Working Conference Series on Research in Teacher Education in Canada

 

 

 

 

Working Group II:  

Program Reform and Design

Group members: Julie Desjardins (Sherbrooke); Gestny Ewart (CUSB/Manitoba); Mark Hirschkorn (New Brunswick); Ruth Kane (Ottawa); Lynn Lemisko (Saskatchewan); Keith Roscoe (Lethbridge); Kathy Sanford (Victoria); Angela Ward (Saskatchewan); Elizabeth Wood (McGill)

 

GROUP REPORT

(by Lynn Lemisko and Angela Ward)

 

Shared concerns
Although our institutions are at different stages of program development or redevelopment, we shared some questions about the process of program reform:

  • Why reform? What’s the ‘shelf life’ of a teacher education program? Are we just keeping up?
  • How do we conceptualize where we are now in the ‘life’ of our programs?
  • How are we changing and why?
  • Is it possible to ‘measure’ program success?  What kinds of evidence are we looking for?

 

Developing a framework for program reform
We considered using an already-existing framework to think about program reform (perhaps based on the work of Darling-Hammond, or the broad goals of the Canadian Deans of Education Accord on teacher education).
If we were to describe where we are currently in teacher education as a preliminary to discussing program reform, we could consider including the following:

  1. Description of current programs  
    • Mission, goals conceptual framework                                                      
    • What context       
    • Coherence
    • Integration across courses
    • Field experiences
  2. Change/reform
  3. Foundations of change
  4. Type of change
  5. Process of change
  6. Impetus for change
  7. Constraints?
  8. Process – stakeholders

Coherence

There was intense discussion about ‘coherence’ as a desirable or attainable quality in teacher education programs.  Some members of the group saw coherence as potentially limiting truly contextual development of a program, and perhaps ‘imposed’ from outside. Should we use the term “inter-connectedness” or “de-fragmentation” instead?  Others saw coherence as a helpful organizer for various initiatives within program reform.

Some sites for exploring program coherence could be:

  • Vision, mission
  • Admissions procedures
  • Assessment
  • Teacher educator pedagogy
  • Content
  • On campus and field study
  • Impact on teacher practice

What might we do?
It could be useful to carry out multi-site self-studies of teacher education program renewal, understanding that programs represented by members of this group are at different stages in the ‘program life cycle’.

Some aspects that might be considered are:

  • Changes in educational theory and practice
  • Teacher education pedagogy
  • Antecedents, context, description – what did you try to change and how?
  • Challenges – structures of the institution

We had further discussions about evidence for ‘program effectiveness’.  There was some agreement that the evidence for the success of teacher education programs would probably be in student learning in our graduates’ classrooms, and so very difficult to research.

In the end, we decided that a ‘thick description’ of teacher education programs in Canada, as they are at present and unfolding, would provide deeper understanding of ‘where-we’re-at’ (which could inform where-we- might-go).  The ‘meta-story’ (thick description) could also become a foundational document from which further research questions about program design and renewal could emerge.  Each group member, along with others who wish to participate, will/could provide the story of their program using the ‘life cycle’ metaphor. The collected work could be titled: 

“Life cycles of teacher education programs:  A meta-story of program change in Canadian teacher education”.

Each writer could provide a storied ‘thick description’ of her/his program using the ‘life cycle’ metaphor as indicated, below.  When the stories are complied, the ‘life cycle’ metaphor might be helpful in understanding how programs evolve.

Life cycle: Where are we now?

  • Conception – the romance of new ideas
  • Pregnancy – happily anticipating and planning their implementation
  • Birth – dealing with unanticipated, messy reality
  • Adolescence – working with opposing voices
  • Adulthood – perhaps settled and routine
  • Senescence – the program doesn’t work as smoothly as it used to….

As indicated, this meta-story could spark further investigations – for example, to address questions like: How are program changes framed by faculty, teacher candidates and the field? Do faculty, teacher candidates and the field, frame the changes differently depending where a program is in the life cycle?