Action in Teacher Education Learning to Teach: Comparing the Effectiveness of Three Pathways (original) (raw)

Abstract

sparkles

AI

This paper investigates the effectiveness of three teacher education pathways in the California State University (CSU) System by comparing the quality of preparation as rated by program graduates and their employment supervisors. The study finds minimal differences in supervisor ratings among the pathways, suggesting that common standards among programs may diminish perceived distinctions. Future research is recommended to explore diverging perceptions between supervisors and graduates and to assess specific program features that impact the preparation of teachers within various teaching contexts.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (25)

  1. Beare, P., Marshall, J., Torgerson, C., Tracz, S., & Chiero, R. (2012). Toward a culture of evidence: Factors affecting survey assessment of teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(1), 159-173.
  2. Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 205-213.
  3. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. M., & Sindelar, P. T. (2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools. Rural Special Education, 24(1), 9-16.
  4. Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education: A landmark in educational theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). Alternative pathways to certification (intern) program: Program report. Sacramento, CA: Author.
  5. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2011). Teacher supply in California: A report to the legislature 2009-2010. Sacramento, CA: Author.
  6. Center for Teacher Quality. (2006). Preliminary work products: Systemwide evaluation of teacher preparation in the California State University. Long Beach, CA: Office of the Chancellor. Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). Systemwide evaluation of teacher preparation in the California State University. Long Beach, CA: Office of the Chancellor.
  7. Chiero, R., & Beare, P. (2010). An evaluation of online versus campus-based teacher preparation programs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 780-790.
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
  9. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138.
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2006). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286-302.
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & K. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-440). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 8-19.
  14. Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California's teaches so all children can learn. Sacramento, CA: California State University.
  15. Good, T. L., McCaslin, M., Tsang, H. Y., Zhang, J., Wiley, C. R. H., Bozack, A. R., & Hester, W. (2006). How well do 1 st year teachers teach: Does type of preparation make a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 410-430.
  16. Guha, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Bland, J., & Campbell, A. (2008). California's teaching force 2008: Key issues and trends. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
  17. Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education: Inquiry into the nature of programs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  18. Janssen, D., & Janicki, T. (2011). From research to policy to practice within the context of California's learn- ing to teach continuum. Retrieved from http://education.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ea/ES\_Pub/ES\_Publications. htm?ResourceId=es_pub_2011
  19. Lotan, R. A., & Marcus, A. (2002). Standards-based assessment of teacher candidates' performance in clinical practice. Issues in Teacher Education, 11, 31-48.
  20. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
  21. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
  22. Shaw, M. (2008). The impact of alternative teacher certification programs on teacher shortages. International Journal of Learning, 15(3), 89-97.
  23. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93-135.
  24. Wineburg, M. S. (2006). Evidence in teacher preparation: Establishing a framework for accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 51-64.
  25. Zeichner, K. (2006), Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326-340.