Schussler, D.L. & Stooksberry, L.M. & Bercaw, L.A. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate dispositions: Reflecting to build awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 350-363.
These teacher educators used journal writing from 35 preservice teachers to test a model of teacher dispositions. They found the model, a three-part framework, encompassing The Intellectual Domain, The Cultural Domain, and The Moral Domain, to be useful in describing these preservice teachers' developmental processes, through the categories were not so important as how the preservice teachers reflected within them. As usual, a framework can help us structure our reflection about a difficult topic (like dispositions), but it is a tool only, and we must look carefully at the qualitative content of that reflection and try to draw inferences from that. The framework, or any assessment strategies that are drawn from it, cannot become so reified that they become ends in themselves. This is the danger when something like disposition assessment is mandated by accreditation entities like NCATE. The authors of this article put the issue in perspective: "although assessment is important, it is the development of dispositions that should be of the most concern in teacher education (p. 351)."
Showing posts with label dispositions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dispositions. Show all posts
On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and moral character.
Osguthorpe, R.D. (2008). On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and moral character. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 288-299.
Some good questions are asked about dispositions in teacher education: what we mean by dispositions, why teacher dispositions are important, how "good" a teacher needs to be, and what happens when a teacher's dispositions are "poor." The question of how to assess dispositions is only touched on, not explored fully here. Still, there's lots to think about here.
The article describes a couple of tensions in conversations about teacher dispositions. One tension centers around whether one believes in a relationship between teacher dispositions and student dispositions. If a teacher is seen as the model, then the reason for having a "moral" teacher is that this teaches moral behavior to students, and the teacher must be a near perfect model. If one does not accept this relationship, but rather believes teachers should teach in moral ways (as opposed to teaching morality per se), then that sets up more realistic expectations. Another tension centers around whether the purpose of disposition related policies in teacher education programs is to foster good dispositions in teachers or merely to prevent those with "poor" dispositions from entering teaching ("the disposition police").
As a teacher educator myself, though I believe we can be moral models in the classroom (I prefer to think of it as displaying "integrity"), that isn't the main reason I want to see certain dispositions in teachers. Although the idea of teaching morally is closer to my own views, even that doesn't cover it all. For me there are two other aspects that weren't really explored here. First, I am very concerned that teachers "do no harm" to students, and I do not just mean that in terms of being poor role models--I mean actual harm, psychological and maybe even physical. Unfortunately, examples come all too easily to mind. The author touches on this, but I felt the focus wasn't pragmatic enough. Second, I believe dispositions relate to the ability to flourish as a teacher, and to be the kind of person whose attitudes and behaviors further teaching and learning rather than distracting one's students, colleagues, and other stakeholders from doing the important job we have to do. People who are antisocial, or negative, or lazy, or self-absorbed, distract. Some kinds of people may mean well (e.g., an extreme introvert or extremely sedentary person), but they usually don't flourish and their students cannot maximize learning. Their colleagues end up carrying some of their load. That aspect was not really discussed here. Obviously, there still is much to ponder on this topic.
Some good questions are asked about dispositions in teacher education: what we mean by dispositions, why teacher dispositions are important, how "good" a teacher needs to be, and what happens when a teacher's dispositions are "poor." The question of how to assess dispositions is only touched on, not explored fully here. Still, there's lots to think about here.
The article describes a couple of tensions in conversations about teacher dispositions. One tension centers around whether one believes in a relationship between teacher dispositions and student dispositions. If a teacher is seen as the model, then the reason for having a "moral" teacher is that this teaches moral behavior to students, and the teacher must be a near perfect model. If one does not accept this relationship, but rather believes teachers should teach in moral ways (as opposed to teaching morality per se), then that sets up more realistic expectations. Another tension centers around whether the purpose of disposition related policies in teacher education programs is to foster good dispositions in teachers or merely to prevent those with "poor" dispositions from entering teaching ("the disposition police").
As a teacher educator myself, though I believe we can be moral models in the classroom (I prefer to think of it as displaying "integrity"), that isn't the main reason I want to see certain dispositions in teachers. Although the idea of teaching morally is closer to my own views, even that doesn't cover it all. For me there are two other aspects that weren't really explored here. First, I am very concerned that teachers "do no harm" to students, and I do not just mean that in terms of being poor role models--I mean actual harm, psychological and maybe even physical. Unfortunately, examples come all too easily to mind. The author touches on this, but I felt the focus wasn't pragmatic enough. Second, I believe dispositions relate to the ability to flourish as a teacher, and to be the kind of person whose attitudes and behaviors further teaching and learning rather than distracting one's students, colleagues, and other stakeholders from doing the important job we have to do. People who are antisocial, or negative, or lazy, or self-absorbed, distract. Some kinds of people may mean well (e.g., an extreme introvert or extremely sedentary person), but they usually don't flourish and their students cannot maximize learning. Their colleagues end up carrying some of their load. That aspect was not really discussed here. Obviously, there still is much to ponder on this topic.
Looking back and moving forward: Three tensions in the teacher dispositions discourse
Diaz, M.E. (2007). Looking back and moving forward: Three tensions in the teacher dispositions discourse. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 388-396.
Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous definition
Damon, W. (2007). Dispositions and teacher assessment: The need for a more rigorous definition. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 365-369.
This brief article delineates some of the issues surrounding NCATE's revision of its standards to include teacher dispositions. Damon's main point is that there is as yet no consensus on an operational definition of "dispositions," which makes the construct difficult to assess. This leaves the door open for abuses that may verge upon "mind control" and indoctrination.
Damon states that both sides of the controversy at least agree that teachers need to believe that all children can learn, but I'm not so certain of that. That may be true in educational circles, but in the political world outside, which is trying to encroach upon education, there are conservative forces that deeply believe that some people are better than others, that certain groups' norms should define what all people should be, and that everyone has the same opportunity to "make good choices" (as they define them) and thus it's their own fault they didn't have the same privileges. No, I do not want people like that teaching children-the ones who focus on what's wrong with kids and who blame them, their families, and their cultures.
This brief article delineates some of the issues surrounding NCATE's revision of its standards to include teacher dispositions. Damon's main point is that there is as yet no consensus on an operational definition of "dispositions," which makes the construct difficult to assess. This leaves the door open for abuses that may verge upon "mind control" and indoctrination.
Damon states that both sides of the controversy at least agree that teachers need to believe that all children can learn, but I'm not so certain of that. That may be true in educational circles, but in the political world outside, which is trying to encroach upon education, there are conservative forces that deeply believe that some people are better than others, that certain groups' norms should define what all people should be, and that everyone has the same opportunity to "make good choices" (as they define them) and thus it's their own fault they didn't have the same privileges. No, I do not want people like that teaching children-the ones who focus on what's wrong with kids and who blame them, their families, and their cultures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)