Learning to Teach: Enacting Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education

• In Event: 43.029 - Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education: Capturing a Changing Field

Abstract

Theoretical Framework/Literature
For many years, scholars have investigated learning to teach during the critical preparation period (Avalos, 2011; Feiman Nemser, 2001; Hammerness, et. al., 2005). This paper is informed by two theoretical frameworks that are relevant to learning to teach at nGSEs and complementary to one another: Lave and Wenger’s (1991) “communities of practice” and Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) “conceptions of teacher learning.” The former illuminates the situated nature of teacher learning, while the latter helps unpack core conceptions of teaching and learning promoted at nGSEs. The paper draws on empirical studies about communities of practice and teacher learning (e.g., Bannister, 2018; Oakes, Franke, Quartz, & Rogers, 2002) and studies about the role of practice in teacher preparation (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Kennedy, 1999).

Data Sources/Analysis
Data sources include interviews, observation data, and program material, such as handbooks for teacher candidates, online coursework, and orientation programming. Cross-case analysis utilized five initial codes: teacher knowledge, teacher practice, pedagogy, performance, and assessment. Additional sub-codes were developed to identify themes and patterns related to learning to teach, particularly assumptions about the roles of knowledge and practice.

Findings/Interpretations
This paper presents three findings. First, across nGSEs, it was assumed that the knowledge teachers need to teach well is embedded in practice, or what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) call “knowledge in practice” (p. 250), which is different from many university programs that focus on “knowledge for practice” (p.250), that is, knowledge and theory generated by researchers for use in schools. We found that at nGSEs, ideas about knowledge in practice ranged along a continuum from technical to complex. For example, at Sposato GSE, knowledge in practice was conceptualized as effective teacher “moves” for direct instruction and classroom management, whereas at High Tech High GSE, it was embedded in project-based learning, which has its roots in the intersection of practice and theory. Second, the paper suggests that while teacher education pedagogy differs across nGSEs, teacher educators at each site modeled the pedagogies they wanted teacher candidates to employ in K-12 classrooms. Third, across nGSEs, teaching knowledge was assumed to be context-specific (Mastsko & Hammerness, 2014) in that it was driven by the mission of the nGSE. This knowledge was instantiated in the “communities of practice” into which teacher candidates are socialized as they engage with more experienced practitioners in the “joint enterprise” of teaching (Wenger, 1998).

Significance
This paper articulates the conceptions of teaching, learning, and learning to teach underlying teacher education programs relocated away from universities and into charter or other stand-alone organizations.This shift, which prioritizes practice, reflects longstanding criticisms of university teacher education as too theory-based and too unrelated to practice. However the turn towards practice (Zeichner, 2012) raises many questions about the future of university-generated knowledge in teacher education: Is there a downside to practice-based teacher education? Is practice-based teacher knowledge complete without a theoretical foundation? Will nGSE teacher preparation over time exacerbate the theory-practice dichotomy in teacher education? This paper takes up these questions.

Authors

• Marisa Olivo, Boston College

• Reid Jewett Smith, Boston College