More on Teacher-Prep Programs & Research Methods & ...

I mentioned towards the end of my last post that this subject came up in my Research Methods class a few weeks ago. Mind you, the discussion was not framed in terms on our opinions of teacher-prep programs. In fact, here were the questions that framed the discussion...

"Art Levine is a critic of teacher education. You can read some of his ideas here:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/teachered

Questions:
1. What does Levine see as the basic problem with teacher education?2. Do you think teacher education is easily researchable? Can you think of a research question that Levine wants answered? "

Note that neither of the questions asked for our opinion on teacher education. I read the link the professor provided but wasn't satisfied, so I did some more digging and found the following: 

Levine's report called "Educating School Teachers" from which his remarks on teacher ed came.
A WaPost article Levine wrote on the subject in 2011.

Just a warning, before you embark, the first link is the entire report. All 140 & something pages of it. This is something to skim through in bits and pieces. The second link is a more condensed version of his argument. After doing my digging, I wrote the following on the discussion board (excuse the grammar, please)...

"It was hard for me to get a good read on what Levine's problem with teacher education was based on the provided link, so I did some digging. I found the link to his "Educating Teachers" report  and the link to an article Levine wrote about his report for the Wa Post in 2011.

I still don't have a great feel for what his problem is beyond that he thinks that many colleges of education are falling! He does give a variety of possible reasons: low admissions standards, weak, unfocused curricula, inadequate field experiences, limited contact with K-12 schools, and faculty who have been out of practice for a long time. Part of the reason why I don't have a great feel for his problem is that it is poorly defined. His reasoning for the "failure" of colleges of edu are too wide scope; any of the reasons he stated could affect how well teachers perform (note that I didn't define "performance") on their own.

With that said, my answer for question 2, is no, teacher education is not easily researchable. First, like in Levine's case, the problem needs a clear definition. For example, Levine could have started with "Do teacher's SAT scores affect their students' scores on the CRCT?" He could see if there is a relationship between the two, and then go from there. Next, a clear and measurable dependent variable is needed. In my sample question, I went with student CRCT scores. Lastly, the validity of the IV definition and DV measure needs to be considered. Someone could (easily) convince me that CRCT scores may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a teacher, thus making its use in research not a good idea. Getting one step right is difficult, so it goes then that getting all three right is more difficult.

Perhaps, what Levine should ask is, "What teacher-related factors relate to their effectiveness?" He could examine number of pedagogy courses (or SAT scores, field experience time, etc.) and relate them to some student achievement measure, for example. Either way, some more (good) research may make his argument more convincing to the powers that be. [NOTE: nothing I said here is meant to be in support or against Levine's argument, though I do have an opinion!]"

Note how I did NOT give my opinion on the matter, because I wasn't asked for it. Most of the responses I received were thoughtful. Some folks agreed with me, and some thought that Levine's stance was quite clear. Then, I get a response like this:

"[Ms. Insane],

Do you believe that the measure of how much a student learned is an accurate factor/standard to grade teachers on their success? I have testing anxiety so I'd feel bad if my teachers livelihood rested on my testing ability."

Le sigh. My response to this poster:

"From the original post: 'Someone could (easily) convince me that CRCT scores may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a teacher, thus making its use in research not a good idea.'

My purpose in mentioning students' scores on a test was not to insinuate that it is an accurate factor or standard through which to "grade" teachers on their success. My point was that it is a potential operational definition for "teacher effectiveness" or "teacher quality", for better or for worse. 
On an off-topic note, yes, I think some sort of measure (or more than one measure!) of student learning is but ONE part in determining the effectiveness of a teacher."

Ironically enough, in a discussion questioning the difficulty in researching teacher education and evaluating it, someone becomes an anecdote to strengthening my opinion on the problems with my teacher-prep program. It's not difficult to extrapolate from my postings that I generally agree with the core of Levine's argument in my own program. I can't speak for other programs, because I wasn't in them. In my own, though, I saw many of the weakness he points out: out-of-practice faculty, students slipping in through low entry standards, less-than-desirable student teaching, etc.  

However, I do wish that Levine's argument was more grounded in research. What exactly is his indicator that current teacher education programs aren't working? Standardized test scores? Number of schools making AYP? A general feeling or what? There had to be something that made him say that what's happening now isn't working. How did he come up with his possible reasons behind this "failure" in teacher-prep programs? Not to say that they are wrong (or right), but I'd like to read some studies that give his argument more of a backbone. 

____________________________________________________________________________

I loved Research Methods as an undergrad, and I still love it today. If I didn't like the classroom as much as I do, I would totally be in educational research. Who knows? I might have my hand in it somehow, someway one day. 

To make a meaningful decision in education today, it seems that at least a basic understanding of research methods is necessary, as it should be and should always be. Yet, the conversation becomes diluted and dumbed-down when extraneous details get thrown in. We were having an awesome conversation about Levine's argument and its basis in research, whenever the flavor of the conversation was watered down with an argument based on a personal feeling. 

Let me not get it twisted, humans are doing the research, so feelings, opinions, and biases are a part of the game. Yet, we don't invite them in and use them as arguments, which is why I preface opinions and feelings and label them as such. I shouldn't have to, because everyone should know the difference. Still, I will hear the "No, that wrong, because my cousin, Remus went to a school where...blah, yak-smack...and he won teacher of the year." or the "You're right because of blah, blah, at my school."

To be honest, I don't mind these types of comments, but I understand that these comments don't move research along unless they are being acted upon, which is why I ask for pieces of research whenever someone finds something that support or goes against any claims or opinions of mine. Just so you all know that I don't write in a vacuum; I often send my blog post along to teacher friends and respected professors of mine in the research biz, so that discussion and thought can be stimulated to move things along. In the case of the class discussion and now, I would love nothing more than to move along the discussion of the research of teacher-prep: how we do, who we let do it, and how we choose people into these programs. Yes, I bitch to vent, but I also do it hopefully to move things along in whatever small way I can.