What Do Teachers Need to Know?

Barry J. Fishman
University of Michigan
Prepared for the NSF REC PI Meeting, May, 2002

This document is the combination of a briefing paper prepared for the NSF REC PI Meeting discussion of "What Do Teachers Need to Know?" and a summation of the major points of discussion from within that session.

1. The Current State of Research

The question of what teachers need to know is hotly contested. Most agree that teachers need knowledge of their subject matter and knowledge about how to teach. However, there is debate about the nature of teacher knowledge, and the extent to which researchers are able to know what teachers know. In addition, in conjunction with the main question about what teachers must know, it is also important to ask, "How do teachers learn?" This second question is necessary if we are ultimately to influence teacher knowledge, which should be a core goal of any instructional reform effort.

1.1 What Do Teachers Need to Know?

The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) provides a useful framework with which to answer this question, because unlike other national standards documents that focus on what students should know (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996), the NBPTS focuses on what teachers should know. NBPTS says the following in their science standards¹: "Accomplished science teachers have a broad and current knowledge of science and science education, along with in-depth knowledge of one of the subfields of science, which they use to set important appropriate learning goals" (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001, p. 11). In the standards, this is broken out into the following areas: Nature of science, fundamental ideas of science (and the subfields), the contexts of science. In addition, the NBPTS standards for science in early adolescence include technology as an area in which teachers require knowledge (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1998). But this is "just" content knowledge. Elsewhere, the NBPTS standards indicate that teachers must know how to teach these subjects to their students (pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge). The NBPTS also states that teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning, i.e., they must have knowledge of assessment techniques and knowledge of how students learn. In addition, professional teachers are members of learning communities, according to the NBPTS, which requires that they have knowledge of the local and broader contexts in which they work and know how to interact productively with those contexts. This is a tall order, and in answer to the question, "What do teachers need to know?", one might be tempted to answer, "Everything!"

1.2 The Nature of Knowledge

Adding complexity to the issue of what teachers need to know are underlying issues related to the nature of knowledge. This is taken up by Munby, Russell, and Martin (2001), who suggest that we must revisit the argument among positivism, behaviorism, constructivism, and social constructivism. Depending on the perspective taken, there are potentially vast implications for one's view of knowledge. Another important philosophical matter has to do with the distinction between knowledge and belief. Fenstermacher (1994) points out that when you ask a teacher about their knowledge, what you actually get is a report of their beliefs about their knowledge. He argues that knowledge has to satisfy a "truth condition," while beliefs do not. Thus teachers' knowledge about subjective issues, such as the best pedagogical approach, might appear to be flawed according to some external measure, but it will be difficult to convince the teacher of that. Belief systems are resistant to change. Thus a good deal of the recent research in this area has focused on the relationship between belief and action (e.g., Brickhouse, 1990; Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996; Meyer, 1997; Varrella & Burry-Stock, 2001), and the conclusions so far are mixed. At this point, it is unclear if teachers' beliefs and knowledge are directly related to their classroom practice, though it seems logical that this should be so. There is more general agreement that knowledge/beliefs and practice exist in a reciprocal relationship (Richardson, 1996). Practice is as likely to influence knowledge and belief as the other way around. Thus some researchers have abandoned the idea of a focus on teacher knowledge for a focus on teacher practice. This presents its own challenges, such as trying to reconcile a behavioral approach to evaluating teachers' cognition with constructivist pedagogical goals.

1.3 How Do Teachers Learn?

As part of any consideration of what teachers should know, and the nature of that knowledge, it is logical to also ask questions of how to help teachers acquire knowledge (or at least alter their practices). This discussion focuses on in-service teacher learning, or professional development. Professional development is regarded as a cornerstone for the implementation of standards-based reform (Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, 2001). Educators have learned a great deal about what comprises effective professional development (e.g., Hawley & Valli, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999), yet report after report depicts the state of teacher professional development practice as deficient (e.g., CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 1999). Many cite the deficiency in terms of quantity (i.e., not enough hours of professional development), and recent research indicates that substantive pedagogical change requires extended professional development (Supovitz & Turner, 2000). The quality of professional development, however, is a critical issue that must be addressed. We continue to know relatively little about what teachers learn from professional development (Frechtling, Sharp, Carey, & Vaden-Kiernan, 1995), and in turn what students learn as a result of changed teaching practices (Supovitz, 2001), which is the ultimate goal of standards-based reform efforts. To create excellent programs of professional development, it is necessary to build an empirical knowledge base that links different forms of professional development to either teacher or student learning outcomes.

Science and technology educators have many opportunities for professional development, but there are few empirical research efforts studying these programs (Wilson & Berne, 1999). The authors of one of the only studies to date to explore the relationship between professional development and teacher and student learning noted in their review of the literature that, "relatively little systematic research has been conducted on the effects of professional development on improvements in teaching or in student outcomes" (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Yet even this study was based on teacher self-report data, not direct examination of professional development, teaching practices, or student learning. Although practically every new program in science education has associated professional development, it is frequently treated as ancillary to the research on the innovation. To compound this problem, where professional development research with a focus on teacher and student learning has been conducted (Carpenter, Fennema, & Franke, 1996; Marx, Freeman, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 1998), it typically has focused on groups of volunteer teachers who are, more often than not, motivated to change or try something new (Supovitz & Zeif, 2000). It is as yet unclear what the implications of this focus on motivated volunteers are for our understanding of professional development, but the differences are sufficient to warrant investigation (Bobrowsky, Marx, & Fishman, 2001). Understanding these differences is critical to the ultimate success of educational reform efforts.

2. Summary of Discussion from Session²

The group assembled for this session at the National Science Foundation represented a range of efforts related to teacher knowledge and learning in both mathematics and science, K-12 and higher education. Our conversation was not organized around themes, but rather around the research in which participants are engaged. Issues were raised in the context of these "mini-presentations" of research as the floor was yielded from one speaker to the next according to connections and questions being made by other participants. What follows is a summary of those issues, organized roughly in the order in which they were introduced into the conversation, but with liberties taken to consolidate similar issues for the sake of readability.

Linking Teacher and Student Learning

The session opened with a presentation about research connecting teacher learning in professional development to changes in teacher practice and eventually to student learning. The main point raised by this work is that, though there is widespread "craft" knowledge of best practice in professional development, there is next to no empirical evidence linking professional development to changes in classroom practice or to student learning. The issue of evidence based on students' learning emerged as a key issue in the larger conversation, as changes in students' performance (measured in many different ways) is the ultimate aim of educational reform efforts.

Socio-cultural Influences on Teacher Practice

The next presentation focused on teacher knowledge growth and practice when moving from pre-service programs to induction. The work explored the role of school culture and the influence of students on teacher practice. In one case, a teacher had learned techniques of reform-oriented teaching in a pre-service teacher education program, but found that students in his school assignment were not receptive to those practices. That realization led to changes in his practice, even when those changes were counter to the practices he would have preferred to enact. Another project addressed the issue of practice-context interactions through the explicit study of school policies and culture in order to create a profile of school context that could be used in understanding teacher practice. The context for teaching practice is thought to be a critical mediating factor for teacher practice, one which influences teacher knowledge, in part through teachers' professional identity or sense of self-efficacy.

How Do We Study Teachers' Knowledge

Methodologies for studying teachers' knowledge were raised in the context of many projects. There were a broad range of methodologies suggested by those present, from case studies to surveys and tests; from discourse analysis to design experiments to quasi-experiments. An important set of issues and arguments related to how research should be conducted to yield reliable and interpretable results emerged, reflecting a broader conversation on this topic among funding agencies and the research community in general. At issue is the concept of "evidence-based research," and in particular what is acceptable as "evidence." Is the "gold-standard" for research in education the randomized experiment? Or is there a broader array of methods that yield generalizable results? The argument hinges on issues such as the relationship between internal and external validity in research, and whether educational settings in general are suitable for randomized experiments in the same manner as clinical trials in medicine. Also, many questions in educational research focus on how people make meaning, and these are often best studied through qualitative methods. Large-scale assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress can provide important background information on teaching practices and student performance, but how does this information feed back into the larger research agenda on teacher learning and knowledge? Needless to say, the group did not resolve these issues to anyone's satisfaction; they remain issues with as much relevance to the study of teacher knowledge as to other areas of inquiry in education.

Consideration of the Nature and Content of Knowledge for Teaching

Related to the conversation about research methods was the critical consideration of the nature of teachers' knowledge. Is knowledge something that can be measured as an abstract quantity? Does knowledge exist in the heads of individuals, or is distributed across people and situations? Or perhaps the relative emphasis on individual vs. environment varies for each person? These questions are central to debates about how to measure teacher knowledge—e.g., through paper and pencil tasks, through observations of people acting in their environments, or through other authentic tasks. There were a range of answers to these questions in our conversation, but none conclusive. Questions on the nature of teacher knowledge and how to measure it are particularly important as the field considers different approaches to support teacher learning. For example, how do teachers move from "inert" knowledge gained in pre-service learning about subject-matter or pedagogy to knowledge that can be used in practice?

Another approach to this question had to do with understanding teachers' knowledge through the lens of students' knowledge. What do students understand when they work in particular settings and domains? How do students develop ideas about content, and what do teachers need to know in order to facilitate this understanding on the part of students? While linking teacher learning to student learning is a goal of several projects, a caution was raised with respect to measurement of teacher performance as a function of student performance. Instead of judging teaching in terms of student performance, an argument was made in favor of understanding the work of teaching as a performance in and of itself, and evaluating the opportunities for learning that teachers create (which may or may not be realized in student performance due to a number of concomitant factors).

Implicit in this argument is the idea that good teaching is not just a process; it is also an accomplishment. Implicit in many of the research projects presented was the importance of teachers understanding the content being taught. But there were questions raised about other areas of knowledge that might be important for teaching. For instance, is it important for teachers to have knowledge of the underpinnings of cognition—cognitive psychology—in place of or in addition to what is currently taught in educational psychology courses? What about knowledge related to classroom management and pedagogical techniques? There was general agreement that much of what is currently offered as pedagogical knowledge for teaching (e.g., left- vs. right-brain learning styles) is misguided at best, quackery at worst.

Models for Teacher Learning and Practice

Models for teacher learning were part of almost every presentation. They ranged from formal pre-service settings to in-service professional development, and multiple others that emerged from the contexts in which teachers work. For example, teacher learning from student work was raised in several instances. How is teachers' understanding shaped by their assessment practices in the classroom, and the presence of large-scale and high-stakes assessments beyond their classroom? How can information related to student learning be made available to teachers to guide their own learning trajectories? A project in higher education has built a community focus on developing pedagogical content knowledge for college teaching, and asked questions about how that knowledge is organized and communicated to practitioners. Another project explores how practice in professional settings can serve as effective models for practice in instructional settings, using those contexts to define the bounds of the pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge that teachers need master. For example, should science laboratories serve as models for how learning and practice should be constructed in science classrooms? Other projects focus on how teachers learn from materials, exploring the concept of "educative" materials as a site for professional learning. Still others explore the notion of teacher as researcher, learning through reflecting on one's own practice.

Challenges for Teacher Learning in Urban Settings

Several of the projects on teacher knowledge and learning in K-12 settings focused on urban schools in particular. The methods and issues related to teacher knowledge raised in the context of urban schools were not, on the whole, different from those raised in other contexts. There are, however, additional challenges in urban settings such as students' SES, variable family and community support, teachers teaching out of their certification area, and lack of resources or robust infrastructures. These issues raise additional challenges for teacher learning and knowledge. A focus on these issues is important because they raise questions about equity and challenges to sustainability and scalability that are different than research findings on teacher knowledge from other settings.

New Technologies for Teacher Learning

Technologies to facilitate teacher learning across a range of contexts were discussed throughout the session. It is worth noting that technology was discussed as a means of supporting teacher learning, and not as a content area for teacher learning. This is perhaps a sign of progress in the research community, which has have moved beyond media-specific research foci to consider the affordances of different technologies for helping teachers learn mathematics and science, communicate with their peers, and reflect on their practice. Technologies discussed in the session included case-based video tools to support teachers as they move from pre-service to induction, on-line community tools to foster connections among teachers with shared interests, as well as software for exploring mathematical content.

3. Participants

Alicia Alonzo, acalonzo@uclink.berkeley.edu
Hilda Borko, hilda.borko@colorado.edu
Davis Carrejo, ree@mail.utexas.edu
Daniel Chazan, dchazan@pilot.msu.edu
Elizabeth Davis, betsyd@umich.edu
Joni Falk, joni_falk@terc.edu
Joan Ferrini-Mundy, jferrini@msu.edu
Barry Fishman, fishman@umich.edu
David Hammer, davidham@physics.umd.edu
Jim Hammerman, Jim_Hammerman@terc.edu
Patricio Herbst, pgherbst@umich.edu
Timothy Koschmann, tkoschmann@siumed.edu
Pamela Kraus, PamKraus@Talariainc.com
Reginald Lee, rlee@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
Ronald Love, rlove_1@msn.com
Michael Martin, martinas@bc.edu
Joel Michael, jmichael@rush.edu
Barbara Miller, bmiller@edc.org
Ina Mullis, mullis@bc.edu
Yasser Nakib, nakib@gwu.edu
Nora Newcombe, newcombe@temple.edu
Janine Remillard, janiner@gse.upenn.edu
Nancy Sanders, nsanders@ecs.org
Mark Schlager, mark.schlager@sri.com
Elizabeth VanderPutten, evanderp@nsf.gov
Daniel Watt, dwatt@edc.org
Karen Wieland, kwieland@acsu.buffalo.edu

4. References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy, Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R., & Fishman, B. (2001, March). The empirical base for professional development in science education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri.

Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97, 3-20.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). Professional development: A link to better learning (Year Two Report). Washington, DC: CEO Forum on Education and Technology.

Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of science teacher education, 7(4), 247-266.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Frechtling, J. A., Sharp, L., Carey, N., & Vaden-Kiernan, N. (1995). Teacher enhancement programs: A perspective on the last four decades. Retrieved October 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/rec/pubs/eval/tep/tep.htm

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marx, R., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (1998). The professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 667-680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Meyer, K. M. (1997). Catalysts and impediments to change in science teachers' beliefs and practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Fourth ed., pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1998). Early adolescence/science standards. Retrieved May 1, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://new.nbpts.org/standards/complete/ea_science.pdf

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). Adolescence and young adulthood science standards. Retrieved May 1, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://new.nbpts.org/standards/complete/aya_science.pdf

National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula & T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student performance. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II) (pp. 81-98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Supovitz, J. A., & Zeif, S. G. (2000). Why they stay away. Journal of Staff Development, 21(4), 24-28.

Varrella, G. F., & Burry-Stock, J. (2001, March). Linking science teachers' beliefs and teaching practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 173-209). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

¹ NBPTS has standards in a range of subject areas for both primary and secondary aged learners. For the sake of brevity, I will only deal with the science standards for "adolescence and young adults" in this document. For other standards, see the NBPTS web site at http://www.nbpts.org/
² This account was created with the help of notes from Elizabeth VanderPutten, and comments on drafts of this document by many of the participants in the meeting..