Reconceptualizing Teacher Quality to Inform Preservice and Inservice Professional Development

From Teacher Quality to Teaching Quality

Three areas have traditionally been considered in relation to teacher quality or effectiveness (Kennedy, 2008): cognitive resources that include knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions; performance in the classroom; and effect on students. Although these three categories provide a framework for viewing and assessing different facets of quality, their operationalization has often been problematic. Federal initiatives such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RttP) have driven the operationalization of these aspects of teacher quality over the past 10 years, influenced the research agenda related to teacher quality, and driven school-based determination of teacher effectiveness. Policy makers and researchers who conduct policy research typically have considered two of the three areas outlined by Kennedy as candidates for describing teacher quality: (a) teacher inputs including teacher characteristics, tests, professional preparation, and licensure that are proxies for cognitive resources and (b) classroom effectiveness, typically measured in terms of student performance on standardized tests (Heck, 2007). However, these approaches reflect very narrow views of teacher quality, and the conceptualization of student learning has been restricted to the kinds of skills that can be measured by standardized achievement tests. In addition, research has not provided much support for the impact of variables related to these definitions (Wayne & Youngs, 2003).

Teacher educators and researchers increasingly have focused on the performance category, with considerable research from the process–product paradigm on teacher behaviors related to student outcomes (Brophy & Good, 1986). Although this early research was criticized for ignoring content and context, later studies acknowledged differences by student and teacher characteristics as well as subject matter (Good & Brophy, 2008). Current work on both preservice and inservice performance assessment continues the focus on this area. While research has shown impact on student outcomes, primarily standardized test scores, the effects of teaching behaviors on student outcomes have typically been small (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007).

The focus on teacher practices suggests the differentiation of teacher quality, more descriptive of the focus on teacher inputs and standardized testing effects, from teaching quality, which places the emphasis on classroom practice. Berliner (2005) expanded the discussion when he made the distinction between good teaching, teaching that exhibits the standards of the profession, and effective teaching, which refers to reaching student achievement goals. Teaching quality is made up of both good and effective teaching.

An important differentiation between prior and current models of classroom practice needs to be made to fully understand how effective teaching behaviors have been redefined in the past decade. A number of articles published by JTE in the past 5 years (see, for example, Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanaugh, 2013) have focused on practice-based teacher education involving the learning of core teaching practices (e.g., facilitating group discussion). The tendency is to conflate the current set of teaching behaviors with those produced by previous research from the process–product research referenced previously. However, an article by Forzani (2014) published in JTE clearly delineated the current practice-based focus from previous research. The author acknowledged that the current practice-based teacher education movement builds on similar approaches from three other periods in history. However, three major differences exist that separate the current movement from its predecessors: (a) The learning goals for students target higher order skills rather than the basic skills of past movements, (b) novices must learn to deal with uncertainty as teaching in this manner is partially improvisational, and (c) the subject matter of the practices is a critical component of acquisition of the practices as opposed to more generic approaches of the past. These differences require very different approaches to preparation and professional development, recognizing the complexity and problem-solving nature of effective classroom instruction. Teachers not only must have a deep knowledge of content and students’ cognitive and noncognitive learning but also be able to recognize and mediate the two.

To summarize, reconceptualization of the notion of teacher quality requires operational redefinition of the three categories of quality—cognitive resources, performance, and effect—to reflect a focus on teaching quality connected to student learning rather than teacher quality focused on teacher characteristics. Furthermore, quality teaching practice involves a transition to a more complex view of teaching behaviors associated with complex learning outcomes and tied explicitly to content. With this altered focus on tying classroom practice to student learning, the role of preservice and inservice professional development in increasing quality of teaching and learning is of paramount importance. In many ways, effective teacher professional development will mirror current motions of quality PK-12 teaching (Hollins, 2011).

Current Considerations for Teaching Quality

Reconceptualization of teacher quality involves more than the shift in focus to classroom practice tied to student learning embodied in the term teaching quality. Cochran-Smith et al. suggest two additional considerations through the foci of their second and third programs of research: (a) considerations of the implications of preparing students for a knowledge society and (b) consideration of the nature of effective teaching for diverse student populations. The combined considerations highlight changes in our conceptions of how people learn and the skills they will need for success in the 21st century and the acknowledgment that the diversity in our classrooms will need to be embraced and understood to provide equitable opportunities for all students, using what we know about new conceptions of teaching and learning. As Cochran-Smith and Villegas outline in their first article, conceptualization of learning changed in the past two decades from being viewed as a transmission process to “a process of active construction wherein learners drew on prior knowledge and experiences—both individual and sociocultural—as they built new understandings” (p. 10, 2014). The constructivist-based model of learning emphasizes the importance of engaging initial understanding before conceptual change is possible, deep foundational knowledge for meaningful conceptual frameworks, implementation and monitoring of learning goals and strategies, effective technology use as a scaffold for learning, dispositions that encourage critical thinking and inquiry, and professional development for teachers based on current principles of teacher learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Schielack & Knight, 2012). The movement away from rote memorization places tremendous pressure on students, who must assume responsibility for motivational and cognitive processes that underlie learning, and on teachers, who must provide the kinds of instructional strategies and assessment practices within a learning environment that foster development of student self-regulation and participation (see, for example, Bransford et al., 2000). Quality teaching will depend on teachers who have a foundation of effective practices on entry into the profession that they can build on throughout their careers, the ability to assess student knowledge and needs in relation to the content and to respond accordingly, and a disposition toward lifelong learning fostered by effective and ongoing professional development.

The second consideration, effective teaching for diverse populations, directly acknowledges the demographic changes in current classrooms and the pressures on teachers to create “equitable learning opportunities and outcomes for diverse students in the context of enduring inequalities” (Cochran-Smith et al., this issue, p. 114). To accomplish this, teachers must understand and value the individual and sociocultural knowledge that diverse students bring to the classroom to connect and build on it. The knowledge society depends not only on depth of knowledge of content and processes but also on diversity of knowledge to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

We would add two additional areas suggested by the second and third articles included in this issue of JTE that build on the first two considerations: (a) the necessity for effective teachers and teacher educators to forge new partnerships for student learning (“Democratizing Teacher Education,” by Zeichner, Payne, & Brayko) and (b) the importance of meeting the challenges to teaching and teacher education posed by adoption of standards and common curriculum that address the higher order skills and knowledge needed for the knowledge society (“Studying Teachers’ Sensemaking to Investigate Teachers’ Responses to Professional Development Focused on New Standards,” by Carrie Allen and William Penuel). Zeichner and his colleagues propose the development of new forms of shared responsibility for preparing teachers among colleges/universities, schools, and communities and the creation of new hybrid spaces where the different forms of knowledge represented by these three entities “come together in new ways to support the development of innovative and hybrid solutions to the problem of preparing teachers” (p. 124). Using cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT) and deliberative democratic theory, they examine current collaborative efforts among universities, schools, and communities to better serve students and teachers. Consistent with the focus of the third program of research identified by Cochran-Smith et al., they acknowledge that our education system has had limited success educating students from underserved racial, linguistic, and economic groups. They suggest that a collaborative approach has the potential to develop teachers who possess the kind of contextualized knowledge that can be used to create core teaching practices needed for success with diverse populations.

Allen and Penuel contribute to the reconceptualization of teaching quality and the professional development needed to augment it by providing an example of how curricular reform incorporating standards linked to the needs of the knowledge society challenge teachers and professional developers to think deeply about issues of teaching and learning. The authors employ the notion of sensemaking from organizational studies to interpret teachers’ response to professional development focused on new science education reforms in the United States (Framework for K-12 Science Education and Next Generation Science). By focusing on teachers’ attempts to resolve ambiguity and uncertainty produced by conflicts in their own contexts with the demands of the reform, they probe how teachers’ participation in professional development influences teachers’ decisions about subsequent implementation, leading to either productive adaptation or to foreclosure of deep sensemaking. They conclude that professional development needs to go beyond science content and provide active learning opportunities around issues of coherence.

Additional Highlights of the Current Issue

As discussed previously, the first three articles in this issue contribute directly to our understanding of new views of teaching quality and new approaches to professional development of preservice and inservice teachers. The remaining three articles provide additional insights into these areas. The fourth and fifth articles expand our understanding of school-based fieldwork, which is featured in the Cochran-Smith et al. review. The fourth article, “‘You Are Learning Well My Dear’: Shifts in Novice Teachers’ Talk About Teaching During Their Internship,” by Kristen Bieda, Hagit Sela, and Daniel Chazan, contributes to our understanding of the transition preservice students must make from their preparation programs to school-based teaching. The authors examine intern teachers’ reasoning about teaching as they make the transition from university-based coursework to intern teaching. Using Toulmin’s argumentation analysis scheme, they analyze intern teachers’ justifications about practice to understand how they are integrating what they learned on campus with what they are learning during their field experiences when they are required to carry out full instructional loads under the guidance of a mentor teacher. They describe four obligations that appear in teacher talk prompted by videos as they discuss classroom interactions with their mentor teachers: obligations to their discipline, the school, individual students, and the entire class. Findings suggest that the arguments intern teachers make about classroom practice and the obligations of teaching that surface in those arguments provide a way to understand how interns change, what teaching obligations emerge, and the role of teacher preparation coursework in developing awareness of the obligations. The fifth article, “A Comparative Examination of Student Teacher and Intern Perceptions of Teaching Ability at the Preservice and Inservice Stage,” by Sarah Clark, Deborah Byrnes, and Richard Sudweeks, continues the focus on features of teacher preparation programs (TPP) and the transition to teaching. They examine the influence that TPP features (15-week student teaching with a mentor teacher vs. 1 year in a classroom without a mentor teacher) have on interns’ perceptions of their ability to teach. The researchers track the teacher candidates into full-time teaching positions to determine how their perceptions change after they have taught for one school year and discuss the implications of the different features and experiences for teacher preparation.

The final article, “The Need for Instructional Sensitivity and Construct Clarity in PACT: A Commentary on Examining the Internal Structure Evidence for the Performance Assessment for California Teachers,” by Judy Wilkerson, is a commentary directed to an article by Duckor, Castellano, Tellez, Wihardini, and Wilson (2014) that appeared in a previous issue of JTE. Duckor and colleagues examined the validity of the performance assessment used in California (PACT), which is similar to Education Teacher Performance Assessment (EdTPA), and found evidence to support the valid use of PACT as a summative assessment but not for its use for formative purposes. Wilkerson examines possible explanations for the statistical results presented by Duckor et al. and highlights the need for valid subscores useful for diagnosis and improvement. She provides a set of suggestions for how this instrument can be improved so that it can be used for both formative and summative assessment purposes.

We hope that the articles in this issue of Volume 66 stimulate your thinking about new approaches to preservice and inservice professional development to improve teaching quality as well as other topics consistent with your interests and research. We invite you to participate in conversations about the implications of the findings of these studies for teacher education research and practice and for education policy. We look forward to receiving manuscripts from you in the future as well as your ideas directed toward improvement of JTE.