Section I: Stating the Problem: Examining the State of Practice in Teacher Preparation Programs What is

the state of practice? How do schools of education currently integrate child and adolescent
development research and theories into their preparation programs? Too often, knowledge about child
and adolescent development is presented to pre-service teachers in de-contextualized ways, so that its
classroom application is not apparent. As a consequence, most beginning teachers and other educators
do not adequately understand the scientific knowledge base or its applications in child and adolescent
development. Current NCATE standards state that “new teachers should acquire the knowledge and
skills that will enable them to teach so that all children can learn.” This standard is the expectation for
the more than 700 institutions connected to NCATE. To enable preparation programs at these
institutions to rise to the challenge, pre-service teachers need to understand the factors that contribute
to children’s ability to learn. Findings from research on child and adolescent development have the
potential to promote these understandings. Toward this end, NCATE conducted a survey of its
institutions to determine how knowledge of child and adolescent development is transmitted; what
primary texts are used most frequently; and what knowledge bases in child and adolescent development
are applied in teacherpreparation programs (See Appendix A). A Web-based survey was sent to unit
heads of 595 institutions accredited by NCATE (and to 20 more accredited soon thereafter); 283
responded. Key findings indicate that: • Approximately 80 percent of responding colleges of education
offer courses in child and adolescent development. • Nearly 70 percent of responders indicated that
courses in child and adolescent development are also offered through their psychology department. • At
90 percent of the institutions, teacher candidates are required to take at least one child and adolescent
development course. • In most of these institutions, knowledge in the area of child and adolescent
development is assessed through projects involving P-12 students, end-of-course exams, and case
studies/vignettes. 6 About three-fourths of early childhood and elementary preparation programs said
that the knowledge base in their programs is codified in professional standards; only 61 percent of
middle-level childhood and adolescent programs said the same. In addition, 72 percent said that the
knowledge of child and adolescent development of their teacher candidates is informed equally by
research and practice, whereas only 25 percent said that it is informed mainly by research. About half of
the responding institutions thought that additional coursework was needed in adolescent development
and middle level childhood. Textbooks. The institutions responding to the survey use a wide range of
textbooks that focus on child and adolescent development in their programs. There appears to be little
consensus on textbooks, but many of the books contain very similar information. Four authors were
mentioned as authoritative sources on child and adolescent development most frequently across
programs. Books by Laura Berk were most frequently mentioned by early childhood and elementary
education programs (among almost 30 texts focusing on child/adolescent development mentioned by
early childhood programs and more than 40 mentioned by elementary education programs); whereas
books by J.W. Santrock were most frequently mentioned by middle-level and secondary education
programs. Steinberg was also mentioned several times among the authors mentioned at the secondary
level. There were fewer mentions of any particular text in the area of middle-level childhood education
than in the other program areas. The NCATE survey revealed that many texts present virtually no
application; thus, education professors have to create their own examples. Textbooks by Laura E. Berk
(Child Development and Infants, Children, and Adolescents) are the most frequently used books in child
and adolescent development. A review of these texts reveals that Berk’s are classic textbooks on child
development that cover the stages from infancy through adolescence. They cover physical, cognitive,
and social/emotional growth, referring to Jean Piaget for cognitive development and to Erik Erikson and
Lev Vygotsky for social/emotional development. However, these books, which are the most frequently
used by the early childhood and elementary education programs responding to this survey, do not
discuss how to use this information in the classroom and contain no application prompts, such as “How
can a teacher help children regulate themselves in a classroom?” Survey respondents commented that
both education students and their professors would benefit from a text that made more explicit
connections between the research and its application. In contrast, a text by Anita Woolfolk, Educational
Psychology, does include applications for the classroom, although it is a text geared to a course in
educational psychology, and not a course in child and adolescent development. It is possible that, due to
limits on the number of credits in teacher preparation programs in some states, the course in
educational psychology serves as a proxy for an additional course in child and/or adolescent
development. Each chapter in Woolfolk’s work starts with a case study and asks, “What would you do?”
At the end of each chapter, four real teachers explain what they would do. The text includes information
on cognitive functioning and gaining attention as well as motivation strategies for teachers to get and
retain a child’s attention. Some special education faculty listed Woolfolk’s Educational Psychology as the
most authoritative text used in their program. Fewer special education faculty 7 said they use the same
texts as in other programs, such as early childhood. One respondent said that all students take a lifespan
psychology course in the psychology department; that special education courses address developmental
issues in most courses; and that students also take educational psychology. Another respondent noted
that special education majors take the same child development courses as the early childhood and/or
education majors. Although a few of the texts may do an adequate job, these texts do not appear to be
used by a majority of programs. Two texts that appear to have more application are Child and
Adolescent Development for Educators, by Judith Meece, and Child Development: Educating and
Working with Children and Adolescents, by McDevitt and Ormrod. Course Syllabi. Jane Leibbrand, NCATE
Vice-President of Communications, presented a comparison of two syllabi from a college course in
adolescent development. The course was taught by two different professors and separated by a year—a
year during which NCATE implemented performance-based standards focusing on outcomes. In the first
syllabus, the instructor used only certain parts of the text (John W. Santrock, Adolescence) and did not
appear to include classroom applications. In the syllabus from the following year, the professor had
introduced a focus on classroom intervention. One issue noted is that, in large programs, there may be
25 sections of a course may be offered for which each professor selects his/her own book. NCATE’s new
program review system, which expects program faculty to develop and implement common
assessments for all candidates in the program, may facilitate greater consistency within programs in
schools of education. What knowledge bases and experiences do teacher educators feel would be
valuable in preservice education? What are the obstacles to providing this knowledge and experience?
Survey respondents indicated that a clearer connection between knowledge of development and clinical
experiences is needed. Faculty in special education programs indicated that more coursework in special
education and children with disabilities would be very useful. One respondent summed up a goal of the
roundtable with the comment: The need is not for more coursework—the need is for better defined
courses that produce a consistent and important knowledge base that students can apply to classroom
situations. When asked to identify the obstacles, 65 percent of the respondents cited lack of time during
the program. The next most frequently mentioned item was state law or policy that constrains
additional coursework in teacher preparation (cited by 33 percent of the respondents). Onequarter of
the respondents noted a lack of agreement among teacher educators about how to apply knowledge of
child and adolescent development to teacher preparation. 8 Open-ended comments from the
respondents highlight additional obstacles: The research base of developmental psychology has not
been sufficiently embraced by teacher education professionals. There is a lack of agreement about the
need to revisit the content of development from the perspective of an expert. The inclusion of a
developmental psychologist in the evaluation of student teachers might be an interesting addition to the
student teacher team, including the participation of this person in student teaching seminars. [There is]
lack of agreement on how much time should be devoted to understanding developmental knowledge
versus teaching pedagogy. It seems more time is devoted to training students to teach without the same
amount of time devoted to understanding developmental concepts which form the bases for why
teachers should teach as they do. State requirements need to be adjusted. [We need more] time to
work more collaboratively with the faculty in the Psychology Department to align child and adolescent
development and pedagogical content knowledge on how children emerge in learning specific content.
It isn’t that there is explicit disagreement [among researchers and teacher educators]. Rather, there has
not been much opportunity for the connections to be made explicit and disseminated. What is the
essential knowledge base in child and adolescent development research? What do teachers need and
want to know? What should they be able to do, and why? Ramey and his colleagues (in press) use the
term “development” to capture an ongoing set of biological, psychological, and social processes that
result in measurable changes at the individual level. Thus, development is purposive, contributing to the
individual’s increased adaptability and effectiveness of thought and behavior, including social
transactions which, in turn, promote the individual’s ability to understand the world and successfully
contribute in an ethically principled and constructive manner to his or her society and its future. These
developmental tasks are consistent with the goals of education and call for more focused attention in
teacher preparation programs. Children and adolescents pass through a rich variety of developmental
stages and opportunities on the way to becoming adults. Teachers must be empowered as problem
solvers to understand these important developmental tasks and incorporate these understandings into
grade-appropriate content in their courses. Numerous panels and discussions have addressed the
importance of applying child and adolescent development to classroom practice. However, it has not
been clearly stated what this concept means or what aspects of development are important to apply.
Tomes of information, both anecdotal and empirical, relate to child and adolescent development, 9 but
where does a teacher begin? How do preparation programs narrow the scope of research, theories, and
ideas about development in such a way that they are accessible for use in preservice programs and
ultimately in pre-K through grade 12 classroom settings? There are as many variations of developmental
content and experiences offered in pre-service programs as there are faculty who teach them. As a
consequence, teachers entering the profession from different training programs bring a diverse set of
skills, knowledge, and dispositions to their work. However, the participants expressed concern about the
extent to which school culture provides opportunities for teachers to share their ideas and work
together to solve problems, noting that these issues will determine whether students benefit from the
diverse perspectives teachers bring to their work. Dr. James Comer offered a useful framework for
teacher education programs to provide pre-service teachers with both the content and experiences to
promote optimal student development. His field-based intervention research emphasizes six critical
domains along which children develop—physical, cognitive, language, social, psychological, and ethical.
These domains serve as an organizing framework for providing the didactic and experiential
opportunities pre-service programs can offer to help teachers acquire the attitudes, skills, and
knowledge bases needed to promote development.