Today's Student Teachers: Prepared to Teach versus Suited to Teach?

National Art Education Association

Today's Student Teachers: Prepared to Teach versus Suited to Teach?Author(s): Christina BainSource: Art Education, Vol. 57, No. 3 (May, 2004), pp. 42-47Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194093 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:20:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194093?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Today's Student Teachers:

Prepared to Teach Oi i _ L

Imagine it: American Teacher would feature preservice college students competing for a chance at a lucrative teaching contract, albeit far less than a million dollars. Each week, viewers would vote the contestants out of the classroom instead of off the island. Student teachers not only need to demon- strate content knowledge and classroom management skills each episode, but the best candidates will ooze character, morality, compassion, and they would not get caught gossiping in the teachers' lounge. In summary, we would look for those intangible human qualities that make stellar teachers stand out from the rest. Although my scenario of American Teacher is farfetched, the point of this article is to address the growing concern about the chasm between student teachers' preparation to teach versus their suitability to teach.

Reconsidering My Role in Teacher Preparation

In spring of 2002, I began a research project aimed at examining local art teachers' perceptions regarding typical strengths and weaknesses of student teachers (Bain, 2003). Although the study yielded valuable data that supported how the University of North Texas art education department was restructuring its preservice program, I quickly discovered that just as humans are individuals, "typical" strengths and weaknesses tended to be as difficult to define as people are themselves. One

I ART EDUCATION / MAY 2004



Versus Suited to Teach? comment from an art teacher who partic- ipated in this study, however, made me stop and begin to reconsider my role in training preservice teachers. She wrote "some student teachers are not suited to teach" (personal communication, April 23, 2002). At first I felt that she had missed the point of my study, for I was attempting to discover strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the training and content knowledge that our program provided. I felt that it was not my responsibility to judge my students' suitability to teach; instead I was looking for concrete feedback on their content knowledge in relation to their ability to teach art.

Later, after a conversation with a local art coordinator who reiterated a similar sentiment concerning the "suitability" of some preservice students, I had cause to reflect that perhaps I was the one who was missing an important point about training preservice teachers. In addition, he suggested that the university should be responsible for "weeding people out" who were not suitable to be art teachers. Through further probing, I discovered that he was not referring to students' intelligence or to their artistic skills. Rather, the art coordinator was referring to a lack of specific interpersonal skills, such as friendliness, willing- ness to collaborate, positive attitude, listening, and compassion. At first I felt defensive, after all, I cannot control my students' personalities or interpersonal skills any more than I can control when they will show up for class. Furthermore, it is possible that universities could face lawsuits if they attempt to "weed out"

potential teachers based on elusive criteria pertaining to personality traits or character. While I disagree with the art coordinator that universities should become more selective of teacher candidates based on their personalities, I recognize the fact that certain human qualities are vital in a teaching career. As a university educator I had envisioned myjob as providing current theoretical and pedagogical knowledge necessary for students' preparation in the field. Had I overlooked the human element integral to teaching?

Consider educators who draw our attention to the importance of teaching students compassion and empathy through the visual arts (Raphael, 1996; Stout, 1999). Weber (1998) describes how universities could integrate character education more fully into their preservice programs. Education reformers such as Hargreaves (2001) call for educators to teach beyond subjects and standards. Should university preservice programs play a more active role in examining and inculcating "desirable" human qualities such as compassion, caring, and even the role of citizenship in their training of future educators?

This question brought to mind a recent evaluation of an art education student who conducted observations in a nearby middle school classroom. The mentoring art teacher wrote, "[This observer is] Not very warm with the students, but I'm sure with practice this will improve" (personal communication, November 15, 2002). Perhaps he will "warm up" during his student teaching experience, but I admit, I was concerned about his perceived

coldness toward students. Indeed, there is growing recognition in the field of education regarding the importance of human qualities such as compassion, caring, and empathy. Noddings (1992) contends that these intangible human qualities are vital and necessary traits for contemporary teachers to model in their classrooms. Grant and Murray (2002) point out that for more than a century public schoolteachers have predomi- nantly been female; therefore, contemporary teachers of both genders are still expected to fulfill the maternal role of nurturer.

If teachers are expected to be nurturing and caring, how effectively are these intangible human traits measured-as well as valued-in preservice training? It seems that this depends primarily on the philosophy held by each individual university faculty member and their department. Although more research is necessary in this area, when I compared two student teaching appraisal forms (one from Nazareth College, in Rochester, New York, and another from University of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas), I found that both only briefly touched on evaluating "human qualities" in the teacher candidate. In fact, the first category for assessment on the Nazareth College form focused on "acceptance of and respect for people." Conversely, the last category for evaluation on the UNT student teaching form focused on "interactions are supportive, courteous, and respectful."' If people skills are truly valued in education, why do they receive such marginal attention on formal evaluations?

MAY 2004 / ART EDUCATION

__



UNT supervisor Nina Boothe (right) examines a notebook containing student work with student teacher Mary Caldwell. Mary reflects on changes she would make to the lesson to enhance student learning.

Communication between the university supervisor, mentor teacher, and student teacher facilitates learning and growth. UNT supervisor Susan Medler (left) listens while Strickland Middle School art teacher Tiffany Christian (middle) compliments student teacher Daniela Ferrari (right) on her preparation for a Celtic Knots unit. Photographs by the author.

Quality vs. Effective Teachers While it is inarguable that we need

excellent teachers in our schools, it seems that there is vast disagreement between the definition of the terms "quality teachers" and "effective teachers." These seemingly similar, yet very different terms, can be discussed in a qualitative manner, examining issues in which individualistic traits are recognized and valued, or in a more traditional quantitative method, in which characteristics are lumped together and counted in order to show similarities between people or situations.

Grover Whitehurst, the Assistant Secretary for Education Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education, takes a quantitative, easily measurable, stance in defining a quality teacher. Whitehurst (2002) claims that a "highly qualified teacher is defined as someone with a bachelor's degree who is licensed to teach on the basis of full state certification or passing the state licensure exam" (p. 12). He makes the assertion that quality is affected by the following factors: general knowledge and ability, certification and licensure, experience, subject matter knowledge, intensive and focused inservice training, and alignment between teacher training and standards- based reforms. By Whitehurst's definition, it appears that university preservice

programs across the nation by and large are producing "quality" teachers.

But are "quality" teachers neces- sarily "effective" teachers as well? I allege that "effective" teachers not only have a certificate proving they have mastered content knowledge in their field, but they also possess something more intangible. Waller (1967) claims "teachers must learn an elusive something which it is difficult to put between the covers of a book or to work up into a lecture. That elusive something is called social insight" (p.1). Gordon (1997) simply describes social insight as an understanding of what is happening in the classroom. For example, effective teachers have an understanding of the cultural climate in their classroom, and they understand where their students are coming from in terms of their interests, beliefs, backgrounds, and social relationships. These teachers know their students' names and can interpret and decode their language as well as unspoken forms of communication, such as body language. Kounin (1993) utilizes the term "withitness" to describe teachers who understand the many behaviors occurring in their classroom as well as how to react in an appropriate manner.

While university preservice programs provide instruction of theoretical knowledge such as the developmental stages of children and adolescents, theory does not guarantee that teacher candidates understand how to apply this knowledge in the classroom. Universities do an excellent job training preservice students to be book smart, but can they train them to be student and classroom savvy? Kowalchuk (1999) examined students' perceptions of their progress during student teaching, and found that they felt they needed to learn more about teaching strategies, art content, classroom management, and student learning in order to become successful teachers. Universities and schools must work together more closely in order for preservice students to make meaningful connections between theory and practice.

ART EDUCATION / MAY 2004



Can We Predict Success in the Classroom?

Sentz (1991) claims that the Teacher Perceiver Screeners and/or Preprofessional Skills Tests (PPST) show promise in predicting student teachers' abilities to motivate and communicate with students and to apply their skills using specific instructional methods. I am dubious that a single test could predict future teaching success. While such a test can provide valuable information regarding preservice students' cognitive abilities and personal characteristics, it can never take the place of a real classroom with real children. Every preservice student enters a teacher preparation program with his or her own unique background, temperament, personality, motivation level, and skills. All of these factors influence a student's individual teaching philosophy, and I know of no single factor that guarantees success in the field. The following four examples are fictitious amalgamations of past students and scenarios I have witnessed while working with student teachers.

&M :,ltoJrl Gloria was on the honor roll throughout college, possessed strong studio skills, and exhibited a bubbly personality. When she began student teaching, she was well prepared, enthusi- astic, and soon became popular with the staff and students. Although she had minor problems at the beginning of the semester with pacing and classroom management, she quickly adapted effective methods and gained respect and control in the classroom.

iOusan m Susan, like Gloria, was an outstanding academic student and had above average studio skills. Any principal who looked at Susan's resume would be impressed with her GPA, honors, shows, and volunteer work. Unfortunately, Susan never seemed to gain the upper hand in classroom management. She grew frustrated and frightened of the students as student teaching progressed. Although she worked well with the children on a one-on-one basis, Susan appeared uncom- fortable in front of the class. Susan never seemed to anticipate potential problems and often broke down into tears when problems occurred.

BZiBll] Mateo typically sat in the back of the classroom, doodled, and did not pay attention in his college classes. Due to a learning disability, his written work was often late and sloppy, yet he possessed solid studio skills. When in front of his peers he appeared tongue tied, yet in front of 7th graders he was engaging and interacted well with students. Mateo loved to "ham it up" with the kids and sang songs to help teach about artists and art terms.

i,,ra i Bill was an average student in college. He was often late to his college classes and tardiness continued to be a problem during student teaching. Bill ignored students who were discipline problems and did his own art work when he was in charge during student teaching because he felt students should be exposed to practicing artists. He ignored suggestions from his supervisor and mentor teacher and grew more short- tempered with the students as the semester progressed. Bill, however, was an attractive candidate to principals because he expressed interest in coaching a sport.

Although Gloria, Susan, Mateo, and Bill went through the same preservice program, were they equally prepared to teach art? Were they equally suited to teach art?

If grades serve as the best indicator of success for future teachers, then Gloria and Susan would have done equally well, but that was not the case. Furthermore, I have seen several former students with various types of learning disabilities, like Mateo, outshine their peers due to their studio strengths and their interpersonal skills. Admittedly, a college classroom made up of one's peers who generally want to support one another can never truly simulate how real students in real classrooms will challenge or motivate a potential teacher. One of my former student teachers confided, "It was so hard for me teaching in front of my peers because I felt so nervous. When I'm with the kids though, it's totally different. I don't feel self-conscious.. .teaching is a performance and I'm really into it with them" (personal communication, March 12,2002).

Every preservice student enters a teacher preparation program with his or her own unique background, temperament, personality, motivation level, and skills. All of these factors influence a student's individual

teaching philosophy, and I know of no single factor that

guarantees success in the field.

Personality Tests Although I do not advocate using

personality tests as part of the admit- tance process into teacher preparation programs, these tests could serve as useful tools in providing valuable information to preservice students. For example, such tests identify individual's unique strengths and weaknesses. These types of tests help people recognize how they are inclined to make decisions and how they perceive and react to the world around them.

According to Sears and Kennedy (1997) research on personality characteristics of prospective and practicing teachers has been ongoing for over four decades. Although various instruments have been utilized to measure characteristics of personality, the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is commonly used. This test divides personalities into four dimensions: extroversion vs. introversion, intuition vs. sensing, thinking vs. feeling, and perception vs. judging. Recent studies indicate that ESFJ (extroversion- sensing-feeling-judging) is the most prevalent personality type among preservice education students (Hinton & Stockburger, 1991; Marso & Pigge, 1990). SFJs, whether introverted or extroverted, prefer order, are interested in meeting the needs of others, are empathetic, and

MAY 2004 / ART EDUCATION E



typically find employment at the elemen- tary level. Interestingly, Sears and Kennedy (1997) discovered that all-level certification students in art, music, and physical education tended to fall into a different realm-the STP (sensing- thinking-perceiving) category. STPs are practical, open-minded, action-oriented, flexible, and adapt well to change. Unlike SFJs, STPs are capable of working without harmony. A discussion of the different types of personalities could help preservice students understand that no singular "type" of person is guaranteed to be an excellent teacher.2 Indeed, diversity is necessary within the field.

During these one-on-one

sessions, students describe their teaching related

strengths and weaknesses. Most students are quite good at articulating their

strengths and weaknesses, and together we brainstorm concrete solutions as to how they can improve.

Who Should Determine Suitability?

In a democratic society, an underlying question for all of us to consider is, if suitability of teacher candidates is important enough to merit selection, whose responsibility is it to determine if personality and interpersonal skills are to determine who becomes a teacher? Do university preservice education programs have a legal, ethical, or moral obligation to screen prospective art educators at their universities based upon qualitative factors, such as caring and compassion? It is beneficial to be selective because we wish to attract the best, brightest, and most competent to our field. After all, who is better to teach our children? I believe human qualities are paramount in a teacher. In fact, there may be ways for universities to utilize judgments based on elusive criteria such as compassion and caring, and quantitatively based measures such as grade point average when evaluating preservice teachers.

Increasingly, educators recognize the significance of intangible qualities such as compassion and caring in the classroom (Aronson, 2000; Mills, 2002). Likewise, other professions are turning their attention toward evaluating these qualities in their candidates during training programs. For example, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram recently ran an article (Jarvis, 2003) focusing on how medical schools now place a greater emphasis on bedside manner.3 Clearly,

bedside manner is important in the medical profession because doctors interact with individuals, yet little formal evaluation overtly measures the "people skills" of teachers. Perhaps educators need to reevaluate how these people skills could be better measured in university coursework and during student teaching.

Our nation faces critical teacher shortages (Bracey, 2002). Universities face pressure from state and national fronts to increase their enrollments in order to meet the demands. Sadly, recent legislation in Texas undermines the value of teacher training, and totally ignores the question of suitability to the profession. According to House Bill 318, temporary certificates for grades 8-12 may be issued to any individual who has a college degree other than education. Prior to this bill, individuals had to complete education courses in order to be eligible to take the state certification exam. I fear that this quick-fix solution will ultimately hurt our profession because it will certify individuals who are unprepared, both academi- cally and realistically, for the challenges of teaching.

Preservice students must play a larger role in examining their own suitability as art teachers because no one knows them better than themselves. Graham (1997) contends thatjournaling can be an important practice for preservice students as it helps clarify their meta- cognitive processes. Like many preservice programs, journaling is an important part of the preservice courses at UNT. However, journaling without proper feedback from instructors can be an empty exercise for students. I provide written feedback throughout the semester and meet individually with every student prior to student teaching. During these one-on-one sessions, students describe their teaching related strengths and weaknesses. Most students are quite good at articulating their strengths and weaknesses, and together we brainstorm concrete solutions as to how they can improve. Likewise, I model caring and compassion in these sessions and share my own experiences in relating to students' concerns and fears.

_ ART EDUCATION / MAY 2004



Mark's Voice I conclude with the story of "Mark,"

one of my current students. He dropped two of my classes because he became "stressed out" with the workload; the classes were retaken at a later time. He is easily frustrated by technology, is slightly sarcastic, is an average student, but has strong studio skills. I have serious questions about him "fitting in" the mold of a public school teacher. On the other hand, he is a young man who has worked hard, gets knocked down and tries again, comes from a broken home, and has not had an easy life. When asked why he wanted to be an art teacher, Mark's reply was direct and heartfelt. "If it weren't for an art teacher in my past, I wouldn't be sitting here right now in your office. Literally...I would not be alive. I want to be an art teacher so that I can give back what has been given to me. I want to be there for those kids-it's an enormous responsibility" (personal communication, April 17, 2003). Indeed, I would agree that we want both highly qualified teachers as well as effective teachers. I want someone who is both knowledgeable and compassionate to teach my own child. So, if Mark came to you, would you judge him to be suitable enough to teach art? My hope for him, as for all preservice students, is that in some small way we have helped prepare them to be both highly qualified as well as highly caring art teachers.

Christina Bain is assistant professor of art education at the University of North Texas, Denton. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate:

Teaching compassion after Columbine. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

Bain, C. B. (2003). Improving art teacher preparation: Bridging theory and practice. Denton, TX: A report to Denton I.S.D.

Bracey, G. W. (2002). About that teacher shortage. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 331- 333.

Gordon, R. L. (1997). How novice teachers can succeed with adolescents. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 56-58.

Graham, J. (1997). Pedagogical growth of two student teachers in art as revealed in their journal entries reflecting critical incidents in the classroom. Visual Art Research, 23(1), 1-30.

Grant, G. & Murray, C. E. (2002). Teaching in America: The slow revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). Learning to change: teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hinton, S., & Stockburger, M. (1991). Personality trait and professional choice among preservice teachers in eastern Kentucky. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341672.

Jarvis, J. (2003, November 30). Medical students work on their bedside manner. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, p. 8BB.

Kounin, J. S. (November 1993). Classrooms: Individuals or behavior setting. Address sponsored by the Horizons of Knowledge Lecture Series, Indiana University, School of Education, Bloomington.

Kowalchuk, E. A. (1999). Perceptions of practice: What art student teachers say they learn and need to know. Studies in Art Education, 41(1), 71-90.

Marso, R. N., & Pigge, F. L. (1990, October). Relationships between prospective teachers'personality, attributes and changes in concerns about teaching during training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Mills, J. (Ed.). (2002). A pedagogy of becoming. New York: Rodopi.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Raphael, J. (1996). New beginnings for new middle school students. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 56-59.

Sears, S. J. & Kennedy, J. J. (1997). Meyers- Briggs personality profiles of prospective educators. Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 195-202.

Sentz, E. I. (1991). Predicting success in student teacher from teacher perceiver screeners and preservice professional skills tests. ERIC Document ED329517.

Stout, C. J. (1999). The art of empathy: Teaching students to care. Art Education, 52(2), 21-24; 33-34.

Waller, W.W. (1967). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Weber, C. (1998). Preservice preparation for teaching character and citizenship: An integrated approach. Action in Teacher Education, 20(4),85-95.

Whitehurst, G. (2002, Summer). Improving teacher quality. Spectrum: Journal of State Government, 75(3),12-15.

ENDNOTES 1This form is based on the PDAS form that is used to evaluate teachers statewide. 2In the secondary art education course I teach, students are required to take the Keirsey on- line temperament sorter (available at http://keirsey.com). Students reflected that this exam helped them understand more about themselves as well as how to work more effectively with their future colleagues and students.

3Some medical schools, such as University of Texas-Southwestern evaluate medical students on criteria including empathy and eye contact. These evaluations are preparation for a new National Board of Medical Examiners' clinical- skills test that all U.S. medical students must pass starting in 2005.

MAY 2004 / ART EDUCATION N



Documents

Today's Student Teachers: Prepared to Teach versus Suited to Teach?