ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS TO TEACHING: QUALITY TEACHERS VERSUS WARM BODIES IN CLASSROOMS

FOUAD ABD-EL-KHALICKUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820

fouad@uiuc.edu

RECRUIT is an experimental alternative teacher certification program that aims to increase the number of secondary science and mathematics teachers from underrepresented populations in the profession. RECRUIT aims to achieve this end through fostering an alternative pathway to teaching that does not compromise the quality of preparing its participants. This paper explores RECRUIT’s theoretical framework and the approach undertaken to achieve its goals, which emphasizes: extensive collaboration between education and STEM faculty, and school personnel; a support community aimed at providing a seamless transition from teacher preparation into teaching; an extended induction, support, and professional development period that extends beyond initial coursework and training; and advanced coursework that is pursued after participants have had an extended teaching experience, with the aim of helping them address advanced instructional outcomes, such as higher order and critical thinking skills, inquiry, and nature of science and mathematics.

Objectives of RECRUIT

Recruiting, Educating, Certifying, and Retaining Underrepresented populations In Teaching science and mathematics (RECRUIT) is an NSF-funded experimental alternative secondary science and mathematics teacher certification program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). RECRUIT aims to achieve three major goals. The first is to create a venue to recruit and prepare qualified science and mathematics teachers from populations that are currently underrepresented in the teaching profession, including recent science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates, and mid-career minorities, scientists, mathematicians, and industry personnel contemplating a shift into pre-college teaching. The second goal is to develop an exemplary science and mathematics teacher preparation program that: (a) features close collaboration between education faculty, STEM faculty, and school personnel toward the preparation of reform-minded reflective teachers; (b) initiates and sustains a support community comprising prospective teachers, veteran mentor teachers, and education and STEM faculty; (c) provides an extended induction, support, and professional development period that extends beyond initial coursework and training; and (d) aims to provide a seamless transition from teacher preparation into teaching and increase the retention rate of program participants. Third, RECRUIT aims to contribute through an intensive research component to our knowledge base on: (a) the development of science and mathematics teachers’ cognition, and subject matter, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge, (b) creating and sustaining communities to support and facilitate the professional growth of teachers, and (c) the development of effective models for collaboration between education and STEM faculty, and school personnel through investigating the disciplinary and professional commitments and barriers that often impede such collaboration.

1

Background and Rationale

Science and Mathematics Education: Aspirations and Realties

We live in an increasingly scientific and technology-laden world. Science and technology permeate almost every facet of our lives at the personal, social, economic, and cultural levels (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Educating students—our future citizens, in science, mathematics, and technology is crucial for the well being of our nation and its people in, at least, three major ways: (a) insuring our economic competitiveness in an increasingly interdependent global economy that emphasizes science, mathematics, and technology-related understandings and skills, (b) empowering our citizens to make informed decisions as regards science and technology-related personal and societal issues, and (c) enabling our people to experience the profound intrinsic value of understanding, and participating in the production of, scientific and mathematical knowledge that has shaped and continues to shape our life, history, and culture (AAAS, 1990, 1993; NRC, 1996).

Yet, as the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century [NCMST] (2000) firmly indicated “the current preparation that students in the United States receive in mathematics and science is, in a word, unacceptable” (p. 7). Dissatisfaction with the current state of K-12 science and mathematics education largely hinges on the consistently dismal performance of our students on national and international measures and comparisons, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In educational circles, however, such dissatisfaction preceded the publication and publicity of the aforementioned reports on performance indicators. As early as the mid 1980s, professional organizations, such as the AAAS (1989), National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1982), and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1989), have voiced concerns regarding the ways in which science and mathematics were being taught in pre-college classrooms. For example, more than a decade ago, AAAS (1990) noted that the methods of teaching K-12 science “emphasize the learning of answers more than the exploration of questions, memory at the expense of critical thought, bits and pieces of information instead of understandings in context, recitation over argument, [and] reading in lieu of doing” (p. xvi). These organizations have since put forward a number of documents articulating the priorities and agendas for reforming pre-college science and mathematics education at the curricular, pedagogical, instructional, professional, and institutional levels (e.g., AAAS, 1993, 1997, 2001; NCTM, 1991, 2000; NRC, 1996, 2000, 2001). Among these priorities is the preparation of qualified science and mathematics teachers who are capable of: (a) addressing the needs of an increasingly diverse student population, (b) developing curricular materials that focus on depth of exploration and conceptual understanding rather than breadth of coverage and route memorization, (c) building and maintaining active, student-centered learning environments that are conducive to inquiry, meaningful construction of knowledge, and development of critical and higher order thinking skills and habits of mind, and (d) engaging in self-critique, reflection, and lifelong learning at the personal and professional levels. Obviously, the preparation of teachers capable of enacting the reforms vision for pre-college science and mathematics teaching necessitates a new breed of teacher preparation programs: RECRUIT is

2

meant to be one such program. RECRUIT is an experimental endeavor that aims to help us understand and develop the sort of teacher preparation programs that are responsive to the priorities set forth in the above mentioned national reform documents.

The Problem: Shortages of Qualified Science and Mathematics Teachers

Educational problems are often too complex to be attributed to a single factor or a small number of factors (Ingersoll, 1999). Yet, it is fairly accurate to maintain that “the most direct route to improving mathematics and science achievement for all students is better mathematics and science teaching” (NCMST, 2000, p. 7). “Better” teachers are central to better teaching: Evidence strongly indicates that student learning is affected by the qualifications of teachers (AAAS, 1990; Darling-Hammond & Hudson, 1990; Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, 1986; Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994; NRC, 1996, 2000; Shavelson, McDonnell, & Oakes, 1989). Indeed, “the most consistent and powerful predictors of student achievement in mathematics and science are full teaching certification and a college major in the field being taught” (NCMST, 2000, p. 7). Research has shown that teachers holding teaching certificates in specific subject areas—“in-field” teachers, are more effective in impacting student learning and achievement than “out-of-field” teachers (Druva & Anderson, 1983; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Fetler, 1999; Ingersoll, 1999; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).

Presently, however, there is a severe shortage of qualified science and mathematics teachers. In a recent survey, the NSTA (2000) reported that 48% and 61% of all responding middle and high schools reported difficulty in finding qualified science teachers respectively. Nationwide, about one-third of all secondary school mathematics teachers are not certified to teach mathematics, or do not have a major or a minor in mathematics, mathematics education, or related disciplines like engineering or physics. Similarly, about one-fifth of all secondary school science teachers are out-of-field teachers. In particular, 33.1% of life science and 56.5% of physical science high school teachers are not certified to teach science (Ingersoll, 1999).

Teacher shortages are more pronounced in the case of urban and rural communities. The magnitude of the problem in urban settings is reflected in data reported by the Urban Teacher Collaborative (UTC) (2000) representing about 40 major city school districts, including Chicago Public Schools. The Great City School Districts, which serve about 50% of the students who are not proficient in English, about 50% of minority students, and 40% of the nation’s low income students, are experiencing “real teacher shortages in specific subject fields, across grade levels, and in the ranks of minority teachers. Shortages are most severe in special education, science, and mathematics” (UTC, 2000, p. 19). In a survey conducted by the UTC, 97.5% and 95% of the responding districts indicated an immediate need for qualified science and mathematics teachers respectively. Moreover, 75% of the responding districts indicated an immediate need for teachers of color. Similar patterns and trends are evident in rural areas where demand for science and mathematics teachers is almost always catalogued under the “considerable shortage” category and comes second only to special education (American Association for Employment in Education, 1999). Rural Illinois is no exception: More than 78% of rural districts in Illinois indicated major shortages in, and an immediate need for, qualified science and mathematics teachers (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001). What is more, teacher shortages are not likely to diminish any time soon (UTC, 2000). The NCMST (2000) anticipates

3

an increase in these shortages due to massive reshuffling in the current teaching force through fast approaching retirements, and attrition and job changes, and estimates that 240,000 middle and high school science and mathematics teachers will be needed over the next 10 years.

Addressing Teacher Shortages: The Issue of Quality

In their attempts to meet the demand for science and mathematics teachers, school districts have resorted to a range of recruitment and retention strategies. In its survey of the Great City School Districts recruitment strategies, the UTC (2000) reported that 65% of the responding districts offered alternative routes to certification, sponsored job fairs, and/or offered on the spot contracts. What is noteworthy is that 82.5% of the surveyed districts allowed non-credentialed teachers to teach under some form of emergency permit, long-term teacher substitutes, or certification waivers. Retention strategies in these districts ranged from offering induction programs (67.5%), to tuition assistance for graduate coursework (25%), to bonuses for enhanced student achievement (7.5%) (UTC, 2000).

Of the strategies intended to address teacher shortages, “alternative” pathways to certification and teaching are of special interest for purposes of the presently proposed program. These “alternative” pathways or certification programs are often contrasted with “traditional” teacher preparation programs, which typically entail having or earning a major in the target content area, completing substantial coursework in education, and going through some form of supervised student teaching experience. However, the forms that alternative certification programs have come to assume are disconcerting, to say the least. By and large, granted some exceptions, such programs have come to mean that “college graduates can postpone formal education training, obtain an emergency teaching certificate, and begin teaching immediately” (Ingersoll, 1999, p. 26). A growing number of states, such as Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and cities, such as Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and New York City, are short circuiting well-thought-out, evidence-based practices undertaken in traditional teacher preparation programs and offering crash courses that put new teachers in classrooms after as little as three weeks of training (Zernike, 2000) and in some cases individuals are given teaching assignments with hardly any preparation at all (Goodnough, 2000).

“Boot camp” type alternative certification programs might go some way in putting more teachers in K-12 science and mathematics classrooms. Such measures, however, do not even begin to address the problem, because it is not only a problem of “quantity.” It is, to a significant extent, a problem of “quality” as well. We should not limit ourselves to asking how many more teachers are we able to put in classrooms. We should be equally concerned with asking questions of the qualifications of these new teachers. Major reform documents in pre-college science and mathematics education (e.g., AAAS, 1990, 1993, 2001; NCTM, 1991, 2000; NRC, 1996, 2000) articulate images of teaching that place great demands on teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Teachers are expected to develop curricula, plan student-centered units and lessons, and orchestrate instruction that would: (a) foster equity and excellence for all students irrespective of their age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, aspirations, disabilities, or interest and motivation in science and mathematics, (b) actively engage students in extended inquiries to help them build deep conceptual understandings of key concepts and theories in physical, life, and mathematical sciences, (c) help students understand the nature of science,

4

mathematics, and technology, and their interactions with the social, economic, and cultural spheres, and (d) provide students with opportunities to develop attitudes, values, skills, and habits of mind, such as decision-making and higher order and critical thinking skills, that would enable them to engage in lifelong learning.

The conceptual framework for RECRUIT. In light of the above, conceptions (or perceptions) of alternative pathways to certification and teaching—as uncharted routes to placing the largest possible number of teachers in classrooms in the shortest possible spans of time, need rethinking. Taking into account the realties and urgency of science and mathematics teacher shortages and the primacy of preparing qualified teachers, we adopt a framework for thinking about alternative certification programs in general, and RECRUIT in particular, that comprises four elements (see NRC 1996, 2000):

1. Preparing qualified teachers as a foremost priority.

2. Relying on the extensive research literature on teacher education.

3. Targeting pools of potential teacher candidates who are underrepresented in the profession and not served by traditional teacher preparation programs.

4. Placing teachers in classrooms in spans of time that are relatively shorter than those mandated by traditional programs.

This latter notion of “relativity” is crucial to this framework, because it binds thinking about alternative certification programs to the locales and contexts in which they are undertaken. In other words, judgments regarding the extent to which RECRUIT is considered to be “alternative” should be made in relation to the teacher preparation venues currently available at UIUC and the populations that are currently served (or underserved) by these venues.

Extant teacher preparation venues at UIUC. Currently, the College of Education at UIUC offers combined undergraduate, and graduate “master plus certification” and “master of education” teacher preparation programs. To be able to earn their certification by the time they complete their bachelor degrees, undergraduates need to decide early in their education whether they want to pursue teaching as a career. The program’s two-year span and structure are determined to a large extent by the fact that the undergraduate teacher candidates—who represent the larger majority of the program participants, are literally shared between the College of Liberal Arts and Science and College of Education. Given that the undergraduate and graduate certification courses and requirements (e.g., student teaching) are not differentiated, those who decide late in their undergraduate or graduate careers or after obtaining a bachelor’s or advanced degree to become teachers, and those contemplating a career move into pre-college science or mathematics teaching, have to make a two-year commitment to earn their teaching certificate despite of the fact that they already have the necessary content knowledge credentials needed for certification. During these two years, the graduate teacher candidates complete a mere 22 credit hours of coursework and eight hours of student teaching toward their certification. Additionally, they complete 14 credit hours of coursework toward their master of education. And even though these latter teacher candidates earn a master of education with their teaching certificate, the time

5

and financial commitments required by the extant program structure might—and actually do, discourage many of them from pursuing teaching as a career. These potential teachers’ disappointment and frustrations are often communicated to their STEM advisors, several of whom are collaborators on this proposal.

Simply put, the extant science and mathematics teacher preparation program at UIUC is largely geared toward serving the needs of undergraduates who know that they want to become teachers pretty early in their studies (within the first two semester after joining UIUC), to the deterrence of recent and advanced STEM graduates and other professionals from pursuing pre-college teaching careers. RECRUIT aims to meet the needs of this latter population of teacher candidates by putting them in classrooms in a relatively shorter period of time, and providing them with the support needed to ensure a successful transition from their being prospective to practicing teachers. RECRUIT aims to achieve these goals without compromising the quality of the preparation of these prospective teachers. Through close collaboration between the Colleges of Education, Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Engineering, and urban and rural school districts, RECRUIT will provide a more attractive venue for recruiting and educating science and mathematics teachers from among recent, advanced, and mid-career STEM graduates. Moreover, RECRUIT will allow developing and refining a teacher preparation model that could be used in other institutions of higher education with similar issue both in the state of Illinois and nationwide. Both in its immediate and long term capacities, RECRUIT will contribute to bringing into pre-college science and mathematics teaching qualified individuals who otherwise would have pursued other less-quality-venues to earn certification, short-circuited teacher preparation or certification, or abandoned pursuing teaching careers altogether.

The Role of Institutions of Higher Education in Addressing Teacher Shortages

To be sure, institutions of higher education are taking part in the efforts undertaken to address science and mathematics teacher shortages. For instance, the UTC (2000) indicated that many colleges of education offer alternative certification and internship programs, and respond to the need for the continuing education of teachers through flexible scheduling of courses. Moreover, many colleges of education offer incentives to attract teacher candidates, such as career counseling and credit for work or life experience, while others actively recruit and support teacher candidates from ethnic and racial minorities.

Yet, what is needed is a new breed of teacher preparation programs that aim to increase the number of science and mathematics teachers and significantly improve the quality of their preparation (NCSMT, 2000; NRC, 2000). RECRUIT takes this objective to heart by incorporating several key recommendations on the nature of desired science and mathematics teacher preparation programs and the associated role of institutions of higher education put forth in documents such as Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium (NRC, 2000) and Before It’s Too Late (NCSMT, 2000). In particular, RECRUIT incorporates or is consistent with the following recommended elements or imperatives:

1. Preparing qualified teachers who are able to actualize the reforms vision for pre-college science and mathematics education.

6

2. Designing programs that encourage individuals who are underrepresented in the profession to pursue careers in science and mathematics teaching.

3. Ensuring close collaboration between institutions of higher education and school districts to establish systems for recruiting individuals interested in becoming science and mathematics teachers, and develop and provide quality internships and induction processes for these new teachers.

4. Involving STEM departments and faculty in teacher preparation through offering courses that provide prospective teachers with deep understandings of content and that model desired pedagogical approaches for teaching that content.

5. Developing and conducting research studies with a focus on enhancing our understanding of, and improving, teacher preparation and professional development for teachers.

6. Providing guidance and support for novice teachers beyond the boundaries of traditional teacher preparation programs to ensure a successful and seamless transition from college preparation for teaching to a career in teaching.

7. Tracking and assessing teacher performance following the completion of their education for the purpose of improving science and mathematics teacher preparation programs.

Philosophy of RECRUIT: Knowledge Base for Effective Teaching

RECRUIT aims to help prospective teachers develop and refine knowledge and understandings needed for “effective” science and mathematics teaching. Generally, mastery of two components is deemed necessary for effective teaching of a certain content area. The first is content knowledge, which comprises knowledge of the substantive and syntactic structures of a discipline (Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989). Substantive knowledge refers to knowledge of the global structures or principles of conceptual organization of a discipline. It includes knowledge of facts, concepts, principles, and theories within a content area, and knowledge of the relationships between these components. Syntactic knowledge refers to knowledge of the principles of inquiry and values inherent to the field, and of the methods with which new ideas are added and deficient ones are replaced by those who produce knowledge in that field. In the case of science and mathematics, this latter component would correspond to knowledge of various aspects of the nature of science and mathematics respectively. Research has shown that teacher candidates leave disciplinary college science and mathematics courses with limited substantive and syntactic knowledge of their disciplines (Gess-Newsome, 1999; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Grossman et al., 1989; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994; Lederman & Latz, 1995). However, research also indicates that providing prospective teachers with structured opportunities to examine their tacit disciplinary knowledge for teaching purposes can help them develop deeper and more integrated understandings of the structure and function of that knowledge (Morine-Dershimer & Kent, 1999). The second component needed for effective teaching is knowledge of pedagogy. This component refers to knowledge of generic pedagogical principles, the characteristics of learners, and classroom management skills. However, a third

7

component has been gaining increased recognition as pivotal to effective teaching. This component is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (NRC, 1996, 2000; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987).

Pedagogical content knowledge. PCK is “the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of the learners, and presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8) (see Figure 1). PCK includes the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area and the alternative and useful ways of representing those topics to make them accessible and understandable to students. These alternative representations include analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations (Shulman, 1986).

PCK cannot be taught. It rather develops as teachers actively engage in cycles of teaching and reflection (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJouade, 1997). The components of these cycles are: comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, and reflection (Shulman, 1987). To begin teaching, teachers need to comprehend how the ideas within their discipline are interrelated and connected, what is to be taught and how to teach it, and the aims and purposes of teaching. Teachers should also be able to transform their understanding of subject matter into forms that are attainable by students and that are simultaneously pedagogically powerful. Instruction follows comprehension and transformation of content. Instructional methods are directly related to, and influenced by, teachers’ personal understanding of subject matter. Evaluation of student learning follows instruction and requires a firm grasp of content. However, unless followed with critical reflection, the act of teaching itself is not sufficient for the development of PCK. Moreover, critical reflection is not a disposition, nor is it a set of strategies. Reflection requires content-specific analytical knowledge. Coupled with reflection, the teaching process ends by reaching a new comprehension. A new cycle of teaching then commences at a higher level of understanding of content, learners, and teaching and learning processes (Shulman, 1987; Wilson et al., 1987).

It follows that helping prospective teachers develop PCK might be difficult to achieve in the confines of traditional teacher preparation programs, where they either engage in contrived teaching situations (e.g., peer micro-teaching) or teach for rather limited periods of time while negotiating a host of limitations set by their student teaching placement, cooperating school, or cooperating teacher (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1999). By comparison, RECRUIT places prospective teachers in “real” teaching situations for a significant period of time and provides them with structured opportunities to reflect on their content knowledge and teaching practices through continued interactions with colleagues, mentor teachers, and STEM and education faculty, with the aim of helping them develop their PCK. Figure 1 illustrates the domains of teachers’ PCK and elements of RECRUIT that are designed to contribute to the development of the program participants’ PCK. The connections shown in Figure 1 are meant to represent the major contributions of the program elements to the growth of participants’ knowledge base for teaching. Several other connections could easily be charted, but are not shown here for purposes of insuring clarity of the graphical representation. Each of the program elements and its contribution to the development and professional growth of RECRUIT participants is further described in the following section.

8

BS Degree in Content Area

Teaching in Innovative STEM Courses

Pedagogical Coursework

Teaching in Partner Schools

Content/Pedagogy Seminar

Mentoring and Support

Content Coursework

Content Knowledge

Pedagogical Knowledge

Teaching & Reflection Cycles

PCK

Figure 1. Sources and development of participants’ PCK.

Structure, Timeline, and Activities of RECRUIT

The structure of RECRUIT is schematically presented in Figure 2. The program comprises a two-semester residency at UIUC to complete basic educational coursework leading to “initial certification.” This residency is followed by a two-year induction period in which novice teachers assume full-time teaching positions in partner urban and rural school districts. During these induction years, novice teachers will complete a set of required content and educational courses leading to “full certification.”

Recruiting and Admitting Participants

RECRUIT will work with two cohorts. Each cohort will comprise 15 secondary science and mathematics school teacher candidates. (Secondary here refers to both middle and high school grade levels.) All collaborators will participate in advertising, recruiting, and advising for the program. For example, STEM faculty will bring the program to the attention of their advisees, and graduating or graduate students. Collaborating school districts will advertise the program and nominate qualified candidates from the community. Education faculty will work with relevant programs and associations to disseminate information about RECRUIT among minority candidates. As detailed below, RECRUIT has several appealing incentives for teacher candidates: (a) An assistantship will cover participants’ tuition fees and provide them with a

9

stipend during their first-year in the program, (b) participants will be guaranteed full-time teaching positions (earning full salaries) during the induction years in the program, and (c) participants will have available them a support community to facilitate their transition from teacher candidates into a career in teaching. Criteria for applying to the program include an earned Bachelor of Science, Mathematics, or Engineering and passing subject matter certification tests mandated by the state of Illinois. Interested candidates will apply for a competitive selection process.

Timeline and Activities

Residency at UIUC. RECRUIT participants will join the program in Fall term for a two-semester residency at the College of Education, UIUC. During this residency participants will complete a set of basic educational coursework leading to “initial certification” (e.g., methods courses, and courses on classroom management, assessment, adolescent psychology, educational technology, and school organization and leadership). Moreover, participants will be provided Teaching Assistantships (TAs) in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences or the College of Engineering, UIUC. Specifically, participants will TA in innovative science, mathematics or engineering courses taught by the collaborating STEM faculty.

Cohort II

Recruitment; basic pedagogical & instructional

coursework

First year teaching (0.75 appointment)

& in-service training

Second year teaching (0.75 appointment)

Full time teaching (in collaborating or

other schools); Cohort I serves as vehicle for scaling

the program

Seminars & advanced

educational coursework

Cohort I

College of Education

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Collaborating school

districts

College of Education

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Collaborating school

districts

Content courses

Initialcertification

Seminars & advanced

courseworkContent courses

Fullcertification

Recruitment; basic pedagogical & instructional (revamped) coursework

Seminars & advanced

courseweok

Seminars & advanced

courseweok

Content courses

Content courses

First year teaching (.75 appointment)

Second year teaching (.75 appointment)

I

(2002)

Year

II

(2003)

III

(2004)

IV

(2005)

SupportNetworks

Recruitment;collaborating

faculty develop content courses

Preparing for placements /

teaching positions

Planning for placement/

teaching positionsRecruitment;

revamping courses

Follow-up on Cohort I

Feedback used to revamp courses

Figure 2. Structure, timeline, and activities of RECRUIT

10

These TA-ships are intended to: (a) Provide participants with opportunities to experience college-level science or mathematics courses that model non-traditional and innovative instructional approaches (e.g., active student-centered learning environments), and (b) provide a context for participants to start examining their own knowledge of science and mathematics content as they struggle with planning to orchestrate engaging laboratory, discussion, and problem-solving sessions. During this first year, participants’ conceptions (and misconceptions) of teaching and content will be challenged. Moreover, opportunities to internalize, apply, and assess the fruitfulness of alternative and more accurate ideas and conceptions about teaching and science and mathematics content will be furnished. As a result of this first year’s experiences, participants will develop the basic understandings and skills needed to take up the challenge of planning and teaching meaningful science and mathematics lessons in a “real” school setting. Unlike the case with traditional certification programs, this basic coursework will be followed by a two-year induction period in which novice teachers assume full-time teaching positions in partner urban and rural school districts.

The induction period. The ideas of induction and initial and full certification are not new or unique to RECRUIT. Several teacher preparation programs require teacher candidates to complete a set of courses beyond their initial certification coursework in order to earn full certification. However, the rationale, structure, and associated activities of the induction period in RECRUIT are unique. To start with, the induction period spans two-years and features extensive support to participants. Support is provided in three major ways:

1. Participants will work with veteran mentor teachers who are part, and share the vision, of the program personnel and who are compensated by RECRUIT to devote time and attention to their mentees.

2. Participants will have both formal and informal venues (detailed in the following paragraphs) to access and interact with a support community/network comprising their colleagues, mentor teachers, and RECRUIT education and STEM faculty. Additionally, an examination of Figure 2 indicates that the second cohort of participants will also have available to them the first cohort participants as part of this support community.

The induction period and associated support activities aim to achieve two major goals:

1. Insuring the smooth transition of the program participants from teacher preparation into teaching for the purpose of increasing their rate of retention in the profession: Research indicates that the first two years are crucial years in terms of teacher retention. The likelihood of teachers exiting the profession within the first two years is significantly greater than that for those who make it through this “barrier” (Gold, 1996; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996), hence, the two-year span of the induction period. Support during the induction period will be provided in, at least, two ways:

(a) A formal venue, which takes the form of a continuous biweekly content/pedagogy seminar. Before coming to the seminar, participant teachers will post in a web-board medium their questions and concerns related to content, instruction, school-life, classroom management,

11

etc. RECRUIT personnel will sort the questions into a set of themes or categories and forward them to education and STEM faculty who will prepare discussions and activities to address these questions. During the seminar, RECRUIT participants and personnel will share and discuss the target issues in order to provide participants with opportunities to engage in self-reflection and critique, followed by plans for action, whose impact could be assessed in future seminars. The seminar will promote intertwined thinking about subject matter and pedagogy in the context of actual teaching and learning episodes. It could be seen that this seminar provides a problem-posing and problem-solving forum for RECRUIT participants and personnel and aims to foster professional growth for all concerned parties. In this regard, it should be noted that RECRUIT presents a unique opportunity for education and STEM faculty, and school personnel to become aware of each other’s needs and concerns in the context of educating future teachers. In a sense, RECRUIT is as much about building bridges between education and STEM faculty, and between the university and school districts for the purpose of enhancing teacher preparation as it is an alternative certification program.

(b) An informal venue that includes spontaneous teacher-generated communications to RECRUIT personnel with questions about the different facets of teaching. Here it should be pointed that participant schools will be provided with fast Internet connection capabilities for the purposes of creating and sustaining this semi-electronic support community.

2. Getting participants to address advanced issues and topics in their instructional practice, such as higher order and critical thinking skills, equity issues, meeting the needs of diverse students, inquiry-based teaching and learning, and the nature of science and mathematics. These issues and topics, it should be noted, are emphasized in national reform documents in science and mathematics education (e.g., AAAS, 1990, 1993, 2001; NCTM, 1991, 2000; NRC, 1996, 2000, 2001). Research indicates that, in terms of getting novice teachers to actually address advanced topics or engage more demanding teaching approaches, it might be more fruitful to approach such issues and topics after preservice teachers have been in “real” classrooms for a significant period of time. During teacher preparation, preservice teachers have yet to acquire an experiential context (i.e., experience with “real” students in “real” classroom settings) to allow them to focus on, or relate to, most of these advanced issues, let alone thinking about addressing them in their future classrooms. Moreover, during their first few months or even first year of teaching, novice teachers are often preoccupied with “survival” issues, such as prepping for classes, classroom management, and dealing with the day-to-day chores of school life (Chubbuck, Clift, Allard, & Quinlan, J., in press; Gold, 1996; Veenman, 1984). Advanced topics and issues are often pushed to the background as novice teachers are being initiated into a traditional culture of school practices; the very practices that the reforms are aiming to change. After having established themselves in the classroom and having developed an experience-based context, RECRUIT participants will enroll in campus-based content courses and education courses that address more advanced issues and topics. Examples of the latter include courses on inquiry-based science and mathematics teaching, constructivism, educational technology, reflective teaching, diversity and equity issues, and nature of science and mathematics. Participants’ immediate concerns related to teaching in urban and rural settings also could become a focal point for these courses. Moreover, these courses could involve a strong action research component in which participants enact, assess, and improve on various innovative instructional methods and approaches.

12

Involvement of STEM Faculty

Collaborating STEM faculty will be organically involved in the program in, at least, five major ways:

1. Recruitment: STEM faculty could serve a crucial rule in discussing career opportunities in education with their students or informing their advisees about RECRUIT.

2. Mentoring RECRUIT participants during their TA-ship in the collaborating STEM faculty innovative science, mathematics, and engineering courses. Such mentoring will provide participants with an opportunity to develop deeper, more accurate understandings of their disciplinary content knowledge.

3. Active participation in the ongoing content/pedagogy seminar detailed above.

4. In their capacity as members of the support community/network, STEM faculty could act as resource personnel for prospective teachers on ways to present and represent abstract or complex science and mathematics concepts in order to make them accessible and understandable to pre-college students.

5. Another major contribution of STEM faculty to the program is developing and offering courses (e.g., disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses) or experiences (e.g., internships) to help program participants develop deeper and more integrated understandings of their science and mathematics content. These courses will also help prospective teachers develop an understanding of the processes and ways of thinking (as compared only to the knowledge base) of their disciplines, which is crucial to enabling them to engage pre-college students in authentic science and mathematics learning experiences (such as inquiry learning, extended investigations, or problem and project-based instructional activities). Moreover, these courses would be aligned with the philosophy of RECRUIT by featuring instruction that models the sort of active student-centered instruction sought in pre-college science and mathematics classrooms. In a nutshell, these content courses will allow program participants to experience the sort of science and mathematics learning environments that they are expected to foster in their future classrooms.

Involvement of School Personnel

Collaborating administrators will guarantee and facilitate the hiring of RECRUIT participants to assume full-time teaching positions in their respective districts. Veteran science and mathematics teachers from the participant districts will mentor RECRUIT participants and supervise their teaching on-site. Moreover, these mentor teachers will actively participate in the ongoing content/pedagogy seminar and contribute their perspectives and expertise to the preparation and professional development of RECRUIT participants.

The Two-Cohort Structure: A Built-In Feedback and Improvement Mechanism

Over the course of four years, the program will feature the recruitment and preparation of

13

two teacher cohorts. As outlined in Figure 2, this two-cohort structure will allow building a feedback loop whereby feedback from, and experiences working with the first cohort will be used to improve on all aspects of the program for the second cohort. Additionally, participants of the first cohort will become part of the support community for those in the second. This latter involvement will serve to foster the professional growth of participants in both cohorts.

Assessment and Research

Assessment of Effectiveness

The program will feature a 4-year longitudinal evaluation study in which participants of both cohorts are followed throughout the program. Participants of the first cohort will be further followed into their first year of full-time teaching (see Figure 2). This component will focus on collecting and analyzing data as to the effectiveness of the program in recruiting and preparing qualified science and mathematics teachers from underrepresented populations in the profession. Indicators of success include (a) demand for the program and the profile of participants (as compared, for example, with the profile of prospective teachers joining the aforementioned teacher preparation options at UIUC), (b) the professional growth of participants in terms of their content, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge, and teaching approaches and practices, (c) participants’ perceptions of, and attitudes toward the program in terms of meeting their needs, (d) participants’ teaching practices in relation to the program’s vision, and (e) student and school personnel perceptions of the participants’ teaching practices and performances.

The evaluation component will also assess the scalability and reproducibility of the program. In particular, scalability and reproducibility will be explored in terms of transferring the program into teacher preparation institutions in the state of Illinois and nationwide. Toward this end, data and projections as to the “real” costs of RECRUIT versus more traditional and other alternative programs will be collected and processed. These data will not be limited to direct and indirect costs incurred by an institution of higher education as a result adopting RECRUIT and what this entails in terms of the increased involvement of STEM faculty in teacher preparation, hiring qualified school personnel for mentoring purposes, etc. The data needed to address questions of “cost” will also have to include the benefits accrued from recruiting more teachers through tapping into teacher candidate pools that are otherwise underrepresented in the profession, preparing quality teachers with a higher retention rate in the profession, enhanced student achievement as a result of enhancing the quality of teaching, etc. Any assessment of cost-benefit will also extend into evaluating the impact of the program on participating school districts in terms of addressing teacher shortages and enhancing the quality of science and mathematics instruction. These data will provide an evidence-based case for adopting RECRUIT while factoring in the benefits accrued from an emphasis on the central goal of RECRUIT, i.e., quality. Additionally, evaluating the transferability and reproducibility of the program at the institutional level necessitates an understanding of the administrative and communication structures, and scholarly commitments and missions at UIUC, IIT, and collaborating school districts and their role in facilitating or hindering the initiation and maintenance of the program. This evaluation component will provide an understanding of the process involved in building and sustaining an alternative, innovative, and collaborative teacher

14

preparation program such as RECRUIT.

Basic Research

Pedagogical content knowledge. Research into the nature, sources, development, and implications of teachers’ PCK is as vigorous and significant today as it was since the construct was first introduced in the mid 1980s (Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1999). RECRUIT presents a unique opportunity and context for pursuing questions on the sources and development of science and mathematics teachers’ PCK owing to the unique involvement of STEM faculty and school personnel in preparing prospective teachers. In particular, questions related to the role of content experts (i.e., STEM faculty) in guiding prospective teachers as the latter negotiate ways to transform abstract and complex content into forms that are accessible to K-12 students and that are simultaneously faithful to canonical conceptions should prove fruitful to pursue. Moreover, questions relating to the role of critical reflection on content and pedagogy as they intertwine in the enactment of “real” teaching situations in the development of participants’ PCK will be pursued.

The “expert-novice-expert” route to teaching. Traditionally, teacher candidates move from being novices (e.g., undergraduates or bachelor degree holders) to becoming beginning and then experienced teachers (and in some cases, “expert” teachers). This “novice-expert” route into the teaching profession has been extensively researched. However, RECRUIT participants will undertake an alternative route into the teaching profession, a route that could be characterized as an “expert-novice-expert” route. The target population comprises professionals (e.g., research scientists, engineers) who had already developed expertise in other professions, with specialized knowledge bases and associated sets of skills, values, and habits of mind. Upon joining RECRUIT, these participants will again become “novices” from a teaching perspective. This situation is not likely to be symmetrical with the case of more “traditional” novice teacher candidates. The implications of this route to the teaching profession are not well researched and generally poorly understood. Research into the implications (e.g., in terms of the professional development and growth of RECRUIT participants from several significant perspectives, including content knowledge, pedagogical skills, PCK, retention, and teaching success and effectiveness) of this route into teaching will be conducted as RECRUIT participants move into becoming beginning teachers.

Teacher cognition. A major research focus undertaken in the context of RECRUIT will relate to teacher cognition for the following reasons. First, it will allow investigators and program developers to take advantage of the well-documented findings in K-12 mathematics and science education research that prescribe successful methods for engendering reflective and principled teaching practices, while also adding to knowledge in the field by examining the differing cognition of program participants. Second, researchers will also be able to draw on, and further develop, the as yet limited field of teacher cognition regarding technology integration in particular domains. Finally, the focus on teacher cognition need not be restricted to prospective teachers; new research in the field of higher education suggests that the STEM and education faculty who participate as stakeholders will also undergo changes in their own reflections on teaching and their respective disciplines as they deal with both alternative certification students and with one another. Each of these areas of research will be discussed in turn in the following

15

sections.

Teacher Cognition in Science and Mathematics

Teacher development research in mathematics has focused on helping teachers reflect on the theoretical underpinnings of their decision making (Cobb et al. 1991, 1992), understand the development of children’s mathematical thinking (Carptenter, Fenema, & Franke, 1996; Shiftner & Fosnot, 1993), and balance competing pedagogical theories in assessing and responding to students’ mathematical questions (Ball, 1993). For example, a key area in successful teacher development has been a focus on reconciling teachers’ own (sometimes inaccurate) understandings of rational number concepts with children’s informal or intuitive understandings (Confrey, 1996; Mack, 1990; Streefland, 1993). Effective implementation of a conceptual, problem-solving approach to mathematics requires that teachers have deep understandings of both mathematics and the ways that students interpret mathematical problems and build mathematical knowledge (Fenema & Franke, 1992; Stipek, Gearhart, & Deham, 1997; Gearhart, Saxe, Seltzer, Schlackman, Ching, Nasir, & Fall, 1999).

The vast majority of research in this area, however, has been conducted with inservice or preservice teachers who have little background in the advanced scientific, mathematical, and theoretical underpinnings of the (seemingly straightforward) content they teach to students. Development programs have thus been focused on shoring up teachers’ own science and mathematical knowledge, in addition to introducing them to research findings about children’s understandings. RECRUIT participants will differ strikingly from these existing research cohorts in that they will come from STEM undergraduate fields or STEM professions. Their backgrounds in mathematics, science or other fields will be thus richer than typical (elementary, or some middle and secondary) teachers. However, they will likely also lack information about children’s informal knowledge or knowledge development. A key component of research, then, will be how RECRUIT participants will restructure their own understandings of science or mathematics when they must reconcile this existing knowledge with new information about pedagogical methods and children’s thinking. This line of research will naturally be extended to include participant inservice science and mathematics teachers who will serve to mentor RECRUIT participants.

Teacher Cognition and Technology Integration

Existing research on inservice teachers’ cognition about technology suggests that their view is typically undifferentiated; the term “technology” tends to be overused and simply affiliated with any situation in which students use computers (Gardner & Edyburn, 2000). Identifying technological resources, which are both motivating to students and authentic to specific domains such as mathematics or science, and then designing lessons which integrate such technology, are thus daunting tasks for many teachers. The glut of educational software on the market, which supports a learning philosophy at odds with inquiry and problem-solving goals, does not help. Previous research showed that preservice teachers are in fact aware of the inadequacy of many educational technology models and complain about them vigorously (Kafai, Franke, & Shih, 1997); however, these models are so pervasive that teachers have a difficult time seeing beyond them. For instance, when given the opportunity to design educational computer

16

games for fractions, teachers in one study initially designed drill-and-practice games, rather than incorporating their knowledge of children’s informal fair-sharing concepts, and justified their decisions by citing a myriad of commercial examples (Kafai, Franke, Ching, & Shih, 1998).

Unlike the cohorts of preservice and inservice teachers in existing research, however, RECRUIT participants will come from fields in which the use of technology is more differentiated and more domain-specific. Furthermore, existing research shows that students who chose undergraduate majors in STEM fields have more experience with technology on a personal and recreational level as well (Camp, 1997). A rich area of research for the proposed program, then, will be how RECRUIT participants reconcile their own experiences with domain-specific and recreational technology with their thinking about K-12 education, and how they make instructional plans and decisions regarding technology integration accordingly.

Teacher Cognition among Stakeholders: “Professing Inquiry”

As the educational approach known as problem-based learning (PBL) is implemented on a wider basis in undergraduate education, research has revealed new insights into faculty cognition. Research on faculty cognition in PBL finds that higher education instructors are typically devoted to their discipline, content oriented, and teach in a mode of knowledge dispersal (Marincovich, 2000); PBL requires that they radically change their practice. Faculty who teach PBL must become more student-centered, less theoretical, and put aside a focus on theory in favor of real-world problems and concrete examples. Furthermore, rather than distinguishing content from process or knowledge from practice, PBL requires that instructors construct learning goals such that process is content and knowledge is practice (Conway & Little, 2000). This focus on authentic real-world problems and knowledge as practice is, interestingly, in line with current calls for reform in K-12 educational research and teaching (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1992; Lave, 1991). Consequently, RECRUIT STEM faculty and mentors will have to deal with issues similar to those of PBL faculty—if not in their own teaching, then certainly in the teaching models they advocate for RECRUIT participants who take their classes and consult with them on a mentoring basis. Existing research on faculty cognition reveals that faculty who take the time to consider the implications of PBL methodology and other student-centered teaching approaches often experience a restructuring of how they conceive of their own domain and what it means to do inquiry in a particular field (Ching & Gallow, 2000; Gallow & Ching, 2001). It remains to be seen whether participation in RECRUIT can engender similar effect.

Acknowledgements

RECRUIT is funded by the National Science Foundation, DUE-0202839.

BioFouad Abd-El-Khalick is an Assistant Professor of Science Education in the Department of

Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is Principal Investigator of RECRUIT. His research focuses on teaching and learning about nature of science in K–12 and preservice and inservice teacher education programs, and science teachers’ content knowledge structures and pedagogical content knowledge.

17

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673-699.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.

American Association for Employment in Education. (1999). Educator supply and demand in the United States. Columbus, OH: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Designs for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1992). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 17, 32-43.

Camp, T. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 103-110.

Carptenter, T. P., Fenema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 1-20.

Ching, C. C., & Gallow, D. (2000). Fear and loathing in PBL: Faculty reactions to developing problem-based learning for a large research university. In Problem-based learning: Educational innovations across disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-Based Learning, Singapore.

Chubbuck, S. M., Clift, R. T., Allard, J., Quinlan, J. (in press). Playing it safe as a novice teacher: Implications for programs for new teachers. Journal of Teacher Education.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 3-9.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 99-122.

Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation (CSMTP). (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Confrey, J. (1996, April). Strengthening early algebra through a splitting approach in elementary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Conway, J., & Little, P. (2000). From practice to theory: Reconceptualising curriculum

18

development for problem-based learning. In Problem-based learning: Educational innovations across disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-Based Learning, Singapore.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Hudson, L. (1990). Pre-college science and mathematics teachers: Supply, demand and quality. In C. B. Cazden (Ed), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 223-264). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Training, 20(5), 467-479.

Fenema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 47-164). New York: McMillan.

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.

Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9), 1-19.

Gallow, D., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Problem-based learning in large (and we mean large!) undergraduate classes: Lessons learned as faculty bridge the gap from training to practice. Paper presented at the Third Asia-Pacific Conference in Problem-Based Learning, Australia.

Gardner, J. E., & Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Integrating technology to support effective instruction. In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals (3rd ed., pp. 191-240). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Gearhart, M., Saxe, G. B., Seltzer, M., Schlackman, J., Ching, C. C., Nasir, N., & Fall, R. (1999). Opportunities to learn fractions in elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 286-315.

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 1-20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25-45.

Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548-594). New York: Macmillan.

Goodnough, A. (2000, August 1). State to sue over uncertified teachers. The New York Times.Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter

knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon Press.

Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1178.

Hedges, L., Laine, R., & Greenwald, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of the effects of differential

19

school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14.Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools.

Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M. L., Ching, C. C., & Shih, J. C. (1998). Games as an interactive learning

environment for fostering students’ and teachers mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 149-184.

Lave, J. (1991). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149-164.Lederman, N. G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Reconceptualizing secondary science teacher

education. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 199-214). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146.

Lederman, N. G., & Latz, M. S. (1995). Knowledge structures in the preservice science teacher: Sources, development, interactions, and relationships to teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 1-19.

Mack, N. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 16-32.

Marincovich, M. (2000). Problems and promises in problem-based learning. In Problem-based learning: Educational innovations across disciplines. Selected papers from the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-Based Learning, Singapore.

Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 21-50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000). Before it’s too late. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). Summary report: What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA reports: Survey indicates high teacher turnover, job dissatisfaction. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

20

Available http://www.nsta.org/reports/00jun2.aspNorth Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2001). Teacher shortages in the Midwest:

Current trends and future issues. Naperville, IL: Author.Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future

students academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., & Oakes, J. (1989). Indicators for monitoring mathematics and science education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Shiftner, D., & Fosnot, C. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.

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

Stipek, D., Gearhart, M., & Deham, W. (1997). Mathematics instruction: What works? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26(6), 22-25.

Streefland, L. (1993). Fractions in realistic mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Urban Teacher Collaborative. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand in the great city schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54 (2), 143-178.

Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, E. R. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.

Zernke, K. (2000, August 24). Less training, more teachers: New math for staffing classes. The New York Times.

21