ArticlePDF Available

Variation in Teacher Preparation: How Well Do Different Pathways Prepare Teachers to Teach?

Authors:

Abstract

Does teacher education influence what teachers feel prepared to do when they enter the classroom? Are there differences in teachers' experiences of classroom teaching when they enter through differ- ent programs and pathways? This study examines data from a 1998 survey of nearly 3000 begin- ning teachers in New York City regarding their views of their preparation for teaching, their beliefs and practice, and their plans to remain in teaching. The findings indicate that teachers who were prepared in teacher education programs felt significantly better prepared across most dimensions of teaching than those who entered teaching through alternative programs or without preparation. Teachers' views of their preparation varied across individual programs, with some programs gradu- ating teachers who felt markedly better prepared. Finally, the extent to which teachers felt well pre- pared when they entered teaching was significantly correlated with their sense of teaching efficacy, their sense of responsibility for student learning, and their plans to remain in teaching.
http://jte.sagepub.com
Journal of Teacher Education
DOI: 10.1177/0022487102053004002
2002; 53; 286 Journal of Teacher Education
Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung and Fred Frelow
Variation in Teacher Preparation: How Well Do Different Pathways Prepare Teachers to Teach?
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/4/286
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)
can be found at:Journal of Teacher Education Additional services and information for
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/53/4/286
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 17 articles hosted on the Citations
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
VARIATION IN TEACHER PREPARATION
HOW WELL DO DIFFERENT PATHWAYS
PREPARE TEACHERS TO TEACH?
Linda Darling-Hammond
Ruth Chung
Fred Frelow
Stanford University
Does teacher education influence what teachers feel prepared to do when they enter the classroom?
Are there differences in teachers’ experiences of classroom teaching when they enter through differ-
ent programs and pathways? This study examines data from a 1998 survey of nearly 3000 begin-
ning teachers in New York City regarding their views of their preparation for teaching, their beliefs
and practice, and their plans to remain in teaching. The findings indicate that teachers who were
prepared in teacher education programs felt significantly better prepared across most dimensions of
teaching than those who entered teaching through alternative programs or without preparation.
Teachers’views of their preparation varied across individual programs, with some programs gradu-
ating teachers who felt markedly better prepared. Finally, the extent to which teachers felt well pre-
pared when they entered teaching was significantly correlated with their sense of teaching efficacy,
their sense of responsibility for student learning, and their plans to remain in teaching.
In recent years, questions have been raised
about whether and how teacher education
makes a difference in teachers’ practice, effec-
tiveness, entry, and retention in teaching. Re-
searchers have also begun to ask whether differ-
ent kinds of programs prepare teachers differ-
ently and to what effect (e.g., Darling-
Hammond, 2000b; Howey & Zimpher, 1989;
National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning, 1992). These questions have become
more important as the growing demand for
teachers, coupled with growing inequality in
salaries and teaching conditions, has resulted in
sharper differences in the nature and extent of
preparation teachers receive. Although many
programs have undertaken important reforms
since the mid-1980s, a growing number of en-
trants to teaching have experienced no teacher
education at all (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, 1997).
Do these differences in teacher education
matter? Do teachers’ experiences of teaching
differ when they enter through distinctive pro-
grams and pathways? This study examines data
from a 1998 survey of nearly 3,000 beginning
teachers in New York City regarding their views
of their preparation for teaching, their sense of
self-efficacy, and their plans to remain in teach-
ing. The survey allowed analysis by individual
teacher education program and pathway to
teaching.
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
For more than a decade, two competing
trends have influenced the teaching workforce.
On one hand, calls for reform from groups like
the Carnegie Task Force on the Future of
Teaching (1986) and the Holmes Group (1986) of
education deans spurred many universities to
286
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 286-302
© 2002 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
strengthen teacher preparation by requiring
more subject matter preparation, more inten-
sive coursework on content pedagogy and strat-
egies for meeting the needs of diverse learners,
and more systematic and connected clinical
experiences. Some universities have developed
5-year models that include a disciplinary major
and intensive training for teaching, including a
yearlong student teaching experience, often in a
professional development school. Some evi-
dence suggests that these efforts may be pro-
ducing teachers who feel better prepared, who
enter and stay in teaching longer, and who are
rated as more effective (see, e.g., Andrew, 1990;
Andrew & Schwab, 1995; Baker, 1993).
At the same time, growing demand for teach-
ers in a labor market with funding inequities
and distributional problems has led many states
and districts to lower standards for entry, admit-
ting many new teachers without preparation. In
California, for example, the number of teachers
hired on emergency permits increased from
12,000 in the early 1990s to more than 40,000 in
2001, or about 14% of the workforce (Shields
et al., 2001). In California and nationally, under-
qualified teachers are disproportionately
assigned to teach minority and low-income stu-
dents (National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 1996, 1997).
Increases in teacher demand have coincided
with the growth of alternative teacher certifica-
tion programs—so named because they provide
alternatives to the traditional 4-year undergrad-
uate program path to teacher certification. More
than 40 states have alternatives in place for can-
didates who already have a bachelor’s degree
(Feistritzer, 1998). These programs vary from
short summer programs that place candidates
in teaching assignments with full responsibility
for students after a few weeks of training to
those that offer 1- or 2-year postbaccalaureate
programs with ongoing support, integrated
coursework, close mentoring, and supervision.
All of these trends have occurred in New York
City, which recruits thousands of teachers a year
from a wide variety of pathways and programs.
New York City is the largest and most diverse
school district in the country, serving more than
1 million public school students, 83% of whom
were identified as members of “minority”
groups and 17% of whom were identified as
limited English proficient in 1997-1998. In that
year, more than 9,000 teachers in New York City
were teaching on temporary or emergency
licenses, compared with 1,185 in the rest of the
state. Low-performing schools (schools under
registration review)—which served primarily
low-income and minority students—had the
highest percentages of uncertified teachers, an
average of 16% compared with 4.5% in the rest
of the state (Armour-Thomas, 1999).
At the start of the 1997 school year, due to a
strong press from the chancellor’s office to
improve hiring practices, two thirds of the city’s
5,500 vacancies were filled by fully qualified
teachers, an improvement from one third of a
smaller number of vacancies in 1992 (National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,
1997). However, poor teaching conditions con-
tributed to an ongoing flow of emergency-
credentialed teachers into city schools. In a
school finance lawsuit brought against the state,
the city’s below-average expenditures and non-
competitive salaries were cited as reasons for
difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers.
As part of its interest in improving hiring and
stemming attrition, the Board of Education was
interested in learning about its sources of new
teachers, their preparation, professional devel-
opment needs, and plans to stay in teaching.
THE SURVEY AND THE SAMPLE
A survey of beginning teachers was con-
ducted by New Visions for Public Schools, a
nonprofit organization in New York City, and
the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future’s Urban Initiative in the
spring of 1998 (Imbimbo & Silvernail, 1999). The
New York City Board of Education sent surveys
to all teachers listed on the personnel list with 4
or fewer years of experience. A follow-up letter
encouraging participation was sent by the New
York City United Federation of Teachers. A total
of 2,956 usable surveys were returned.
1
Respondent characteristics resembled those
of the New York City beginning teaching force:
80% were female; 68% were 35 years old or
younger; 65% were White, 15% Hispanic, 13%
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 287
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
African American, 4% Asian or Pacific Islander,
and the remainder “other.” Among the respon-
dents, 74% held a regular New York State teach-
ing certificate; 26% were uncertified at the time
of the survey. Of those with a state teaching cre-
dential, 66% had obtained certification through
a university-based credentialing program within
New York State. The remaining 34% obtained
certification through transcript review. This group
included individuals prepared in programs
outside of New York State as well as those who
had taken courses in a variety of institutions,
often while teaching, and who received a cre-
dential by submitting their transcript to the
State Education Department for review. Among
those certified, 14.7% earned their credential
after they started teaching. Teachers’ pathways
into teaching were highly varied. Just under
half of teacher education graduates fit the tradi-
tional expectation of entry through a 4-year
undergraduate program (see Table 1).
The survey asked new teachers to rate their
preparedness and their personal views about
teaching, including their sense of teaching effi-
cacy and their plans to remain in teaching.
Recruits were asked to assess how well pre-
pared they felt when they entered teaching,
across 39 dimensions of teaching and overall.
These dimensions ranged from readiness to
provide effective subject matter instruction to
ability to diagnose and meet student needs (see
appendix).
FINDINGS
Differences by Certification
Status and Pathway
In an earlier analysis of the data, Silvernail
(1998) conducted a factor analysis that grouped
36 of the 39 survey items into five factors
describing teachers’ sense of preparedness to (a)
Promote Student Learning (Items 1-9, 16, 25, 28,
29), (b) Teach Critical Thinking and Social
Development (Items 17-24), (c) Use Technology
(Items 35-39), (d) Understand Learners (Items
11-13, 26, 27), and (e) Develop Instructional
Leadership (Items 31-34). For each factor, he
compared the perceptions of New York State
certified teachers to those of noncertified teach-
ers and those of teachers licensed through an
approved program to those licensed through
transcript review.
Certified teachers felt better prepared than
noncertified teachers on every factor except
preparation to use technology. The differences
were highly significant (at the .001 level) on the
two factors that most pertain to teaching skills:
(a) Ability To Promote Student Learning—14
questions including such items as “teaching
subject matter concepts, knowledge and skills in
ways that enable students to learn”—and (b)
Ability To Teach Critical Thinking and Social
Development—8 questions including such
items as “developing a classroom environment
that promotes social development and group
responsibility.” Neither group felt well pre-
pared to use technology or to teach new English
language learners. On Item 40, which asked
respondents for an overall assessment of their
preparation, certified teachers felt adequately
prepared (M = 2.08, SD = 0.97),
2
and their aver-
age rating was significantly higher (p < .001)
than that of noncertified teachers, who felt less
than adequately prepared on average (M = 1.86,
SD = 1.04). Finally, certified teachers exhibited a
much stronger sense of responsibility for stu-
dent learning than did uncertified teachers (p <
.001). The latter were more likely to believe that
“students fail because they do not apply them
-
288 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
TABLE 1 Pathways Into Teaching
Proportion
Pathway of Sample
University-based program
a
Undergraduate 30.6
Graduation program of 1 year or more 24.2
Combined undergraduate/graduate
(typically 5 years) 7.9
Non-university-based route
Substitute teaching 17.4
Private school teaching 8.2
Alternate route program (Peace Corps,
Teach for America, Teacher Opportunity Corps) 2.0
No prior experience 13.6
Other 12.5
NOTE: Responses do not sum to 100% because multiple re-
sponses were allowed regarding non-university-based routes.
a. This question asked only for programs through which respon-
dents earned New York State certification. It does not include re-
spondents who first earned a credential in another state (
n
=44or
1.5% of the total sample).
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
selves,” “students’ peers have more influence
on their motivation and performance than I do,”
and “most of a student’s performance depends
on the home environment, so teachers have little
influence.”
Silvernail’s (1998) comparisons of the ratings
of teachers who completed a New York State
teacher education program with those of teach-
ers who were licensed through transcript
review showed similar trends but smaller dif-
ferences. This analysis was intended to examine
whether completing a single, coherent program
for a credential was associated with a different
entry experience than stitching together courses
from multiple sources. However, the transcript
review group also included those who had com-
pleted a teacher education program in another
state. Those who completed an approved
teacher education program in New York State
felt much better prepared on the items regard-
ing Promoting Student Learning (p = .0002) and
somewhat better prepared than those who
received credentials through transcript review
on three of the other four factors: Teaching Criti-
cal Thinking and Social Development (p = .03),
Understanding Learners (p = .01), and Devel-
oping Instructional Leadership (p = .05). There
was no difference on Using Technology. Pro-
gram-prepared teachers were significantly
more likely than transcript review entrants to
feel that students’ success is influenced by
teaching rather than by peers or home factors
(p < .001).
Silvernail (1998) also compared data from
this survey to data from a national survey of
beginning teachers and a survey of 7 exemplary
teacher preparation programs.
3
Graduates of
the exemplary teacher preparation programs
felt significantly better prepared than the
national random sample of beginning teachers,
and both groups felt better prepared, on aver-
age, than New York City teachers. However, one
of the exemplary programs was in New York
City, and its graduates scored significantly
above the New York City and national norms on
both surveys. This suggests that there may be
measurable differences across preparation pro-
grams in terms of how well prepared graduates
feel when they enter the classroom.
Differences by Teacher
Education Program or Pathway
Our analysis of beginning teachers focused
on the individual pathways they followed to
enter teaching. Since teachers’ practice and
views are affected by other professional devel-
opment the longer they are in the profession, we
felt that analyses of program effects would be
best examined within 3 years of entry. We elimi-
nated those in the initial sample who had 4 or
more years of experience (20.1%), leaving 2,302
teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience as
the sample for this analysis. We examined the
differences among the preparation perceptions
of teachers from different teacher education pro-
grams versus those who entered teaching with-
out prior preparation (emergency credentialed),
through transcript review, or through alternate
routes operating only in New York City. This
last group includes teachers who enter teaching
on an emergency credential, sometimes after a
few weeks of summer training (Teach for Amer-
ica [TFA]) or while enrolled in a master’s pro-
gram (Peace Corps and Teacher Opportunity
Corps).
We were interested in determining whether
recruits rated their preparation similarly within
preparation programs and whether there were
programs whose graduates rated their prepara-
tion significantly higher or lower than those of
other programs. An earlier study (Darling-
Hammond, 2000b) found that there is often a
consensus among employers about teacher ed-
ucation programs that produce teachers who
seem better prepared at entry to meet the needs
of diverse learners. The study of teacher educa-
tion program outcomes is one strategy that may
enable us to understand features of successful
programs. The analyses compared
mean ratings of teacher education program gradu-
ates and those without program preparation (using t
tests of group means for each survey item),
mean ratings of graduates of individual teacher edu-
cation programs and other pathways in New York
State compared to the overall mean ratings of
teacher education program graduates, and
relationships between overall feelings of prepared
-
ness and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and plans to
stay in teaching (using correlations and regression
analyses).
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 289
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Graduates of teacher education programs versus
alternative pathways. The mean ratings of gradu-
ates of teacher education programs were signifi-
cantly higher than ratings of teachers without
program preparation
4
on 32 of the 40 survey
items assessing feelings of preparedness. The
sharpest differences (p < .01) were on those
items that rated teachers’ knowledge about cur-
riculum and teaching strategies, including how
to meet students’ learning needs. In relation to
the factors reported by Silvernail (1998), program-
prepared teachers rated their readiness for
teaching higher than non-program-prepared
teachers on all 14 items in Factor 1 (Promote Stu-
dent Learning), all 8 items in Factor 2 (Teach
Critical Thinking and Social Development), all 5
items in Factor 3 (Understand Learners), and on
2 of 4 items in Factor 5 (Develop Instructional
Leadership).
On the “use of technology for communica-
tion with others in the world” (Item 38), teach-
ers without program preparation rated their
preparedness higher than program graduates.
We suspect that those who entered from other
occupations had more experience with these
uses of technology than did individuals who
went directly into teacher education. Both
groups rated their preparation less than ade-
quate on items dealing with the use of technol-
ogy to support research and track student
achievement (Items 36, 37) and with respect to
teaching English language learners (Item 14).
Recruits who had taken other pathways into
teaching felt less well prepared than teacher
education program graduates overall. Teachers
who gained state certification through tran-
script review—who had taken all of the
required certification courses but not necessar-
ily from a single institution—had lower mean
ratings on most items, but significantly lower
mean ratings on only 10 out of 40 items. The
areas in which transcript review entrants felt
least well prepared included more sophisti-
cated aspects of instructional planning (Item 8,
“use community resources to create a multicul-
tural curriculum,” and Item 28, “use a variety of
assessments [e.g., observation, portfolios, tests,
performance tasks, anecdotal records] to deter
-
mine student strengths, needs, and progress”).
Teachers who entered through alternative
pathways such as Peace Corps, TFA, or Teacher
Opportunity Corps also rated their initial pre-
paredness significantly lower than did gradu-
ates of teacher education programs on 25 out of
40 items. These included core tasks of teaching
such as designing curriculum and instruction,
teaching subject matter content, using instruc-
tional strategies, and understanding the needs
of learners.
Finally, teachers who began teaching on
emergency credentials without previous experi-
ence in classrooms
5
rated their readiness signifi-
cantly lower than graduates of teacher educa-
tion programs on 35 out of 40 survey items. The
only nonsignificant differences were on items
dealing with the use of technology. The overall
ratings of both alternative program teachers
and those with no prior experience fell below a 3
(adequately prepared), suggesting that recruits who
had not had teacher preparation often felt insuf-
ficiently prepared when they entered teaching.
We found that there was less variability in
individuals’ reported readiness among gradu-
ates of teacher education programs than there
was among other entrants, especially transcript
review entrants. This makes sense because
teacher education provides some common
experiences that should reduce variability.
Alternate route recruits and those with no prior
experience had significantly lower ratings
within a narrower range (see Figure 1).
Differences among teacher education programs
and pathways. We disaggregated the data further
to compare the responses associated with the 18
teacher education programs that had sample
sizes of at least 20 to see if there were differences
among them.
6
These included public and pri-
vate institutions offering both graduate and un-
dergraduate programs. Among the alternate
routes, only one program, TFA, had a sample
size adequate to include in this analysis. Ratings
of program preparation were relatively consis-
tent within programs and were distinct across
programs, suggesting that there might be pro-
gram effects that outweigh candidate differ-
ences. An analysis of variance showed greater
between-group than within-group variance in
responses (F = 1.84, p = .017).
290 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Outlier teacher education programs. We com-
pared the item ratings of graduates from differ-
ent teacher education programs with the ratings
for all program-prepared recruits combined and
found significant differences from the mean in 4
of the programs. Of the teacher education pro-
grams, 2 had significantly higher mean ratings
on a number of the 40 items, and 2 had signifi-
cantly lower mean ratings on some of the items.
Graduates’ overall ratings of preparedness
(Item 40) were significantly different from the
mean in only 1 program (Program 98), whose
graduates felt significantly better prepared
overall. TFA recruits felt significantly less well
prepared than teacher education graduates
overall and on most items.
7
The programs with significantly higher mean
ratings were Program 3, Bank Street College,
and Program 98, Wagner College, a small col-
lege on Staten Island. Bank Street College grad-
uates, who are primarily elementary teachers,
rated their preparation higher than the average
teacher education graduate on 30 items and sig-
nificantly so on 6 items (p < .05), especially those
dealing with understanding children and devel-
oping curriculum, two hallmarks of Bank Street
training. Wagner College graduates rated their
preparation higher than the average on 39 of 40
items and significantly so on 21 items (p < .05).
Among these were preparation to use technol
-
ogy, an area in which teacher education gradu
-
ates and nongraduates alike generally felt
underprepared. On the 5 items evaluating pre-
paredness to use technology, Wagner College
graduates’ ratings ranged from 3.14 to 3.52
whereas other program graduates’ ratings
ranged from 2.18 to 2.83.
On the other hand, graduates of two programs—
both campuses of the City University of New
York—rated some aspects of their preparation
lower than the average teacher education grad-
uate, although higher than alternate route
recruits and those without preparation on most
items and overall. (Graduates of the other 7 City
University of New York campuses rated their
preparation at or above the average among
teacher education graduates.) Program 17 had
significantly lower ratings on 23 items, and Pro-
gram 20 had significantly lower ratings on 20
items (p < .05). Despite these differences, gradu-
ates of both of these 2 lower-rated programs
rated themselves adequately prepared on 28 of
the 39 aspects of teaching and rated themselves
adequately prepared overall. The areas where
these graduates felt less than adequately pre-
pared (mean ratings below 3) mirrored the
trends in the general teacher education popula-
tion: use of technology to support learning, teach-
ing of English language learners, and helping
students to assess their own learning. In addi-
tion, graduates of these 2 programs felt less than
adequately prepared to identify and address
special learning needs and to use a variety of
assessments to gauge and direct student learning.
TFA recruits rated their preparation lower
than the average teacher education graduate on
39 of 40 items, significantly so on 19 of these (p <
.05). Mean ratings for TFA recruits were consis-
tently lower than the mean ratings for the low-
est rated teacher education program and were
significantly lower on 5 items, including Item
40, overall preparation to teach. TFA recruits’
ratings of their preparation were also consis-
tently lower than those for the mean of the alter-
native routes category, perhaps because the other
two programs in this category (Peace Corps and
Teacher Opportunity Corps) enrolled candi-
dates in master’s degree programs and offered
them university-based supervision and course
-
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 291
317333431179N =
4
No Prior
Experience
3
Alternate
Route
2
Transcript
Review
1
Program
Preparation
Overall Preparation Rating
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
178170181209561137193528031940147626429329482043295323271755
2757218621922361478170928172585188615682521133396127251405127645112152366799570850417222817112482727470829220721171052071
FIGURE 1: Variability in Ratings of Overall Preparedness
of Recruits From Different Pathways
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
work while they were teaching. TFA recruits
and recruits with no prior experience or training
rated their preparation comparably on most
items (see Figure 2).
In contrast to program graduates, TFA
recruits felt unprepared for many of the core
tasks of teaching. For example, whereas nearly
55% of program graduates rated themselves as
“well” or “very well” prepared on Item 1, “teach
subject matter concepts, knowledge, and skills
in ways that enable students to learn,” only 12%
of TFA participants did so. On 25 of 40 items,
including overall preparation for teaching, TFA
recruits felt less than adequately prepared
(below a 3 on the scale). In addition to the use of
technology—an area in which almost all of the
respondents felt underprepared—these
included fundamental aspects of teaching for
which graduates of all of the 18 teacher educa-
tion programs rated themselves adequately or
well prepared: developing curriculum to sup-
port student learning, helping all students
achieve high academic standards, using
instructional strategies to promote active learn-
ing, developing a classroom environment that
promotes motivation and responsibility, and
working with parents and families.
Characteristics of Highly
Rated Programs
What do we know about the design and char
-
acteristics of the two programs that enabled
their graduates to feel particularly well
prepared? A previous case study of Bank Street
College (Darling-Hammond & MacDonald,
2000) found that both program graduates and
employing principals rated Bank Street prepa-
ration very highly. Since its founding in 1916,
Bank Street has aimed to develop child-centered
education grounded in knowledge of human
development. These emphases are reflected in
the comments of principals about why they hire
Bank Street teachers:
I think they are the best-trained teachers in progres-
sive education that I can find. ...Ithink their under-
standing of curriculum is very deep.
I have sought out Bank Street graduates in all my po-
sitions in the last ten years. I hire them for their high
level of professionalism and for their willingness to
engage in serious conversations about children,
their needs, and their potential. For me, it is impor-
tant that they are able to balance the development of
serious curriculum while paying attention to the
needs of students in a diverse population. (Darling-
Hammond & MacDonald, 2000, pp. 10-11)
Bank Street enrolls about 200 teachers annu-
ally in early childhood, elementary, and middle
school programs. Several hundred teachers also
take in-service courses. The 42-credit, graduate-
level, preservice programs take from 12 to 24
months to complete, depending on how stu-
dents organize their course taking. Every pro-
gram includes a full academic year of student
teaching under close supervision from univer
-
sity supervisors who also work as course in
-
292 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
Teach
subject
matter
Help
students
achieve high
standards
Develop
curriculum
Use
instructional
strategies
that promote
learning
Address
special
learning
needs
Choose
teaching
strategies for
different
purposes
Help
students
become
motivated
Develop
classroom
environment
Engage
students in
cooperative
learning
Plan
instruction
Work with
parents
Overall
preparation
Program 98
Program 3
Tchr Ed. Ave
Program 17
Program 20
No Prior Experience
Teach For America
FIGURE 2: Mean Ratings of Preparedness for Beginning Teachers From Different Programs
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
structors and advisors and who often work with
both the master teacher and the student teacher
on developing classroom practice. The
practicum experiences are interwoven with
coursework.
The program design deliberately combines
experience, reflection, and study. Student teach-
ing placements are in classrooms with cooperat-
ing teachers who model Bank Street practices
like those candidates are learning in their
courses on child development (observation and
recording of child behavior and learning
through child study are key components of the
Bank Street method), subject-specific teaching
methods, language and literacy development,
curriculum development, families, and com-
munity. Many placements are with Bank Street
graduates, and a growing number are in schools
where Bank Street has professional develop-
ment relationships. These arrangements foster
an analytical and practical approach to the
development of practice.
Wagner College, a small college located on
Staten Island, does not have Bank Street’s
national reputation, but its graduates had the
most positive preparation perceptions of all
teacher education program graduates in our
sample. Wagner prepares about 110 elementary
and secondary teachers each year, a cohort of
about 40 undergraduates and another cohort of
70 graduates who take a three-semester pro-
gram. Most graduates take teaching jobs in New
York City.
Wagner emphasizes a strong liberal arts edu-
cation plus intensive preparation for teaching.
Elementary education students take a dual
major in a discipline and in education. Second-
ary candidates major in the discipline they want
to teach and minor in education or stay on for a
5th year of education coursework. In addition to
their disciplinary major, students complete
coursework in English, mathematics, science,
and social studies (for elementary education
majors); a year of language other than English; a
computer science course; and professional
coursework—three courses in foundations of
education and five courses in methods and con-
tent of education, including two courses in math
and science methods for elementary teachers
and three courses in clinical practice, including
student teaching. A series of course-linked
practicum experiences combined with two rota-
tions of student teaching result in about 24 weeks
of supervised clinical work, of which at least
one placement must be urban. In recent years,
Wagner has decreased the number of schools
involved in student teaching placements to
build partnerships with the schools. In some
cases, Wagner’s methods courses are taught at
the schools and offer professional development
for school faculty as the college moves toward a
professional development school model.
In addition to strong school relationships,
Wagner College and Bank Street share an
emphasis on extensive, carefully supervised
clinical work (24 or more weeks of student
teaching in settings selected to ensure modeling
of desired teaching strategies) tightly linked to
coursework that places significant attention on
the development of content-based pedagogy.
DO TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
PREPARATION MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
This study examined teachers’ perceptions of
their preparedness rather than direct measures
of their effectiveness. Teachers’ perceptions
may depend on both individual differences and
contextual differences (e.g., the kind of school
where a teacher begins teaching, whether the
teacher is working in his or her field of prepara-
tion, what kinds of supports are available). We
could not evaluate all of these factors, but we
were able to use school identifiers to ascertain
that there were not significant differences in stu-
dent poverty rates and proportions of minority
students for entrants from different pathways.
Recruits’ perceptions of their preparedness may
or may not be related to their actual teaching
effectiveness. Another study linking New York
City beginning teacher data with longitudinal
student achievement data has found, however,
that teachers’ certification status is related to
student learning gains in Grades 3 through 8
(Darling-Hammond, forthcoming), but more
research on the relationship between percep-
tions, program pathway, and effectiveness is
needed.
Although these data do not allow a direct
examination of teacher effectiveness, they do
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 293
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
allow us to explore the relationships between
teachers’ views of their preparedness and their
sense of teaching efficacy—a variable found to
be correlated with teacher effectiveness—as
well as their views of their entry pathway and
their plans to remain in teaching.
Table 2 shows that teachers’ ratings of their
overall preparedness (Item 40) are significantly
related to their sense of efficacy about whether
they are able to make a difference in student
learning. Teachers who felt better prepared
were significantly more likely (p < .001) to
believe they could reach all of their students,
handle problems in the classroom, teach all stu-
dents to high levels, and make a difference in the
lives of their students. Those who felt
underprepared were significantly more likely
to feel uncertain about how to teach some of
their students and more likely to believe that
students’ peers and home environments influ-
ence learning more than teachers do.
To examine whether these relationships are
mediated by other factors that might influence a
teacher’s sense of efficacy, we also conducted a
regression analysis that took into account teach-
ing level, age, race, gender, in- or out-of-field
placement, and experience. We found that
teachers’ sense of teaching efficacy is not influ-
enced by age or gender but that sense of efficacy
is generally higher for teachers with more expe-
rience, those at the elementary level, those
teaching within their area of certification, and
for Black and Hispanic teachers. Even after
these variables are controlled, sense of pre-
paredness is by far the strongest predictor of
teaching efficacy (see Table 3).
Teachers’ views of teaching as an occupation
are also strongly related to how well prepared
they felt when they entered. A chi-square analy-
sis showed that teachers who felt poorly pre-
pared are significantly less likely to say they
would choose to become a teacher if they had it
to do over again and significantly less likely to
say they plan to remain in teaching (see Tables 4
and 5).
These results underestimate the relationship
between preparation and retention in teaching
because the sample does not represent those
who have already left the system during their
1st years of teaching—a time when attrition is
highest and when underprepared teachers have
been found to leave at higher rates (Darling-
Hammond, 2000a).
Finally, teachers who felt poorly prepared
were much less likely to say they would pick the
same route into teaching again: Only 36% said
they would choose the same program or path-
way, compared to 76% of those who felt well
prepared for teaching (see Table 6).
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study indicate that begin-
ning teachers who have experienced different
teacher education programs or pathways into
teaching feel differently about their prepara-
tion, that those feelings are relatively stable
within programs, and that there is substantial
variation across programs and pathways.
Teachers prepared in a single formal program of
preparation feel better prepared than those who
take a series of courses from different institu-
tions, who in turn feel better prepared than
those who enter through alternative programs
that minimize preservice training and those
294 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
TABLE 2 Relationship Between Overall Sense of Prepared
-
ness and Teacher Efficacy
Spearman’s
Item Rho Correlation
a
If I try hard I can get through to almost
all of my students. .170***
I am confident in my ability to handle most
discipline problems that may arise in
my classroom. .230***
Students fail because they do not apply
themselves. .039*
My students’ peers have more influence on
their motivation and performance than I do. –.083***
I am confident in my ability to teach all students
to high levels. .297***
I am confident I am making a difference in the
lives of my students. .215***
I am uncertain how to teach some of my
students. –.286***
I am confident of my ability to integrate
information technology into my students’
learning. .315***
Most of a students’ experience depends on
the home environment, so teachers can
have little influence. –.067***
a.
p
value, two-tailed test,
n
= 2,863.
*
p
< .05. ***
p
< .001.
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
who enter without prior experience or training.
These last categories of teachers reported feel-
ing poorly prepared for many tasks of teaching
and less than adequately prepared overall.
Differences Among Teacher
Education Programs and Pathways
The contributions made by teacher education
programs are most noticeable with respect to
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 295
TABLE 3 Estimated Effects of Teaching Variables on Sense of Teaching Efficacy
“If I try hard “I am confident “I am confident “I am confident
I can get in my ability to in my ability to I am making a “I am uncertain
through to handle most teach all difference in how to teach
most of my discipline students to the lives of some of
students. problems. high levels. my students. my students.
Bt B t B t B t B t
Constant 3.015 23.12*** 2.631 22.139*** 2.749 25.790*** 3.417 34.062*** 4.491 33.392***
Level
K-12 –.134 –1.80 –.016 –.235 –.041 –.677 –.089 –1.556 .138 1.792
7-12 –.138 –2.70** .162 3.473*** .033 .782 –.145 –3.677*** .053 1.000
Teaching within certification area .157 2.16* .220 3.313*** .093 1.560 .110 1.956 –.116 –1.537
Female .037 .65 –.008 –.152 –.086 –1.811 .089 .198 .081 1.359
Age
25-35 .003 .05 –.002 –.035 –.029 –.553 .020 .404 .147 2.229*
36-45 .054 .70 –.104 –1.490 –.118 –1.883 –.003 –.060 .045 .573
Older than 45 .035 .41 –.114 –1.467 –.087 –1.245 –.155 –2.346* .017 .194
Race
Asian .072 .58 –.052 –.464 –.044 –.431 –.116 –1.202 .250 1.970*
Black .122 1.80 .234 3.814*** .335 6.036*** .182 3.514*** –.285 –4.124***
Hispanic .039 .61 .212 3.594*** .206 3.906*** .162 3.235*** –.241 –3.590***
Native American .482 1.24 .575 1.626 .555 1.626 .471 1.592 .053 .133
Other non-White .049 .40 –.029 –.270 .017 .141 .175 1.890 –.125 –1.033
Years teaching .053 2.69** .116 6.400*** .072 4.438*** .051 3.351*** –.111 –5.454***
Sense of preparedness .179 7.89*** .254 12.268*** .301 16.219*** .178 10.152*** –.350 14.967***
R
2
.042 .100 .134 .075 .124
*
p
< .05. **
p
< .01. ***
p
< .001.
TABLE 4 Sense of Preparedness and Decision To Become a
Teacher
Probably Probably
or Certainly or Certainly
Would Chances Would Not
Sense of Become Are Become
Preparedness a Teacher About a Teacher
(Question 40) Again (%) Even (%) Again (%) n
Poorly prepared 68 19 13 814
Adequately prepared 80 14 6 1,142
Well prepared 90 6 4 862
Total 79 13 7 2,818
NOTE: Chi-square = 122.67,
df
=4,
p
< .0001.
TABLE 5
Sense of Preparedness and Plans To Stay in
Teaching
Until Am
Something Planning
Sense of As Long Better To Leave
Preparedness as I Am Comes as Soon as
(Question 40) Able (%) Along (%) Possible (%) n
Poorly prepared 82 13 5 799
Adequately prepared 88 9 3 1,139
Well prepared 90 8 2 861
Total 87 10 3 2,799
NOTE: Chi-square = 35.15,
df
=4,
p
< .0001.
TABLE 6
Sense of Preparedness and Feelings About Path-
way Into Teaching (in percentages)
Probably Probably
or Definitely or Definitely
Would Would Not
Choose Chances Choose
Sense of the Same Are the Same
Preparedness Program or About Program or
(Question 40) Pathway Even Pathway
Poorly prepared (
n
= 812) 36 18 46
Adequately prepared
(
n
= 1,131) 59 16 25
Well prepared (
n
= 858) 76 10 14
Total (
n
= 2,801) 57 15 28
NOTE: Chi-square = 295.13,
df
=4,
p
< .0001.
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the core tasks of teaching, such as the ability to
make subject matter knowledge accessible to
students, to plan instruction, to meet the needs
of diverse learners, and to construct a positive
learning environment. Although programs
appear to prepare teachers more and less well
across various dimensions of teaching, no
teacher education program resulted in teachers’
feeling less than adequately prepared overall.
The general sense of preparedness of teacher
education graduates is consonant with the find-
ings of other recent studies of teacher education
(Howey, Arends, Galluzzo, Yarger, & Zimpher,
1994, pp. 24-29; Kentucky Institute for Educa-
tion Research, 1997) that have found graduates
rating themselves well prepared by their
teacher education programs. This represents a
shift from the findings of similar studies two
decades ago that found greater dissatisfaction
with preparation for teaching. The change may
reflect the efforts to reform preparation that
have been underway since the mid-1980s (e.g.,
Carnegie Task Force on the Future of Teaching,
1986; Holmes Group, 1986).
Like other studies, however, we found that
graduates rated their preparation less than ade-
quate for teaching English language learners
(M = 2.9) and, though improved from earlier
years, lower than other areas for meeting the
needs of special education students (M = 3.1).
Nonprogram recruits rated their preparation
even lower in these areas (M = 2.8 and 2.9,
respectively). All groups rated their prepared-
ness below adequate on readiness to use tech-
nology for purposes ranging from research on
the Internet to tracking student achievement
and for helping students learn how to assess
their own learning.
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
These feelings of preparedness are also sig-
nificantly related to teachers’ sense of efficacy
and their confidence about their ability to
achieve teaching goals. This survey included
two items similar to those originally used by a
team of RAND researchers (Armor et al., 1976)
to evaluate teachers’ sense of general efficacy
about what teachers can influence (“Most of a
student’s performance depends on the home
environment, so teachers have little influence”)
and their sense of personal efficacy about what
they themselves can accomplish (“If I try hard, I
can get through to almost all students”). Items
like these were strongly correlated with student
achievement in the RAND study and in other
studies since (e.g., Anderson, Greene, &
Loewen, 1988; Ashton, 1985; Ashton & Webb,
1986; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, &
Zellman, 1977; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Ross,
1992). Our study included additional efficacy
items assessing teachers’ confidence in their
ability to accomplish certain teaching goals
(e.g., handle discipline problems, teach all stu-
dents to high levels, and integrate technology)
and their sense of certainty about how to help
students learn.
In a recent review of research on teacher effi-
cacy, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and
Hoy (1998) noted that various measures of this
construct have also been found to be related to
student motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, &
Eccles, 1989) and students’ sense of efficacy
(Anderson et al., 1988). Teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy is related to behaviors that affect student
learning, such as teachers’ willingness to try
new instructional techniques (Allinder, 1994;
Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1984; Rose & Medway,
1981; Smylie, 1988), teachers’ affect toward stu-
dents (Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, & McAuliffe,
1982; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Rose & Medway,
1981), and their persistence in trying to solve
learning problems (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Teachers’ sense of personal teaching efficacy has
also been related to their practices—for exam-
ple, the use of more effective, hands-on science
techniques (Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995).
Other researchers have found, as we did, that
teachers’ sense of preparedness and sense of
self-efficacy seem related to their feelings about
teaching and their plans to stay in the profes-
sion. Teacher efficacy has been linked to teach-
ers’ enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994;
Guskey, 1984) and their commitment to teach-
ing (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986).
Perhaps not surprisingly, teachers’ sense of their
296 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ability to influence student learning appears
related to their stress levels (Parkay, Green-
wood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988) and attrition
from teaching (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982).
Earlier studies have found, like ours, that
teachers’ sense of efficacy is related to percep-
tions about how well they were prepared
(Raudenbush, Rowen, & Cheong, 1992). There
is also some evidence that teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy increases when they receive learning
opportunities that provide them with greater
skills (Ross, 1992). Tschannen-Moran and
colleagues (1998) noted that views of self-effi-
cacy appear to form fairly early in the career and
are relatively difficult to change thereafter.
Thus, they argue it is important to develop
teachers’ knowledge and skills early on.
The findings of efficacy research, along with
the results of our study, are consistent with other
research that has found relationships between
teachers’ preparation and their effectiveness
with students (Ashton & Crocker, 1987; Darling-
Hammond, 2000c; Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky,
2000). Our findings are also consistent with those
of other studies suggesting that those who enter
teaching with little professional education have
greater difficulties in the classroom (Darling-
Hammond, 1992; Grossman, 1989; Jelmberg,
1996; National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning, 1992) and that they tend to leave
teaching at higher rates than those with profes-
sional preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2000a).
CONCLUSION
Proponents of an open-market approach to
entry into teaching have argued that teacher
education offers little to the effectiveness of
teachers and that preparation for entry into the
profession should be minimized to lower the
opportunity costs of entry (Fordham Founda-
tion, 1999). This study suggests that one cost of
this approach may be reduced teacher confi-
dence and efficacy, with implications for begin-
ning teachers’ effectiveness and their commit-
ment to teaching.
Our study suggests that based on their gradu-
ates feelings of preparedness, teacher education
programs do differ in the quality of preparation
they provide, although not as much as we ini
-
tially expected, and that many teachers do not
feel that their programs adequately prepared
them for certain teaching tasks, such as using
technology and teaching English language
learners. The variability among teacher educa-
tion programs in terms of graduates’ percep-
tions of preparation suggests the importance of
ensuring that programs be expected to evaluate
and improve their work.
Accreditation is an avenue professions have
traditionally used for quality control. Since this
study was completed, New York has moved to
require national accreditation for teacher prepa-
ration programs, joining 17 other states that
expect public colleges of education to attain
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) accreditation and 46 that
have state partnerships using NCATE stan-
dards (NCATE, 2001). These standards include
areas such as special needs and technology that
appeared weak in many programs. Although
there is little research on the relationship of
accreditation to teacher preparedness, a recent
study found that graduates of NCATE-accredited
institutions pass licensing tests at significantly
higher rates than graduates of unaccredited
institutions and teachers who have not com-
pleted a teacher education program (Gitomer &
Latham, 1999).
However, measures to improve teacher edu-
cation programs will do little to improve
teacher quality if states allow schools to hire
teachers without preparation, as more than 30
currently do. States that do not hire unprepared
teachers have developed successful strategies
for boosting the supply of qualified teachers.
These include increasing and equalizing
teacher salaries, subsidizing candidates’
teacher education costs with service scholar-
ships, providing incentives for teachers to enter
high-need fields and locations, and ensuring
mentoring for beginners to reduce attrition
(National Commission on Teaching and Amer-
ica’s Future, 1997). Some evidence suggests that
in the long run, the greater entry and retention
rates of well-prepared teachers may actually
save money over the costs of hiring, inducting,
and replacing underprepared recruits who
leave at high rates (Darling-Hammond, 2000a).
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 297
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
These strategies require states and districts to
make investments to improve teachers’ access
to high-quality preparation and their incentives
for becoming well prepared. Until these invest-
ments are made, many students will continue to
be taught by teachers who are inadequately pre-
pared to help them learn. If our society really
expects all students to learn to high levels, as
current rhetoric suggests, a more deliberate set
of strategies for ensuring that their teachers gain
access to knowledge will be needed.
298 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
APPENDIX
Differences Between Mean Ratings of Preparedness
for Beginning Teachers With and Without Program Preparation
Teachers With 3 or Fewer Years of Experience;
Teachers With and Without Program Preparation
Non–
Program Program Transcript Alternate No Prior
Prepared Prepared Review Route Experience
Mean Mean
a
Mean Mean
b
Mean
Survey Section B: Professional Knowledge and Skills (
n
= 1,307) (
n
= 597) (
n
= 502) (
n
= 48) (
n
= 326)
When you first started teaching, how well prepared did you feel
to do the following:
1. Teach subject matter concepts, knowledge, and skills in ways that 3.6113 3.3065** 3.5458 3.1875** 3.1748**
enable students to learn. (–6.5894) (–1.3950) (–3.2491) (–7.7456)
2. Understand how different students in your classroom are learning. 3.2708 2.9430** 3.2395 3.1521 2.7802**
(–6.5280) (–0.6093) (–0.8011) (–7.8857)
3. Set challenging and appropriate expectations of learning and 3.3853 3.1697** 3.3247 3.1875 3.0615**
performance for students. (–4.7035) (–1.3069) (–1.5462) (–5.7973)
4. Help all students achieve high academic standards. 3.3482 3.1431** 3.2696 2.9583** 2.9596**
(–4.2850) (–1.6054) (–2.8448) (–6.6585)
5. Develop curriculum that builds on students’ experiences, interests, 3.4326 3.0892** 3.346 3.0000** 2.8576**
and abilities. (–7.0448) (–1.6927) (–3.0873) (–9.6352)
6. Evaluate curriculum materials for their usefulness and appropriateness 3.3676 3.0964** 3.3227 3.1042 2.9231**
for your students. (–5.5526) (–0.8874) (–1.9072) (–7.4789)
7. Create discipline-based and interdisciplinary curriculum. 3.2822 2.9139** 3.156* 2.9792* 2.7515**
(–6.8850) (–2.2675) (–1.9694) (–8.0715)
8. Identify and obtain materials and use community resources to create 3.1508 2.8936** 3.012* 2.8085* 2.7422**
a multicultural curriculum. (–4.7781) (–2.5185) (–2.2151) (–6.2713)
9. Use instructional strategies that promote active student learning. 3.5677 3.2159** 3.4499* 3.1458** 3.0433**
(–7.4290) (–2.3982) (–3.1452) (–9.0748)
10. Relate classroom learning to the real world. 3.8048 3.7158 3.7673 3.5745 3.5895**
(–1.9144) (–0.7750) (–1.7149) (–3.7450)
11. Understand how students’ social, emotional, physical, and cognitive 3.708 3.3550** 3.6157 3.5833 3.1963**
development influences learning. (–6.5358) (–1.6661) (–0.7821) (–7.7402)
12. Understand how students’ family and cultural backgrounds may 3.6495 3.5278* 3.5544 3.4042 3.3746*
influence learning. (–2.4252) (–1.8003) (–1.6658) (–4.4142)
13. Identify and address special learning needs and/or difficulties. 3.1032 2.9329** 3.0522 2.6383** 2.7214**
(–3.1470) (–0.9010) (–2.9174) (–5.6845)
14. Teach in ways that support new English language learners. 2.8625 2.8162 2.832 2.8085 2.5813**
(–0.8131) (–0.5146) (–0.3256) (–4.0641)
15. Choose teaching strategies for different instructional purposes. 3.3564 3.0575** 3.262* 3.0833* 2.8426**
(–6.3688) (–1.9725) (–2.0850) (–9.0049)
16. Choose teaching strategies to meet different student needs. 3.2816 3.0118** 3.2204 3.0000* 2.8462**
(–5.7381) (–1.2567) (–2.0937) (–7.4926)
17. Help students become self-motivated and self-directed. 3.3982 3.2293** 3.33 3.0000** 3.1000**
(–3.5249) (–1.3503) (–2.8196) (–5.0041)
18. Develop a classroom environment that promotes social development 3.5926 3.2605** 3.4498** 3.0625** 3.1759**
and group responsibility. (–6.5751) (–2.7082) (–3.6422) (–6.6824)
19. Develop students’ questioning and discussion skills. 3.4881 3.2391** 3.4769 3.1702* 3.1579**
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 299
(–5.3884) (–0.2342) (–2.3995) (–5.8925)
20. Engage students in cooperative group work as well as independent 3.5866 3.1757** 3.4028** 3.0208** 3.0124**
learning. (–7.8504) (–3.3920) (–3.7594) (8.8276)
21. Use effective verbal and nonverbal communication strategies to guide 3.5235 3.3193** 3.4659 3.3125 3.2112**
student learning and behavior. (–4.3140) (–1.1761) (–1.5618) (–5.3838)
22. Use questions to stimulate different kinds of student learning. 3.5492 3.3793** 3.5475 3.4468 3.2477**
(–3.7147) (–0.0357) (–0.7733) (–5.3139)
23. Help students learn to think critically and solve problems. 3.4417 3.3210** 3.496 3.2766 3.1975**
(–2.6405) (–1.1256) (–1.2411) (–4.3319)
24. Encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse 3.3834 3.2547** 3.3682 3.2609 3.1049**
perspectives. (–2.6744) (–0.3055) (–0.8788) (–4.7859)
25. Plan instruction by using knowledge of learning subject matter, 3.4822 3.1846** 3.4516 3.0652** 3.0185**
curriculum, and student development. (–5.9890) (–0.5894) (–2.8561) (–7.4760)
26. Understand how factors in the students’ environment outside of school 3.6579 3.5398* 3.5425* 3.5532 3.382**
may influence their life and learning. (–2.3016) (–2.1470) (–0.6986) (–4.3318)
27. Work with parents and families to better understand students and to 3.2348 3.0705** 3.142 3.0213 2.9108**
support their learning. (–3.0822) (–1.6628) (–1.3574) (–4.9412)
28. Use a variety of assessments (e.g., observation, portfolios, tests, 3.1389 2.7172** 3.002* 2.8333* 2.6123**
performance tasks, anecdotal records) to determine student strengths, (–8.2296) (–2.5103) (–2.0237) (–8.1210)
needs, and programs.
29. Help students learn how to assess their own learning. 2.788 2.5572** 2.7706 2.4792* 2.4489**
(–4.8737) (–0.3492) (–2.2202) (–5.6947)
30. Evaluate and reflect on your practice to improve instruction. 3.5238 3.3238** 3.4194* 3.3958 3.2092**
(–4.3300) (–2.1964) (–0.9748) (–5.5051)
31. Resolve interpersonal conflict in the classroom. 3.2213 3.1734 3.1914 3.0208 3.0586**
(–0.9452) (–0.5609) (–1.3662) (–2.5923)
32. Maintain an orderly, purposeful learning environment. 3.4466 3.2869** 3.3427 3.2500 3.146**
(–3.1176) (–1.9483) (–1.3300) (–4.7701)
33. Plan and solve problems with colleagues. 3.5096 3.4027* 3.4148 3.1042** 3.3447**
(–2.0711) (–1.7877) (–2.7309) (–2.6213)
34. Assume leadership responsibilities in your school. 3.1648 3.1315 3.1215 2.8958 2.9814**
(–0.5929) (–0.7452) (–1.6382) (–2.6493)
How well prepared did you feel to use technology to do the following:
35. Increase student interest and learning. 2.9573 3.0566 2.9657 2.7826 2.9654
(1.7052) (0.1364) (–1.0155) (–0.1114)
36. Support research and analysis (i.e., accessing the Internet). 2.5892 2.6569 2.5573 2.5217 2.6057
(1.0523) (–0.4775) (–0.3566) (0.2055)
37. Assess and track student achievement. 2.6901 2.7969 2.7304 2.7174 2.6719
(1.8315) (0.6555) (0.1583) (–0.2522)
38. Communicate with others (in school, city, state, country, and world). 2.7185 2.8990** 2.7951 2.8478 2.8531
(2.8559) (–1.1633) (0.7012) (1.7285)
39. Enhance group collaboration and teamwork. 2.7681 2.8805 2.7899 2.7391 2.7834
(1.8647) (–0.3447) (–0.1641) (0.2057)
40. Overall, how well prepared did you feel when you first started teaching? 3.1543 2.8117** 3.0466* 2.6809** 2.6719**
(–7.0540) (–2.1387) (–3.3968) (–7.9559)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. All
t
tests were conducted in relation to mean values for program-prepared
recruites.
a. Non–program prepared includes those without formal preservice program preparation. It does not include teachers certified through tran
-
script review.
Alternate route includes Teach for America, Teacher Opportunity Corps, and Peace Corps.
*
p
< .05. **
p
< .01.
APPENDIX Continued
Teachers With 3 or Fewer Years of Experience;
Teachers With and Without Program Preparation
Non–
Program Program Transcript Alternate No Prior
Prepared Prepared Review Route Experience
Mean Mean
a
Mean Mean
b
Mean
Survey Section B: Professional Knowledge and Skills (
n
= 1,307) (
n
= 597) (
n
= 502) (
n
= 48) (
n
= 326)
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful for the assistance of
Heidi Fischer in assembling these data.
NOTES
1. This represents a response rate of about 33%. The personnel
list used for mailing included all of the beginning teachers who
had been hired in the past 4 years. Although new teachers were
added as they were hired, the list had not been updated in the pre-
vious 4 years to remove the names of those who had left the sys-
tem, so many of the names were no longer appropriate. Based on
Board of Education estimates, at least 35% of beginning teachers
would normally have left the system in the first 4 years of service.
Thus, we estimate that at least 7,000 of the 20,000 individuals to
whom surveys were mailed were no longer teaching in the sys-
tem. Teachers who had left the system were instructed not to re-
turn the survey. Those who did were excluded from the sample. In
addition, because of list inaccuracies and system delivery difficul-
ties, about 4,000 additional surveys could not be delivered to the
intended addressees and were returned undelivered. Thus, the
denominator for calculating the response rate is approximately
9,000. The usable surveys returned were representative of the de-
mographic characteristics of New York teachers, but they
underrepresented 5 of the 32 community school districts in the
city. The districts that were underrepresented were on Staten Is-
land and in Queens, areas that serve more affluent students on av-
erage than other districts.
2. Silvernail (1998) collapsed the Likert scale ratings to a 4-
point scale on which 2 represented adequately prepared.
3. The 7 programs were Alverno College in Milwaukee, Wis-
consin; Bank Street College in New York City; Trinity University
in San Antonio, Texas; University of California at Berkeley; Uni-
versity of Southern Maine; University of Virginia; and Wheelock
College in Boston, Massachusetts. The findings are reported in
Darling-Hammond (2000b).
4. For this analysis, we excluded transcript review recruits be-
cause they had completed the equivalent of a program either in an
out-of-state program or through more than one site.
5. This group excluded participants in the alternatives listed
above—Peace Corps, Teach for America, and Teacher Opportu-
nity Corps—all of whom have at least a few weeks of classroom
experience prior to hiring.
6. The survey listed 100 individual teacher education institu-
tions in New York State, of which 71 were represented in respon-
dent replies. Institutions from outside of New York State were not
listed individually.
7. The program-by-program results of these analyses are pre-
sented in a longer version of this article published by the National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and retrievable at
www.nctaf.org.
REFERENCES
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy
and the instructional practices of special education
teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 86-95.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relation-
ships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills,
sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 24(2), 148-165.
Andrew, M. (1990). The differences between graduates of
four-year and five-year teacher preparation programs.
Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 45-51.
Andrew, M., & Schwab, R. L. (1995). Has reform in teacher
education influenced teacher performance? An out
-
come assessment of graduates of eleven teacher educa
-
tion programs. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 43-53.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N.,
McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in
selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Armour-Thomas, E. (1999). The status of teaching in New
York City (Report prepared for the New York City Task
Force on Teacher Recruitment, Selection and
Retention).
Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motiva-
tion in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 141-174).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ashton, P., & Crocker, L. (1986). Does teacher certification
make a difference? Florida Journal of Teacher Education, 3,
73-83.
Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982,
April). Measurement problems in the study of teachers’sense
of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Ashton, P., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference:
Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Baker, T. (1993). A survey of four-year and five-year pro-
gram graduates and their principals. Southeastern
Regional Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 2(2),
28-33.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman,
G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change:
Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Carnegie Task Force on the Future of Teaching. (1986). A
nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and com-
mitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education,
60, 323-337.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Teaching and knowledge:
Policy issues posed alternative certification for teach-
ers. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3), 123-154.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Solving the dilemmas of
teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a
competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child.New
York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000b). Studies of excellence in
teacher education. Washington, DC: American Associa-
tion of Colleges for Teacher Education and National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000c). Teacher quality and stu
-
dent achievement: A review of state policy evidence.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
300 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Darling-Hammond, L., & MacDonald, M. B. (2000). Where
there is learning there is hope: The preparation of
teachers at the Bank Street College of Education. In
L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in
teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level, pp. 1-95.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education.
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The
relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary
science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.
Science Education, 70(1), 63-75.
Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. N. (1986). Perceived teaching
problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching
among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 80(2), 81-85.
Feistritzer, C. E. (1998). Alternative teacher certification—An
overview. Washington, DC: National Center for Educa-
tion Information.
Fordham Foundation. (1999). Better teachers, better schools.
Washington, DC: Author.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A con-
struct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4),
569-582.
Gitomer, D., & Latham, A. (1999). The academic quality of
prospective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure
testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of
first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy,
ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in
Schools, 19, 558-562.
Grossman, P. L. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher
education. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 191-208.
Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instruc-
tional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-
259.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing,
MI: Holmes Group of Education Deans.
Howey, K., Arends, R., Galluzzo, G., Yarger, S., & Zimpher, N.
(1994). RATE VII: Teacher preparation in the urban context.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education.
Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1989). Profiles of preservice
teacher education: Inquiry into the nature of programs.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Imbimbo, J., & Silvernail, D. (1999). Prepared to teach? Key
findings of the New York City Teacher Survey. New York:
New Visions for Public Schools.
Jelmberg, J. R. (1996). College based teacher education ver-
sus state sponsored alternative programs. Journal of
Teacher Education, 47, 60-66.
Kentucky Institute for Education Research. (1997). The
preparation of teachers for Kentucky schools: A survey of new
teachers. Frankfort, KY: Author.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in
teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related
beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior
high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-
258.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation and second
-
ary mathematics and science teachers and student
achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2),
125-45.
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1992).
Findings on learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
(1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.
New York: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
(1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teach-
ing. New York: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
(2001). NCATE’s ten-year progress report—Accrediting
body changing the status quo in teacher preparation; Many
states adopt profession’s standards. Washington, DC:
Author. Available from www.ncate.org
Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N.
(1988). A study of the relationship among teacher effi-
cacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 21(4), 13-22.
Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contex-
tual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school
teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.
Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teach-
ers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 74, 185-190.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coach-
ing on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Educa-
tion, 17(1), 51-65.
Shields, P.M., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Riehl, L.M.,
Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., et al. (2001). The sta-
tus of the teaching profession, 2001. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
Silvernail, D. L. (1998). Findings from an initial analysis of the
New York City Teacher Survey. New York: New Visions
for Public Schools.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff
development: Organizational and psychological ante-
cedents to individual teacher change. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 25, 1-30.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K.
(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommun
Professor of Education at Stanford University and faculty
sponsor of the Stanford Teacher Education Program. Her
research and policy interests focus on issues of teacher
quality, school restructuring, and educational equity.
Ruth Chung, a former secondary social studies teacher
in the New York City public schools, is a doctoral
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002 301
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
candidate in Administration and Policy Analysis at Stan
-
ford University.
Fred Frelow, Ed.D., is associate director in the
Working Communities of the Rockefeller Foundation,
where he is responsible for the educational equity program.
He is the former director of urban initiatives for the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
302 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, September/October 2002
© 2002 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by SJO Temp 2007 on October 25, 2007 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... Rather, this study looks at levels of LTE and how different qualifications may affect self-efficacy. In general education, studies have shown that the pathway teachers take to gaining qualifications can affect their teaching efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). For English language teaching, this is especially noteworthy, as there is often no established path to becoming an English language teacher (Barduhn & Johnson, 2009). ...
... With teachers in Iran, Akbari and Moradkhani (2010) found little benefit to having an English-related academic degree for teachers' self-efficacy to teach English. For level of degree, teachers in Thailand did not show any greater self-efficacy with higher-level degrees (Crook, 2016), but the opposite was found for elementary teachers in Korea, where higher degree levels showed enhanced relationships with self-efficacy (Lee, 2009). Thus, similar to LTE intervention studies, research that has investigated degree type and level also show a range of results in terms of teachers' self-efficacy. ...
... Having a Masters-level degree was not a significant predictor of global self-efficacy, and the effect size was small. These results align with Crook (2016), who noted no impact from higher-degree levels for teachers in Thailand, but counter the results found in Lee (2009), who noted a low but significant effect from higher academic qualifications on the self-efficacy of Korean elementary English language teachers. One hypothesis for the result found in this study is that while Masters of TESOL programs offer excellent theoretical knowledge, they are at times less practically based, with many programs offering no practice teaching component (Stapleton & Shao, 2018). ...
... However, the current study differs from Hudson el al's research. The current study acknowledges the theoretical relationship between feelings of preparedness and an increased sense of teaching efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung & Frelow, 2002) and investigates the extent to which such perceptions measured against Standards are influencing PST's perceptions of readiness to engage with the teaching profession and eventually their self-efficacy in classroom teaching. Thus, rather than providing a simple measure of teacher preparedness, the data collected with the newly developed PTPE can be used to analyse the predictive power of preparedness on their readiness and sense of teaching self-efficacy. ...
... Note. * = original items; ** = adapted from Darling-Hammond, Chung & Frelow (2002) Please provide an X in the box that best reflect your feelings about teaching at this point in time in relation to the following statements. PTPE also collected demographic data of students, their study pathways and included an opportunity for open-ended responses. ...
... Caution should be applied in interpreting the results as this instrument does not measure the quality of the programmes nor provides an accurate measure of the excellence of the future teachers they are preparing. Instead, it is indicative of the perceived preparedness of emerging teachers, which is found to significantly correlated with their sense of teaching efficacy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). ...
... The increasing number of alternative programs and pathways into teaching poses an equally important policy question, with implications for the federal role. Just as conventional programs of teacher education range in quality, Meeting the "Highly Qualified Teacher" Challenge alternate programs appear to exhibit an even wider range (see e.g., Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). One study has found that ratings of the competence of alternative program candidates by principals and supervisors were comparable for candidates from a well-designed alternative program and a traditional program offered by the same college (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
This literature review of teacher qualification standards consolidates information from various national groups and takes a historical approach to the development of current trends in such standards. We differentiate between teacher qualifications (the legal requirements for a credential) and teacher quality and summarize the stipulations of prominent organizations. This analysis of highly qualified teaching characteristics revealed two patterns: (1) some concurrence in the numerous denotations of professional teaching commissions, and (2) dissonance in the criteria of policy-making bodies, conservative foundations, and critical multiculturalists. James Banks, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Carl Grant, Valerie Ooka Pang, Christine Sleeter, and other leading multiculturalists shed light on diversity frameworks and societal changes, a theme that is virtually nonexistent in the standards. Education preparation programs and professionals whose existence is governed by the teacher qualification standards should find this overview useful for questioning their development, relevance, and power.
... Effective teaching basically represents a process of transferring scientific knowledge, including experiments and in-class activities, to support their students' style of knowledge construction and to promote their learning and motivation (Aiello-Nicosia & Sperandeo-Mineo, 2000;Kelly & Staver, 2005;Sperandeo-Mineo, Fazio, & Tarantino, 2006). To date, the positive effects of teachers' characteristics on students' achievement and motivation have been analyzed across many different aspects, such as teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002;Korur & Eryılmaz, 2012); career plans (Ronfeldt, Reininger, & Kwok, 2013); pedagogical knowledge (Lederman, Ges-Newsome, & Latz, 1994); subject matter knowledge (Sperandeo-Mineo et al., 2006); interactional behavior between teachers and students (Wubbels, Tartwijk, & Brekelmans, 1995); classroom management behavior and attitudes towards the discipline (Opdenakker & Damme, 2006); and answering students' questions related to physics, lecturing reluctantly, coming to the lesson prepared, being interested in some students more than the whole class, and giving lectures with appropriate details (Korur & Eryılmaz, 2009;2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study identified the process of interaction between students’ motivation and characteristics of two physics teachers: one who exhibited effective physics teacher characteristics frequently and one who exhibited the characteristics rarely. The two case teachers were selected to predict contrasting and comparable results. The data gathered from the semi-structured interviews, follow-up interviews, direct observation, video recordings, and field notes were analyzed both by single case and by cross-case analysis to strengthen the findings from two case teachers. Findings indicated that teachers’ characteristics like enthusiasm and giving examples from daily life increased students’ motivation by increasing their attention and willingness to participate in the classroom discussion. Even though a teacher frequently exhibited the effective characteristics by providing every opportunity for their learning, students wanted a classroom environment where they could stay calm and be more passive. The students did not like to be constantly forced by the teacher to share their views. In the lesson of a teacher who rarely exhibited the effective characteristics, students demanded a classroom environment where they could be more active. The students were not satisfied when their teacher avoided asking questions or had difficulty in solving the problems. Students, in general, resisted the teacher’s behaviors or characteristics when the teachers exhibited inconsistent behaviors.
... In many countries teacher qualifications that are considered to be related to student learning have become desirable targets of teacher education reform. Some of these reforms call for the professionalization of teacher education by making it longer, upgrading it to graduate programs, and regulating it through mechanisms of licensure, certification, and promotion aligned with standards (Darling-Hammond, 1998Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thorenson, 2001;Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). ...
Article
Although qualities of effective language teachers have been well specified and well researched, recruiters may not be aware of these qualities or, in the light of local constraints, they may ignore these qualities and apply their own criteria. To uncover the criteria which are actually applied in recruiting language teachers, this qualitative study purposively sampled 15 supervisors who were in charge of recruiting language teachers in private language schools of Sari, the capital city of Mazandran province and then theoretically sampled their perspectives and analyzed them in line with the principles and procedures of grounded theory. Iterative data collection and analysis revealed that the participants considered nine qualities including educational background, professional experience, management skills, mastery over language skills and subskills in recruiting language teachers. The findings have clear implications for both recruiters and language teachers.
... Penelitian Darling-Hammond et al. (2002) mengungkapkan bahwa Bank Street has aimed to develop child-centered education grounded in knowledge of human development and focused on preparing students for critical thinking and social responsibility, yang artinya bahwa Bank Street mempunyai tujuan untuk mengembangkan pendidikan dasar yang berpusat pada siswa di dalam pengetahuan dan fokus dalam mempersiapkan siswa untuk berfikir kritis dan respon sosial. Nuraeni (2014) menyimpulkan hasil penelitiannya bahwa prinsip-prinsip pembelajaran PAUD adalah berorientasi pada tujuan, aktivitas, individualitas, integritas, interaktif, inspiratif, menyenangkan, menantang, dan motivasi. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sosial emosional sangat dibutuhkan agar anak mampu berinteraksi dengan lingkungannya. Observasi di TKIT Nurul Ilmi ditemukan bahwa sosial emosional anak usia 5-6 tahun belum berkembang. Untuk mengembangkan sosial emosional anak diperlukan model pembelajaran yang menyenangkan seperti model pembelajaran bank street dan sentra. Oleh karena itu penelitian bertujuan untuk mengetahui: (1) pengaruh model pembelajaran bank street terhadap sosial emosional; (2) pengaruh model pembelajaran sentra terhadap sosial emosioal; dan (3) perbedaan pengaruh model pembelajaran bank street dan sentra terhadap sosial emosional. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu Quasi Experimental Design dengan sampel sebanyak 38 orang. Instrumen yang digunakan yaitu tes gambar. Teknik analisis data menggunakan uji-t. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan pengaruh model pembelajaran bank street dan sentra terhadap sosial emosional anak. Dengan menggunakan bank street, anak lebih aktif, kreatif, tercipta interaksi eduakatif, menumbuhkan rasa ingin tahu, dan mendapat respon positif dari anak.
... Teachers' qualifications could give impact on students' understanding in class. Qualified teachers are related to experience, further education to graduate programs, and regulating through mechanisms of licensure, certification, and promotion based on the requirement (Berry & Thorenson, 2001;Hammond, 1998;Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Therefore, teachers who have longer experience in teaching, have upgraded themselves to graduate programs (such as D4 or S1), and have got their certification could be considered as qualified. ...
Article
Full-text available
The objectives of the study were (1) to find out whether or not there was a significant correlation between accreditation and students’ English achievement of public senior high schools in Palembang, and (2) to find out whether or not there was a contribution of accreditation on students’ English achievement. The population of 18 accredited public senior high schools in Palembang in 2016 with 3556 students of 12th grade were selected to be the sample of the study by using the purposive sampling technique. The data of the accreditation list and students’ English national examination scores were taken from BAP S/M (The Education Accreditation Board) and Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia. To analyze the data, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient to find out whether or not there was a correlation between the two variables. The result showed that (1) there was no significant correlation between school accreditation and students’ English achievement (r-obtained 0.406 and p-value 0.095), and (2) there was 16.4% contribution of school accreditation on student’s English achievement.
... Teachers' preparedness is conceptualized as the teachers' feelings of the (in-) adequacy of their formal education or training in preparing them for various facets of teaching. Teachers' preparedness has been shown to affect aspects of teachers' self-efficacy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002;Giallo & Little, 2003;Rots & Aelterman, 2009). The teachers' preparedness composite variable was computed from a 12-items scale. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine the reverse pathway dynamics between teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction from a crosscountry perspective. By recognizing the sparseness of empirical studies on the reciprocal relation between self-referent assessment of capabilities and job satisfaction, a model of reciprocal determinism between teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction is proposed. The data of 51,782 primary school teachers were analyzed using a non-recursive causal reciprocal structural equation system within the overarching framework of structural equation modeling. The results indicated that teachers' self-efficacy was reciprocally related to job satisfaction at the individuals' level. Despite this finding, feedback effects were identified only across seven education systems. Further, it was shown via multigroup structural equation modeling that organizational culture (i.e., education systems) by proxy of the countries was moderating the structural relations among the recursive and non-recursive effects of the model. These findings underscore the importance of self-efficacy in promoting job satisfaction and indicate that more satisfied teachers are characterized also by greater teaching self-efficacy. The results are discussed within the scope of better understanding the relations between these two focal constructs for educational practice.
Article
This study examined the mobility trends of African American public-school teachers. Guided by the integration of critical race theory and organization theory, this study used longitudinal data from the National Center for Education Statistics to explore how race and organizational climate predict African American teacher mobility. Using a quantitative descriptive study with logistic regression to determine which characteristics impact African American early career teachers’ decision to stay in the profession, findings suggest alarming trends in African American teacher mobility and opportunities for school leadership to have a greater role in retaining African American early career teachers.
Article
This study was designed to assess the influence of positive change in instructional effectiveness on several affective characteristics of teachers. Data were gathered from 117 intermediate and high school teachers, 52 of whom participated in an in-service workshop on Mastery Learning. Comparisons made through MANOVA procedures showed that those teachers who experienced positive change in the learning outcomes of their students expressed increased personal responsibility for both positive and negative student outcomes, increased affect toward teaching, but decreased confidence in their teaching abilities. Implications regarding the alterability of these teacher characteristics are discussed.
Article
This paper describes the development of a scale designed to measure teachers’ generalized expectancies for internal-external control over student success and failure in the classroom. The 28-item forced-choice scale is internally consistent and only moderately correlated with Rotter’s I-E Scale. Validation studies indicated that the scale predicted teachers’ behaviors in the classroom, including their willingness to adopt new instructional techniques following inservice training, while the I-E Scale did not. Directions for future research are discussed.
Article
This study compared the perceived teaching problems of preservice elementary and secondary teachers of both sexes with the perceived teaching problems of beginning teachers in the 83 studies reviewed by Veenman (1984). Results indicate that the rank order of teaching problems of preservice and beginning teachers are dissimilar. Beginning teachers stress problems with classroom discipline, assessing student work, and relationships with parents, whereas preservice teachers stress problems with subject matter. Both groups, however, shared strong concern about motivating students. Elementary and secondary preservice teachers differed on some of the rankings of problem seriousness. Meaningful relationships between preservice teachers’ total levels of concern for problems and their scores on measures of teacher efficacy and commitment to teaching were not observed. Implications for teacher education are discussed
Article
If the self-efficacy of high school teachers is situated rather than global, it ought to vary within teachers (across a teacher's several assigned classes), as well as among teachers. An analysis of survey data from academic teachers in 16 high schools confirmed the existence of substantial intrateacher variation and revealed that a teacher tends to feel most efficacious when teaching high-track students. This effect is most pronounced for math and science teachers and disappears when the level of student engagement is controlled. A teacher's level of preparation and the grade level of the class also predict intrateacher variation. An analysis of interteacher variation revealed that teachers who exercise control over key working conditions and work in highly collaborative environments have elevated self-efficacy.
Article
ABSIRACT: The relationship between efficacy and selected instructional vareables was explored for two types of special education teachers. Teachers were categorized either as direct service providers, who provided direct instruction or behavioral interventions to students with mild disabilities, or as indirect service providers, who spent at least 50% of their time consulting, collaborating, or team teaching with general educators. Significant positive correlations found between efficacy and three instructionally-relevant factors were for both types of teachers. Type of service was related to only one instructional component, Instructional Experimentation. Recommendations for teacher education are addressed.