Educational PsychologyReview, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1990

Comment

Educational Reform in Teacher Preparation: Proposals, Reactions, and Implementation D o n a l d L. B e g g s 1

The article by Benton and Hoyt provides data that creates an opportunity for a significant discussion concerning the role of educational psychologists in education reform. Education reform in teacher education has three identifiable stages. The first stage is the series of proposals that have been generated by a number of groups implying that education reform efforts will bring about positive change. The second component has been reactions or debates surrounding the proposals and significant changes proposed by national reports. Finally, there have been component parts of the proposals implemented in experimental ways in schools and colleges of education. Clearly, a segment of the educational psychology academic community has been involved in all three phases of education reform, and the need for maintaining a research posture and a demand for documentation of improvement is necessary from all educators--and in particular educational psychologists. The 1980s were the years for proposing and reacting. The years between now and the twenty-first century will be the time of implementation and evaluation of changes. The opportunity is present for active involvement of all interested educational psychologists. The article by Benton and Hoyt is a meaningful article for educational psychologists because it points out our differing opinions and provides some basis for us to understand our differences concerning specific issues in teacher education reform. KEY WORDS: teacher education; educational reform; educational psychology.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education report, titled A

Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), was the first national report that appears to have begun the education reform m o v e m e n t of 1Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, College of Education, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-4624. 255 1040-726X/90/0900-0255506.00/0 © 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation

256

Beggs

the 1980s. This document triggered an enormous number of proposals for teacher education, for the teaching of students at both the elementary and the secondary levels, for the empowerment of teachers, for the structure of the schools, and for the inclusion of teacher preparation in academic programs. Two of the reports initiated as a result of the Nation at Risk proposal were the Holmes' Groups Report, titled Tomorrow's Teachers (1986), and the report of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, titled A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-First Century (1986). These two proposals have prompted the most debate among teacher educators during the last half of the 1980s. During the past seven years, over 100 articles relating to the proposals generated by the Holmes' Group and by the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy have been published. Various special interest groups, such as vocational educators (Smith et al., 1987), mathematicians (Kloosterman et al., 1988), physical educators (Razor, 1988), scientists (Hirschorn, 1978), school administrators (Greenfield, 1986), special educators (Allman, 1987), health educators (Wilcox, 1988), and others, have responded to these proposals on the profession of teaching and on teacher education. The article, "Educational Reform: Implications for Educational Psychologists," (Benton and Hoyt, 1990) is one such article. The article relates to our special interest group (educational psychologists), and the implications for proposals in education reform as they relate to educational psychologists. This article is composed of an analysis of information received from three distinct groups and provides data that can be a catalyst for a significant amount of discussion and debate among educational psychologists. The proposals developed since the publication of Nation at Risk have primarily been papers intended to trigger more discussion and, it is hoped, lead to implementation of change. As one might expect, a significant number of the issues raised in the proposals appear to have no research base and appear to relate to the special interest of those individuals involved in the development of the proposals. One example of this self interest or knowledge relates to the discussion highlighted in the paper by Benton and Hoyt. Their results clearly indicate that those educators who are proposing that teacher education occur at the graduate level are educators who are in higher education institutions and who are working in programs where the vast majority of their instructional responsibilities are at the graduate level. This means these educators are more aware of the scholarly expectations and the quality of information that is provided at the graduate level, and it is the opinion of these educators that students exposed to quality graduate-level instruction will be better teachers in the classroom. Indeed, those persons who argue that a graduate degree be required for teacher certification approval are those persons who are convinced that students should have a strong liberal arts background and an academic content major no matter

Educational Reform

257

what teaching responsibilities the student will have at the elementary or secondary level. This type of proposal has its greatest backing from those educators who teach at the graduate level. On the other hand, those educators who are teaching in institutions that are predominantly undergraduate or completely undergraduate institutions contend that quality teacher education can occur at the undergraduate level. Needless to say, this is not an unusual response from an educator or group of educators who believe they are, indeed, performing a quality job in the environment in which they are operating. The Benton and Hoyt study indicates, as do numerous other studies, that educators appear to be comfortable with the quality of instruction occurring within their environment but are overly critical of instruction occurring in other environments. A good example of this bias is the recent results of a 1989 Gallup Poll (Elam and Gallup, 1989), in which respondents felt that the instruction in the schools attended by their children was better than the instruction and education that students were receiving in other schools. Clearly, responses and proposals are based not on research, but on the experience and personal bias of the individual who is either responding to a survey question or developing a proposal. As indicated above, a large number of proposals were generated in the 1980s. Those studies that emerged to be most influential in teacher education appear to be the Holmes' Group Report and the Carnegie Report on Education and the Economy. These reports have had significant impact on the discussions regarding education reform, because funding has been obtained from foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation to support some of the ideas expressed within those proposals, and state and local officials have found within these reports certain types of seemingly reasonable recommendations that can be implemented but which may or may not have a positive effect on students in the programs (e.g., more testing before admission). Generally speaking, changes have been made in teacher education when the changes could be implemented without additional expense. One example of this type of change is the raising of the admission requirements for admission into teacher-education programs. To date no substantive study has documented that requiring a higher grade-point average for admission to a teacher-education program has had, indeed, a positive impact on the student's performance as a teacher after entering the profession. Improving student performance,however, has not been the primary reason for increasing the admission requirement into teacher education. Rather, the response by the teacher-education profession to the rash of proposals has been to raise the admission standards in response to criticism by the public that lower ability students are entering teacher education. As this and other types of changes are implemented, it will be possible to study the impact of these changes with respect to the teaching force.

258

Beggs

Mary HatweU Futrell (1989) has defined the significant public component o f the response to the proposals that were generated in the mid-1980s by stating: History will view the 1980s not as the decade of education reform, but as the decade of education debate. We've spent these years arguing, posturing, and traveling well-worn roads. We've only begun to address the basis issues related to schooling in America. For example, we've just begun to redefine the goals of public education. We've just begun to accept the fact that our schools can--and must--offer both educational equity and educational excellence. We've just begun to examine how we teach in light of what we know about how students learn. We've just begun to examine what schools seek to teach in light of what today's (and tomorrow's) students need to know. And we've begun, at long last, to challenge the structure of schooling that has been with us for more than a century and is now obsolete. The proposals have generated reactions and debates that have involved many groups. Have educational psychologists been involved in these debates? In reviewing the scholarly publications and the various panels throughout the country that have published summaries of their proceedings, it is clear that a variety of individuals who profess to be educational psychologists have actively participated in these discussions. As indicated in the article by Benton and Hoyt, educational psychologists do have an identity crisis, as documented through the years by Henmon (1913) and Grinder (1978), who questioned whether educational p s y c h o l o g y is a distinctive field and whether we as educational psychologists have agreed upon who we are and what we are about. We should not apologize for having variability within our ranks. Rather, we should recognize our diversity and realize that the topics relating to teacher education do, indeed, relate to the specialty areas within educational psychology and have more of an impact on some individuals than on others. The fact that some educational psychologists are not interested or involved in the educational reform movement should not have a negative impact with respect to our profession. Rather, we should be pleased with the significant number of psychological principles being applied to efforts to both debate and implement the proposals, and we should be pleased with the responses to proposals that have been generated during the past five years. As educational psychologists, we are in error if we feel we must be the educators who are singularly involved in participating in the reform. Many individuals involved in instructional design and in elementary and secondary education who have received training in educational psychology are encouraging the implementation of research findings in teacher-education programs. I am convinced that the general field of educational psychology has had a significant impact on the debate and in the process of implementing reform. The issue being argued by many is that the debate has never ended and that the implementation is limited. The debate should continue until such time as those who are directly involved in the process of teacher education have had an opportunity to review and experiment with proposed changes, to determine the impact of those changes as they affect the quality

Educational Reform

259

of individuals completing teacher-education programs and, finally, to determine the positive impact of these changes on students who are being taught by individuals completing quality experimental programs. We should not apologize for the lengthy period of debate, because we must have supportable evidence that the changes to be implemented can be successful. David Irnig (1987), writing for the "Briefs" section of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, reported that the public expectation is that major changes must occur if, indeed, educational reform is to take place. In the June 16 issue of The New York Times, Fred Hetchingerdevotedhis weeklycolumn to education reform and concluded that "no revolutionaryupsurge" has occurred, only small incremental changes. He fears a decline in even the level of current supportwithout some bold move at the national level. He and others had hoped that Carnegie Forum's announcement of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards could provide that jolt, while some saw the ominous trade legislation with its educational components and drive to make America more competitive as that stimulus. Educational psychologists recognize that what we are attempting to modify is a program that has been in place for many decades, which cannot be changed in a short time period unless we can document that the changes will provide a higher quality of instruction and will provide positive benefits to students. The data are still not available to indicate that a restructuring of our educational program has the overwhelming potential for bringing about the desired changes. It is one thing to argue that we are not doing as well as we think we should (a statement which usually has very limited or no criteria to support this assertion), but it is extremely difficult to implement a major change that will affect the nation's most precious resource--the future leaders and citizens of our country--without agreeing on the criteria for assessing the change. We do not have the privilege of working in a limited and controlled environment, such as a laboratory, and experimenting with change prior to implementation of the changes in the real world. In dealings with human beings, we know that the dynamic factors which take place in an educational setting are unique to those settings and must be approached with a most systematic and well-planned strategy. As educational psychologists, we play an important role in continuing the debate by providing quality research and research findings to our colleagues which will allow educational psychologists to attempt to shape change for the future. Educational psychologists have had the opportunity to be involved in educational reform. The small changes which have occurred in the educational setting have primarily occurred in teacher-education programs. Very few of these changes have occurred in settings where educational psychologists have not been afforded the opportunity to debate the changes. Once again, we would not expect all educational psychologists to be involved, but those who are currently involved in teacher education have had that opportunity. In 1988 the

260

Beggs

AACTE second report to the profession on the Research About Teacher Education (RATE) project provided information clearly indicating that teacher-education programs were responding to the in-depth review by faculty of the educational components of their programs. For example, RATE reported that 73% of the institutions involved in the study had raised admission standards for their teacher-education programs; 55% had changed exit standards for the teacher-education programs; 52% had changed the liberal arts curriculum for preservice teachers; and 51% had begun using public school teachers as teacher educators (Kauffman, 1988). The important characteristics of this second report of RATE are the clear indication that teacher-education programs were involved in the small changes discussed in the article by Benton and Hoyt, and that changes in the teacher-education curriculum do include input from educational psychologists, yet another indication of our involvement in educational reform. Undoubtedly, educational psychologists have an important role to play in the continuing implementation of change in teacher education. Educational psychologists must continue to ask questions that can be researched and to provide the results to decision-makers in a meaningful manner. The large sweeping changes that are discussed in the Benton and Hoyt paper need additional research or experimentation prior to implementation. The issue of graduate vs. undergraduate instruction should be evaluated based on a study of experimental programs that have been implemented during the past few years. Educational psychologists must pursue the question of the quality of graduate programming if, indeed, educators relocate the instruction currently provided at the undergraduate level to the graduate level and would use this course work to award a master's degree. As educational psychologists, it is important for us to raise questions within colleges of education and within graduate schools regarding whether preservice education courses are appropriate for the graduate level and for graduate credit. We must protect the academic integrity of our graduate programs and draw clear distinctions between undergraduate and graduate courses. The integrity of the master's degree program in education could be maintained by offering postbaccalaureate courses for the purpose of certification but not leading to a graduate degree. If, on the other hand, we offer educational psychology courses, instructional design courses, and measurement courses that typically are taught at the undergraduate level and then award graduate credit and a master's degree for taking these courses in a postbaccalaureate setting, then we must be willing to defend the quality of our master's degrees. Individuals completing master's degrees, where the primary component of the master's degree is a teacher-preparation program, may not be adequately prepared for doctoral level programs. It is imperative that all educators, and in particular educational psychologists, raise these questions and attempt to respond to them in a constructive manner. If the majority of our teacher-education initial certification programs are relocated to the

Educational Reform

261

graduate level, there must be a distinction between initial certification programs and the graduate programs that have expectations regarding a person's prerequisite behavior and experience in the field of education prior to entry into the master's degree program. The suitability of graduate-degree teacher certification appears to be a legitimate question for educational psychologists to pursue as we attempt to define, not only our role in teacher education, but our role in education in general. Another recommendation by Benton and Hoyt is that administrators encourage faculty members involved in teacher education, including educational psychologists, to initiate more collaborative research with our colleagues who are teachers and administrators in the public schools. In most cases, our laboratory for research is the public school, and experience shows that individuals involved in public education have an excellent grasp of the questions that need to be researched before change can occur within the schools. As a researcher involved with a research team which includes public school personnel, I am convinced that the quality of the questions of our research team has greatly improved in this collaborative effort. During the past decade, I have observed a research dichotomy in graduate students they may be summarized by stating that those students who have had teaching or administrative experience in the public schools appear to have no trouble identifying general questions to be pursued for research, but those individuals involved in graduate education who have not had teaching or administrative experience in public schools have more difficulty in identifying quality research questions, but seem to excel in the methodology for answering these questions. The collaborative effort among university personnel and public school personnel, indeed, can help us pursue more meaningful questions as a part of the education reform movement. Benton and Hoyt discuss in detail the concern of faculty about universities, departments, and faculty colleagues supporting collaborative research and research in the schools. Decisions concerning promotion and tenure are predominantly made by faculty colleagues. If research in the public school setting is not appropriate in an individual department or in a university setting, the faculty and the administration should communicate that concern to a new faculty member at the time of recruitment and employment. Although universities vary with respect to this issue, the questions raised by Benton and Hoyt concerning the acceptance of research related to educational reform issues must be answered by administrators for their individual faculty members in order to maintain morale. It is my professional wish that we judge the quality of research: (1) on the quality of the research question, (2) on the quality of the research procedures employed, and (3) on the validity of the interpretation of the results. If we do, indeed, review the research of our colleagues based on these principles, then the laboratory or the environment in which the data was

262

Beggs

collected would be given less emphasis when considering our researchers for their potential for promotion and tenure. I believe the Benton and Hoyt article has addressed an important issue for educational psychologists. The data and the interpretation of the data clearly provide us a basis for a continuing discussion and/or debate concerning the issues of educational reform. After reviewing this article and reviewing articles published in a variety of other sources concerning this topic, I believe that the questions raised by Benton and Hoyt are meaningful for us as educational psychologists. It is imperative that we continue to pursue this discussion with scholarly research related to the component parts of educational reform, and that we attempt to work cooperatively as we pursue meaningful results from experimental situations that may, indeed, have an impact on the total profession of teacher education.

REFERENCES Allman, C. (1987). Education reform: Implications for the preparation of teachers of visually impaired children. Education of Visually Handicapped 19: 19-25. Benton, S. L., and Hoyt, K. B. (1990). Educational reform: Implications for educational psychologists. Educational Psychology Review 2: 203-236. Carnegie Forum On Education and the Economy (1986). A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, Washington, D. C. Elam, S. M., and Gallup, A. M. (1989). The 21st annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 41-54. Futrell, M. H. (1989). Mission not accomplished: Education reform in retrospect. Phi Delta Kappan, 8-14. Greenfield, T. B. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. Interchange, 17: 57-90. Grinder, R. E. (1978). What 200 years tell us about professional priorities in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 12: 284-289. Henmon, V. A. C. (1913). Educational psychology. In Blond, E. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Education, W. & B. Baird, Belfast, pp. 70-72. Hirschorn, M. W. (1987). Working science into a liberal arts education: Why, when we teach, do we make it so dull? ChrorL Higher Ed. 29-30. Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group, The Holmes Group, East Lansing, Michigan. Imig, D. A. (1987). On reform. Am. Assoc. Col. Teacher Ed. Briefs 9: 1. Kaufman, D. (1988). RATE H documents reforms in teacher education. Am. Assoc. Col. Teacher Ed Briefs 9: 1. Kloosterman, P., Matkin, J., and Ault, P. C. (1988). Preparation and certification of teachers in mathematics and science. Contemp. Ed. 59: 146-149. National Commission On Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, Washington, D. C. Razor, J. E. (1988). The Holmes Group proposal and implications for physical education as a "solid" subject matter (and other related problems). Quest 10: 33-46. Smith, C. W., Hughes, R. P., Finch, C. R., and Lee, J. S. (1987). The Carnegie and Holmes Reports: Four views. Vocat. Ed J. 62: 28-30. Wilcox, D. (1988). Implications of the Holmes Report for health education. J. School Health, 58: 190-192.