culture of the United States, and it can be seen in how university professors are prepared and selected (Merseth, 1993; Murray, 1996). The typical doctorate program emphasizes research, not teaching. Yet many of these researchers take positions at colleges or universities where they also must teach. Many reports in recent years have called for paying more attention to teaching, especially of undergraduates (reviewed in NRC, 1999h; Rothman and Narum, 1999).

These notions that “teaching is telling” and that “anyone can teach” also are seen in the design of many alternative teacher education programs that emphasize content background and deemphasize lengthy pedagogical preparation. These programs might, for example, actively recruit college graduates, provide a highly abbreviated “training” period on pedagogy, and then immerse the novice teachers in the culture of the classroom, sometimes with a mentor and sometimes not.

Sadly, the belief that anyone can teach also seems to be reflected in some traditional teacher preparation programs. This notion or belief that everyone can teach can lead to overly simplistic approaches to teaching and teacher education. The design of such programs seems to presume that all teacher candidates have some level of natural teaching ability, that teaching is largely “telling,” and that the primary role of teacher educators is to acquaint their students with procedural rules that will ensure success in the classroom. Thus, some teacher education programs stress to their students “basic principles of teaching” and then help these teacher candidates learn, practice, and implement them (e.g., Goodlad, 1990; Howey, 1996).

Such approaches also can lead to the espousal of “simple” solutions to problems such as maintaining classroom discipline rather than to broader, deeper examination of what may be the underlying causes for disciplinary problems—failed instruction. Thus, those programs may lack program coherence or a comprehensive philosophical framework. They may not integrate preparation in subject content and pedagogy. Field components of the program may be instituted primarily to comply with state regulations for certifying teachers or for accreditation of the program itself. All of the aforementioned attributes of some traditional preparation programs may help explain why the preparation of teachers historically has been described as teacher “training” rather than teacher “education” (Goodlad, 1994; Howey, 1996; Mundry et al., 1999).

Career-long professional development for teachers has suffered a similar lack of coherence, integration, and continuity. In the current system, school

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement