Education in the Philippines evolved from early settlers to the present.

Education in the
country is in great importance because it is the primary avenue for upward social and
economic mobility. Philippine educational system has a very deep history from the past in
which it has undergone several stage of development going to the present system of
education.

Education from Ancient Early Filipinos

The education of pre-Spanish time in the Philippines was informal and unstructured. The
fathers taught their sons how to look for food and other means of livelihood. The mothers
taught their girls to do the household chores. This education basically prepared their
children to became good husband and wives.

Early Filipino ancestors valued education very much. Filipino men and women knows how to
read and write using their own native alphabet called alibata. The alibata was composed of
17 symbols representing the letters of the alphabet. Among these seventeen symbols were
three vowels and fourteen consonants.

Educational System During Spanish Period

The educational system of the Philippines during the Spanish times was formal. The
Religious congregations paved the way in establishing schools from the primary level to the
tertiary level of education. The schools focused on the Christian Doctrines. There was a
separate school for boys and girls. The wealthy Filipinos or the Ilustrados were
accommodated in the schools. Colonial education brought more non-beneficial effects to the
Filipinos.

Educational Decree 1863

The first educational system for students in the country was established by virtue of the
Education Decree of 1863. In furtherance, the decree required the government to provide
school institutions for boys and girls in every town. As a consequence, the Spanish schools
started accepting Filipino students. It was during this time when the intellectual Filipinos
emerged. The Normal School was also established which gave men the opportunity to study
a three-year teacher education for the primary level.

* Education during the Spanish Regime and Its Colonial Effects to the Filipinos

Educational System During American Period

Like the Spaniards, the Americans brought many changes in their 45 years of reign in the
country. Until now, these American influences can still be seen in our lifestyle or way of life.

The Commonwealth provided free education in public schools all over the country, in
accordance with the 1935 constitution. Education also emphasized nationalism so the
students were taught about the life of the Filipino heroes. Vocational education and some
household activities like sewing, cooking, and farming were also given importance. Good
manners and discipline were also taught to the students. The institute of Private Education
was established in order to observe private schools. In 1941, the total number of students
studying in the 400 private schools in the country reached 10,000. There was also the
existence of "Adult Education" in order to give formal education even to adults.

* American government gave importance to Education

Changes in Education During the Japanese Occupation

The government made some changes in the system of education in February, 1942. These
changes were:

• To stop depending on western countries like the U.S., and Great Britain. Promote and
enrich the Filipino culture.
• To recognize that the Philippines is a part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere so that the Philippines and Japan will have good relations.
• To be aware of materialism to raise the morality of the Filipinos.
• To learn and adopt Nippongo and to stop using the English language.
• To spread elementary and vocational education.
• To develop love for work.

Educational System in the Present Period

Philippine education is patterned after the American system, with English as the medium of
instruction. Schools are classified into public (government) or private (non-government). The
general pattern of formal education follows four stages: Pre-primary level (nursery,
kindergarten and preparatory) offered in most private schools; six years of primary
education, followed by four years of secondary education.

College education usually takes four, sometimes five and in some cases as in medical and law
schools, as long as eight years. Graduate schooling is an additional two or more years.
Classes in Philippine schools start in June and end in March. Colleges and universities follow
the semestral calendar from June-October and November-March. There are a number of
foreign schools with study programs similar to those of the mother country. An overall
literacy rate was estimated at 95.9 percent for the total population in 2003, 96 % for males
and 95.8 % for females.

Philippine education is strongly viewed as a pillar of national development and a primary

avenue for social and economic mobility. It has undergone several stages of development
from the pre-Spanish time to the present. It is handled by three government organizations,
namely, the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS), the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED), and the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA). The DECS govern both public and private education in all levels,
with its mission "to provide quality basic education that is equitably accessible to all by
the foundation for lifelong learning and service for the common good."
The Filipino people have deep concern for education because it occupies a central place
in political, economical, social, and cultural life in the Philippines. The government
allocates a high budget every year for Philippine education and guarantees that every
Filipino has the right to quality education. However, there are some important issues that
needs to be looked closely and resolved by the government. Among the issues are:

• Quality of Education - This is the first major issue that the Philippine government
should resolve but somehow it is recently improving. The quality of Philippine
education has declined few years ago due to poor results from standard entrance
tests conducted among elementary and secondary students, as well as the tertiary
levels. The results were way below the target mean score. High dropout rates,
high number of repeaters, low passing grades, lack of particular language skills,
failure to adequately respond and address the needs of people with special needs,
overcrowded classrooms, and poor teacher performances, have greatly affected
the quality of education in the Philippines.
• Affordability - There is a big disparity in educational achievements across social
groups. Students from wealthy families have excellent educational background
gained from exclusive private schools at the start of their education until they
finish college. Unlike the students from the less fortunate families, wherein most
of them could not even finish elementary nor secondary level because of poverty.
They could barely afford to buy school shoes and pencils, not even the tiny
amount of tuition fees from the public schools.
• Budget - The government was mandated by the Philippine Constitution to allocate
the highest proportion of its budget to education. However, among the ASEAN
countries, the Philippines still has one of the lowest budget allocations to
education. This is due to some mainstream political issues and humungous
problems that the government is facing specially corruption.
• Mismatch - There is a large proportion of mismatch between training and actual
jobs. This issue arises at the tertiary level and causes a large group of unemployed
and underemployed. This is very true nowadays because of the arising BPO
industries particularly the call center companies. Hundreds of thousands of young
professionals, graduates or undergraduates from college level settled at this type
of company because of the attractive compensation that they are offering. Call
center companies do not require a specific degree of education, what matters to
them is the proficiency in the English language.

There are some measures that the Philippine government has looked into for the
reformation of quality education. Technology use is starting to gain momentum in the
overall education of this country. This helped improve the quality of education in the
Philippines and to be globally competitive in this millennium.

Philippine Call Centers (724Care Inc.), is a premier provider of business process

outsourcing services in the Philippines located in Cebu City, specializes Appointment
Setting services and Market Research survey. You may call its toll free number at 1-888-
724-888-9.
 PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEGDE
Content and Pedagogy:
Intersection in the NSTA Standards for Science
Teacher Education
Mark Enfield, Michigan State University, enfieldm@msu.edu

Introduction

The Standards: Content and Pedagogy

Standard 1: Content

Standard 5: Pedagogy

Summary of the Standards

Considering PCK as an essential tenet in Science Teacher Education

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Something not sufficiently addressed

Making a case for a new model

Conclusion

References

A note on reading this paper set:

This text uses multiple hyperlinks, which the reader is encouraged to follow as s/he reads.
While explicitly labeled links will often return the reader from whence they came, this is
not always the case. However, the 'back' button on your browser (or the key stroke
shortcut) will return you to the appropriate text, table or diagram. In an attempt to make
the text more readable, links are placed alongside the text rather than within it. Some
features (i.e., the shading of the links column) are not visible when using older browsers.
Links to text within the paper set, including the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation, are in standard link format -- blue underlined text. Those to citations outside
of the paper set are in italicized blue underlined text.

Introduction Rationale for a

Non-Linear
The field of education has been challenged to define teaching and
teacher education. Defining something like teaching is no simple task.
One might think of the task, instead of a static action that can be
universally defined, as the current paradigm that dominates our
thinking about best practices for teaching. Based on this paradigm we
can generate criteria to define and assess teaching, learning and teacher
education. Science education is no exception. However, it is important
to remember that these are the criteria based on the current paradigm.
Just as paradigms have shifted in scientific thinking (Kuhn, 1996) so
have paradigms of teaching. If we concede that standards are sets of Presentation
criteria that reflect the current dominant views of a community, then it (Ashmann)
can be useful to have such standards to examine the assumptions,
values, and beliefs of science teaching, learning, and science teacher Veal and
education. Certain documents define the content students should learn MaKinster, 1999
(e.g. Benchmarks for Science Literacy) and similar documents describe
the role of the teacher (e.g. The National Science Education Standards).
Recently a number of organizations joined efforts to produce a similar
set of criteria for science teacher education. These "draft" standards
will be the focus of this discussion. Some (Veal and MaKinster, 1999)
feel that there has been explicit mention of the importance of
pedagogical content knolwedge (PCK) in the Standards. However, we
feel that the connections between content and pedagogy, the role of
PCK as part of learning to teach science, should be made more explicit
in both the text and the organization of the document.
The NSTA Standards for science teacher education proposes a linear
model, which does not accurately reflect the views of the entire science
education community. To illustrate how it is problematic, this
discussion will look at two of those standards; Standard One addresses
content knowledge understandings and Standard Five addresses the
pedagogy of science teaching. The intent will be to show how the
standards are inextricably linked when taken in context. The links
between standards invite us to think about how the linear model could
restructured into a less linear model. Further, it will introduce what we
feel is a missing piece of this document, namely the inclusion of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), as an essential tenet in the
current thinking about science teacher education.
It is our position that Content and Pedagogy should not be treated as A Non-Linear
mutually exclusive. However, the structure of the standards may lead to Format
this conclusion. Examination of Standards One and Five shows an (Ashmann)
overlap across standards. Considering the consequences of this overlap
invites us to consider an alternate conception of the standards. A model Figure 1.
is proposed here, see figure 1, which joins content and pedagogy into
an essential tenet of the document. This is an argument for a more
connected and contextualized thinking about the preparation of
teachers. In order to make this clear, it will be helpful to look at each of
these areas as described in the NSTA Standards. Through this
examination we will ask, "Should we consider PCK when generating a
framework of standards?" We think that a non-linear, PCK inclusive
model better reflects the challenges and consequences involved in
science teaching. Therefore, a new, less linear model of standards will
be proposed. Finally, we can look at this proposal and what it
potentially offers science teacher education. This model will allow us to
begin to ask important questions of the model and of PCK as related to
science teacher education. We can ask, "How does such a model help
us think differently about science teacher education?"
The Standards: Content and Pedagogy

Standard 1: Content

What is meant by content? From our reading, content refers to the Content
science knowledge a teacher should possess. In this regard, the authors
of the NSTA Standards have effectively woven together a complex set
of ideas into a neat, easily understandable set of standards for science
teacher education. They state:
"The program [teacher education] prepares candidates to structure and
interpret the concepts, ideas and relationships in science that are needed
to advance student learning in the area of licensure as defined by state
and national standards developed by the science education community.
Content refers to:

-> Concepts and principles understood through science.

-> Concepts and relationships unifying science domains. Quote in context

-> Processes of investigation in a science discipline.

-> Applications of mathematics in science research." (National Science

Teachers Association, 1998)

It is hard to find fault in these standards. We all hope that new teachers
will possess sufficient content understandings to teach science.
However, there is a lot to cover in these four brief statements. To Quote in context
resolve this, the authors thoroughly address and consider major theories
of learning and some research that have taken place in the science
education community. Among teaching and learning theories related to
science education they address constructivism, use of analogy and
metaphor, abstract or didactic teaching methods, conceptual
understanding, and others (National Science Teachers Association,
1998). This shows the recognition the authors had that content
understanding relies on much more than the rote memorization of facts.

Further the authors recognize that people in content disciplines teach

many content specific courses. Specifically they state,

"The content knowledge of the prospective science teacher is developed

primarily in science courses taught by science faculty. Assigning the
development of the skills and knowledge required by this standard to
one or even several science methods courses is unlikely to produce the
depth of understanding needed for effective teaching practice. All
science teacher candidates should be provided with a carefully
designed, balanced content curriculum leading to a demonstrated
knowledge of the concepts and relationships they are preparing to
teach." (National Science Teachers Association, 1998)

While this is realistic and practical, it says little about teaching.

Teaching is left to Standard Five, which deals with pedagogy.
Standard 5: Pedagogy

The NSTA Standards authors define a model of pedagogy familiar to

teachers and teacher educators. This model includes: actions and
Pedagogy
strategies of teaching, organization of classroom experiences, providing
for diverse learner needs, evaluation and implementation of learner's
The National
prior notions, and transformation of ideas into understandable pieces.
Science
(National Science Teachers Association, 1998) These familiar notions
Education
were clearly described in Borko and Putnam's (1996) review of
Standards
literature on learning to teach. The treatment in NSTA Standards look
exclusively at literature related to science teaching. The tenor of these
standards is reflective of teaching standards found in The National
Science Education Standards (NSES) (1996).
The NSTA Standards (1998) suggest that teachers of science should be
able to provide all students the opportunity to learn from science
Pedagogy
instruction, to make sense out of science and to want to do more
science. This is in the spirit of the NSES, but no simple task. This
The National
statement involves multiple pedagogical tasks including: addressing all
Science
students' needs; planning activities that allow and encourage students to
Education
learn and reason about problems; trying to make sense of the world;
Standards
and instilling in students the desire to learn more science. (National
Research Council, 1996)
Summary of the Standards Content

Looking back at Content and Pedagogy there were some important Pedagogy
themes that overlapped in the document. The Content section expected
that teachers would be able to make connections and see relationships
between concepts. While the Pedagogy section sought to help students
learn about scientific problems. Making connections requires an
understanding of the problems faced in science learning. The Content
section expects science teachers to learn and teach about the process of
inquiry, while the Pedagogy section expects teachers to plan
experiences for their students to make inquires. This presents the
intersection in the learning how to teach the process of inquiry. Making
similar connections relies on a facile understanding of both the content
students are learning and how students learn.
Considering PCK as an essential tenet in Science Teacher
Education

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Something not sufficiently addressed

Why do we consider PCK an essential part of science teacher

education? There are many explanations for this. In the following
paragraphs and in a subsequent section we will begin to explore PCK
as a construct. This allows us to move on to consider the problems
students of teaching face by the bifurcation of content and pedagogy
implicit in the standards and explicit in university practices. And finally
we can begin to examine the assumptions of science, the science
education community and the roles that PCK plays in this community.
Lee Shulman (1987) developed the construct of "pedagogical content
knowledge" (PCK) in response to some of the problems of teaching and
teacher education. This important addition to thinking about teaching is
recognized in the content section of the NSTA Standards. Ironically it
is only mentioned to explain that the content standard would be looking
at the content specific aspect of this construct. There is a connection
between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in science
Content
teaching, which is implicit in many of the statements of the NSTA
Standards. Careful reading reveals connections in the two domains that
Quote in context
cannot be neglected. For example the pedagogy standard suggests that
teachers know about "organization of classroom experiences" (National
Science Teachers Association, 1998). However to design such
"organizations" requires a deep understanding of content. This is what
Shulman (1987) is talking about when stating, "the key to
distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection of
content and pedagogy" (pg. 15).
In this case, science teachers must have content preparation, which Quote in context
usually takes place outside of colleges of education. Such learning of
content presents problems for pre-service teachers and science teacher
educators. The NSTA Standards accurately identify major problems
with respect to this point. The authors state:

[There is] "a poor match between learner needs and teaching
methodology", "in many traditionally taught courses the emphasis is on
learning large amounts of information at a rapid pace", and "division of
knowledge, for convenience into disciplines, fields and subfields" that
"may contain the development of linkages among concepts across
fields" (National Science Teachers Association, 1998).
Most science teacher content knowledge comes from disciplinary
fields, while understanding of teaching comes from the field of
education. This separation, revealed in the problems outlined above,
reinforces a model of scientific disciplines that is dissimilar from
models of teaching and learning science. Research has shown science
teachers approach scientific problems differently than scientists due to
their understanding of the pedagogical implications of learning science
(Borko & Putnam, 1996; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). Such
separation leads students of teaching to have bifurcated understandings
of science education.
Several studies have examined the practical connections of PCK to
science teaching. These studies examine the value of attempting to
teach this principle to prospective teachers. A recent study by van
Driel, Verloop, and de Vos (1998) reviews this literature and finds both
support and change in teachers as a result of developing pedagogical
content knowledge. They found, through empirical study, that there
might be value to having prospective teachers study subject matter
from a teaching perspective. This and other studies (e.g. Gee, C., &
others, 1996; Lederman, N. & Chang, H., 1994; Glick, J. & others,
1992; Sowdre, J & others, 1991; Smith D.C. & Neale, D.C., 1989) have
also shown the importance of PCK in teaching, especially science
teaching. To have a set of standards that implies that pedagogy takes
precedent over content or vise versa seems to ignore this research.
Finally, we must think carefully about the scientific ideas and concepts
that we would like students to learn. If we accept the shortcomings of
empiricism described by Quine (1953), and the linguistic turn outlined
by Rorty (1987), we must begin to look for ways to reveal the
assumptions and beliefs shared by the scientific community. For
example much scientific knowledge is built on evidence. Students of
science need to understand the implicit value scientists place on this
kind of knowledge. Further these students need to be able to understand
the consequences of these ideas and beliefs. Teachers of science need
to be prepared to help students uncover the embedded texts of scientific
ideas. PCK provides a useful lens for teachers to begin to help students
see the assumptions of science. In the example cited above a teacher
can help students see the value of evidence in making a scientific claim.
However, this requires more than knowing content and how to teach. It
requires an understanding of how to teach the content, namely PCK.
Making a case for a new model
In response to the need for PCK, we propose a model, in which content
and pedagogy are joined, forming a leading edge in a less linear model
of standards, shown here in Figure 1.

Schematic of Contents Introduction to This Paper Set

Proposed Introduction to the NSTA Content and Pedagogy: Intersection in the
Standards for Science Teacher NSTA Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation Education
Rationale for a Non-Linear Presentation Concluding Remarks
The use of hypertext and multimedia tools facilitates a dynamic, Schematic of
representative model of important ideas for teaching and learning Contents
science. Using the NSTA Standards, an attempt at such a web-based (Duggan-Haas)
standards construction was developed. See the companion article by is essentially
Duggan-Haas, this issue. By expanding our notion of presentation and identical to
structure this new form of representation allows for a model that more
Figure 1.
closely represents the complexity and challenges of science teaching.
The drafted, linear model builds on the existing bifurcation of content
and pedagogy within the university structure. However, it does not
recognize the complexities of science teaching and obscures them from
prospective teachers of science. Teachers and scientists are different in
many ways. Lemke (1990) looked at discursive practices in science
education, while Latour and Woolgar (1986), and Traweek (1988)
looked at science discourse practices. Comparing these we see distinct
differences. Having a separated perspective avoids conflict in these
differing views. Is it appropriate for future science teachers to learn and Project 2061
be enculturated into such bifurcation? This question is challenged by
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
who calls for an increased number of science courses which allow
prospective science teachers to become active rather than passive
learners (1998). Active learning involves confronting prospective
teachers with conflicts in bifurcation. These teachers will be better
prepared to make informed decisions about the content and pedagogy
of their science teaching.
Changing to an integrated model, based on PCK, requires more
coordination between content specialists and pedagogy specialists.
Efforts are being made to build such coalitions. These efforts will not
easily come and will require extensive work on the part of science
teacher educators and scientists. However, the benefits of such a model For general
could outweigh this drawback. The increased costs should be easily information on
outweighed by the benefit of more knowledgeable, flexible and capable the TIMSS study
teachers. It will be difficult to measure these benefits, but not see...
impossible. Increased primary and secondary student performance
would indicate that students were learning more from teachers trained Project 2061
in this model. This is possible through comparison with studies such as
TIMSS (Valverde & Schmidt, 1998) and NAEP looking for long term The National
changes. Regardless, this structure is more reflective of the Science
recommendation by AAAS that, "all science teachers are literate Education
enough in science to implement the goals presented in Benchmarks and Standards
Standards (1998, pg. 191)." Developing science literacy and the ability
to transform this knowledge into learning opportunities requires more
than an understanding of content and pedagogy. It requires an
understanding of their intersection.
It is easier to accommodate larger classes and more students in the
bifurcated structure. There can be large courses in colleges of natural
science where students passively receive science instruction. Further, in
colleges of education, it is possible to have pedagogy courses that are
not connected to a particular discipline. This allows colleges of
education to offer fewer courses, while accommodating the same
number of students. For example if there are only 12 science teacher
candidates, a small class under normal circumstances, the college can
offer a pedagogy course that is not specific to science and these
students are accommodated without the addition of another course.
However, this is a rather limited approach to teacher preparation. It
does not look toward the kinds of knowledge a teacher needs, rather it
usually becomes a place to learn management skills and content driven
facts. These are only useful to getting through a teaching experience
instead of creating competent teacher professionals ready to attack the
complex challenges of teaching. Further this is a static view of the
problem; it seems to expect that all students are the same. Variation
among students makes it necessary to think about content and
pedagogy together so that each learning experience can be matched to
the current needs of the children. Shulman says this best stating,
"bifurcating content and teaching processes have once again introduced
into policy what had been merely an act of scholarly convenience and
simplification in the research (pg.6)." The non-linear model confronts
this bifurcation and challenges its assumptions.
A further benefit of the non-linear model is an increase of equality.
Equalty is important if we are to achieve the goals of Science For All
Americans, which strive for science literacy for all Americans
(Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). This is of utmost importance for as
Cusick (1992) points out, schools are charged with reducing inequality.
Thinking about pedagogy and content together allows a teacher to think
about the needs of each student more fully. Applying notions of
pedagogy to science content helps reveal what might be problematic for
some groups, encourages under-represented groups to participate, and
allows for greater flexibility within a classroom based on the ability and
interests of students. For example, a recent study looked at how Native
American worldviews impacted science learning. Teachers were able to
modify learning goals and activities to be sensitive to the worldviews of Science for All
native Americans. This was a result of these teachers' PCK. (Kawagley, (Duggan-Haas)
Norris-Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998) Practitioners well versed in
pedagogical content knowledge do not readily adhere to one theory of Project 2061
learning or science. With one student it may be necessary to adjust for
their ability, while in other situations it is necessary to recognize the
student's conceptions of a topic (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog,
1982; Smith, 1990; Watson & Konicek, 1990). Adjusting to students'
abilities is manageable in the separated model, this is just good
pedagogy. However, most students enter science classrooms with a set
of conceptions about the world (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1990;
Watson & Konicek, 1990). For teachers to build on and challenge
student conceptions, it is necessary for teachers to have deep
conceptual as well as pedagogical understanding. This application of
pedagogical understanding to content understanding is a fundamental
premise behind pedagogical content knowledge.
Conclusion

The work done in the NSTA Standards for science teacher education
lays an excellent foundation for working toward improvement in
science teacher preparation. However, the linear model in the
presentation fails to carry the message of changing conceptions of the
complexity of science teaching. The report "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
called for increased academic requirements and increased rigor. While
this may be possible in the linear proposal, it is more likely in the non- A Nation at Risk
linear proposal. This seems contradictory to some. However, it has
been argued that the coverage of content is less important than depth of
understanding (Valverde & Schmidt, 1998). Rigor results from deeper
understanding rather than increased coverage. The bifurcated model
does not help students of teaching make connections between content
understandings and what it takes to teach that content. Without this
connection teachers are likely to continue to focus on coverage of
material in place of deep conceptual understanding.
If we are to change science learning, it must start with science teaching.
This requires a shift of paradigms in the structure of teacher education.
The current paradigm of learning to teach is reified in the linear model
of standards, which supports existing bifurcation and does not force
teachers and students to examine the embedded texts of science
knowledge. This begins to resemble another attempt at "tinkering
Further Steps
toward utopia" (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) that will leave us short of the
(Ashmann)
goal of Science For All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). We
must make a Kuhnian paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1996) to resolve this
problem. Such a shift is found in a model of standards built around
PCK, as an essential tenet to making improvements in this problem.
While this may be no panacea, it provides opportunities for
improvement.
References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform:
Science, Mathematics and Technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.

Cusick, P. A. (1992). The Education System: Its Nature and Logic. New York: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.

Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous worldview
of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice of teaching science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 133-144.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of the scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk . Washington

DC: US Department of Education.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington

DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1998). CASE draft standards for the preparation
of teachers of science .

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2),
221-227.

Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two Dogmas of Empiricism, From a logical point of view (pp.
20-46). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rorty, R. (1987). Science as Solidarity. In J. S. Nelson, A. Megill, & D. N. McCloskey

(Eds.), The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and
public affairs (pp. 38-52). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Smith, E. L. (1990). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn,

R.Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), Psychology of learning science (pp. 43-63). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physics.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt, W. H. (1998). First lessons from the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study: Policy challenge of cross-national comparisons.
(Unpublished). East Lansing: Michigan State University.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers'
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.

Veal, W., & MaKinster, J. (1999) Pedagogical Content Knowledge Taxonomies.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4) Article Two.
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html

Watson, B., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting
children's experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9),

Overview:

The Certification and Accreditation in Science Education (CASE)

Network has done a commendable job in their development of NSTA
Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. The information on these
pages is a response to the repeated requests of the CASE Network for
feedback about those Standards and focuses on the presentation of the
standards rather than the standards themselves. This article primarily
addresses the nature of the structure and presentation of the NSTA
Standards and suggests that the flexibility of electronic publishing be
exploited to overcome problems associated with the ordered
presentation of the standards used in the current draft. In making the
recommendation to exploit the possibilities inherent to electronic
publication, this article offers a model for such publication.
Rationale for a Non-linear Presentation: Content
(Standard #1)
While the Standards are generally well-written, there are concerns
about their presentation. In their current form, the Standards are Pedagogy
numbered 1 through 10, with Content being Standard #1. While it is not (Standard #5)
directly stated that the order of the Standards is a rank order, it is
problematic that Content is placed well ahead of Pedagogy (Standard A much more
#5). We believe that understanding content and understanding analytical
pedagogy are roughly equal in importance, and that these two standards rationale may be
are the most important. found here.
The strength of this presentation is not in ease of reading. It is more
difficult to read (though disagregating and bookmaking the individual
standards makes it is easier to locate specific standards) than in the
original format. The advantage comes from forcing the reader to
consider the connections that are not explicated in the original
document. This pushes the reader to understand the standards in a new
way that should deepen understanding of the Complex Educational
System of science teacher preparation. As most educators already
understand, teacher education is not constrained to the courses and
fieldwork with an "education" label. While educators understand this,
this understanding is both not explicit in their work and is not
understood by their students. Science teacher candidates and new
science teachers tend to see their teacher education programs as
consisting of two main components that are weakly connected or not
connected to each other at all. The two components are science
coursework and education coursework (Salish, 1997, Author #1, 1998).
The ten standards described in the NSTA Standards cut across this
divide but still stand as ten separate standards. The reformatting
advocated here ties these separate standards together in a way that NSF Program
reflects the (eco-) systemic nature of science teacher preparation. This Announcement
understanding of what the National Science Foundation has called for Research on
Complex Educational Systems is fundamental to implementing the kind Learning and
of reform that the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation Education
require, yet this understanding is not explicit in the presentation of (ROLE)
those standards (NSF, 2000). Our intent is to make more of those
connections explicit.
The place of
pedagogical
content
Two standards should stand above the others -- pedagogy and content.
knowledge
Good pedagogy is impossible in the absence of deep knowledge of the
(PCK) in the
subject to be taught. Similarly, strong content knowledge is of little
NSTA Standards
value to teachers if it exists without understandings of how to help their
is discussed in
students come to understand that content. In order to be a good science
more detail here.
teacher, it is necessary to have firmly established operational
understandings in both pedagogy and science content. It is necessary to
The Right to
have pedagogical content knowledge . The other eight standards are
Know Your
included in the tight embrace of pedagogy and content. One cannot be
Rights
successfully exercised without successful exercise of the other. Indeed,
Methodologies:
“How you teach is what you teach.” (Human Rights Watch USA, 1998)
How You Teach
Is What You
Teach
As the Standards cannot be ranked in importance from 1 to 10, the Figure 1
publication of this document is well suited to electronic media - CD
ROM and the World Wide Web. The electronic format allows a A much more
genuine cross-linking among standards that is lost when text is bound analytical
in printed pages. rationale may be
found here. (This
The schematic below (Figure 1) shows some, though certainly not all, is the same link
of the important linkages among the standards. The links shown
represent the suggestions of the authors of this paper set. Others will
certainly identify links that we did not. While this indicates our
perception of science teacher preparation, it more importantly
represents a different kind of organization of those ideas. We are
primarily making an argument for the idea of explicit identification of
the connections among individual standards, not, for the specific
connections we have identified.
as above).
An alternative non-linear organization of many of the concepts central
to this discussion can be found in Veal and MaKinster's description of
Veal and
taxonomy of pedagogical content knowledge. Their diagramatic
MaKinster, 1999
representation places PCK at the center to signify its importance (Veal
and MaKinster, 1999).

Electronic publication offers a way around the problem of placing the

Standards in some numeric order. Using hot-linked schematic
representations of the relationships among Standards, the rank order
implied by page order in a printed and bound document can be
eliminated. Figure 1 shows such a representation. In the diagram, each
of the ten standards are hyperlinked to their descriptions.
A more conceptual introduction

In addition to reformatting the structure of the NSTA Standards The November

presentation, the Standards for Science Teacher Preparation also need Draft
some introductory and connective text to bring the discrete Standards
into a coherent vision for science teacher preparation. There is some
Proposed
introductory text included with the November, 1998 draft of the
Introduction to
Standards, however, this introduction is largely logistical in nature and
the NSTA
there is a need for tying the individual standards together into a single,
Standards for
coherent document. The New Introduction and Map of the Standards
Science Teacher
are an attempt to tie the Standards together into a more coherent vision.
Preparation
Again, the CASE Network is to be commended for their excellent work
in development of The Standards for Science Teacher Preparation.

Concluding Remarks for Paper Set

The NSTA standards for science teacher preparation are described by ten broad
categories. It is necessary that new science teachers gain applicable knowledge and
appreciation of each of the ten aspects of science teaching. Without competency in and
subscription to these NSTA standards, new teachers will not successfully teach all
students for understanding and application utilizing a broad vision of science.
Science for All is a demanding goal. Many changes are needed in the education of
science teachers if this goal is to be achieved. These changes include requiring increased
sophistication in attitudes, professional knowledge, and skills in both teaching and
interpersonal interactions. It is essential that science educators lead others in the science
education community in giving substance and positive action to this goal.

A web-based, hyperlinked format is better suited to convey this message than a linear
presentation format. The flexibility of electronic publishing, including the use of various
colors, shapes, arrows and positions on the page, not only allows the reader choices
associated with the order of the presentation of information, but it allows important
explicit and implicit messages to be conveyed. We see these messages as being crucial to
the reform of science teacher preparation programs.

We believe a non-linear, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) inclusive model better

reflects the challenges and consequences involved in science teaching. The drafted, linear
model builds on the existing bifurcation of content and pedagogy within the university
structure. Content has traditionally been taught in colleges of science while pedagogy has
been the focus of instruction in colleges of education. However, this structure does not
recognize the complexities of science teaching and obscures them from prospective
teachers of science. Active learning involves confronting prospective teachers with
conflicts in this bifurcation. Developing science literacy and the ability to transform this
knowledge into learning opportunities requires more than an understanding of content
and pedagogy. It requires an understanding of their intersection. Teachers prepared in a
system where the walls between content and pedagogy, and therefore the existing barriers
between the colleges of science and education, have become permeable will be better
prepared to make informed decisions about the content and pedagogy of their science
teaching.

Rethinking the Presentation of the

NSTA Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation
Electronic Journal of Science Education V4 N3, Duggan-Haas, Enfield and
Ashmann - March 2000

Authors (click on the author's name to go to a description of their role in this work)
Don Duggan-Haas, Kalamazoo College, 1200 Academy St., Kalamazoo, MI 46006
haasdona@msu.edu
Mark Enfield, 301 C Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Michigan State University enfieldm@msu.edu
Scott Ashmann, 301 C Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824 Michigan State University ashmanns@msu.edu
Acknowledgements
About the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation...

Abstract for Paper Set

This paper set is a response to the recently drafted National Science Teacher Association
standards for science teacher preparation, and it focuses on the presentation of the
standards rather than the standards themselves. We primarily address the nature of the
structure and presentation of the standards and suggest that the flexibility of electronic
publishing be exploited to overcome problems associated with the ordered presentation of
the standards used in early drafts. We feel our proposed format carries both explicit and
implicit messages that need to be conveyed to individuals associated with these
programs. Our format places content and pedagogy in equally important positions in a
science teacher preparation program. Thus, another section of our argument addresses the
role pedagogical content knowledge should play in the preparation of future science
teachers.

The Schematic of Contents

Concluding Remarks for Paper Set

Author's roles
Don Duggan-Haas

Don was primarily responsible for the development of the schematic featured throughout
this article, for the structure of the article and for the electronic formatting. He wrote the
Introduction to This Paper Set and most of the text in the Proposed Introduction to the
Standards.

Don Duggan-Haas is the Director of Teaching Internships and an Instructor in the

Education Department at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is in the final
stages of writing his dissertation as an advanced doctoral student at Michigan State
University. His dissertation investigates the relationship of college science teaching and
science teacher preparation. The working title for the dissertation is Scientists are from
Mars, Educators are from Venus: Relationships in the Ecology of Science Teacher
Preparation. He can be reached at dhaas@kzoo.edu.

Mark Enfield
Mark wrote the article on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and developed the
disaggregation of Figure 2.

Mark Enfield is a graduate student in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy at

Michigan State University. His pre dissertation work examines the challenges teachers
face, as well as the roles and purposes of whole group, sense making science discussions
in ethnically and racially diverse elementary classrooms. He anticipates continuing this
line of inquiry in his dissertation research. He can be reached at enfieldm@msu.edu.

Scott Ashmann

Scott wrote the Rationale for the Non-Linear Presentation.

Scott Ashmann is a Ph.D. student in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy with
an emphasis in science education at Michigan State University. His dissertation examines
the influence being a teacher candidate's mentor teacher can have on the teaching
practices of secondary science teachers. He is also interested in the history of science
education and issues surrounding the professional development of science teachers. He
can be reached at ashmanns@msu.edu.

Acknowledgements:

The authors are grateful for the work done by members of the CASE Network, and
especially Steve Gilbert for his perseverance in the completion of these Standards and to
the individuals who coordinated the writing of each Standard (see below). Without their
work, ours would have been impossible. The authors would also like to thank Jim
Gallagher. Jim was the professor for TE 991A, Special Topics in Science Education, at
Michigan State University during the Spring 1998 semester. The course that was the
genesis for this paper set. Jim also provided some text for the Proposed Introduction to
the Standards.

About the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation...

This article is a response to repeated requests for feedback on the NSTA Standards for
Science Teacher Preparation. The Standards were developed by a great number of
science educators. Each of the ten standards had a lead author, who is listed below with e-
mail addresses. This table is reproduced from Bill Baird's editorial on the progress of
these standards in March 1998 EJSE http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/baird.html.
The table, like the schematic above, has each standard's name linked to the text for that
standard. Baird's editorial offers a good description of the history of these standards. The
current version of the standards can be accessed directly from Steve Gilbert's website at
http://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htm.

The full text of each standard is reproduced within this document. This was done to help
us make the argument for a reformatting of the Standards, not for a rewriting. We have
attempted to make it clear wherever the text of other authors is reproduced. The
Standards were written under the leadership of the individuals listed below. Their work is
always shown on a light blue background.

Content Steven Gilbert sgilbert@iukfs1.iuk.indiana.edu

Nature of Science Norm Lederman lederman@ucs.orst.edu

Inquiry Larry Flick flickl@ucs.orst.edu

Context of Science Jim Ellis jdellis@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

Pedagogy Barbara Spector spector@typhoon.coeda.usf.edu

Science Curriculum John Staver staver@coe.educ.ksu.edu

Social Context Mary Atwater atwater@uga.cc.uga.edu

Professional Practice Ron Bonnstetter rjb@unlinfo.unl.edu

Learning Environments Hans Andersen andersen@indiana.edu

Assessment Bill Baird bairdwe@mail.auburn.edu

Proposed Introduction to the Standards

Science for All

Figure 1: Map of NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Education

Connections Among Standards

References

A note on reading this paper set:

This text uses multiple hyperlinks, which the reader is encouraged to follow as s/he reads.
While explicitly labeled links will often return the reader from whence they came, this is
not always the case. However, the 'back' button on your browser (or the key stroke
shortcut) will return you to the appropriate text, table or diagram. In an attempt to make
the text more readable, links are placed alongside the text rather than within it. Some
features (i.e., the shading of the links column) are not visible when using older browsers.
Links to text within the paper set, including the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation, are in standard link format -- blue underlined text. Those to citations outside
of the paper set are in italicized blue underlined text.
Proposed Introduction

The NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation offer guidance

for science teacher preparation programs. The NSTA Standards are
coordinated with both The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and INTASC
Support Consortium (INTASC) and The National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The NSTA Standards have NBPTS
also been adopted by The National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) for use in evaluating and accrediting
NCATE
science teacher preparation programs. The NSTA Standards more
directly target secondary science teacher preparation than elementary
teacher preparation, though these ten Standards are relevant for all who
teach science from pre-k to college, graduate and work place education,
and for the educators who prepare teachers.
The NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation are described by
ten broad categories. It is necessary that new science teachers gain
applicable knowledge and appreciation of each of the ten aspects of
science teaching. Without competency in and subscription to these The National
NSTA Standards, new teachers will not successfully teach all students Science
for understanding and application utilizing a broad vision of science. Education
These three ideas, teaching all students science; for understanding and Standards
application; utilizing a broad vision of science; plus one more key idea;
that teaching less content allows for better understanding and more Project 2061
meaningful application are the heart and soul of the current reform
efforts in science education reflected in the National Science Education
Standards and Project 2061 (AAAS 1989; AAAS 1993; NRC 1996).
Science for All

Again, one of the several premises of the National Science Education

Standards and Project 2061 is encapsulated in the phrase Science for
All. This is a demanding goal. Many changes are needed in the
education of science teachers if this goal is to be achieved, requiring
increased sophistication in attitudes, professional knowledge, and skills
in both teaching and interpersonal interactions.

Only a portion of science teachers have developed the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes that are compatible with the goal of Science for All.
Further, many science educators have little experience in helping
prospective and practicing science teachers increase their capability of
teaching all students science.

In order for science educators to be able to help science teachers

develop the capabilities for teaching science for all, several actions are
needed:
 • Relevant research should be analyzed and recommendations
from it made available to colleagues across the nation.
• Where research is needed to fill gaps in our knowledge about
teaching science effectively to all students, science educators,
psychologists, sociologists, scientists, and science teachers
should join forces to design, conduct, and disseminate findings
from their research.
• Efforts need to be expanded to foster attitudes among scientists,
science educators, and science teachers that scientific literacy is
achievable for a broad spectrum of the population.
• Scientists, science educators, and science teachers should work
diligently to develop interpersonal skills that will help to engage
all students in learning science.
• Science educators and science teachers should work together to
develop the professional knowledge and skills needed to foster
scientific literacy among all students.
• Science educators, science teachers and scientists need to model
a kind of teaching that encompasses all of the ten standards
described in the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher
Preparation.

Science for All must become more than simply a slogan. It is essential
that science educators lead others in the science education community
in giving substance and positive action to this goal. The development of
the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation is a step toward
meeting these challenging goals.

Pedagogical Knowledge (Pedagogical Concepts)

Pedagogical Knowledge (Pedagogical Concepts)

Teach not only involves learning content and how to translate that subject matter into an
understandable form. It also requiries knowledge about the process to teaching itself.
Pedagogical knowledge is the information we gather from research and experience of
expert teachers that help us understand connections between teaching and learning. To
understand this idea, let’s look at Ibrahim—a teacher who has taught his students the
process of adding fractions and is now reviewing this process with them.

“Class, look at this fraction on the board. What do we call the number on the bottom?
Cica?”
“Umm...... denominator.”
“Good, Cica. And what do we call the number on the top, Ahmad?”
“..............”
“We talked about this yesterday, Ahmad. Remember, it tells us the number of parts in the
fraction. Think about the term that is derived from, number.”
“Oh, yeah......numerator.”
“Excellent, Ahmad. Now look closely at this addition problem. It says to add ½ and 1/3.
What do we have to do first? Think for a moment, because this is important. Look at the
pies that I’ve drawn on the board to represent these different fractions.”

Ibrahim was trying to help his student do several things in this review. First, he wanted
them to remember the names for the top and bottom number in a fraction—two concept
that he had already taught. When Ahmad could not answer, Ibrahim provided a prompt
that helped him respond correctly. After student recalled the terms numerator and
denominator, he referred them to a problem on the board. Ibrahim illustrated the abstract
problem with a concrete example to promote their understanding of the process. Finally
he told them to pause for a moment—an idea called “wait-time”—encouraging them to
take some time to think about why changing the denominator was important.

Review, concept, prompting, concrete examples, and wait-time are all pedagogical
concepts. As such, they are part of professional body of knowledge that help us to
analyze and understand the process of teaching. All education program is designed to
help us understand these and many other pedagogical concepts, which will help us plan
and implement effective lessons in our own classroom.

Key words: review, abstract concept, concrete example, prompting, wait-time,

pedagogical concept, pedagogical knowledge, student, teacher, effective lesson

Learning Styles
Respecting learning styles is another way of valuing diversity. Just as the world contains a wide
variety of cultures, it also contains a broad spectrum of learning styles.

Global Village School is pleased to offer the A Self-PortraitTM Profile learning styles assessment
along with Customized Curriculum Consultations based on the profile results. It is not necessary
to enroll in Global Village to take advantage of these valuable tools. If you only wish to purchase
the profile ($30) please click here.

The traditional educational model works well for those students who like their days to be
predictable and orderly, sit at desks, eat only at scheduled times; who learn best by listening,
reading, and doing worksheets. These students are actually in the minority. The majority of
students - those with differing learning styles - learn best within alternative structures. Quite a few
learn to adapt, suppressing their natural tendencies and strengths; many others
become labeled as behavior problems, learning disabled, lazy, etc.

There are many different styles of learning. Some of us learn best with the
stereo on, some love to study outside, many like to lie on the couch or bed to
read. (How many of us, as adults, actually like to sit at a desk to read?!) Some
love to interact with other students; others much prefer to work independently.
Some like to focus on one task until it is complete; others do better by working
on several tasks at once. Auditory learners learn best by listening; others need
to "see it" or "experience it" if they are to fully understand .

And it doesn’t stop in childhood: the same things apply in the work world. Some employees are
happiest and most productive when they’re right there in the middle of things, talking to everyone
who comes in the door, making sure people have what they need, etc. Other people crave peace
and quiet and flourish when allowed to work on their own without interruption. Some love
organization and structure and do well at accounting, watching the budget, planning and
scheduling, etc. Others can’t stand these things and never seem to get them quite “right,” but are
capable of inventing programs or imagining possibilities that more “organized” people couldn’t
conceive of.

The A Self-PortraitTM Profile is a core part of the way we work with our students - and together as
a staff - at Global Village School. The results enable us to work better as a team and help us in
selecting the most appropriate courses and customizing lessons to meet students' individual
needs. Our students take the A Self-PortraitTMProfile as part of their Global Village enrollment
process, and sometimes parents choose to take the Profile in order to better understand their
own learning styles, which can lead to improved communication between parent and child. If you
don't wish to enroll but are interested in taking the profile you can order it at a discount through
our site (see ordering information below).

Many of our families go a step further with our Learning Styles Curriculum Consultations, during
which they work with one of our consultants to create a unique curriculum plan from the ground
up.

About the profile:

The A Self-PortraitTM Profile was created by two of our Global Village teachers, Mariaemma
Pelullo-Willis and Victoria Hodson, and featured in their book, Discover Your Child's Learning
Style. It has been used by tens of thousands of students, parents, teachers, and adults seeking to
enhance the way they learn, work, teach and/or communicate.

The profile assesses several aspects of learning style, quickly and simply, in language that is
easily understood by everyone. These aspects are:

Disposition Modality Environment Interests Talents

The benefits of being aware of individual learning styles include: discovering how one learns best;
improving communication among family members; and helping people let go of labels such as
dyslexic, ADD, ADHD, learning disabled, slow, lazy, and "just average!"
Teaching is often considered one of the most rewarding--and most demanding--of all
white-collar jobs. Beyond a passion for teaching, however, there are also formal
requirements for a teaching career. More than just subject knowledge, these include
classroom experience and often the passing of a standardized test.

Read more: What Are the Qualifications to Become a Teacher? | eHow.com

http://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-
teacher.html#ixzz18H9bO0sM

History
 Teachers were not always required to have formal qualifications before being allowed
in a classroom. Aside from an education in the classic subjects such as literature,
mathematics and history (plus maybe a language like Latin), little else was required of
men wishing to be teachers. Women teachers, often in the role of governess, had even
less need of formal requirements, as they didn't provide much more than a basic
education. When the modern public school system came about in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, that began to change.

Types
 College students interested in becoming teachers enroll in an education degree
program. These programs not only teach subject matter, but also teaching theory, and
include provisions for interning and student teaching. This classroom experience is a key
part to the degree. Many people, however, come to teaching as a second career. These
teachers have a degree in the field they wish to teach, and have often worked in their field
before teaching. They might enroll in a post-degree program, and frequently work as
substitute teachers to gain classroom experience.

Features
 Almost all states require that a formal examination be passed before receiving
teaching certification. These examinations can vary state to state, but in general they test
not only basic concepts but also specific skills. For example, there may be a general
portion of the exam focusing on basic English and math skills, followed by a test focused
on the area the person wishes to teach, such as history, science or literature. Next to a
degree or job experience, classroom experience and a good test score are crucial.

Benefits
 By having set requirements, schools can be assured they are hiring qualified teachers.
Certification provides a quantifiable standard against which potential teachers can be
measured. It also ensures that teachers are well versed not only in the subject matter they
wish to teach, but also in classroom dynamics. Certification also reassures parents that
teachers have the needed qualifications to instruct their children.
Considerations
 Not all teaching jobs require formal qualification, or at least not formal teaching
credentials. While almost all public schools hire only certified teachers, private schools
and some charter schools operate with different standards. For private schools and charter
schools, a person may be considered qualified so long as they have a degree in their field.
In most cases, this means the prospective teacher should hold at least a master's degree in
the subject they want to teach. Regardless of formal certification, prior teaching
experience is almost always required.

Read more: What Are the Qualifications to Become a Teacher? | eHow.com

http://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-
teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpd
The qualifications needed to become a teacher at the school level require a basic
graduation degree in the subject one wants to teach or a diploma along with a teacher
qualification course or exam as the case might be as the specific qualifications that one
may need may be different in different countries. The school itself more often than not
conducts its own training program for short listed candidates who then may be hired on a
temporary basis before being confirmed for a permanent post.

To become a teacher at the college level one needs to have completed one's post
graduation studies along with passing the requisite qualification exams as the case may
be, prescribed by the University to which the college may be affiliated. As in the schools,
one is on probation for a certain period during which one's performance is evaluated after
which one is confirmed as a permanent lecturer in the department; often research students
are directly inducted as lecturers after completing their thesis.

To state a few universal pre-requisite qualifications one should have a good academic
record throughout one's education as top grades would ensure better chances but also
equally important would be your communication skills; so vital in the teaching profession
as well as your ability to get along with people and of course loads of patience. Often
good teachers are those who enjoy the process of teaching and interacting with students
and have an intuitive knowledge base of the subject that they teach.

Great Answer Report

Mahendra 5 years ago

Improving teacher quality is one of the most direct and promising strategies for
improving public education outcomes in the United States.

Event: Cultivating Effective Teachers

Parents, practitioners, and policymakers agree that the key to improving public education
in America is placing highly skilled and effective teachers in all classrooms. Yet the
nation still lacks a practical set of standards and assessments that can guarantee that
teachers, particularly new teachers, are well prepared and ready to teach.

This report discusses a promising approach to the question of how to measure teacher
effectiveness. Specifically, it describes the ways in which assessments of teacher
performance for licensing and certification can both reflect and predict teachers’ success
with children so that they can not only inform personnel decisions, but also leverage
improvements in preparation, mentoring, and professional development. It outlines
progress in the field of teacher assessment development and discusses policies that could
create much greater leverage on the quality of teacher preparation and teaching than has
previously existed in the United States.

For more than two decades, policymakers have undertaken many and varied reforms to
improve schools, ranging from new standards and tests to redesigned schools, new
curricula and new governance models. One important lesson from these efforts is the
repeated finding that teachers are the fulcrum determining whether any school initiative
tips toward success or failure. Every aspect of school reform depends on highly skilled
teachers for its success. This is especially true as educational standards rise and the
diversity of the student body increases. Teachers need even more sophisticated abilities to
teach more complex curriculum to the growing number of public school students who
have fewer educational resources at home, those who are new English language learners,
and those who have distinctive learning needs.

One of the few areas of consensus among education policymakers, practitioners, and the
general public today is that improving teacher quality is one of the most direct and
promising strategies for improving public education outcomes in the United States,
especially for groups of children who have historically been taught by the least qualified
teachers. Teachers can have large effects on student achievement, as suggested by a
recent large-scale study in North Carolina, which found that the differences in
achievement gains for students who had the most qualified teachers versus those who had
the least qualified were greater than the influences of race and parent education
combined. These very large differences were associated with teachers’ initial preparation
for teaching, licensing in the field taught, strength of academic background, level of
experience, and demonstration of skills through National Board Certification, all of
which are variables that could be directly addressed through policy.

Unlike most high-achieving nations, however, the United States has not yet developed a
national system of supports and incentives to ensure that all teachers are well prepared
and ready to teach all students effectively when they enter the profession. Nor is there a
set of widely available methods to support the evaluation and ongoing development of
teacher effectiveness throughout the career, along with decisions about entry and
continuation in the profession. Meeting the expectation that all students will learn to high
standards will require a transformation in the ways in which our education system
attracts, prepares, supports, and develops expert teachers who can teach in more powerful
ways—a transformation that depends in part on the ways in which these abilities are
understood and assessed.
In recent years, there has been growing interest in moving beyond traditional measures of
teacher qualifications, such as completion of a preparation program, number of degrees,
or years of experience, in order to evaluate teachers’ actual performance as the basis for
making decisions about hiring, tenure, licensing, compensation, and selection for
leadership roles. A key problem is that current measures for evaluating teachers are not
often linked to their capacity to teach. Existing federal, state, and local policies for
defining and measuring teacher quality either rely almost exclusively on classroom
observations by principals who differentiate little among teachers and offer little useful
feedback, or focus on teachers’ course-taking records and on paper-and-pencil tests of
basic academic skills and subject matter knowledge that are poor predictors of later
effectiveness in the classroom.

Looking ahead to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
the No Child Left Behind Commission called for moving beyond the designation of
teachers as “highly qualified” to an assessment of teachers as “highly effective” based on
student learning evidence. Other recent federal proposals—for example, the Teacher
Excellence for All Children Act—have suggested incentivepay to attract effective
teachers to high-need schools and to pay them additional stipends to serve as mentors or
master teachers. The questions are now squarely on the table: “How should we measure
teacher effectiveness?” And how can we develop more effective teachers much more
consistently, rather than leaving teacher effectiveness to chance?

This report describes progress currently underway to achieve a system of reliable, valid,
and nationally available performance assessments—from a teacher’s point of entry
through the development of accomplished teaching. Such a system would create a more
useful and more common standard for the profession, just as national assessments do in
fields such as nursing, engineering, accounting, medicine, and other skilled professions.
A system of performance assessments could also leverage improvements in practice and
professional learning opportunities.

As this paper details, some states have already begun to develop and implement
standardized assessments of teacher performance that more accurately gauge the
classroom effectiveness of beginning teachers, and a group of 20 states has joined
together to build on these efforts to create a common tool for assessing novices.

In addition, most states now recognize the National Board Certification program, which
identifies veteran accomplished teachers who are more effective in developing student
learning. The best practices from these initiatives can support a continuum across the
teaching career for identifying and supporting stronger teaching and making more
grounded personnel decisions based on a common, comprehensive set of standards that
can be adopted nationwide to ensure that only the most well-prepared and effective
teachers are instructing our public schools students. In addition to raising the bar for
teacher preparation and professional development, nationally available performance
assessments at the points of the initial license, the professional license—usually about
three years into the profession, just prior to tenure— and advanced certification could
reflect the greater commonality in student expectations reflected in the so-called
Common Core standards already adopted in more than 30 states. Such a system could
also solve some of the problems created by the current Byzantine set of different
licensing requirements across the 50 states and help create a national teacher labor market
that supports mobility from states with surpluses to those with shortages while enhancing
teacher quality.

A reliable and valid system of performance assessments based on common standards

would provide consistency in gauging teacher effectiveness, help track educational
progress, flag areas of need, and anchor a continuum of performance throughout a
teaching career. Such a system could also be used to establish standards for a National
Teacher License that would allow mobility across states, ensure school districts that a
new hire meets the requirements necessary to become an effective teacher who can
advance student learning, and enable districts to identify and recruit the most able
teachers to the most needy schools.

Linda Darling-Hammond is currently Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at

Stanford University.

Download this report (pdf)

Performance Assessment for Teachers

Status:
Archived
Issue:
Jun 1995

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is receiving praise
from teachers and education experts for its efforts to establish a performance-based
teacher certification process, but it also faces financial overruns that are hampering
progress. The NBPTS experience provides a useful model for the potential and problems
of establishing authentic assessment systems.

NBPTS, a 63-member non-profit group, was formed in 1987 to set standards for what
teachers should know and be able to do and to devise a corresponding assessment system
through which teachers can voluntarily earn a national credential. Certificates in 19 grade
level/content areas (such as Early Childhood/Generalist) will eventually be available,
each based on extensive, specialized standards. NBPTS stresses five propositions that
underlie all the standards:

• Teachers should be committed to students and their learning;

• Teachers should know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students;
 • Teachers should be responsible for managing and mentoring student learning;
• Teachers should think systematically about practice and learn from experience;
and
• Teachers should be members of learning communities.

To become certified, teachers participate in a two-part assessment geared to their

specialty and modeled on the same principles underlying authentic assessment of
students: it is multi-faceted, takes place over time, and uses classroom products and
records of teaching activities as central measures. NBPTS will contract with numerous
educational research and development firms to design the 19 different assessments, but
will ensure that each has the same basic structure.

Candidates first spend several months compiling a portfolio that may include lesson
plans, student work with comments, interpretive case studies and videotapes of classroom
interactions. Next, they spend two days at an NBPTS assessment center participating in
structured interviews, discussions, and paper-and-pencil exams of content knowledge.
Teachers say they find the requirements rigorous and time-consuming, but helpful for
self-analysis. One of NBPTS's purposes is to increase public regard for teaching, another
is to improve it from within.

NBPTS standards of excellence in each teacher certification area include outlines for
appropriate assessment practice. For instance, the Early Adolescence/English Language
Arts assessment standard encourages teachers to use a range of formal and informal
methods to monitor student progress, plan instruction, promote student self-assessment
and report to various audiences. It reads, in part:

. . . To the degree [accomplished] teachers control such decisions, they choose

assessment instruments that align with the overarching goals of the curriculum, not
standardized tests . . . [They] know that portfolios can be an effective source for gauging
student language growth provided they are authentic records of the natural pulse of
classroom intellectual life and not artificially assembled to meet an external, non-
germane test requirement . . . They take into account cultural biases and linguistic
realities in their assessment practices . . .

Unfortunately, this certification procedure is costly and lengthy for both candidates and
the Board. The teacher application fee, for example, is $2,000, raised this year from the
already steep price of $975. However, many states and districts have extensive
reimbursement and incentive programs already in place to defray that cost and support
the system, and several states now accept National Board certification in lieu of state-
specific credentials.

NBPTS, on the other hand, is being forced to scale back its plans due to cost overruns.
While costs dropped from $4,000 per assessment in 1993-94 to $2,500 last year, they
must be further reduced if NBPTS is to survive.

The bulk of NBPTS expense is incurred scoring applications. Each part is judged by two
trained teacher-scorers, then rescored to ensure reliability. As with performance
assessment of students, personal attention to examinee work is time consuming and
costly, but it is a cornerstone of the process s integrity. NBPTS insists it will be able to
lower costs without compromising this quality.

To economize, some officials suggest inviting only teachers with passing portfolios to the
2-day site visit, or cutting the visit to one day. NBPTS has also convened a rethinking
task force to devise strategies for maintaining reliable, high-quality assessments, but with
a more feasible fiscal structure. Meanwhile, NBPTS was recently forced to cancel three
development contracts, and although initial plans slated nine categories of certificates to
be available by fall 1996, now only six teaching areas will be covered by then.

The first national teacher certificates were awarded in January to 81 of 289 Early
Adolescence Generalists who applied. Ninety of 230 Early Adolescence English
Language Arts candidates were certified in August. Though the initial certification
process is promising in many ways, research is still needed on the assessment s equity,
accuracy and utility.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 300 River Place, Suite 3600,
Detroit, MI 48207; (313) 259-0830.

Elementary School Teacher Education

Requirements
Teaching in public elementary schools requires licensure, which can typically be
accomplished by completing a bachelor's degree program in teacher education and
completing a student teaching experience. Although licensure is not always required,
private school teachers also typically hold a bachelor's degree.

Requirements to be an Elementary School Teacher

Elementary school teachers play a critical role in the social and educational development
of children. Through individual or group instruction, elementary school teachers educate
young students in the areas of English, math, science and more. Public elementary school
teachers are required to be licensed. Licensure requirements vary by state, but commonly
include completion of a bachelor's degree program in an area such as elementary
education, as well as a supervised field teaching experience in an actual elementary
classroom.

The Teacher Education Accreditation Council and the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education accredit teacher education programs. Graduation from an
accredited teacher education program makes it easier to obtain licensure. Private
elementary school teachers are not always required to be licensed, but typically must hold
a bachelor's degree.

What's Covered in an Elementary School Teaching Program?

Bachelor's degree programs often include instruction in potential subjects the prospective
elementary school teacher may have to teach, including math, science and social studies.
Potential professional education courses include motivation and learning, child
development, educational assessment, classroom management, teaching methods and
diversity management. Elementary teaching programs prepare graduates to assess student
performance, create lesson plans, prepare report cards, develop curriculum, assign
homework, conduct parent meetings and use tools such as computers and books to teach
children basic academic skills.

There are also alternative licensure programs designed to help alleviate shortages of
teachers in certain geographic areas or in certain subjects such as science and math.
Prospective teachers with a bachelor's degree in another field can pursue licensure while
completing teacher education training and simultaneously teaching.

There are some states that require teachers gain a master's degree in a certain amount of
time after they start teaching. Master's degree programs enhance employment
opportunities for elementary teachers interested in working as counselors or in
administrative and supervisory positions. Additional training may also prepare teachers to
work in specialization areas, such as working with exceptional children.

Related articles to Elementary Teaching

Elementary School Art Teacher Certification Information

 A bachelor's degree is the most common form of education for any individual
who aspires to teach elementary school. Some universities and colleges do offer
specific degrees tailored to aspiring art teachers, such as a Bachelor of Art in Art
Education.

Elementary School Music Teacher: Job Duties and Requirements

Elementary school music teachers typically work with children in

kindergarten through fifth grade, helping them to discover their
creativity and build their vocal and instrumental skills. This
position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree, Elementary
School Teachers

An elementary school teacher typically introduces younger students to basic concepts in

math, reading, writing, science and the arts. Elementary school teachers typically receive
a four-year degree as well as teacher certification in elementary education. In most
schools, elementary teachers teach one class, or group, of students in various subjects.

as well as specific teacher training and a state license.