A Collaborative Model for Identifying Key Professional Dispositions of Effective Teachers

Author(s):

Mary Bair(presenting / submitting)David Bair(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 03 C, Professional Development and Dispositions

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-C214

Chair:

Rose Dolan

Contribution

Teacher education has become a major focus of policy reform in many countries around the world. Much of these reform efforts purport to raise the quality of student learning by raising the quality of teacher preparation. But what are the essential qualities of effective teachers? This is a question confronting teacher educators who are charged with preparing teachers and the administrators who are responsible for evaluating them. Educators agree that declarative and procedural knowledge are necessary for effective practice, as are pedagogical skills; but they also agree that knowledge and skills alone are not sufficient (Rike & Sharp, 2008; Wilkerson, 2006). Teacher dispositions play a vital role in instructional success (Knowles, 1994).

In the USA, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) serves as a single, unified professional accreditation system for teacher preparation programs, setting the standards for teacher education at universities. CAEP standards are heavily influenced by the standards for knowledge, skills, and dispositions listed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), a national non-partisan, non-profit organization in the USA. These standards have been adopted by states as a crucial component of the preservice licensing program and serve as a touchstone for much of the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. While CCSSO identifies 43 distinct dispositions, it up to each teacher preparation program to identify, define, and operationalize the specific professional dispositions that they will address with their students.

The challenge for educators is that in the USA, research regarding the definition and conceptualization of teacher dispositions is scant, and evidence about the effect of specific teacher dispositions is inconclusive. Researchers have pointed out that there is little substantial research regarding the conceptualizations of teacher dispositions (Johnson & Reiman, 2007) and argue that there is no reliable and valid measure for dispositions (Johnson, Johnson, Farenga, & Ness, 2005). While some researchers claim that teacher dispositions affect student learning (Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000), others argue that there is no rigorous empirical evidence that certain dispositions improve teacher effectiveness (Hess, 2006).

Notwithstanding the inconclusive evidence, teacher preparation programs seeking accreditation in the USA are charged with addressing and assessing the dispositions of their candidates. At the same time, as professionals, teacher educators are advised to adopt a rigorous and thoughtful approach to the identification and integration of dispositions (Diez, 2006a). There is unfortunately, little consistent guidance on how to act upon these competing demands.

In this paper, we discuss the case of one institution which demonstrates how universities can respond proactively and professionally to the control and conformity that otherwise characterizes the process of accreditation. We report how one teacher education program identified and operationalized the key professional dispositions to be addressed with pre-service teachers. While this was done as a requirement for accreditation, the process used sought to engage faculty and other stakeholders, invigorate and broaden the discussion about teaching effectiveness, and provide a professional response to a potentially de-professionalizing mandate.

This study was guided by the social constructivist paradigm (Berger & Luckman, 1967), which states that meaning is created by individuals, with culture and context being critical in this knowledge construction. Knowledge is created when individuals interact with one another and share ideas; the sharing process results in each learner refining his or her own ideas while simultaneously shaping the ideas of others (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001). Social constructivists value the inclusion of many voices in the process of knowledge construction, making this an ideal framework for the study of multiple constituents’ perceptions of dispositions.

Method

This first phase of the process was a Delphi study, a consensus-building technique in which the researcher solicits the opinions of experts through a series of surveys interspersed with feedback in order to establish a convergence of opinion (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974). This technique is recommended when the problem “can benefit from subjective judgments on a collective basis” (Hanafin, 2004, p. 9). Criterion-based sampling was used to select participants who had worked with teacher education candidates, had knowledge about teacher dispositions, and were willing to participate. The expert participants included 13 faculty members from the College of Education (COE) who supervise field placement and teach education courses, 12 faculty members from the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) who teach content and methods courses and supervise field placements, and eight local school administrators in whose schools pre-service teachers are placed and who regularly hire and evaluate practicing teachers. Data collection involved the use of three surveys, with the results of the analysis of each survey informing the next one. The first survey used an open-ended prompt and asked participants to identify and define up to six dispositions that they believed were important for teachers to possess. Participants were given the following definition of a disposition: “Dispositions are the habits of professional action and moral commitments that underlie an educator’s performance” (CCSSO, 2013, p. 6). Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the open-ended responses from the first survey. The 33 participants who responded identified 39 different characteristics they believed were key professional dispositions that a teacher should demonstrate (e.g., appreciates diversity, self-reflective, inquisitive, caring, collaborative, solid content knowledge). Three researchers independently coded the responses. They then compared the codes and collectively reduced the responses into categories. For example, “compassion,” “kindness,” and “empathy” were combined into the disposition called “caring.” This process resulted in a more concise list of 21 dispositions. In the second survey, participants rated each of the 21 dispositions on a 10-point Likert scale, from least to most valuable, and shared comments about the items. The goal of this survey was to determine areas of agreement and disagreement among the participants. The weighted mean was used to rank order the responses. The data were disaggregated and analyzed separately for each participating group. The results of the analysis were shared with the participants and they were invited to comment in the third and final survey.

Expected Outcomes

An analysis of round two of the survey revealed a consensus around nine dispositions: challenging, responsive, reflective, ethical, scholarly, caring, student-centered, fair, and resourceful. Disaggregated data revealed distinct results for the three groups. The COE faculty gave the highest ranking to affective qualities of the individual; being caring and responsive. The CLAS faculty gave the top ranking to more rational, intellectual dispositions; being knowledgeable and challenging. Administrators’ top-ranked dispositions were relational; being collaborative and student-centered. In phase two of the study, focus groups were conducted with COE faculty. The list of nine consensus dispositions was discussed and reduced to five target dispositions to be addressed and assessed in the teacher preparation program. The faculty choices reflect dispositions that indicate intellect (challenging, responsive), professional character (reflective, resourceful), and care (student centered); coincidentally, the same three categories outlined in Sockett’s framework for moral dispositions (Sockett, 2006). In phase three of the study, a group of five teacher educators reviewed the literature, developed operational definitions for each of the dispositions, and identified specific courses in which the dispositions are to be addressed and assessed. The fourth phase will involve classroom teachers in the process of operationalizing the dispositions. The fifth and final phase of the study will invite the students to join us as “co-inquirers” (Nelsen, 2015) in the journey to integrate meaningful dispositions into their professional preparation. This study illustrates one manner in which teacher education programs can respond to national accreditation requirements; one that includes multiple stakeholders in a collaborative and meaningful inquiry process and allows them to critically examine and come to informed consensus about the qualities of effective teachers. Such processes help teacher educators maintain their professional integrity, develop a clear conceptual framework upon which to build program details, and still meet the requirements of the accreditation process.

References

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1991). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books. CAEP (2013) CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved December 15, 2014 from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_approved1.pdf CCSSO. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0. Washington D.C.: Author Diez, M. (2006). Assessing dispositions: Context and questions. The New Educator, 2, 57-72 Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Hanafin, S. (2004). Review of literature on the Delphi technique. Retrieved on January 10, 2015 from http://dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Delphi_Technique_A_Literature_Review.pdf Hess, F. (2006). Schools of reeducation? Retrieved on June 7 fromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302603.html Johnson, D., Johnson, B., Farenga, S., & Ness, D. (2005). Trivializing teacher education: The accreditation squeeze. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield. Johnson, L., & Reiman, A. (2007). Beginning teacher disposition: Examining the moral/ethical domain. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 676-687. Knowles, J. G. (1994). Metaphors as windows on a personal history: A beginning teacher’s experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 37-66. Nelsen, P. (2015). Intelligent dispositions: Dewey, habits and inquiry in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 86-97. Rike, C., & Sharp, L. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers’ dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84(3), 150-153. Sockett, H. (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of moral standards. Washington D.C.: AACTE Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000, November 4). The dispositions to teach. Retrieved July 6, 2015, from https://coehs.nku.edu/content/dam/coehs/docs/dispositions/resources/The_Dispositons_to_Teach.pdf Van de Ven, A. L., & Delbecq, A. H. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605–21. Wilkerson, J. (2006). Measuring teacher dispositions: Standards-based or morality-based? Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=12493

Author Information

Mary Bair (presenting / submitting)

Grand Valley State Unversity

College of Education

Grand Rapids

David Bair (presenting)

Grand Valley State University