What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education programs

Lacina, Jan, & Block, Cathy Collins (2011). What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education programs. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319-351.

This article might be seen as a guide to developing exemplary literacy education programs. The findings, which are summarized clearly in five concise tables, look like lists of the things that make good literacy education programs good. Using a process called the “classical Delphi method,” which involves collecting several rounds (in this study, two rounds) of progressively more focused survey data from a selected group of experts, the authors surveyed faculty members at the six colleges and universities that have earned the International Reading Association’s Certificate of Excellence, as well as literacy experts who participated in the review process that resulted in those six Certificates being awarded. The goal was to find out if there were commonalities across the programs considered “distinguished”, and if so, how important various attributes of those programs were, both in the eyes of the faculty members who taught and led in them, and in the eyes of the experts who reviewed those programs and agreed that they were distinguished. Fourteen factors emerged as high priorities.

Quality field experiences were at the top of the priority list for all respondents and in both rounds of data collection. This is no surprise to me as a teacher educator. The adjectives “consistent, carefully selected, and relevant” were used to describe such field experiences. I know from my own experience that field experiences are the heart of any program, and whether they are high quality or not can make or break a program, whether it is a literacy program or any other kind of teacher education program. There were other important factors, such as the coherence, integration, and alignment of the total program, collaboration among faculty members and between university faculty and public school professionals, but even those are probably related to the quality of field experiences. A coherent program will tie coursework to field experiences, and designing such a program will require a good deal of collaboration, both within an education school and between education schools and personnel in public schools. Such a program would have a coherent theoretical orientation (though flexible enough to allow for multiple viewpoints) and would strive to link theory with practice through authentic, progressive, carefully planned and supervised experiences in schools.

As I thought about the important findings of this study and what they had to say to me as a literacy educator, I found myself wondering how to achieve the level of consistency and collaboration that seems to be recommended here. It is clear that in these six exemplary programs, full-time faculty supervised the field experiences as well as teaching the courses that were aligned with them. The faculty members in these programs were a continuous presence in the schools, and that allowed for the kind of leadership, modeling, and collaboration that made these programs credible and consistent. I wonder what kinds of institutional support are in place that facilitate this sort of faculty involvement? Faculty loads, class sizes, and expectations for what counts as scholarly activity and what kinds of work are valued when it comes to promotion and tenure all would seem to be relevant here. If our students’ field experiences are the heart of our programs, then the main work of a literacy teacher educator should be the teaching, supervising, and collaboration that occur within and across a program’s field experiences and the courses that are linked to them. If faculty members’ time and energy are drained by other kinds of work, then there is less likelihood that the program will do what the findings here suggest.

This article made me take a hard look at some of the practices in the programs I am involved with. I see some areas that I believe we are doing well that match what the six “distinguished” programs are doing, but other areas where we are not doing as well. The findings here provide a direction for possible program improvements. I invite all those who are involved with teacher education programs, in literacy and in other areas (I believe the findings here may be applicable beyond literacy education) to take a look at this helpful article.