellie agrees, "I would probably like to be learning um creative and interesting ways to teach science so ... to make the kids more interested in it. That's probably one of the main things."
The other teacher candidates introduce alternate suggestions. Hilda, for example, emphasizes the importance of "seeing how this relates to the actual teaching experience." She adds, "one of the most valuable things I've done all year has been the first day of practicum. Just, it all came together--everything we learned has come out. You know I haven't been in a classroom since April and in the summer kind of thinking why am I sitting in this lecture and then seeing it all come together." She punctuated that "MORE practicum would be good." Yet, Irene explains, "I don't know whatever you have to know to know that subject inside out...so that you can defend yourself I guess if the student says why is it like that and I don't know. You completely lose control--you have to really know what's it all about." She adds, "If they can learn to be an art teacher why can't I learn to be a science teacher." Nevertheless she admits, "I worry about little Einstein's in my class who won't get anything out of my lesson because I'm too simplistic."
What does a teacher educator hear?
I wonder how important it is for teacher candidates to have enjoyable learning experiences as they think about learning to teach elementary science to children? I think about the multiple purposes of an elementary science methods course and how it might help teacher candidates when they teach children in the practicum. How important might it be to create opportunities for teacher candidates to work with children as part of the methods course where the instructor can guide them?
Q-2c: Since the last interview what things have been helpful/unhelpful in assisting you to become a "good" elementary science teacher?
Hilda explains, "It's a very different class from what I thought it would be. It's not like saying okay in Grade 6 you have to teach this and this is the way you teach it. It's more like giving us confidence, getting confidence and a feel for what we're gonna have to be teaching. So that...I mean it has been really helpful." "I mean the methods course here has been amazing!" Similarly, Irene reflects, "I think being exposed to all kinds of things that are science...so it's been very helpful. It's sort of been like a warmer-up kind of thing, like, this is what science is cause for many of us it's been years since we've taken a science course and can't really remember what we took anyway. And it's kind of almost teaching it like we were kids and trying to stimulate us and get us excited about science, and so that's been good because to be a good science teacher you have to be excited about it, so that's been helpful." Ellie points out, "No I didn't really see anything in my practicum that I thought was good science." She ponders, "..maybe it (science methods course) was helpful because I got to compare what we were learning in Science 320 to what I don't want to do in my classroom. So, you know, by seeing what I don't want to do I kind of learnt from that."
Carol observes some additional factors adding, "...obviously taking a class would be helpful cause one of the things, too, is that you could just do science rather than worry about how, you know, no final exam...you could concentrate on the doing and learning. I guess that was sort of helpful, at the same time it would have been nicer to have something more concrete to walk away with." "I guess a bit more articles to read or something supporting how science should be done in the classroom. There's no readings or anything you know, you did your lessons plans and you had that but there was nothing that, you know, articles about teaching science or concepts or theories." Matt adds a twist when he states that the science methods course "hasn't been helpful...we've been given some resources which have been helpful." "I think the intent from most of those things was just to show everybody that science is fun...it seems like every class has done that...so everybody's getting a positive attitude, which is really helpful for a lot of people who are kinda scared about science and being a science teacher, but for me, I'm not scared and, yeah, I find the stuff really fun but it's not really productive for me."
What does a teacher educator hear?
I hear teacher candidates gaining confidence and finding excitement as they do science in their methods courses. I also hear the voice of a solitary teacher candidate who already has a rich science background and enthusiasm for science needing additional or differential instruction. When a teacher candidate speaks about the idea of "warming up" to teach science I am reminded how important it is for them to remember what it was like to be a child and to be excited about doing things at school. As teacher educators, sometimes I think we forget that teaching future teachers how to teach children is very different from teaching them how to teach a subject. Moreover, elementary teachers need to integrate their teaching of subject matter or they will be unable to address all the demands of the curriculum. How many teacher educators integrate their subject areas when teaching preservice teacher candidates demonstrating what they will need to be able to do? In addition, one teacher candidate points out that she did not get any "articles about teaching science or concepts or theories." Yet an ongoing item of debate in the teacher education literature is the balance of theory and practice (Ball, 2000). Are there courses within teacher education programs that are only theoretical or only practical? How much are our prospective elementary teachers learning about the extensive literature on science education and educational research in general? What topics should be introduced to prospective elementary teachers and how might topics be introduced? What journals should prospective teachers become familiar with before becoming certified teacher professionals?
Q-4: Having now completed two semesters of your teacher education degree (which included your science curriculum course) what else do you perceive could be done to help you become a "good" (or better) teacher of elementary science?
The responses of the five teacher candidates are provided below raising some interesting questions and dilemmas when teacher educators reflect upon their teaching. Matt muses, "...it's not really all connected together, it's just sort of like here's a new idea; here's a neat experiment but it's not really connected...like I think it would be better if we could actually go through and do the lessons and go through the whole unit...that would be very productive because we could see how the lessons are structured."
Hilda exclaims, "I would like to take more because I find that I'm really interested now, whereas before I thought I had to teach so I gotta learn something. Now I want to know more about it." She remarks that "the science instruction has been excellent, but I would definitely like to take more."
Ellie responds that she learned from "watching my peers in action (teaching kids and/or peers). However, she observes, " I find there's so much in science that you can do it in another course anyway. If you're going to teach in something and you know you are going to be teaching it for Grade 6, then it's up to you to go and find out more about that. I think if I came back and had the choice to take science I wouldn't take it; I would take another course that I'm not comfortable with."
Carol notes, "I don't think that we spend enough time in classrooms observing different subject areas and what's happening. I really think that this idea should go from less theory-based, more practical-based and observing and seeing what's happening." She is convinced that she needs "...more practicum--more ideas of how to plan units." For example, "it would be great to have a handout, you know what I'm saying, about all the different experiments that you were doing and how you could use them."
Irene observes, "I think even observations of classroom science classes to see how it's done. Cause it's very difficult sometimes to put theory into practice...it's a huge order to expect science teachers to know everything after one semester of the science methods course." She continues, "a lot of this term was a warm-up, you know, these are the ideas, this is how science is; now let's take those ideas and show how we use them in lessons and units. When we go out to be science teachers, I think we have to implement or impart on our students the idea that women are just as capable of being science teachers as-or do well in science-as men are. I grew up in an environment where science was for men and women were like, you know, it's not a girl thing. You know, if you did good in science you were a geek and that has to be changed."
What does a teacher educator hear?
The common thread seems to be that there is more to learn and each teacher candidate sees unique possibilities for how this learning might occur. I wonder if most teacher educators ask all their students for constructive comments on courses. How might we learn from listening carefully to the needs of our teacher candidates? When I hear these five teacher candidates responses, I wonder what the others would have said about their learning needs if asked. Are there differential needs when teacher candidates return from practicum? How do teacher educators address these needs? As I listen to teacher candidates I am convinced that our teacher education programs try to do too much. More importantly, I think we ask teacher candidates to tango before they know the steps and the music. At the beginning of their careers as elementary teachers they need to become reacquainted with the idea of schools. Do we allow teacher candidates a warm-up? Do we stretch their thinking about teaching as they begin to remember the culture of schools? How do we teach our future teachers about gender issues in science education and how to address different needs when they become teachers? I think you learn how to be a teacher when you practice and when you think about your practice. Dewey (1966) advises us that the "educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, transforming experience" (p.50). Put another way, we learn from experience and from reflecting on that experience.
Q-3c: Since the last interview what things have been helpful/unhelpful in assisting you to become a "good" elementary science teacher?
Q-5: Having now completed three semesters of your teacher education degree (which included your field experiences) what else do you perceive could be done to help you become a "good" (or better) teacher of elementary science?
Due to the length of the responses to these questions and in order to provide details two of the five teacher candidates' responses are provided below. (Hilda & Carol).
Hilda taught about 20 lessons of elementary science to a Grade 2 class for approximately 30 minutes &endash; 60 minutes each time. She chose to do a unit on solids, liquids and gases commenting "I chose it because I was a little bit bored. I was bored with what they were doing. I did this early on in the practicum and I wanted to do something that was more fun and interactive than what was going on already. I was getting a little bored with what was going on in the class." Hilda adds, "I didn't like science at all when I was in school. I didn't find it that exciting. I now know that there are different ways to teach science so that they can enjoy it rather than reading it out of a textbook and copying it out. That's what I remember science as being. Nothing hands-on."
Hilda exclaims, "my sponsor teacher is amazing. I learned a lot from her. We had a lot of workshops in addition set up by our faculty advisor. Workshops that we were pulled out of our practicum to do--science, maths, nutrition workshops. So we would go to another school for a workshop so we'd miss the last 45 minutes of school practicum and go into this workshop till 6pm or 7 pm. Probably about ten--almost one a week."..."the science one was more like hands-on, what you can teach in the curriculum. Basically it was more like organizing your science so allowing the children to work together was huge, pairing them up beforehand according to what you know about them."
When reflecting back Hilda explains, "probably have one more class in teaching elementary science. One more course which I'm taking." She muses, "I've found that what you learn at the university and what you learn at your practicum is so different in all areas. The science has helped with skills and things like that (the science here). Yes, with ideas and concepts and things to teach and methods of teaching. But when you're actually out there in the classroom, it's so different I think. Just like lesson plans and things that we do that are so extensive and so long that we do here--three pages of rationale and 5 pages of objectives...it's not realistic to me." Hilda advises, "so if we had some workshops on some quick ideas that we could do on science and how to use everyday things in science, that would be more helpful. More age appropriate too."
Carol taught about 15 lessons of 45 minutes each to a Grade 4 class on her extended practicum. She elaborates, "the unit was on the skeletal system which was from the IRP and it was suggested to do that because of Halloween. So I didn't really chose it; the teacher said to me that this was a good time of year to do the skeleton." "I don't think you could teach a unit on skeletons without a model or showing a single bone. They have to experience it rather than be told it. I think that is what both my teacher and I did."
At this point in the program Carol remarks, "I think I'll be good because I think it's what you make out of it. If you want it because you're willing to go out and try to get resources… look for different materials, check different things out and you're conscious how children learn and different ways to do things." She continues, "I think the important thing too, is relating things to the children and their lives so that they can recognize things." "I think at the primary level you don't need a huge knowledge base to stay ahead of the children. I think I'd be more concerned if I was dealing with Grade 7 or some other classes. I feel comfortable at the primary level. I don't want to go any higher than Grade 4."
Reflecting back on the three completed semesters Carol insists, "I really think that before you start taking any of these science methods classes, you should be spending two or three weeks in a practicum class." "The whole reality of the situation is that it takes the kids forever." Further to this she suggests, "I think probably the methods course didn't look at the different areas of science… like we really focused on physical science but I think we should have done something on the state science and the life science." She adds, "I think with a lot of these things is that you only learn so much in the university and you have to get out there and do things...I think it's learn as you go." "The thing that really surprised me in terms of science is that some teachers don't do any science at all." Carol concludes, "my practicum teacher and I hated each other and I wanted out half way through but they wouldn't get me out so my practicum wasn't a great experience."
What does a teacher educator hear?
All five interviewees taught elementary science across their extended practicum and for the most part they experienced a great deal of success. What was really noticeable was their increasing confidence and ability to identify pedagogical issues. They identified the experience of teaching as the most important measure of what it was really like to be a teacher. I wonder if they were able to discuss issues of teaching and learning related to their practicum in any depth when they returned to the university? If so, I wonder how teacher educators helped them share what they learned and how diverse their learning experiences were after the extended practicum? How different were their discussions about teaching after the experience they acquired? The practicum experience was evidently highly relevant and important to teacher candidates' learning. How might teacher educators recognize, value and build upon this newly acquired knowledge when they return? Russell (1997), for example, encourages "backtalk" with his preservice teachers in a genuine attempt to listen and respond. Similarly, Nicol (1997), challenges prospective teachers to reinterpret their teaching experiences in on-campus classes.
Q-3: At this stage of your university studies (having nearly completed your preparation) do you think YOU are going to be a "good" elementary science teacher? Why? Why Not?
Only one of the five teacher candidates changed their response to this question from the first interview, but more interesting are the reasons they give to support their answers. Matt confidently announces, "Yes I think I'm going to be a good elementary science teacher. But I have the humbleness to know that I still have a lot to learn still. The reason why I think I'll be a good science teacher is because I have a good understanding of what science is, I think. And I think a lot of people coming through don't have that understanding. ... yes I think I will just because of my knowledge and my enthusiasm and also my lack of fear or apprehension of teaching." In stark contrast Irene admits the following: "I would doubt it right now. I think I need a lot more professional development or I need to read a whole lot more before I get there. Kids aren't stupid. If you get up there and pretend you know something about something you don't they're going to figure it out. And I don't know anything about science yet ...so I need to do a lot more research before I get there and I don't think I learnt very much here in science. But I think you probably had to have a lot more of it." Both candidates identify knowledge of science as something important in their preparation to be elementary teachers.
The other three prospective teachers introduce the dimension of experience and practice as being essential for an elementary teacher. Carol explains, "...you know like some people would say science is different, you know from another subject and think about it as something really different. Whereas I kind of think of science as one of the other subjects that falls into the overall whether you're a good teacher at the elementary level. In one subject a lot of it carries through into science based on your attitude to your willingness to learn and staying with it and keeping track...and I don't think you can have a wonderful teacher in one subject and a really lousy in another. Yeah, I think I'd be a good elementary science teacher." Similarly, Ellie points out "I think I'll be better than I was last semester. I think if you step back and look at things objectively you can always improve and I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect or a really good science teacher...there's always room for improvement." And although Hilda insists "I think I'll be a good beginning teacher ... it's just sort of something that I'm starting to do. But I like it. Like I really like teaching it now....so I almost wish I had taken another course, but it didn't fit into my schedule. I'm feeling way better about it than I did in the beginning ...way better." Nevertheless, Hilda also reveals that "originally I thought I don't have a science degree, how can I teach science? Even to an elementary class, I thought oh you know I won't be able to do this. But I don't think it's like that any more. I think the older the grades are, you have to know more." It seems that more experience at teaching elementary science will simultaneously require more reading and knowledge about science and these preservice teachers feel they will therefore be able to learn to be good elementary science teachers.
What does a teacher educator hear?
As I read teacher candidates' words I am reminded that they are just beginning their careers as professional educators. Clearly, the teacher education program could never "make" them into teachers in this short period of time. I wonder if teacher educators in general aim to teach future teachers everything they think prospective teachers need to know? I wonder if teacher candidates are told more about how to teach than they are shown? I am particularly interested in the learning experiences teach educators create so that teacher candidates learn through experience. Do teacher candidates listen more than they "do" in our teacher education programs?
The following comments from prospective teachers spark ideas of professional growth:
"I still have a lot to learn.""You can always improve."
"I feel better now than in the beginning."
"...practice was most important."
I wonder how important it might be to continue professional development with beginning teachers after they officially complete the teacher education program? If they have just begun to learn how to be a teacher when they leave, how are they supported when they continue to learn? What assumptions are made about their readiness to assume all the responsibilities of being a professional educator? As a teacher educator , I think about how I might teach beginning professionals that their educational journey does not end after the teacher education program. I ask myself if I model how I continue to learn how to teach. Russell (1998) challenges us that "like teachers, teacher educators must learn how to learn from experience" (p.6).
"I love that sort of hands-on and getting students involved in experimenting and things like that where they are actually doing something rather than listening to me" (Hilda).
"I hope that when they are teaching us little things you can do that they actually have us do them because when you're actually doing something you learn it a lot better than if they sort of say this is a good thing to do with kids" (Matt).
"One of the most valuable things I've done all year has been the first day of practicum. Just, it all came together--everything we learned has come out" (Hilda).
"I think even observations of classroom science classes to see how it's done. Cause it's very difficult sometimes to put theory into practice...it's a huge order to expect science teachers to know everything after one semester of the science methods course" (Irene).
"I don't think you could teach a unit on skeletons without a model or showing a single bone. They have to experience it rather than be told it." (Carol).
"I really think that before you start taking any of these science methods classes, you should be spending two or three weeks in a practicum class" (Carol).
"I really don't think any of the classes I took were really any more helpful than the practicum...I mean the practicum...it's just sort of everything. ...the practice for me was the most important" (Matt).
Teacher candidates in this study clearly communicate that "actually doing it" is what matters for their learning to teach. They emphasize practice, practicum experience, and doing over listening. Interestingly, teacher candidates also point to a belief that children learn by "doing" and by "experiencing it" rather than being told or listening to the teacher. It was their experiences in the classroom with children that informed these developing pedagogical ideas about learning.
So, if teacher candidates claim they learn best by actually doing and experiencing teaching, what are they doing and experiencing in their teacher education programs? Barone et al. (1996) state that many teacher education programs consist of a collection of separated courses in which theory is presented without much connection to practice. Bullough and Gitlin (1994) suggest that teacher education program fragmentation "plays to professors' desires for autonomy and independence" (p.71) and not to students' requests for changes in the quality of their learning experiences. Wise and Leibbrand (2001) point out that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards in the United States "expect teacher educators to model effective teaching. The traditional lecture alone is inadequate. Teacher educators must use strategies that they expect their candidates to use" (p.251). Nevertheless, few details exist in the educational literature about how teacher educators create learning experiences for the teacher candidates they prepare to teach. This area requires further research to better understand how university coursework might connect to practice.
Reflective Practitioners
A widespread call exists for experienced as well as prospective teachers to function as reflective practitioners (Bullough & Gitlin, 1994; Cochran-Smith, 2001; Francis, 1995; Hoban, 2000; Loughran & Corrigan, 1995; OCT, 1999). Few individuals connected with the educational enterprise would deny that reflection is an important component of being and becoming a professional educator. Infact, some guidelines exist (OCT, 1999) for what a reflective practitioner should do. Yet how does a teacher educator teach prospective teachers about the importance of reflective practice and create opportunities for them to practice becoming reflective within a teacher education program? Bullough and Gitlin (1994) counsel us that "training teachers is less demanding than educating them" (p.72). Teacher educators face the challenging task of creating learning environments where teacher candidates can intertwine learning in schools and learning on campus. Research attention to how teacher educators attempt to teach and instill reflective practices would further contribute to the knowledge base of teacher education.
Standards for Teaching and Teacher Education
Numerous researchers call for an improvement in the preparation of teachers (Ashton, 1996; Cochran-Smith, 2001; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). A move towards setting specific standards for teaching and teacher education has been in the making for several years in both Canada and in the United States, for example. The NCATE (2001) has established professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges and departments of education. The Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) has developed Standards of Professional Practice for Teachers (1999) and guidelines for the implementation of teacher testing and accreditation are currently in progress. These standards are intended to "bring a new professionalism to teaching in the 21st century" (Wise & Leibbrand, 2001, p.248). Additionally, Korthagen and Kessels (1999) alert us that throughout the world teacher education programs need to "rethink the relationship between theory and practice" (p.4). Teacher education programs across the world are currently in a state of transition in attempts to respond to changes in the field and to educational research.
Certification as the Beginning
Teacher education is continuous and certification only marks the beginning of a career as a professional educator (Bullough & Gitlin, 1994). Further to this, researchers (Bullough & Gitlin, 1994; Goodlad, 1991) argue that preservice teacher education must be linked with inservice teacher education in order to challenge training assumptions. Cochran-Smith (2001), for example, suggests teacher education generally neglects to prepare "prospective teachers to negotiate the treacherous waters of proving themselves competent in first-time teaching positions while at the same time challenging some of the assumptions and actions that others take for granted" (p.180). A call for on-the-job guidance is an emerging theme in educational circles (Kennedy, 1991). Teacher education institutions and public schools need to work collaboratively to generate a community of reflective practitioners who critique teaching methods and actively work to improve learning environments. This seems like a tall order, but a little more harmony between faculties of education and schools could generate the mutual growth of all teaching professionals.
If teacher educators think of teacher education programs as a warm-up for teaching in schools, perhaps the rush to teach it all could change. A focus on the quality of the learning experience and ways of demonstrating professional growth would redirect the current emphasis on learning it all now. Indeed, many prospective teachers and new teachers leave the profession overwhelmed before they have had an opportunity to practice becoming teachers. A greater emphasis on long-term learning and continuous education might provide needed support after the warm up. Admittedly, this would require more time for in-depth discussion and reflection on practices within already tightly packed programs. However, too often teacher candidates remark that they are "too busy to think" in the program and they seem to be running aimlessly. What would happen if teacher educators slowed down learning to teach? In order to truly develop reflective practices teacher educators need to create time for this very essential element of becoming a teacher professional.
Listening to the voices of the five teacher candidates in this study may spark a challenge to teacher educators and teacher education in general. Teacher educators need to continuously think about how to create key learning experiences for prospective teachers and how to engage them in reflecting on these experiences as they "warm-up" to teach. Munby and Russell (1994) put it this way, "what steps can be taken in preservice education to help beginning teachers become better able to learn from experience" (p.86). Moreover, teacher educators need to elicit regular feedback from teacher candidates as they learn how to teach so that they examine their teaching practices and learn through these experiences. The new paradigm of teacher education can be characterized by an emphasis on reflective teaching recognizing the ongoing process of experiencing practical teaching and reflecting on these experiences under the guidance of an expert (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). If we can model best practice for our future professionals then we can hope for application of these practices in the field. It is a healthy challenge and it requires continuous practice.
Ashton, P. 1996. Improving the preparation of teachers. Educational Researcher, 25 (9): 21-22.
Ball, D. 2000. Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3): 241-247.
Beattie, M. 2001. The art of learning to teach: Preservice teacher narratives. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Bullough, R. & Gitlin, A. 1994. Challenging teacher education as training: Four propositions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 20 (1): 67-81.
Cochran-Smith, M. 2001. Higher standards for prospective teachers: What's missing from the discourse? Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (3): 179-181.
Cochran-Smith, M. 2000. Teacher education at the turn of the century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3):163-165.
Dewey, J. 1966. Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Goodlad, J. 1991. Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education. Educational Leadership, Nov:10.
Hoban, G. 2000. Making practice problematic: Listening to student interviews as a catalyst for teacher reflection. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, (2): 133-147.
Jones, A. 1998. Ten points of debate in teacher education: Looking for answers to guide our future. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall: 9-15.
Kennedy, M. 1991. Some surprising findings on how teachers learn to teach. Educational Leadership, Nov: 14-17.
Korthagen, F. & Kessels, J. 1999. Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28 (4): 4-17.
Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (eds.). 1997. Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. & Corrigan, D. 1995. Teaching portfolios: A strategy for developing learning and teaching in preservice education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (6): 565-577.
Munby, H. & Russell, T. 1994. The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45 (2): 86-95.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2001. Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
Nicol, C. 1997. Learning to teach prospective teachers to teach mathematics: The struggles of a beginning teacher educator. In: Loughran, J and Russell, T. (Eds.). Teaching about teaching:Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. 95-116.
Ontario College of Teachers. 1999. Standards of practice for the teaching profession. Toronto: ON.
Rosenblatt, L. 1978. The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Russell, T. 1998. Introduction. In: Hamilton, M. (ed.). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. 5-6.
Russell, T. 1997. Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In: Loughran, J. and Russell, T. (eds.). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. 32-47.
Skamp, K. & Mueller, A. 2001a. A longitudinal study of the influences of primary and secondary school, university and practicum on student teachers' images of effective primary science practice. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (3): 227-245.
Skamp, K. & Mueller, A. 2001b. Student teachers' conceptions of effective primary science practice: A longitudinal study, International Journal of Science Education, 23 (4): 331-351.
Wise, A. & Leibbrand, J. 2001. Standards in the new millennium: Where we are, where we're headed. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (3): 244-255.