EDITORIAL

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004 10.1177/0022487104268057

EDITORIAL

THE PROBLEM OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Marilyn Cochran-Smith
Boston College

Since the time teacher education emerged as an cess intended to ensure that the behaviors of
identifiable activity, there have been few peri- prospective teachers matched those of “effec-
ods when it was not being critiqued, studied, re- tive” teachers. To do this, teacher educators
thought, reformed, and, often, excoriated. The were charged with training teacher candidates
title of this editorial does not refer to the “prob- to display those behaviors that had been empir-
lem of teacher education” in a pejorative sense, ically certified through research on effective
however. Rather, the phrase is intended to draw teaching. Underlying this way of defining
attention to teacher education as a problem in teacher education was a technical view of teach-
three senses—the problem or challenge every ing, a behavioral view of learning, and an
nation faces in providing well-prepared and ef- understanding of science as the solution to edu-
fective teachers for its children; teacher educa- cational problems. In a symposium on teacher
tion as a research problem, which involves a education that helped to shape this emerging
larger set of educational issues, questions, and view, B. O. Smith (1971) made this clear: “Gen-
conditions that define an important concern of erally speaking, . . . teacher education attempts
the scholarly community; and teacher educa- to answer the question of how the behavior of
tion as a problematic and contested enterprise, an individual in preparation for teaching can be
troubled by enduring and value-laden ques- made to conform to acceptable patterns” (p. 2).
tions about the purposes and goals of education What was “acceptable” had to do with
in a democratic society. research. When teacher education was con-
This editorial concentrates on teacher educa- structed as a training problem, the point of
tion over the last 50 years. It suggests that dur- research on teacher education was the identifi-
ing that time, as a society and an educational cation or the invention of transportable teacher-
community, we have conceptualized and training procedures that produced the desired
defined the “problem of teacher education” in behaviors in prospective teachers. This effort
three quite different ways: as a training prob- in teacher education built on and paralleled the
lem, a learning problem, and a policy problem.1 process-product research on teaching that
The editorial concludes with concerns about the was dominant during the time. With process-
current emphasis. product research, the goal was to develop “the
scientific basis of the art of teaching” (Gage,
1978) by identifying and specifying teacher
TEACHER EDUCATION AS behaviors that were correlated with pupil learn-
A TRAINING PROBLEM ing and applying them as treatments to class-
During the period from roughly the late room situations (Gage, 1963). The version of this
1950s to the early 1980s, teacher education was that became prominent in research on teacher
defined primarily as a training problem. The education was treating the independent vari-
essence of this approach was conceptualizing ables of process-product research on teaching
teacher education as a formal educational pro- (i.e., observable teacher behaviors, such as
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004 295-299
DOI: 10.1177/0022487104268057
© 2004 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

295
question-asking strategies or clearly stated sive curriculum, and knew how to continue
objectives, which were presumed correlated learning throughout the professional lifespan.
with student achievement) as the dependent The goal of teacher preparation programs was
variables in research on teacher preparation. to design the social, organizational, and intellec-
Teacher-training procedures (e.g., micro- tual contexts wherein prospective teachers
teaching, training prospective teachers to use could develop the knowledge, skills, and dispo-
interaction analysis or behavior modification, sitions needed to function as decision makers.
lecture, demonstration, and/or clusters of these Feiman-Nemser (1983) and others argued at the
procedures with and without different kinds of time that teacher education was not equivalent
feedback) were the independent variables. to formal teacher preparation programs. Rather,
The training approach to teacher education learning to teach also had to do with the beliefs,
was not without its critics. Some questioned the knowledge, and experiences prospective teach-
training approach at its very core by critiquing ers brought with them into preparation pro-
the effectiveness research on which it was grams; the ways their knowledge changed and
based. They argued that the empirical was translated into classroom practice over
research base for specific and generally applica- time; the ways teachers interpreted their field-
ble teaching behaviors was thin and that the work and course experiences in light of their
competency-based, teacher-training programs own school experiences; and how they
that arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s did developed professionally as teachers by
not have a greater amount of empirical support observing and talking with others.
than other teacher education programs. Other Based on the premise that teacher education
critics argued that a more critical research was a learning problem, the point of research on
stance was needed that made the existing social teacher education was to build and explore the
arrangements of schooling problematic and professional knowledge base, codifying not
challenged taken-for-granted assumptions
only how and what teachers should know about
about definitions of professional competence.
subject matter and pedagogy but also how they
Still others raised methodological objections,
thought and how they learned in preservice
pointing to obstacles to establishing causal rela-
programs and schools and the multiple condi-
tionships between particular aspects of teacher
tions and contexts that shaped their learning.
preparation and teacher performance given the
Not surprisingly, multiple research questions,
many intervening variables and the months- or
methods, and approaches to interpretation and
even years-long time lag. The most damaging
analysis developed during this time rather than
critique, however, was that although the train-
adherence to a single, dominant paradigm.
ing research showed that prospective teachers
Although some studies continued to focus on
could indeed be trained to do almost anything,
the focus was on “empty techniques” (Lanier, teachers’ behavior, many examined teachers’
1982) rather than knowledge or decision attitudes, beliefs, knowledge structures, predis-
m a k in g , a n d t h us , t h e a p p ro a ch w a s positions, perceptions, and understandings as
atheoretical and even anti-intellectual. well as the contexts that supported and/or con-
strained these. In addition, teacher education
research came to include more critical
TEACHER EDUCATION AS approaches, and a whole program of research
A LEARNING PROBLEM emerged that explored how teachers learned to
During the period from roughly the early teach for diversity. During this time, there were
1980s through the early 2000s, teacher educa- also new investigators involved in teacher edu-
tion was defined primarily as a learning prob- cation research, including teacher educators
lem. This approach assumed that excellent who studied their own practices.
teachers were professionals who were knowl- The learning approach to teacher education
edgeable about subject matter and pedagogy was extensively critiqued, especially in the
and who made decisions, constructed respon- years from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.

296 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004

During this time, teacher preparation was often generally not part of the discourse of the profes-
characterized by skeptics as substandard, sional community responsible for teacher
attracting mediocre to poor prospective teach- education. In fact, as Kennedy (1996) has
ers who were out of touch with the public inter- pointed out, in the past, policy research on
est and too focused on progressive and teacher education was most familiar to skeptics
constructivist perspectives. At the same time, and critics of teacher education, including econ-
reformers within the teacher education commu- omists and policy analysts, and least familiar to
nity called for higher standards as well as con- teacher educators themselves. This situation
sistency across preparation, licensure, and has changed considerably, and the most visible
accreditation and better recruitment and reten- current debates about teacher education have
tion strategies. Characterized by some as noth- concentrated to a great extent on policy.
ing more than “touchy feely” self-awareness Constructing teacher education as a policy
(Schrag, 1999), teacher education’s emphasis on problem means identifying both institution-
beliefs and attitudes was particularly hard hit level policies (such as entrance and course
by external critics, especially beliefs related to requirements or 4- and 5-year program struc-
culture and diversity. Research on teacher edu- tures) and state or larger scale policies and prac-
cation was also sharply criticized during this tices (such as state teacher tests, allowable entry
time from both within and outside the field for routes, licensure regulations) that are presum-
its weak methods and lack of generalizability. ably warranted by empirical evidence demon-
No doubt, the most damning critique of strating positive effects on desired outcomes. At
teacher education as a learning problem was the local level, for example, practitioners are
that it focused on teachers’ knowledge, skills, striving to develop evidence about the effect of
and beliefs without adequate attention to teacher candidates’ performance on pupils’
pupils’ learning. That is, when teacher educa- learning. At state and larger levels, policy mak-
tion was defined as a learning problem, neither ers are seeking empirical studies, preferably
practitioners nor researchers concentrated on experimental studies or correlational studies
establishing the links between and among what
with sophisticated statistical analyses, that indi-
teachers knew and believed, how they devel-
cate which aspects of teacher preparation do
oped professional practice in the context of dif-
and do not have a systematic and positive effect
ferent schools and classrooms, and what their
on pupils’ learning, particularly scores on
pupils learned that could be demonstrated on
standardized tests.
tests and other measures.
The research designs that are considered by
some to be best suited to studying teacher edu-
TEACHER EDUCATION AS cation as a policy problem are production func-
A POLICY PROBLEM tion studies of educational resources and other
In many of the major debates since the mid- to multiple regression analyses that aim to estab-
late 1990s, teacher education has been defined lish correlations between resources and indica-
as a policy problem. Here, the goal is to identify tors of teacher effectiveness. On the other hand,
which of the broad parameters of teacher educa- some researchers take a broader approach to the
tion policy that can be controlled by institu- study of teacher education as a policy problem,
tional, state, or federal policy makers is most including a variety of accepted research meth-
likely to have a positive effect. The point is to ods and a range of indicators of effectiveness.
use empirical evidence to guide policy makers Although it now seems self-evident that cer-
in their investment of finite human and fiscal tain policy decisions regarding teacher educa-
resources in various aspects of the preparation tion ought to be informed by empirical evi-
and professional development of K-12 teachers. dence, the policy approach has also been
Many policy-related studies of teacher prepa- sharply critiqued. Some have pointed out that
ration were conducted before the end of the in the absence of clear and consistent evidence,
1990s. However, prior to that time, they were many policy makers either ignore research or

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004 297

focus on only the evidence that supports their a teach well. Whatever else there is to know (e.g.,
priori positions. Others argue that the aspects of techniques, classroom strategies, best practices)
teacher education studied from a policy per- can be picked up on the job or in summer
spective are “crude quantifiable indicators” courses or school-based training sessions for
(Kennedy, 1999, p. 89) that cannot make mean- teachers. Increasingly, then, the focus in discus-
ingful distinctions among the varied features of sions of teacher education is on training and
teacher preparation programs. Still others have testing to insure that all teachers have basic sub-
noted that studies of teacher education as a pol- ject matter knowledge and the technical skills to
icy problem generally do not account for the bring pupils’ test scores to minimum thres-
contexts and cultures of schools or for how holds.
these support or constrain teachers’ abilities to There are many more concerns about the cur-
use knowledge and resources. Finally, it is clear rent policy approach to teacher education than
that when teacher education is constructed as a can be included in a short editorial. I name just
policy problem, pupil achievement scores are three. First, teacher education is a political prob-
considered the most important educational out- lem, not just a policy problem. Policies regard-
come. A number of teacher education research- ing teacher preparation do not come about as
ers and practitioners have argued that although the result of simple common sense or expedi-
test scores are one indicator of teachers’ effec- ency alone, nor are they disconnected from val-
tiveness, other outcomes, such as pupils’ social ues and ideology, from existing systems of
and emotional growth, their preparedness to power and privilege, or from assumptions
live in a democratic society, and teachers’ reten- about what is mainstream and what is marginal.
tion in hard-to-staff schools, are also important. Second, teaching has technical aspects to be
sure, and teachers can be trained to perform
THE PROBLEM OF TEACHER EDUCATION: these. But teaching is also and, more impor-
A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE tantly, an intellectual, cultural, and contextual
activity that requires skillful decisions about
In the first 4 years of the 21st century, we have
how to convey subject matter knowledge, apply
seen the intensification of the policy focus.
pedagogical skills, develop human relation-
There is no question that the No Child Left
ships, and both generate and utilize local
Behind Act (2002) and its agenda to provide
knowledge. Finally, the purpose of education in
“highly qualified teachers” depend on a view of
a democratic society is not simply assimilating
teacher education as a policy problem. Increas-
all schoolchildren into the mainstream or pre-
ingly, it is assumed that the right policies can
paring the nation’s workforce to preserve the
simultaneously solve the problems of teacher
place of the United States as the dominant
retention, teacher quality, and pupil achieve-
power in a global society. Our democratic soci-
ment. The “right” policies are supposedly those
based on empirical evidence about the value ety depends on the preparation of a thoughtful
teacher preparation adds to pupils’ scores on citizenry (Gutman, 1999). How to prepare
tests and on cost-benefit analyses of how to teachers to foster democratic values and skills
invest finite human and fiscal resources. Also must be acknowledged as a major part of the
underlying the policy focus is the assumption “problem of teacher education” if we are to
that the overarching goal of education—and maintain a healthy democracy.
teacher education—is to produce the nation’s
workforce and maintain its position in the
NOTE
global economy.
Folded into the current policy approach is 1. This editorial is based on a larger analysis of the history of
teacher education research and reform (Cochran-Smith & Fries, in
also a return to the training view of teacher edu- press) that examines public documents, historical sources, and 30
cation. The argument is that subject matter, syntheses of research on teacher education published between
1958 and 2003. The syntheses are treated as historical artifacts, as-
which can be assessed on a standardized sumed to reflect the ways of defining and studying teacher educa-
teacher test, is what teachers need to know to tion that were prominent in particular time periods. The larger

298 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004

analysis includes discussion of the historical, economic, and social Kennedy, M. (1996). Research genres in teacher education.
contexts of each time period.
In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Build-
ing a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 120-
154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
REFERENCES Kennedy, M. (1999). The problem of evidence in teacher
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (in press). Researching education. In R. Roth (Ed.), The role of the university in the
teacher education: Foreground and background. In M. preparation of teachers (pp. 87-107). Philadelphia: Falmer.
Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Report of the AERA Lanier, J. (1982). Teacher education; Needed research and
Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: practice for the preparation of teacher professionals. In
American Educational Research Association. D. Corrigan (Ed.), The future of teacher education: Needed
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman research and practice (pp. 13-36). College Station, TX: Col-
& G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. lege of Education, Texas A&M University.
150-170). New York: Longman. No Child Left Behind Act: Reauthorization of the Elemen-
Gage, N. (1963). Paradigms for research on teaching. In N. tary and Secondary Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, (2002).
Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Retrieved June 2002 from http://www.ed.gov
Rand McNally. Schrag, P. (1999, July). Who will teach the teachers. Univer-
Gage, N. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New sity Business, pp. 29-34.
York: Teachers College Press. Smith, B. (Ed.). (1971). Research in teacher education: A sym-
Gutman, A. (1999). Democratic education (with a new preface posium. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
and epilogue). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, September/October 2004 299