Philippine Education History

8/8/2019 Philippine Education History

1/34

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
http://www.etravelpilipinas.com/about_philippines/Education_during_the_Spanish_Regime.htmhttp://www.etravelpilipinas.com/about_philippines/Education_during_the_Spanish_Regime.htm


2/34

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 primaryeducation, 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 primaryavenue for social and economic mobility. It has undergone several stages of developmentfrom 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 onHigher Education (CHED), and the Technical Education and Skills DevelopmentAuthority (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 bythe foundation for lifelong learning and service for the common good."
http://www.etravelpilipinas.com/about_philippines/American_government_gave_importance_to_Education.htmhttp://www.etravelpilipinas.com/about_philippines/American_government_gave_importance_to_Education.htm


3/34

The Filipino people have deep concern for education because it occupies a central placein political, economical, social, and cultural life in the Philippines. The governmentallocates a high budget every year for Philippine education and guarantees that everyFilipino has the right to quality education. However, there are some important issues thatneeds 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 governmentshould resolve but somehow it is recently improving. The quality of Philippineeducation has declined few years ago due to poor results from standard entrancetests conducted among elementary and secondary students, as well as the tertiarylevels. 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 affectedthe 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 backgroundgained from exclusive private schools at the start of their education until theyfinish college. Unlike the students from the less fortunate families, wherein mostof 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 tinyamount of tuition fees from the public schools.

Budget - The government was mandated by the Philippine Constitution to allocatethe highest proportion of its budget to education. However, among the ASEANcountries, the Philippines still has one of the lowest budget allocations toeducation. This is due to some mainstream political issues and humungousproblems that the government is facing specially corruption.

Mismatch - There is a large proportion of mismatch between training and actualjobs. This issue arises at the tertiary level and causes a large group of unemployedand underemployed. This is very true nowadays because of the arising BPOindustries particularly the call center companies. Hundreds of thousands of youngprofessionals, graduates or undergraduates from college level settled at this typeof company because of the attractive compensation that they are offering. Callcenter companies do not require a specific degree of education, what matters tothem is the proficiency in the English language.

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

Philippine Call Centers (724Care Inc.), is a premier provider of business processoutsourcing services in the Philippines located in Cebu City, specializes AppointmentSetting services and Market Research survey. You may call its toll free number at 1-888-724-888-9.
http://www.724care.com/http://www.724care.com/


4/34


5/34


6/34

teachers. In order to make this clear, it will be helpful to look at each ofthese areas as described in the NSTA Standards. Through thisexamination we will ask, "Should we consider PCK when generating aframework of standards?" We think that a non-linear, PCK inclusivemodel better reflects the challenges and consequences involved in

science teaching. Therefore, a new, less linear model of standards willbe proposed. Finally, we can look at this proposal and what itpotentially offers science teacher education. This model will allow us tobegin to ask important questions of the model and of PCK as related toscience teacher education. We can ask, "How does such a model helpus 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

science knowledge a teacher should possess. In this regard, the authorsof the NSTA Standards have effectively woven together a complex setof ideas into a neat, easily understandable set of standards for scienceteacher education. They state:

Content

"The program [teacher education] prepares candidates to structure andinterpret the concepts, ideas and relationships in science that are neededto advance student learning in the area of licensure as defined by stateand national standards developed by the science education community.Content refers to:

-> Concepts and principles understood through science.

-> Concepts and relationships unifying science domains.

-> Processes of investigation in a science discipline.

-> Applications of mathematics in science research." (National ScienceTeachers Association, 1998)

It is hard to find fault in these standards. We all hope that new teacherswill possess sufficient content understandings to teach science.

Quote in context

However, there is a lot to cover in these four brief statements. Toresolve this, the authors thoroughly address and consider major theoriesof learning and some research that have taken place in the scienceeducation community. Among teaching and learning theories related toscience education they address constructivism, use of analogy andmetaphor, abstract or didactic teaching methods, conceptualunderstanding, and others (National Science Teachers Association,1998). This shows the recognition the authors had that content

Quote in context
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#The%20program%20prepareshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#Recommendations%20of%20the%20National%20Science%20Teachers%20Associationhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#The%20program%20prepareshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#Recommendations%20of%20the%20National%20Science%20Teachers%20Association


7/34

understanding relies on much more than the rote memorization of facts.

Further the authors recognize that people in content disciplines teachmany content specific courses. Specifically they state,

"The content knowledge of the prospective science teacher is developedprimarily in science courses taught by science faculty. Assigning thedevelopment of the skills and knowledge required by this standard toone or even several science methods courses is unlikely to produce thedepth of understanding needed for effective teaching practice. Allscience teacher candidates should be provided with a carefullydesigned, balanced content curriculum leading to a demonstratedknowledge of the concepts and relationships they are preparing toteach." (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 toteachers and teacher educators. This model includes: actions andstrategies of teaching, organization of classroom experiences, providingfor diverse learner needs, evaluation and implementation of learner'sprior notions, and transformation of ideas into understandable pieces.(National Science Teachers Association, 1998) These familiar notionswere clearly described in Borko and Putnam's (1996) review ofliterature on learning to teach. The treatment in NSTA Standards look

exclusively at literature related to science teaching. The tenor of thesestandards is reflective of teaching standards found in The NationalScience Education Standards (NSES) (1996).

Pedagogy

The National

Science

EducationStandards

The NSTA Standards (1998) suggest that teachers of science should beable to provide all students the opportunity to learn from scienceinstruction, to make sense out of science and to want to do morescience. This is in the spirit of the NSES, but no simple task. Thisstatement involves multiple pedagogical tasks including: addressing allstudents' needs; planning activities that allow and encourage students tolearn and reason about problems; trying to make sense of the world;and instilling in students the desire to learn more science. (NationalResearch Council, 1996)

Pedagogy

The NationalScience

Education

Standards

Summary of the Standards

Looking back at Content and Pedagogy there were some importantthemes that overlapped in the document. The Content section expectedthat teachers would be able to make connections and see relationshipsbetween concepts. While the Pedagogy section sought to help students

Content

Pedagogy
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htm


8/34

learn about scientific problems. Making connections requires anunderstanding of the problems faced in science learning. The Contentsection expects science teachers to learn and teach about the process ofinquiry, while the Pedagogy section expects teachers to plan

experiences for their students to make inquires. This presents theintersection in the learning how to teach the process of inquiry. Makingsimilar connections relies on a facile understanding of both the contentstudents 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 teachereducation? There are many explanations for this. In the following

paragraphs and in a subsequent section we will begin to explore PCKas a construct. This allows us to move on to consider the problemsstudents of teaching face by the bifurcation of content and pedagogyimplicit in the standards and explicit in university practices. And finallywe can begin to examine the assumptions of science, the scienceeducation community and the roles that PCK plays in this community.

Lee Shulman (1987) developed the construct of "pedagogical contentknowledge" (PCK) in response to some of the problems of teaching andteacher education. This important addition to thinking about teaching isrecognized in the content section of the NSTA Standards. Ironically itis only mentioned to explain that the content standard would be lookingat the content specific aspect of this construct. There is a connectionbetween content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in scienceteaching, which is implicit in many of the statements of the NSTAStandards. Careful reading reveals connections in the two domains thatcannot be neglected. For example the pedagogy standard suggests thatteachers know about "organization of classroom experiences" (NationalScience Teachers Association, 1998). However to design such"organizations" requires a deep understanding of content. This is whatShulman (1987) is talking about when stating, "the key todistinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection ofcontent and pedagogy" (pg. 15).

Content

Quote in context

In this case, science teachers must have content preparation, whichusually takes place outside of colleges of education. Such learning ofcontent presents problems for pre-service teachers and science teachereducators. The NSTA Standards accurately identify major problemswith respect to this point. The authors state:

[There is] "a poor match between learner needs and teaching

Quote in context
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htm#Effective%20organization%20of%20classroom%20experiences.https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#poor%20match%20between%20learner%20needshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htm#Effective%20organization%20of%20classroom%20experiences.https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htm#poor%20match%20between%20learner%20needs


9/34

methodology", "in many traditionally taught courses the emphasis is onlearning large amounts of information at a rapid pace", and "division ofknowledge, 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 disciplinaryfields, while understanding of teaching comes from the field ofeducation. This separation, revealed in the problems outlined above,reinforces a model of scientific disciplines that is dissimilar frommodels of teaching and learning science. Research has shown scienceteachers approach scientific problems differently than scientists due totheir understanding of the pedagogical implications of learning science(Borko & Putnam, 1996; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). Suchseparation leads students of teaching to have bifurcated understandingsof science education.

Several studies have examined the practical connections of PCK toscience teaching. These studies examine the value of attempting toteach this principle to prospective teachers. A recent study by vanDriel, Verloop, and de Vos (1998) reviews this literature and finds bothsupport and change in teachers as a result of developing pedagogicalcontent knowledge. They found, through empirical study, that theremight be value to having prospective teachers study subject matterfrom 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) havealso shown the importance of PCK in teaching, especially scienceteaching. To have a set of standards that implies that pedagogy takesprecedent over content or vise versa seems to ignore this research.

Finally, we must think carefully about the scientific ideas and conceptsthat we would like students to learn. If we accept the shortcomings ofempiricism described by Quine (1953), and the linguistic turn outlinedby Rorty (1987), we must begin to look for ways to reveal theassumptions and beliefs shared by the scientific community. Forexample much scientific knowledge is built on evidence. Students ofscience need to understand the implicit value scientists place on thiskind of knowledge. Further these students need to be able to understand

the consequences of these ideas and beliefs. Teachers of science needto be prepared to help students uncover the embedded texts of scientificideas. PCK provides a useful lens for teachers to begin to help studentssee the assumptions of science. In the example cited above a teachercan help students see the value of evidence in making a scientific claim.However, this requires more than knowing content and how to teach. Itrequires an understanding of how to teach the content, namely PCK.

Making a case for a new model


10/34

In response to the need for PCK, we propose a model, in which contentand pedagogy are joined, forming a leading edge in a less linear modelof standards, shown here in Figure 1.

Schematic of Contents Introduction to This Paper Set

ProposedIntroduction to the NSTAStandards for Science Teacher

Preparation

Content and Pedagogy: Intersection in theNSTA Standards for Science Teacher

EducationRationale for a Non-Linear Presentation Concluding Remarks

The use of hypertext and multimedia tools facilitates a dynamic,representative model of important ideas for teaching and learningscience. Using the NSTA Standards, an attempt at such a web-basedstandards construction was developed. See the companion article byDuggan-Haas, this issue. By expanding our notion of presentation and

Schematic ofContents(Duggan-Haas)is essentiallyidentical to
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htm#tophttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/conclude.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htm#tophttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/conclude.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm


11/34

structure this new form of representation allows for a model that moreclosely represents the complexity and challenges of science teaching.

Figure 1.

The drafted, linear model builds on the existing bifurcation of contentand pedagogy within the university structure. However, it does notrecognize the complexities of science teaching and obscures them from

prospective teachers of science. Teachers and scientists are different inmany ways. Lemke (1990) looked at discursive practices in scienceeducation, while Latour and Woolgar (1986), and Traweek (1988)looked at science discourse practices. Comparing these we see distinctdifferences. Having a separated perspective avoids conflict in thesediffering views. Is it appropriate for future science teachers to learn andbe enculturated into such bifurcation? This question is challenged bythe American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)who calls for an increased number of science courses which allowprospective science teachers to become active rather than passivelearners (1998). Active learning involves confronting prospective

teachers with conflicts in bifurcation. These teachers will be betterprepared to make informed decisions about the content and pedagogyof their science teaching.

Project 2061

Changing to an integrated model, based on PCK, requires morecoordination between content specialists and pedagogy specialists.Efforts are being made to build such coalitions. These efforts will noteasily come and will require extensive work on the part of scienceteacher educators and scientists. However, the benefits of such a modelcould outweigh this drawback. The increased costs should be easilyoutweighed by the benefit of more knowledgeable, flexible and capableteachers. It will be difficult to measure these benefits, but notimpossible. Increased primary and secondary student performancewould indicate that students were learning more from teachers trainedin this model. This is possible through comparison with studies such asTIMSS (Valverde & Schmidt, 1998) and NAEP looking for long termchanges. Regardless, this structure is more reflective of therecommendation by AAAS that, "all science teachers are literateenough in science to implement the goals presented in Benchmarks andStandards (1998, pg. 191)." Developing science literacy and the abilityto transform this knowledge into learning opportunities requires morethan an understanding of content and pedagogy. It requires anunderstanding of their intersection.

For generalinformation onthe TIMSS studysee...

Project 2061

The National

Science

Education

Standards

It is easier to accommodate larger classes and more students in thebifurcated structure. There can be large courses in colleges of naturalscience where students passively receive science instruction. Further, incolleges of education, it is possible to have pedagogy courses that arenot connected to a particular discipline. This allows colleges ofeducation to offer fewer courses, while accommodating the samenumber of students. For example if there are only 12 science teacher
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm#Figure%201http://project2061.aaas.org/http://project2061.aaas.org/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htm#Figure%201http://project2061.aaas.org/http://project2061.aaas.org/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/


12/34

candidates, a small class under normal circumstances, the college canoffer a pedagogy course that is not specific to science and thesestudents are accommodated without the addition of another course.

However, this is a rather limited approach to teacher preparation. Itdoes not look toward the kinds of knowledge a teacher needs, rather it

usually becomes a place to learn management skills and content drivenfacts. These are only useful to getting through a teaching experienceinstead of creating competent teacher professionals ready to attack thecomplex challenges of teaching. Further this is a static view of theproblem; it seems to expect that all students are the same. Variationamong students makes it necessary to think about content andpedagogy together so that each learning experience can be matched tothe current needs of the children. Shulman says this best stating,"bifurcating content and teaching processes have once again introducedinto policy what had been merely an act of scholarly convenience andsimplification 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 AllAmericans, which strive for science literacy for all Americans(Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). This is of utmost importance for asCusick (1992) points out, schools are charged with reducing inequality.Thinking about pedagogy and content together allows a teacher to thinkabout the needs of each student more fully. Applying notions ofpedagogy to science content helps reveal what might be problematic forsome groups, encourages under-represented groups to participate, andallows for greater flexibility within a classroom based on the ability andinterests of students. For example, a recent study looked at how NativeAmerican worldviews impacted science learning. Teachers were able tomodify learning goals and activities to be sensitive to the worldviews ofnative Americans. This was a result of these teachers' PCK. (Kawagley,Norris-Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998) Practitioners well versed inpedagogical content knowledge do not readily adhere to one theory oflearning or science. With one student it may be necessary to adjust fortheir ability, while in other situations it is necessary to recognize thestudent'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 setof conceptions about the world (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1990;Watson & Konicek, 1990). For teachers to build on and challengestudent conceptions, it is necessary for teachers to have deepconceptual as well as pedagogical understanding. This application ofpedagogical understanding to content understanding is a fundamentalpremise behind pedagogical content knowledge.

Science for All(Duggan-Haas)

Project 2061
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Science%20for%20Allhttp://project2061.aaas.org/https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Science%20for%20Allhttp://project2061.aaas.org/


13/34

Conclusion

The work done in the NSTA Standards for science teacher educationlays an excellent foundation for working toward improvement inscience teacher preparation. However, the linear model in the

presentation fails to carry the message of changing conceptions of thecomplexity of science teaching. The report "A Nation at Risk" (1983)called for increased academic requirements and increased rigor. Whilethis may be possible in the linear proposal, it is more likely in the non-linear proposal. This seems contradictory to some. However, it hasbeen argued that the coverage of content is less important than depth ofunderstanding (Valverde & Schmidt, 1998). Rigor results from deeperunderstanding rather than increased coverage. The bifurcated modeldoes not help students of teaching make connections between contentunderstandings and what it takes to teach that content. Without thisconnection teachers are likely to continue to focus on coverage of

material in place of deep conceptual understanding.

A Nation at Risk

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 modelof standards, which supports existing bifurcation and does not forceteachers and students to examine the embedded texts of scienceknowledge. This begins to resemble another attempt at "tinkeringtoward utopia" (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) that will leave us short of thegoal of Science For All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). Wemust make a Kuhnian paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1996) to resolve thisproblem. 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 forimprovement.

Further Steps(Ashmann)

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 worldviewof Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice of teaching science.
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/%3Chttp:/www.ric.edu/rod/math143/atrisk.htm%3Ehttp:/www.ric.edu/rod/math143/atrisk.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htm#Further%20Stepshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/%3Chttp:/www.ric.edu/rod/math143/atrisk.htm%3Ehttp:/www.ric.edu/rod/math143/atrisk.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htm#Further%20Steps


14/34

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 133-144.

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

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk . WashingtonDC: 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 preparationof teachers of science .

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation ofscientific 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 andpublic affairs (pp. 38-52). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

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

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational 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


15/34

University Press.

Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt, W. H. (1998). First lessons from the Third InternationalMathematics 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: Confrontingchildren'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 NSTAStandards for Science Teacher Preparation. The information on thesepages is a response to the repeated requests of the CASE Network forfeedback about those Standards and focuses on the presentation of thestandards rather than the standards themselves. This article primarilyaddresses the nature of the structure and presentation of the NSTAStandards and suggests that the flexibility of electronic publishing be

exploited to overcome problems associated with the orderedpresentation of the standards used in the current draft. In making therecommendation to exploit the possibilities inherent to electronicpublication, this article offers a model for such publication.

Rationale for a Non-linear Presentation:

While the Standards are generally well-written, there are concernsabout their presentation. In their current form, the Standards arenumbered 1 through 10, with Content being Standard #1. While it is notdirectly stated that the order of the Standards is a rank order, it isproblematic that Content is placed well ahead of Pedagogy (Standard#5). We believe that understanding content and understandingpedagogy are roughly equal in importance, and that these two standardsare the most important.

Content(Standard #1)

Pedagogy(Standard #5)

A much moreanalyticalrationale may befound here.

The strength of this presentation is not in ease of reading. It is moredifficult to read (though disagregating and bookmaking the individualstandards makes it is easier to locate specific standards) than in theoriginal format. The advantage comes from forcing the reader to
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/nsta.htm#1.0%20Standards%20for%20the%20Education%20of%20Teachers%20of%20Science:%20Contenthttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/nsta.htm#5.0%20Standards%20for%20the%20Education%20of%20Teachers%20of%20Science:%20Pedagogyhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/nsta.htm#1.0%20Standards%20for%20the%20Education%20of%20Teachers%20of%20Science:%20Contenthttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/nsta.htm#5.0%20Standards%20for%20the%20Education%20of%20Teachers%20of%20Science:%20Pedagogyhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htm


16/34

consider the connections that are not explicated in the originaldocument. This pushes the reader to understand the standards in a newway that should deepen understanding of the Complex EducationalSystem of science teacher preparation. As most educators alreadyunderstand, 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 notunderstood by their students. Science teacher candidates and newscience teachers tend to see their teacher education programs asconsisting of two main components that are weakly connected or notconnected to each other at all. The two components are sciencecoursework and education coursework (Salish, 1997, Author #1, 1998).

The ten standards described in the NSTA Standards cut across thisdivide but still stand as ten separate standards. The reformattingadvocated here ties these separate standards together in a way thatreflects the (eco-) systemic nature of science teacher preparation. This

understanding of what the National Science Foundation has calledComplex Educational Systems is fundamental to implementing the kindof reform that the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparationrequire, yet this understanding is not explicit in the presentation ofthose standards (NSF, 2000). Our intent is to make more of thoseconnections explicit.

NSF ProgramAnnouncement

for Research onLearning andEducation

(ROLE)

Two standards should stand above the others -- pedagogy and content.Good pedagogy is impossible in the absence of deep knowledge of the

subject to be taught. Similarly, strong content knowledge is of littlevalue to teachers if it exists without understandings of how to help theirstudents come to understand that content. In order to be a good scienceteacher, it is necessary to have firmly established operationalunderstandings in both pedagogy and science content. It is necessary tohave pedagogical content knowledge . The other eight standards areincluded in the tight embrace of pedagogy and content. One cannot besuccessfully exercised without successful exercise of the other. Indeed,How you teach is what you teach. (Human Rights Watch USA, 1998)

The place ofpedagogicalcontentknowledge(PCK) in theNSTA Standardsis discussed inmore detail here.

The Right to

Know Your

RightsMethodologies:

How You Teach

Is What YouTeach

As the Standards cannot be ranked in importance from 1 to 10, thepublication of this document is well suited to electronic media - CDROM and the World Wide Web. The electronic format allows agenuine cross-linking among standards that is lost when text is boundin printed pages.

The schematic below (Figure 1) shows some, though certainly not all,

Figure 1

A much moreanalyticalrationale may befound here. (Thisis the same link
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htm#Figure%201:%20Map%20of%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Educationhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0017/nsf0017.htmlhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttp://134.84.205.236/H&Npart2howteach.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htm#Figure%201:%20Map%20of%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Educationhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htm


17/34

of the important linkages among the standards. The links shownrepresent the suggestions of the authors of this paper set. Others willcertainly identify links that we did not. While this indicates ourperception of science teacher preparation, it more importantly

represents a different kind of organization of those ideas. We areprimarily making an argument for the idea of explicit identification ofthe connections among individual standards, not, for the specificconnections we have identified.

An alternative non-linear organization of many of the concepts centralto this discussion can be found in Veal and MaKinster's description oftaxonomy of pedagogical content knowledge. Their diagramaticrepresentation places PCK at the center to signify its importance (Vealand MaKinster, 1999).

Electronic publication offers a way around the problem of placing theStandards in some numeric order. Using hot-linked schematicrepresentations of the relationships among Standards, the rank orderimplied by page order in a printed and bound document can beeliminated. Figure 1 shows such a representation. In the diagram, eachof the ten standards are hyperlinked to their descriptions.

as above).

Veal and

MaKinster, 1999

A more conceptual introduction

In addition to reformatting the structure of the NSTA Standardspresentation, the Standards for Science Teacher Preparation also needsome introductory and connective text to bring the discrete Standards

into a coherent vision for science teacher preparation. There is someintroductory text included with the November, 1998 draft of theStandards, however, this introduction is largely logistical in nature andthere is a need for tying the individual standards together into a single,coherent document. The New Introduction and Map of the Standardsare an attempt to tie the Standards together into a more coherent vision.

Again, the CASE Network is to be commended for their excellent workin development of The Standards for Science Teacher Preparation.

The NovemberDraft

Proposed

Introduction to

the NSTA

Standards for

Science Teacher

Preparation

Concluding Remarks for Paper Set

The NSTA standards for science teacher preparation are described by ten broadcategories. It is necessary that new science teachers gain applicable knowledge andappreciation of each of the ten aspects of science teaching. Without competency in andsubscription to these NSTA standards, new teachers will not successfully teach allstudents for understanding and application utilizing a broad vision of science.
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htmhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.htmlhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htmhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm


18/34

Science for All is a demanding goal. Many changes are needed in the education ofscience teachers if this goal is to be achieved. These changes include requiring increasedsophistication in attitudes, professional knowledge, and skills in both teaching andinterpersonal interactions. It is essential that science educators lead others in the scienceeducation community in giving substance and positive action to this goal.

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

We believe a non-linear, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) inclusive model betterreflects the challenges and consequences involved in science teaching. The drafted, linearmodel builds on the existing bifurcation of content and pedagogy within the university

structure. Content has traditionally been taught in colleges of science while pedagogy hasbeen the focus of instruction in colleges of education. However, this structure does notrecognize the complexities of science teaching and obscures them from prospectiveteachers of science. Active learning involves confronting prospective teachers withconflicts in this bifurcation. Developing science literacy and the ability to transform thisknowledge into learning opportunities requires more than an understanding of contentand pedagogy. It requires an understanding of their intersection. Teachers prepared in asystem where the walls between content and pedagogy, and therefore the existing barriersbetween the colleges of science and education, have become permeable will be betterprepared to make informed decisions about the content and pedagogy of their scienceteaching.

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 [email protected]

Mark Enfield, 301 C Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824Michigan State University [email protected]

Scott Ashmann, 301 C Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824 Michigan State University [email protected]
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Don%20Duggan-Haasmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Mark%20Enfieldmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Scott%20Ashmannmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Don%20Duggan-Haasmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Mark%20Enfieldmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Scott%20Ashmannmailto:[email protected]


19/34

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 Associationstandards for science teacher preparation, and it focuses on the presentation of thestandards rather than the standards themselves. We primarily address the nature of thestructure and presentation of the standards and suggest that the flexibility of electronicpublishing be exploited to overcome problems associated with the ordered presentation ofthe standards used in early drafts. We feel our proposed format carries both explicit andimplicit messages that need to be conveyed to individuals associated with theseprograms. Our format places content and pedagogy in equally important positions in ascience teacher preparation program. Thus, another section of our argument addresses therole pedagogical content knowledge should play in the preparation of future scienceteachers.

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 throughoutthis article, for the structure of the article and for the electronic formatting. He wrote theIntroduction to This Paper Set and most of the text in the Proposed Introduction to theStandards.

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 finalstages of writing his dissertation as an advanced doctoral student at Michigan StateUniversity. His dissertation investigates the relationship of college science teaching andscience teacher preparation. The working title for the dissertation is Scientists are fromMars, Educators are from Venus: Relationships in the Ecology of Science Teacher

Preparation. He can be reached [email protected].

Mark Enfield
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Acknowledgementshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#About%20the%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Preparation...https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/conclude.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#Acknowledgementshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethink.htm#About%20the%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Preparation...https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/conclude.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rethinkintro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmmailto:[email protected]


20/34

Mark wrote the article on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and developed thedisaggregation ofFigure 2.

Mark Enfield is a graduate student in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy atMichigan State University. His pre dissertation work examines the challenges teachers

face, as well as the roles and purposes of whole group, sense making science discussionsin ethnically and racially diverse elementary classrooms. He anticipates continuing thisline of inquiry in his dissertation research. He can be reached at [email protected].

Scott Ashmann

Scott wrote the Rationale for the Non-Linear Presentation.

Scott Ashmann is a Ph.D. student in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy withan emphasis in science education at Michigan State University. His dissertation examinesthe 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 scienceeducation and issues surrounding the professional development of science teachers. Hecan be reached at [email protected].

Acknowledgements:

The authors are grateful for the work done by members of the CASE Network, andespecially Steve Gilbert for his perseverance in the completion of these Standards and tothe individuals who coordinated the writing of each Standard (see below). Without theirwork, 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, atMichigan State University during the Spring 1998 semester. The course that was thegenesis for this paper set. Jim also provided some text for the Proposed Introduction tothe Standards.

About the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation...

This article is a response to repeated requests for feedback on the NSTA Standards forScience Teacher Preparation. The Standards were developed by a great number ofscience 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 thatstandard. Baird's editorial offers a good description of the history of these standards. Thecurrent version of the standards can be accessed directly from Steve Gilbert's website athttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htm.

The full text of each standard is reproduced within this document. This was done to helpus make the argument for a reformatting of the Standards, not for a rewriting. We have
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/figure2.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttp://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/baird.htmlhttp://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/baird.htmlhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/PCK.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/figure2.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/rationale.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htmhttp://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/baird.htmlhttp://www.iuk.edu/faculty/sgilbert/nsta98.htm


21/34

attempted to make it clear wherever the text of other authors is reproduced. TheStandards were written under the leadership of the individuals listed below. Their work isalways shown on a light blue background.

Content Steven Gilbert [email protected]

Nature of Science Norm Lederman [email protected]

Inquiry Larry Flick [email protected]

Context of Science Jim Ellis [email protected]

Pedagogy Barbara Spector [email protected]

Science Curriculum John Staver [email protected]

Social Context Mary Atwater [email protected]

Professional Practice Ron Bonnstetter [email protected]

Learning Environments Hans Andersen [email protected]

Assessment Bill Baird [email protected]

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 isnot always the case. However, the 'back' button on your browser (or the key strokeshortcut) will return you to the appropriate text, table or diagram. In an attempt to makethe text more readable, links are placed alongside the text rather than within it. Somefeatures (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 TeacherPreparation, are in standard link format -- blue underlined text. Those to citations outsideof the paper set are in italicizedblue underlined text.
https://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/NOS.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Inquiry.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Contextofscience.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Curriculum.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/SocialContext.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/ProfessionalPractice.htmmailto:%[email protected]:%[email protected]:%[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/LearningEnvironment.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Assessment.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Science%20for%20Allhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Figure%201:%20Map%20of%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Educationhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Connections%20Among%20Standardshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Referenceshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/content.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/NOS.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Inquiry.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Contextofscience.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Pedagogy.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Curriculum.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/SocialContext.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/ProfessionalPractice.htmmailto:%[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/LearningEnvironment.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/Assessment.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Science%20for%20Allhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Figure%201:%20Map%20of%20NSTA%20Standards%20for%20Science%20Teacher%20Educationhttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#Connections%20Among%20Standardshttps://www.msu.edu/~dugganha/intro.htm#References


22/34


23/34

Relevant research should be analyzed and recommendationsfrom it made available to colleagues across the nation.

Where research is needed to fill gaps in our knowledge aboutteaching science effectively to all students, science educators,

psychologists, sociologists, scientists, and science teachersshould join forces to design, conduct, and disseminate findingsfrom their research.

Efforts need to be expanded to foster attitudes among scientists,science educators, and science teachers that scientific literacy isachievable for a broad spectrum of the population.

Scientists, science educators, and science teachers should workdiligently to develop interpersonal skills that will help to engageall students in learning science.

Science educators and science teachers should work together todevelop 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 standardsdescribed in the NSTA Standards for Science TeacherPreparation.

Science for Allmust become more than simply a slogan. It is essentialthat science educators lead others in the science education communityin giving substance and positive action to this goal. The development ofthe NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation is a step towardmeeting 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 ofexpert teachers that help us understand connections between teaching and learning. Tounderstand this idea, lets look at Ibrahima teacher who has taught his students theprocess 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?


24/34

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 thefraction. 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 and 1/3.What do we have to do first? Think for a moment, because this is important. Look at thepies that Ive drawn on the board to represent these different fractions.

Ibrahim was trying to help his student do several things in this review. First, he wantedthem to remember the names for the top and bottom number in a fractiontwo conceptthat he had already taught. When Ahmad could not answer, Ibrahim provided a promptthat helped him respond correctly. After student recalled the terms numerator anddenominator, he referred them to a problem on the board. Ibrahim illustrated the abstractproblem with a concrete example to promote their understanding of the process. Finally

he told them to pause for a momentan idea called wait-timeencouraging them totake some time to think about why changing the denominator was important.

Review, concept, prompting, concrete examples, and wait-time are all pedagogicalconcepts. As such, they are part of professional body of knowledge that help us toanalyze and understand the process of teaching. All education program is designed tohelp us understand these and many other pedagogical concepts, which will help us planand 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 widevariety of cultures, it also contains a broad spectrum of learning styles.

Global Village School is pleased to offer theA Self-PortraitTMProfilelearning styles assessmentalong with Customized Curriculum Consultations based on the profile results. It is not necessaryto enroll in Global Village to take advantage of these valuable tools.If you only wish to purchasethe profile ($30) please click here.

The traditional educational model works well for those students who like their days to bepredictable 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
http://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#profilehttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#profilehttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#profilehttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.aselfportraitonline.net/store/default.asp?promo=GVS100http://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#profilehttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.aselfportraitonline.net/store/default.asp?promo=GVS100


25/34

students - those with differing learning styles - learn best within alternative structures. Quite a fewlearn to adapt, suppressing their natural tendencies and strengths; many othersbecome labeled as behavior problems, learning disabled, lazy, etc.

There are many different styles of learning. Some of us learn best with thestereo 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?!) Somelove 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 workingon several tasks at once. Auditory learners learn best by listening; others needto "see it" or "experience it" if they are to fully understand .

And it doesnt stop in childhood: the same things apply in the work world. Some employees arehappiest and most productive when theyre right there in the middle of things, talking to everyonewho comes in the door, making sure people have what they need, etc. Other people crave peaceand quiet and flourish when allowed to work on their own without interruption. Some loveorganization and structure and do well at accounting, watching the budget, planning andscheduling, etc. Others cant stand these things and never seem to get them quite right, but arecapable of inventing programs or imagining possibilities that more organized people couldnt

conceive of.

TheA Self-PortraitTMProfileis a core part of the way we work with our students - and together asa staff - at Global Village School. The results enable us to work better as a team and help us inselecting the most appropriate courses and customizing lessons to meet students' individualneeds. Our students take theA Self-PortraitTMProfile as part of their Global Village enrollmentprocess, and sometimes parents choose to take the Profile in order to better understand theirown learning styles, which can lead to improved communication between parent and child. If youdon't wish to enroll but are interested in taking the profile you can order it at a discount throughour site (see ordering information below).

Many of our families go a step further with ourLearning Styles Curriculum Consultations, duringwhich they work with one of our consultants to create a unique curriculum plan from the ground

up.

About the profile:

TheA Self-PortraitTMProfile was created by two of our Global Village teachers, MariaemmaPelullo-Willis and Victoria Hodson, and featured in their book, Discover Your Child's LearningStyle. It has been used by tens of thousands of students, parents, teachers, and adults seeking toenhance the way they learn, work, teach and/or communicate.

The profile assesses several aspects of learning style, quickly and simply, in language that iseasily 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 asdyslexic, ADD, ADHD, learning disabled, slow, lazy, and "just average!"
http://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#orderhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.htmlhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/learning-styles.html?gclid=CJGe2_zb8KUCFQsJHAodtFjQnw#orderhttp://www.globalvillageschool.org/customized-curriculum.html


26/34


27/34

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 schoolsand some charter schools operate with different standards. For private schools and charterschools, 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 inthe subject they want to teach. Regardless of formal certification, prior teachingexperience is almost always required.

Read more: What Are the Qualifications to Become a Teacher? | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdThe qualifications needed tobecome a teacherat the school level require a basicgraduation degree in the subject one wants to teach or a diploma along with a teacherqualification course or exam as the case might be as the specific qualifications that onemay 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 atemporary basis before being confirmed for a permanent post.

To become a teacher at the college level one needs to have completed one's postgraduation studies along with passing the requisite qualification exams as the case maybe, 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 afterwhich one is confirmed as a permanent lecturer in the department; often research studentsare directly inducted as lecturers after completing theirthesis.

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 alsoequally important would be your communication skills; so vital in the teaching professionas well as your ability to get along with people and of course loads ofpatience. Oftengood teachers are those who enjoy the process of teaching and interacting with studentsand have an intuitive knowledge base of the subject that they teach.

Great AnswerReport

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 educationin America is placing highly skilled and effective teachers in all classrooms. Yet the
http://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.blurtit.com/q977876.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q140728.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q140728.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q960023.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q960023.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q835981.html#helpful_762http://www.blurtit.com/report.php?resource_type=answer&resource_id=762http://www.blurtit.com/who.php?username=mahendrahttp://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/10/teachers.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/10/teachers.htmlhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.ehow.com/about_4595768_what-qualifications-become-teacher.html#ixzz18H9lMLpdhttp://www.blurtit.com/q977876.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q140728.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q960023.htmlhttp://www.blurtit.com/q835981.html#helpful_762http://www.blurtit.com/report.php?resource_type=answer&resource_id=762http://www.blurtit.com/who.php?username=mahendrahttp://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/10/teachers.html


28/34

nation still lacks a practical set of standards and assessments that can guarantee thatteachers, particularly new teachers, are well prepared and ready to teach.

This report discusses a promising approach to the question of how to measure teachereffectiveness. Specifically, it describes the ways in which assessments of teacher

performance for licensing and certification can both reflect and predict teachers successwith children so that they can not only inform personnel decisions, but also leverageimprovements in preparation, mentoring, and professional development. It outlinesprogress in the field of teacher assessment development and discusses policies that couldcreate much greater leverage on the quality of teacher preparation and teaching than haspreviously existed in the United States.

For more than two decades, policymakers have undertaken many and varied reforms toimprove schools, ranging from new standards and tests to redesigned schools, newcurricula and new governance models. One important lesson from these efforts is therepeated finding that teachers are the fulcrum determining whether any school initiative

tips toward success or failure. Every aspect of school reform depends on highly skilledteachers for its success. This is especially true as educational standards rise and thediversity of the student body increases. Teachers need even more sophisticated abilities toteach more complex curriculum to the growing number of public school students whohave 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 thegeneral public today is that improving teacher quality is one of the most direct andpromising 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 arecent large-scale study in North Carolina, which found that the differences inachievement gains for students who had the most qualified teachers versus those who hadthe least qualified were greater than the influences of race and parent educationcombined. These very large differences were associated with teachers initial preparationfor teaching, licensing in the field taught, strength of academic background, level ofexperience, and demonstration of skills through National Board Certification, all ofwhich are variables that could be directly addressed through policy.

Unlike most high-achieving nations, however, the United States has not yet developed anational system of supports and incentives to ensure that all teachers are well preparedand ready to teach all students effectively when they enter the profession. Nor is there aset of widely available methods to support the evaluation and ongoing development ofteacher effectiveness throughout the career, along with decisions about entry andcontinuation in the profession. Meeting the expectation that all students will learn to highstandards will require a transformation in the ways in which our education systemattracts, prepares, supports, and develops expert teachers who can teach in more powerfulwaysa transformation that depends in part on the ways in which these abilities areunderstood and assessed.


29/34

In recent years, there has been growing interest in moving beyond traditional measures ofteacher 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 formaking decisions about hiring, tenure, licensing, compensation, and selection forleadership 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 fordefining and measuring teacher quality either rely almost exclusively on classroomobservations by principals who differentiate little among teachers and offer little usefulfeedback, or focus on teachers course-taking records and on paper-and-pencil tests ofbasic academic skills and subject matter knowledge that are poor predictors of latereffectiveness 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 ofteachers as highly qualified to an assessment of teachers as highly effective based onstudent learning evidence. Other recent federal proposalsfor example, the Teacher

Excellence for All Children Acthave suggested incentivepay to attract effectiveteachers to high-need schools and to pay them additional stipends to serve as mentors ormaster teachers. The questions are now squarely on the table: How should we measureteacher effectiveness? And how can we develop more effective teachers much moreconsistently, rather than leaving teacher effectiveness to chance?

This report describes progress currently underway to achieve a system of reliable, valid,and nationally available performance assessmentsfrom a teachers point of entrythrough the development of accomplished teaching. Such a system would create a moreuseful and more common standard for the profession, just as national assessments do infields such as nursing, engineering, accounting, medicine, and other skilled professions.

A system of performance assessments could also leverage improvements in practice andprofessional learning opportunities.

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

In addition, most states now recognize the National Board Certification program, whichidentifies veteran accomplished teachers who are more effective in developing studentlearning. The best practices from these initiatives can support a continuum across theteaching career for identifying and supporting stronger teaching and making moregrounded personnel decisions based on a common, comprehensive set of standards thatcan be adopted nationwide to ensure that only the most well-prepared and effectiveteachers are instructing our public schools students. In addition to raising the bar forteacher preparation and professional development, nationally available performanceassessments at the points of the initial license, the professional licenseusually aboutthree years into the profession, just prior to tenure and advanced certification couldreflect the greater commonality in student expectations reflected in the so-called


30/34

Common Core standards already adopted in more than 30 states. Such a system couldalso solve some of the problems created by the current Byzantine set of differentlicensing requirements across the 50 states and help create a national teacher labor marketthat supports mobility from states with surpluses to those with shortages while enhancingteacher quality.

A reliable and valid system of performance assessments based on common standardswould provide consistency in gauging teacher effectiveness, help track educationalprogress, flag areas of need, and anchor a continuum of performance throughout ateaching career. Such a system could also be used to establish standards for a NationalTeacher License that would allow mobility across states, ensure school districts that anew hire meets the requirements necessary to become an effective teacher who canadvance student learning, and enable districts to identify and recruit the most ableteachers 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:ArchivedIssue:Jun 1995

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is receiving praisefrom teachers and education experts for its efforts to establish a performance-basedteacher certification process, but it also faces financial overruns that are hamperingprogress. The NBPTS experience provides a useful model for the potential and problemsof establishing authentic assessment systems.

NBPTS, a 63-member non-profit group, was formed in 1987 to set standards for whatteachers 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 gradelevel/content areas (such as Early Childhood/Generalist) will eventually be available,each based on extensive, specialized standards. NBPTS stresses five propositions thatunderlie 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;
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf


31/34

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

Candidates first spend several months compiling a portfolio that may include lessonplans, student work with comments, interpretive case studies and videotapes of classroom

interactions. Next, they spend two days at an NBPTS assessment center participating instructured interviews, discussions, and paper-and-pencil exams of content knowledge.Teachers say they find the requirements rigorous and time-consuming, but helpful forself-analysis. One of NBPTS's purposes is to increase public regard for teaching, anotheris to improve it from within.

NBPTS standards of excellence in each teacher certification area include outlines forappropriate assessment practice. For instance, the Early Adolescence/English LanguageArts assessment standard encourages teachers to use a range of formal and informal

methods to monitor student progress, plan instruction, promote student self-assessmentand report to various audiences. It reads, in part:

. . . To the degree [accomplished] teachers control such decisions, they chooseassessment instruments that align with the overarching goals of the curriculum, notstandardized tests . . . [They] know that portfolios can be an effective source for gaugingstudent language growth provided they are authentic records of the natural pulse ofclassroom 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 andthe Board. The teacher application fee, for example, is $2,000, raised this year from thealready steep price of $975. However, many states and districts have extensivereimbursement and incentive programs already in place to defray that cost and support


32/34

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, theymust be further reduced if NBPTS is to survive.

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

To economize, some officials suggest inviting only teachers with passing portfolios to the2-day site visit, or cutting the visit to one day. NBPTS has also convened a rethinkingtask force to devise strategies for maintaining reliable, high-quality assessments, but witha more feasible fiscal structure. Meanwhile, NBPTS was recently forced to cancel threedevelopment contracts, and although initial plans slated nine categories of certificates tobe 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 EarlyAdolescence Generalists who applied. Ninety of 230 Early Adolescence EnglishLanguage Arts candidates were certified in August. Though the initial certificationprocess is promising in many ways, research is still needed on the assessment s equity,accuracy and utility.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 300 Ri

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maritess-cawili-dayrit
View:	229 times
Download:	0 times

Philippine Education History

Documents