Examining Opportunities to Learn in Practice: A Study of Teacher Education in Eight Countries

• In Event: Understanding Variation in Teacher Education Programs: Features That Impact Teacher Learning

Abstract

Emerging research suggests that in order to be effective, teacher education programs need to promote a clear vision of teachers and teaching; must be coherent, reflecting a shared understanding of teaching and learning among faculty and students; and finally, need to be built around a strong core curriculum deeply tied to teaching practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; National Council of Research, 2010). Although these three key features can be found in powerful U.S. programs, we know little about whether these aspects are an appropriate means of examining programs internationally (author, 2013; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005). Further, while a growing emphasis upon the teaching of practice is a vibrant conversation in teacher education (McDonald, et al, in press; Zeichner, 2012), few studies have examined the nature of the pedagogies within programs that link theory and practice across international contexts.

Our study collected data on these three features in eight teacher education programs (two in Norway, Finland, and the United States; and one each in Chile and Cuba). In this paper, we share initial findings from one of our four research questions: To what extent do the programs provide opportunities to learn that are tied to teaching practice? To answer the question we draw upon data including three weeks of fieldnotes of classroom observations of language arts and mathematics methods courses; surveys of student-teachers; and interviews with faculty and teacher candidates. To examine ways these programs provided opportunities grounded in practice, we analyzed our data in relationship to a set of dimensions we developed, based upon growing scholarship on high leverage teaching practices in teacher education (Grossman et al, 2009; McDonald et al., in press). For example, we examined whether student teachers had opportunities to plan for teaching; to enact teaching, and to analyze pupil learning.

Initial analysis of course fieldnotes, surveys, and interviews across the different programs revealed an emphasis upon some high leverage practices but not others. For instance, while students in many of the programs studied had opportunities to plan for teaching (i.e. developing lesson plans) and to analyze artifacts from real classrooms, they had very few opportunities to enact aspects of teaching (for instance, practice leading a whole class discussion). Students in some of the courses we observed had opportunities to analyze real student work, but not all methods courses offered those opportunities. Our findings also revealed a continued split between theory and practice. For instance, while students had many opportunities in the courses we observed to discuss their student-teaching experiences, they had almost no opportunities to use theory to analyze those experience.

Taken together, these data help us understand the varied ways that programs in very different settings do (and do not) provide opportunities to learn in practice, as well as the ways the programs try to bridge the gap between theory and practice. With some empirical evidence regarding how programs address these long-standing challenges, we can both better understand the international landscape of teacher education, and take informed steps towards strong program design and curriculum.

Authors

• Karen M. Hammerness, American Museum of Natural History

• Kirsti Klette, University of Oslo