http://jte.sagepub.com/Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/35/6/43The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/002248718403500610

1984 35: 43Journal of Teacher EducationDonald R. Cruickshank

Toward a Model to Guide Inquiry in Preservice Teacher Education  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/35/6/43.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Nov 1, 1984Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

43

POTPOURRIToward a Model toGuide Inquiry inPreservice Teacher Education Donald R. Cruickshank

The absence of a model to guide sys-tematic inquiry in teacher education, theauthor asserts, prevents sustained studyin the field. Cruickshank outlines an

inquiry model and describes its com-

ponent parts, which include the follow-

ing: (a) teacher educators, (b) teachereducation students, (c) the contexts ofteacher education, (d) the content of theteacher education curriculum, and (e)the instruction in and organization for

teacher education. Careful study in eachof these areas, he argues, can produce amore substantial professional culture.

Furthermore the evolution of a valid

inquiry model should enable the

emergence of a discipline of teacher

education.

he enormous enterprise of pre-N service teacher education is in

~ need of scholarly study that iscoordinated and sustained. Theless than satisfactory nature of the state-of-the art is discussed elsewhere

(Feldens, 1982, Proceedings, 1981,Tucker and others, 1981; Tuthill andAshton, 1983; Watts, 1982). Thereasons for the importunate state of

inquiry can be attributed to a number ofcauses including: the culture of teachereducation that, to a large extent, isbased upon professional wisdom, com-mon sense, and commitments; lack ofaptitude for or training in inquiry byteacher educators; absence of time, sup-port, and reward for inquiry; the

promotion of inquirers into unrelated

positions; the near-absence of vehiclesthat encourage and transmit scholarlyknowledge; the commonly held beliefthat teacher education is too complex aphenomena to be successfully studied;and perhaps most notably the absence ofparadigmatic communities of teachereducation researchers.A paradigm, according to Thomas

Kuhn, is a theoretical framework or

way of perceiving and understandingthe world that a group of scientists has

adopted as its &dquo;world view.&dquo; Kuhnrefers to a group of scientists which has

adopted a common scientific paradigmor view of the world as a scientific com-

munity. These scientists, although theyshare common values, goals, and

language, do not necessarily share thesame physical location. However, usingtheir shared paradigm they strive to

describe, understand, and explain thephenomenon under study. Thus, for

example, behaviorists use stimulus-

response models to study and to accountfor human behavior (Tuthill and

Ashton, 1983).Given the above conceptualization it

is difficult to identify clear paradigms orscientific communities in teacher educa-tion, although stakeholders in teacher

education might tentatively be placed inmore loosely defined schools of thought(Cruickshank, 1984; Iannone, 1976;Zeichner, 1983).

Hall (1983) articulated the need forteacher education to have shared

paradigms to guide research.[O]ne of the problems we have in teachereducation is the absence of what ThomasKuhn would call shared paradigms. Untilwe have a group of teacher educators

using the same set of assumptions andsimilar methodologies addressing similarquestions we are going to make no moreprogress than the classroom researchersdid until they began to coordinate theirresearch and findings ten to twelve yearsago.

Dunkin and Biddle (1974) concurredthat in order to conduct sustained, sys-tematic study in a field, models of theenterprise are useful.

[T]o set up a model for something com-plex is often the first step in the develop-ment of a genuine theory concerning it.

(p. 31)Once a model is established and accept-ed or shared, then theory can be gen-erated in the form of concepts, defini-tions, facts and conditional propositions(Smith and others, 1969).’

Building an Inquiry ModelSince no model of the field of teacher

education exists, the model-buildingactivity must begin by making prelimi-nary, subjective observations and gen-eralizations about that enterprise so thatit can be described taxonomically.

Although teacher education, to someextent, is idiosyncratic from one prep-aration unit to another, in many waysthe process is remarkably similar, thuspermitting speculation about the wholeof the teacher preparation process.Beginning with the principals involvedin the enterprise we have education

professors, education unit heads,academicians, local education agencypersonnel (notably cooperatingteachers), and preservice teachers. We

Cruickshank is Professor, College ofEducation, The Ohio State University.This paper was originally prepared forthe AACTE Task Force on Inquiry inTeacher Education.

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

44

can generalize that the education

professors primarily provide profession-al education (pedagogy), with substan-tial assistance from local school person-nel, while academicians provide generaleducation.

These principals work and interact inthe contexts of teacher preparation -campus and field. Education professorsusually divide their time, althoughunevenly, between campus and fieldcontexts. Academicians rarely leave

campus to invade the natural classroom,whereas for local school personnel theconverse usually is true. Each macroand micro context (e.g., tertiary educa-tion unit, college classroom, K-12

building, K-12 classroom) has strikingsimilarities. For example, most collegeclassrooms are set up in about the same

way - chalkboard, teacher station

(often a table) and student chairs -although occasionally there is a specialclassroom or laboratory where videotap-ing or another unordinary activity mayoccur. At the same time, K-12 naturalclassrooms, too, are more alike thandifferent. Again only on occasion isthere a special room or area containingaudio-visual materials, independentlearning materials, or microcomputers.

The interactions among the pI incÎ-pals involved in on-campus teachereducation classrooms (education profes-sors, academicians, and preserviceteachers) are not unlike interactions

occurring during instruction in K-12classrooms. There are expository, inter-active, and independent modes of teach-ing and learning ongoing (Hough,1983). There is teacher talk, studenttalk, silence and confusion (Flanders,1970). Like life in K-12 classrooms,college classrooms normally are

dominated by more traditional forms ofinstruction and organization for instruc-tion. The most ubiquitous form ofinstruction probably is expository andthe most common form of organizationis one college instructor with 25-35 pre-service teachers (the same arrangementsthe preservice teacher will encounter inK-12 classrooms during the practicum).

Interactions among the principalsrevolve around the preservice teachereducation curriculum and occur both in

general studies and professional studies,including on-campus and off-campusclinical and laboratory work. Thecurriculum usually is comprised of one-

third of the former and two-thirds ofthe latter but that is a little misleadingsince courses in the academic major thestudent eventually will teach (e.g., art),although taught by academicians,frequently are classified under profes-sional studies. Within professionalstudies, the number of clock hours givento off-campus or field experiences oftenreach or exceeds 600 clock hours, or

about twenty times that of any singlethree credit hour course. This wouldseem to indicate that a majority of thepreservice teachers’ professional curric-ulum experience and professional inter-actions are with cooperating teachersand K-12 pupils.The enterprise of teacher education

seems to have one explicit outcome andothers that are implicit. Explicitly theenterprise is expected to provide suffi-cient numbers and kinds of teachers to

populate K-12 classrooms. In that

regard it probably has not been as

responsive as teacher educators or the

public would like. For many decades

prior to the 1970s there was either ageneral undersupply of teachers (or at

least a selective one). On the other

hand, for more than the last decadeteacher education has been both in a

period of general oversupply and select-ed undersupply, a two-fold problem.Implicitly the enterprise is responsiblefor preparing &dquo;effective teachers,&dquo; mostrecently defined as those who can bringabout pupil achievement primarily inbasic skills.

From the above very brief effort toreflect upon and to describe the teachereducation enterprise, at least three

things seem apparent. First, it seems

possible that a tentative general conceptor definition of preservice teacher edu-cation can be formed. For example, pre-service teacher education can be definedas the engagement of teacher educators(broadly conceived to include educationprofessors, cooperating teachers,academicians) and preservice teachers ininstructional interactions - with eachother and with the curriculum - thatoccur both in tertiary institutions and inK-12 contexts, the intention being to

provide opportunity for aspiringteachers to acquire abilities sufficient toenter the profession.

Second, the enterprise of preserviceteacher education, even as simplisticallydescribed, is recognized as complex,

involving several different kinds of

principals as well as diverse contexts,

interactions, curriculum, organization,and outcomes.

Third, it is clear that the above

subjective observation of and generali-zation about teacher education .thoughnecessary is not sufficient. It is necessaryas a means of beginning model build-ing ; it is insufficient (or deficient) inthat it touches only upon the most

immediate, apparent, and perhapssimpler aspects of the enterprise. Noattention is given, for example, to exter-nal political forces impinging on thefield (Cruickshank, 1983) nor to otherinfluential factors such as philosophicissues regarding the nature of the

school, the role of the teacher and soforth.

Given that in order to conduct sus-tained, systematic inquiry, developmentof a model of the teacher education

enterprise is a useful first step, and giventhe aforementioned observations(however primitive, restricted, and

limited), an incipient model can be

projected. Since a model, in this case, isa description or analogue used to permitvisualization of a phenomenon, it must

display at least the main components ofthe phenomenon. Since several com-

ponents, parts, or properties of preser-vice teacher education have beenobserved and described, they will serveas the model’s cornerstones. Conse-

quently the model, as perceived herein,notes foremost that preservice teachereducation initially may be representedas a six variable configuration.The large rectangle (see Figure 1) in

Figure 1 represents the field of preser-vice teacher education. And the fiveboxes within the field represent five

explanatory variables (1-5). The boxbelow the field represents the responsevariable (6). The area surrounding therectangle represents external forcesaffecting teacher education. The five

explanatory variable sets shown withinthe field derive from the four earlierintroduced concepts (principals, con-

tests, instruction and curriculum) andby dividing principals into two com-

ponents, separating teacher educators- both campus and field based -

from teacher education students. Thusthe explanatory variable sets shown are:

1. teacher educators,2. teacher education students,

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

45

3. the contexts of teacher education,4. content of the teacher education

curriculum, and5. instruction and organization for

teacher education.The response variable (6) is the

intended outcome of the preserviceteacher education program

-

prepar-ing sufficient and effective teachers.

Figure 1. Six Primary VariablesExtant in the Field of

Preservice Teacher Education

1. Teacher educators (campus andfield-based, including education profes-sors, academicians, cooperatingteachers)

2. Teacher education students (pre-service teachers)

3. Contexts of teacher education

(campus and field)4. Content or curriculum of teacher

education (general education and pro-fessional studies)

5. Instruction and organization inteacher education (instructional and

organizational alternatives)6. Outcomes of teacher education

(sufficient and effective teachers)

Focusing on the five explanatoryvariables, we can suggest attendantcharacteristics of each. For example,after Mitzel (1960) and Dunkin andBiddle (1974), it can be said thatteacher educators have formativeinfluences (e.g., their family and cul-tural-socioeconomic background andtheir educational preparation) and pre-sent personal characteristics (e.g., theiractivity level and mental status). Thesecharacteristics or attributes are pos-sessed in some kind and amount by allteacher educators and may be influen-

tial or causative of teacher educatorbehavior. Likewise, teacher educationstudents have formative influences and

present personal characteristics. And thecontext of preservice teacher educationis characterized, among other things, byfactors including size, organization,facilities, and equipment. Further, thecontent or curriculum of preserviceteacher education is characterized by itsnature (what is taught), amount (howmuch of what is taught), and order orsequence (when is what taught). Final-ly, instruction and organization for pre-service teacher preparation are charac-terized by the type of instructionalalternatives used (e.g., direct, vicarious,abstract) and the way preserviceteachers are organized for instruction

(e.g., whole class, interactive groups,individual). A beginning effort hasbeen made below to create a taxonomyof characteristics associated with thefive explanatory variables.

Five Explanatory Variables inTeacher Education and

Representative Characteristicsof Each

I. Teacher Educators (campus andfield based, i.e., education profes-sors, academicians, cooperatingteachers)A. Formative influences

1. Family background2. Socioeconomic background3. Education

B. Present personal characteristicsand abilities

1. Activity/energy level2. Physical/mental status3. Expectations of self, pro-

gram, teaching4. Self-confidence5. Academic success6. Social success7. Values/attitudes

C. Present professional character-istics and abilities

1. Ability to bring aboutteacher education studentachievement and satisfac- ~tion

2. Relatedly, ability to teachstudents the behaviors

requisite to bringing aboutpupil achievement and

satisfaction in naturalclassroom settings

3. Ability to establish mutual-ly satisfactory relationshipswith professional colleagues

4. Level of interest in teach-

ing teachers5. Knowledge of subject

D. Present teaching behaviors/style

II. T’eacher education student (preser-vice teacher)A. Formative influences

1. Family community influ-ences/socio-economicstatus

2. Sex3. Life experiences e.g.,

work, hobbies4. Educational influences

(schools attended/pro-grams undertaken; aca-

demic achievement)5. Mental abilities

B. Present personal characteristicsand abilities

1. Age2. Socio-economic status as

student3. Activity/energy level4. Physical/mental status5. Self-confidence6. Academic success (most

recent)7. Social success (peer rela-

tionships)8. Values/attitudes (e.g.,

toward schooling and

learning)9. Learning styles

10. Overt behaviors in peersettings

III. Context of teacher education (cam-pus and field)A. Institutional characteristics

1. Size2. Composition3. Organization, including

administrative to facultyratio

4. Leadership style5. Fiscal support/services

provided6. Rewards provided

. 7. Emotional climateB. Classroom characteristics

1. Facilities (size, tempera-ture, lighting, aestheticcharacter, etc.)

2. Equipment at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

46

IV Content of teacher education: Theteacher education curriculumA. Sources

1. State government2. Education units in colleges

and universities3. Local education agencies

(school districts, teachers)4. Unified teaching (NEA,

AFT, etc.)5. Teacher education associa-

tions6. Accreditation units and

extraordinary approvalagencies

7. Federal government8. Naturalistic events9. Individual teacher educa-

tors

10. Philanthropic foundationsB. Nature

1. General education2. Professional education

a. Content for teachingspeciality

b. Education in under-

girding disciplines ofeducation

c. Humanistic and be-havioral studies

d. Teaching and learningtheory

e. Practicums of varioussorts

C. AmountD. Order or sequence

V Instruction and organization forinstruction in teacher education.

Relationship of the instructionalalternatives and form of organiza-tion used to the outcome variable,i.e., ability to perform the role ofteacher.A. Instructional alternatives. For

example:1. Direct experience teaching

in natural classrooms2. Direct experience teaching

in on-campus settings(e.g., using Reflective

Teaching, Microteaching,simulation)

3. Vicarious experienceusing protocol materials

4. Vicarious experienceusing films and novels

5. Abstract experience usingtalk about teaching

B. Forms of organization forinstruction. For example:

1. Independent learningopportunities such as pro-grammed instruction,computer-assisted instruc-

tion, tutoring2. Interactive group learning

opportunities such as teamlearning

3. Whole class activityC. Student-teacher ratio

As Clark (1983) suggests, these varia-bles need considerable extension and

sharper definition. Lilly (1983) acceptsthis classification effort but adds a

caveat.

[T]he five explanatory variables are

actually umbrellas under which dozens ofidentifiable, discrete variables cluster....I fear by the time the explanatory varia-bles were fully delineated and related toeach other, the model would be renderedunworkable.

It is assumed and noted in Figure 1that the five explanatory variablesinfluence the response variable, thelatter being graduates of the program.The &dquo;benefits&dquo; of the program for the

graduates can be short or long term. Inthe short-term, among other things, wecan study the associations between oramong the variables and graduates’abilities (knowledge, skills, attitudes).For example, it can be determinedwhether and to what extent the

explanatory variables, or subsets there-of, singly or in combination, are relatedto or cause desired changes in abilities.This is one of the purposes of follow-upstudies. In the long-term we can lookfor relationships and effects of the pro-gram on graduates’ abilities to bringabout pupil learning and satisfaction innatural classrooms and their ability tobehave wisely as teachers. Much of theinquiry on teacher effectiveness chroni-cled by Dunkin and Biddle (1974) andMedley (1977), among others, intendsto look for long-term results and espe-cially to associate and later to confirmthe importance of particular teacher andteaching attributes.z

Moreover, just as it is assumed thatthe five explanatory or input variablesets influence the response or outcomevariable, it also is presupposed that theyinteract with and influence each other.

Arguments supporting an interactionderive from Hunt (1975) amongothers. Figure 2 builds upon Figure 1

by adding supposed variable interac-tions. For example, it is supposed thatteacher educators (1) and teacher edu-cation students (2) interact with and

presumably affect each other. WhereasFigure 1 suggests the question, Whatare the primary variables extant in thefield of preservice teacher education?,Figure 2 goes considerably further byasking, What are the relationships andthe relative strengths of the relation-

ships between and among the variables?How and under what conditions do theyinteract and with what consequences?

Figure 2.Supposed Relationships andDirection of Relationships

Between and Among PrimaryVariables Extant in the

Field of Teacher Education

1. Teacher educators2. Teacher education students3. Contexts of teacher education4. Content or curriculum of teacher

education5. Instruction and organization in

teacher education6. Outcomes of teacher education

Assessing the Inquiry ModelAt the outset it was suggested that

conceptualizing models of an enterprisecan be a first step toward the develop-ment of theory and that once a model isconsidered reasonably complete andaccurate, then shared systematic, sus-

tained inquiry can occur. Accepting theabove, a first step would be to subjectthe incipient conceptualization or model

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

47

of the field of teacher education to care-ful inspection. Those in the field ofteacher education (or perhaps othersfamiliar with model building fromother fields) must be given the oppor-tunity to react individually and collec-tively to the model, observing and

asking such questions as: Is the model

complete? Are the explanatory variablesaccounted for? Does past and currentresearch on teacher education fit themodel? Can the model be used to con-

ceptually organize and think aboutresearch?

In an effort to consider the model’s

ability to account for recent research inteacher education, studies published inthe Research Section of the Journal ofTeacher Education from Spring 1976through November-December 1981 (aperiod when I served as co-editor) wereexamined by Deborah Bainer, a grad-uate student. She read and then

attempted to place each study in one ofthe five explanatory variable categories.Accordingly, two studies were ofteacher educators, four were of teachereducation students, five were of thecontext of teacher education, four wereof content, and eleven were of instruc-tion and organization. Interestingly, thevast majority of publications in theResearch Section during this periodwere studies of inservice teacher effec-tiveness and fell outside the purview ofpreservice education. Such studies,although not conducted directly on pre-service teacher education, do provideconsiderable insight and direction

regarding the content or curriculum forpreservice teachers. (Thus a linkbetween &dquo;teacher effectiveness studies&dquo;and our &dquo;content&dquo; variable.)

In one sense it is not surprising thatthe Journal published such a preponder-ance of teacher effectiveness studies.Those were the halcyon days in that

area, spurred by Mitzel (1960) andDunkin and Biddle’s (1974) paradigmfor research on teacher effectiveness and

by generous funding from the federalgovernment. Perhaps that trend will

change. Koehler (1983) notes:For too long, we have emphasizedresearch on teaching with the thoughtthat such research would speak directly toteacher education. While research on

teaching is important for teacher educa-tion (it should become, in part, the con-tent of teacher education), we also needresearch on teacher education per se.

Another way to begin to judge theincipient model is to relate it to some-what &dquo;like&dquo; efforts, two of which wereidentified (Hall, 1979 and Katz,1981). Katz presents a &dquo;list of discreteclasses of variables [that] representcomplex interacting and confoundingforces in teacher education&dquo; (p. 20).They are goals of teacher education,candidates, staff, content, time, ethos,location, regulations, finances and char-acteristics of the receiving profession.First glance reveals clear relationshipsbetween the aforementioned explana-tory variables and these. Similaritiesexist between: &dquo;teacher educators&dquo; and&dquo;staff,&dquo; &dquo;teacher education students&dquo;and &dquo;candidates,&dquo; &dquo;context&dquo; and&dquo;ethos,&dquo; &dquo;location&dquo; and &dquo;finances,&dquo;&dquo;content&dquo; and &dquo;content,&dquo; &dquo;content&dquo;and &dquo;time,&dquo; &dquo;instruction&dquo; and &dquo;con-tent.&dquo; Less clear are the place in themodel of goals, regulations, and charac-teristics of the receiving profession. Asmentioned earlier the model may beinsufficient and needs to account forthese variables if, in fact, they are with-in its domain. Admittedly the model

may be weak in that it mentions butdoes not attend to outside forces andfactors impinging on teacher educationthat influence and direct its goals. Sincethe view would be taken that Katz’svariables &dquo;goals, regulations and char-acteristics of the teaching profession,&dquo;as she defines them, all seem to be

largely influences outside of preserviceteacher education, they have collectivelynot been well-attended to.

Hall reports on a conference held toset a national agenda for research anddevelopment in teacher education. Priorto the conference seven &dquo;teacher educa-tion topic areas&dquo; were determined as

representing key research and develop-ment priorities for teacher education.The topics were &dquo;content, process, pro-fessionals as learners, collaboration,context, research, and change/dissemi-nation.&dquo; Unlike Katz, this effort madeno attempt to designate the variablesextant in preservice teacher education.In fact, the topics intentionally rangedfrom preservice training preparation, toinduction into teaching, to inserviceeducation. Consequently since the pur-pose differed from the one here, so didthe outcome. However, it is interestingto note that similarities seem to exist

among the model’s &dquo;explanatory varia-

bles,&dquo; Katz’s &dquo;variables,&dquo; and some ofthe &dquo;topic areas,&dquo; namely content,

process, professionals as learners, col-

laboration, and context.Thus in a preliminary fashion, the

model in Figure 2 (further exemplifiedin the taxonomy) seems to be able toaccount for extant research in teachereducation and to coincide with out-

comes of other efforts to map the fieldof teacher education. Furthermore it

encourages, facilitates, and systematical-ly directs attention to the developmentof a more substantial professional cul-ture called for in Educating a Profession(Howsam et al., 1976) and elsewhere.

Once a model is considered

reasonably complete and ac-curate, then shared systematic,sustained inquiry can occur.

The likelihood is great, as Kuhnwould predict, that normal use of themodel by teacher education researcherswould result in the accumulation ofanomalies that should bring into ques-tion the model’s validity. At such stagesof crises new conceptualizations will

emerge. Such already has been the casein a related area of teacher effectivenessresearch wherein Mitzel ( 1960) pro-posed a model that was used by inquir-ers, illuminated by Dunkin and Biddle(1974) and reconceptualized by Doyle(1977), McDonald and Elias (1976),Centra and Potter (1980), and Medley(1982). Without doubt, such use anddebate of the model proposed hereinshould advance teacher education as afield of inquiry. Once the model its con-sidered adequate - the domain ofteacher education made explicit, andthe factors therein organized - it canserve as the well-spring from which adiscipline of teacher education can

emerge. Then we will have a guide tosystematic inquiry.

Author’s Note

In addition to being reviewed bymembers of the Task Force, the follow-ing persons reacted to earlier drafts ofthis document: J. Myron Atkin,Stanford University; David Clark,Indiana University; Arthur Coxford,University of Michigan; HendrikGideonse, University of Cincinnati;

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

48

Robert Gilberts, University of Oregon;Gene Hall, Research and DevelopmentCenter for Teacher Education, Austin,Texas; John Johansen, Northern IllinoisUniversity; Virginia Koehler, NationalInstitute of Education; Robert Koff,State University of New York at

Albany; M. Stephen Lilly, University ofIllinois; Robert Stout, Arizona State

University; Doyle Watts, NorthwesternOklahoma State University; RichardWisniewski, University of Tennessee.

Reference Notes ―――――

’Not everyone condones effortstoward developing general theories ormodels. Some believe that such effortscould lead toward inhibiting discoveryof yet unnoticed phenomena. Clark(1983) notes "The notion of a ’theory’of teacher education flies in the face ofevidence across the social sciences that

general theories and models inhibitrather than facilitate inquiry." Lilly(1983) notes, "I am doubtful we willbe able to construct a model. This

implies that knowledge in teacher edu-cation exists in nature much as knowl-

edge in genetics. The very nature of ourfield should lead us to reject such deter-ministic thinking and move us towardapproaches designed to increase our

understanding gradually and incremen-tally without stated or implied assump-tions that a set of lawful relationshipsexist and await discovery."2Here we see the link between

research in teacher education andresearch on teacher effectiveness andthe possible relationship between thismodel and Mitzel’s ( 1960) .

References

Centra, J., and Potter, D. (1980).School and teacher effects. Review ofEducational Research, 50 (2),273-291.

Clark, D. (1983, July). Indiana Uni-versity. Personal correspondence.

Cruickshank, D. (in press). Curriculumand instruction of teacher education.Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta

Kappa.Cruickshank, D. (1984). Factors affect-

ing teacher education. Columbus,Ohio: College of Education, The

Ohio State University.Doyle, W (1977). Paradigms for

research on teacher effectiveness. InL. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review ofResearch in Education, 5, 163-198.

Dunkin, M., and Biddle, B. (1974).The study of teaching. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Feldens, M. (1982, July). Research andevaluation of teacher education inBrazil. Paper presented at the Inter-national Council on Education for

Teaching XXIX World Assembly inRome, Italy.

Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teach-ing behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addi-son-Wesley.

Hall, G. (1979). A national agenda forresearch and development in teachereducation, 1978-1984. Austin,Texas: Research and DevelopmentCenter for Teacher Education, Uni-versity of Texas.

Hall, G. (1983, July). Research andDevelopment Center for TeacherEducation, University of Texas. Per-sonal communication.

Hough, J. (1983, March). The OhioState University. Personal communi-cation.

Howsam, R., Corrigan, D., Denemark,G., Nash, R. (1976). Educating aprofession. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Association of Colleges forTeacher Education.

Hunt, D. (1975). Person environmentinteraction. Review of EducationalResearch, 45 209-230.

Iannone, R. (1976). Current annota-tions in teacher education. In S.Goodman (Ed.), Handbook on Con-temporary Education (pp. 233-237).New York: Xerox.

Katz, L.(1981). A matrix of researchon teacher education. South PacificJournal of Teacher Education, 9 (1),19-50.

Koehler, V (1983, August). NationalInstitute of Education. Personal

correspondence.Kuhn, T (1970). The structure of

scientific revolutions. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Lilly, M. (1983, July). University ofIllinois. Personal correspondence.

McDonald, F., and Elias, P. (1976).Executive summary report: Begin-

ning teacher evaluation study, phaseII (PR-76-18). Princeton, N.J.:Educational Testing Service.

Medley, D. (1977). Teacher com-

petence and teacher effectiveness.Washington, DC: The AmericanAssociation of Colleges for TeacherEducation.

Medley, D. (1977). Teacher effective-ness. In H. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclope-dia of Educational Research

(1894-1903). New York: FreePress.

Mitzel, H. (1960) Teacher effective-ness. In C. W Harris (Ed.), Encyclo-pedia of Educational Research(1481-1485). New York: Mac-Millan.

Proceedings of the Inquiry Conferenceheld at the University of Dayton.(1981, September). Dayton, Ohio:School of Education, University ofDayton.

Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. (1977).The use of direct observation to studyteaching. In R. Travers (Ed.), Sec-ond Handbook of Research on

Teaching (122-183). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of

inquiry in education: An overview.Educutional Researcher, 10 (6),5-12, 23.

Smith, B. O. and others. (1969).Teachers for the real world. Wash-ington, DC: The American Associa-tion of Colleges for Teacher Educa-tion.

Tucker, S. and others. (1981, March).Increasing the research capacity ofschools of education: A policyinquiry. Corvallis, Oregon: School ofEducation, Oregon State University.

Tuthill, D., and Ashton, P. (1983).Improving educational research

through the development of educa-tional paradigms. EducationalResearch, 12 (12).

Watts, D. (1982). Can campus-basedpreservice teacher education survive?Part III. Journal of Teacher Educa-tion, 33 (3), 48-53.

Zeichner, K. (1983). Alternative

paradigms of teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9.

at UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR on November 4, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from