The Education Pendulum

mod1 CopyofRubric_Print_Format.xlsxmod2 module2paper module1 module2

General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

1. Instructors will be using a grading rubric to grade the assignments. It is recommended that learners review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment in order to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.

2. Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. (APA 7th edition).

3. This assignment requires that at least 6 scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least two in-text citation from each source be included.

4. No quotations, paraphrases, or summaries, only synthesis of literature.

5. I will be required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. (it a plagiarism detector, it cannot be greater than 10%. I will have to submit through that program in order to let you know if there has to be any adjustments to the paper. Directions: Write a paper of 1,500–1,750 words that addresses shifts in educational paradigm (the pendulum effect).

In your paper, include the following:

1. A research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, specifically identifying the current educational paradigm.

2. A research-supported discussion of how the educational pendulum (shift in paradigms) influences education, including the role of the educational leader, teacher, and student.

3. A research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms, including shifting paradigms.

*** Please review the rubric before writing a paper, of course we should be aiming for the highest score on that rubric. ***Paper should include an introduction (last two sentences in the introductions are the thesis of the paper, and the purpose of the paper) 2-3 sections (for example, educational paradigms, shift in paradigms, how the educational pendulum (shift in paradigms) influences education) and a conclusion if you want to use any other additional resources, that ok as long as those are peer-reviewed articles within the last 5 year only. the once that are listed are not, I know, but that is what the professor gave me.

Disciplinary Foundations of
the Conceptual Model

DRAWING ON THE RESEARCH REVIEWED for this monograph,this chapter describes the disciplinary foundations for each of the four
layers of the conceptual model. Given the parameters of the review (such as
attention only to articles published in top journals in four disciplines), the
substantive consideration of each layer is designed to be illustrative rather than
comprehensive. In other words, the purpose of this discussion is not to provide
an exhaustive assessment of the forces at all layers of context that contribute to
all indicators of student success. Instead, this presentation illustrates the per-
spectives and emphases that each of the four disciplines contributes to each
layer of the model. For each of the four layers of the model, we discuss research
from the top journals in the following order: economics, sociology, psychology,
and education.

Layer One: Internal Context
At its core, student success is determined by the attitudes, motivations, and
behaviors of individual students. Our review suggests that, of the four discipli-
nary perspectives, psychology focuses greater attention than the other disciplines
on understanding the cognitive and noncognitive processes that determine stu-
dent success. Even the relatively small number of relevant articles in other dis-
ciplines and fields are centrally informed by psychological theories and frames. In
short, psychology differs from the other disciplines included in this review in its
decided focus on the individual’s mental processes and behaviors—processes and
behaviors defining Layer One of the model.

35Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

nyusp
Sticky Note
Disciplinary foundations of the conceptual model. (2008). ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(1), 35-53.

nyusp
Highlight

Economics
Aside from work only loosely coupled to cognitive dimensions of student success,
the economics journals we reviewed yielded little insight into the contribution of
Layer One to student success. An example of work loosely bearing on interests at
this layer of the model is that of Jacob (2002), who models the influence of
noncognitive skills on the gender gap in college participation. Jacob concludes
that noncognitive skills influence college enrollment patterns even after controlling
for high school performance and aptitude.

Sociology
Relatively little work published in top sociology journals examines cognitive
or affective processes defining the internal context of success indicators. One
notable exception, related to the work in psychology by Perry, Hladkyj,
Pekrun, and Pelletier (2001), identifies the components of an academic work
ethic among college students and shows how an academic work ethic is related
to student performance and to characteristics of institutions attended (Rau
and Durand, 2000). Rau and Durand conclude that a strong relationship
exists between disciplined study, as defined by their academic ethic measure,
and academic performance.

Psychology
Attention to the contribution of cognitive and noncognitive processes to stu-
dent success is relatively common in psychology articles. More specifically,
most of the articles published in top psychology journals inform understanding
of the ways that such constructs as achievement motivation, self-efficacy, and
stereotype threat contribute to student success.

A few articles published in top psychology journals focus on aspects of self-
regulated learning, particularly perceived academic control and other strategies
that regulate motivation. Research suggests that perceived academic control is
positively related to final course grades and that students with high academic
control and high preoccupation with failure receive the highest grades (Perry,
Hladkyj, Pekrun, and Pelletier, 2001). Students with high academic control
not only receive higher grades but also exert more effort, experience less anxiety,
have greater motivation, tend to monitor progress in achieving goals, and

perceive greater control over course assignments (Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, and
Pelletier, 2001). Other research shows that students’ strategies for regulating
their motivation are related to their goal orientation (Wolters, 1998). The use
of intrinsic regulation strategies is more common among those with mastery
goal orientations, while use of extrinsic regulation strategies is more common
among those with performance goal orientations (Wolters, 1998). High school
students with autonomy orientations (that is, those who tend to participate in
academic activities that they believe to be important to themselves) have more
positive academic experiences, while students with control orientations (those
who tend to participate in academic activities that they believe to be important
to others) have lower academic performance and commitment (Wong, 2000).

A substantial number of articles published in top psychology journals
examine the contribution of students’ goals to their academic performance.
This research consistently supports a “multiple goals” perspective, whereby
mastery goals promote interest (Harackiewicz and others, 2000; Harackiewicz,
Barron, Tauer, and Elliot, 2002), performance goals promote grades (Elliot
and Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, and Lehto, 1997; Harackiewicz
and others, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, and Elliot, 2002), and per-
formance avoidance goals reduce academic performance (Elliot and Church,
1997). The positive relationship between performance goals and academic
achievement appears to be mediated by such variables as persistence on
task (Elliot, McGregor, and Gable, 1999); effort, self-efficacy, goal level
(VandeWalle, Cron, and Slocum, 2001); and achievement motivation (Barron
and Harackiewicz, 2001), while the negative relationship between performance
avoidance goals and academic achievement appears to be mediated by test
anxiety (Elliot and McGregor, 1999) and disorganization (Elliot, McGregor, and
Gable, 1999).

Research published in top psychology journals consistently shows that
academic self-efficacy, optimism, and hope are positively related to students’
academic performance (Brackney and Karabenick, 1995; Chemers, Hu, and
Garcia, 2001; Gibbons and others, 2000; Snyder and others, 2002). The effects
of such “trait-like” characteristics as general self-efficacy, goal orientation, and
cognitive ability on academic achievement may be mediated by such “state-
like” characteristics as task-specific self-efficacy (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, and

37Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

Kilcullen, 2000). Psychopathology (psychological disorders, including anxiety
and substance abuse disorders) is negatively related to students’ academic per-
formance directly (Svanum and Zody, 2001) and indirectly through self-efficacy
and resource management (Brackney and Karabenick, 1995).

With only a few exceptions (for example, Cullen, Hardison, and Sackett,
2004), research in top psychology journals consistently shows that stereotype
threat contributes to gaps in academic performance between blacks and whites
(Brown and others, 2000; Gonzales, Blanton, and Williams, 2002; Steele and
Aronson, 1995), women and men (Brown and others, 2000; Brown and Josephs,
1999; Gonzales, Blanton, and Williams, 2002; O’Brien and Crandall, 2003), and
students with and without mental illness (Quinn, Kahng, and Crocker, 2004).
A self-evaluative stereotype threat is assumed to negatively influence performance
when an individual’s focus is diverted from performing a particular task to
worrying that low performance will confirm a negative stereotype about a group
to which the individual belongs (Steele and Aronson, 1995). The negative effects
of stereotype threat on performance may be reduced by other psychological
characteristics, particularly a coping sense of humor (Ford, Ferguson, Brooks, and
Hagadone, 2004).

Other research in top psychology journals shows the negative effects of par-
ticular experiences for African Americans. A longitudinal study of African
Americans at one predominantly white institution showed that grades declined
over the period of the study for students who had high levels of race-related
rejection sensitivity (those who “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely
react to rejection in situations where rejection is possible” (Mendoza-Denton
and others, 2002, p. 896). Other research suggests that, compared with other
African American high school students, those who had positive feelings about
their racial group and viewed race as important to their identity had higher
rates of college enrollment, while those who felt few connections to their racial
group and had negative beliefs about their racial group had lower rates of college
enrollment (Chavous and others, 2003).

Articles in psychology journals also include attention to differences in academic
performance between women and men, describing gender differences in rates of
Advanced Placement test taking and performance (Stumpf and Stanley, 1996)
and explaining that gender differences in SAT math scores are attributable in part

to gender differences in mental rotation ability and math self-confidence (Casey,
Nuttall, Pezaris, and Benbow, 1995; Casey, Nuttall, and Pezaris, 1997). Other
research shows gender differences in the relationship between psychopathol-
ogy and semester grades (Svanum and Zody, 2001), between control orientation
and academic experiences (Wong, 2000), and between text anxiety and grade
point average (Chapell and others, 2005).

A small number of articles published in top psychology journals suggest
links between the internal layer of context and the school context (that is, Layer
Two of the model) via students’ perceptions of this context. For example, one
study suggests that increased perceptions of “situational constraints” (quantity
and quality of resources available to support learning) indirectly reduce
academic performance by reducing students’ performance goals (Villanova,
1996). A second study shows that undergraduates’ academic achievement is
positively related to students’ beliefs about school, particularly their predisposition
toward the learning context (Larose and Roy, 1995).

Education
Only a small number of articles in top education journals examine the ways
that students’ cognitive and noncognitive skills shape their success. Moreover,
the education articles that include this focus tend to draw on psychological
constructs. For example, one article shows that students’ academic perfor-
mance in college is shaped by cognitive skills (as measured by test scores)
as well as by noncognitive variables, including motivation and use of self-
regulated learning strategies (Ruban and McCoach, 2005). Other work stresses
the contribution of self-efficacy to students’ academic achievement. In a review
and synthesis of prior research, Pajares (1996) concludes that self-efficacy
beliefs shape student effort and perseverance, which in turn influence subse-
quent academic performance. In other educational research, performance is
viewed as a function of self-worth beliefs related to mathematics and gender
(Stage and Kloosterman, 1995).

Summary
The proposed conceptual model assumes that, at the “core” (Layer One of the
model), student success is determined by an individual’s motivations and

39Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

attitudes. Our examination of research published in the top journals in each
of four disciplines shows the dominance of psychological perspectives for
understanding these core attributes.

Layer Two: Family Context
The second layer of the model, the family context, recognizes that both inside
and outside the home, families may “manage” their children’s experiences to
promote various indicators of student success (Furstenberg and others, 1999;
McDonough, 1997; Perna and Titus, 2005). Although the aspect of families that
is emphasized varies across disciplines, research using each of the four disciplinary
perspectives includes attention to the influence of families on student success.

Economics
Our research review identified several examples of the ways that economists view
the contribution of families to student success. Some research in top econom-
ics journals examines the role of parents’ occupation. One study shows that,
compared with peers with traditionally employed parents, young people from
families with family-owned businesses generally have lower academic perfor-
mance during high school and are less likely to enroll in college (Davila and
Mora, 2004). Ease of intergenerational transfer of these family-owned businesses
is presumed to discourage academic engagement in high school and diminish
college-going aspirations of children in these entrepreneurial families (Davila
and Mora, 2004). In other work addressing the occupational background of
families, Siegfried and Getz (2006) develop a novel analysis of college choice
patterns of students from families with at least one parent who works on a uni-
versity faculty. Siegfried and Getz were particularly interested in the degree to
which these students may be advantaged by additional information about college
quality that would be transmitted by their more knowledgeable parent(s).
Although failing to provide a causal explanation, Siegfried and Getz note that
students in their sample are more likely to attend research universities and selective
liberal arts colleges than are their peers from nonacademic families.

Economists have also examined the contribution of family structure to
student success. For example, Ver Ploeg (2002) isolated the effects of displaced

nyusp
Highlight

children on the likelihood of college enrollment and degree attainment.
Although previous researchers have explained this disadvantage as a function
of the typically diminished income of broken homes, Ver Ploeg controls for
income and reveals a net negative effect of such circumstance.

Beyond the structural characteristics of families, economists have also
devoted attention to dimensions such as the economic behavior of families
with children in college. One example of this perspective is Bodvarsson and
Walker (2004), who find that students whose parents pay for a substantial
proportion of the costs associated with tuition and living expenses have lower
grade point averages, are more likely to fail courses, and are less likely to persist
to the baccalaureate than students who bear the lion’s share of these costs
themselves through work or personal savings.

Sociology
Sociologists have made a number of important contributions to our under-
standing of the influence of family characteristics on student success. Cheng
and Starks (2002) employ a symbolic interaction frame to examine the differ-
ential role of significant others on the educational expectations of students from
different racial groups. Symbolic interaction focuses on the ways that personal
identity is developed through the interaction with others. The Cheng and Starks
work points to processes through which the influences of significant others are
conditioned by race. Central to their findings is the idea that the power of
specific significant others (such as parents, teachers, or friends) to influence
expectations about education varies across racial groups.

Some research shows the role that families play in determining the future
paths of their children and ultimately the degree to which those future paths
may reduce or magnify stratification in broader society. Conley’s account (2001)
of the role of family wealth in college attendance and completion shows that tra-
ditional models of attainment have ignored the role of family wealth, focusing
instead on less useful measures of family income. This type of analysis taps a
long-standing sociological interest in the long-term advantages conveyed through
the intergenerational transfer of wealth. Other sociological research focuses on
families and high schools and the ways that family background can determine
students’ preparation for college and range of choices available. For example,

41Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

nyusp
Highlight

Attewell (2001) argues that families seek to maximize the quality of schooling
available to their children, often with the hope of improving their chances for
college success. He shows that this pursuit on the part of the family may actually
be counterproductive in terms of chances for admission to high-quality colleges.
Other research shows that family background has an important influence on
high school performance and college enrollment (see, for example, Muller and
Schiller, 2000; Conley, 2001; Crosnoe, 2001; Cheng and Starks, 2002; Karen,
2002; Hofferth, Boisjoly, and Duncan, 1998). This influence is channeled
through increased parental involvement (Crosnoe, 2001), noneconomic
(cultural) by-products of family wealth (Conley, 2001), the influence of signif-
icant others (Cheng and Starks, 2002), and the social networks and cultural
connections of parents (Hofferth, Boisjoly, and Duncan, 1998).

Most of the sociological literature is dominated by either an exclusive
cultural reproduction framing or some type of contrast between the repro-
duction models and mobility models. Although reproduction models place
primacy on the binding role of social origins, mobility models focus on the
degree to which social status can change over the course of a lifetime. Educa-
tion is a central feature in both models, serving as a reproductive mechanism
in the former and a democratizing mechanism in the latter. A notable example
of such a contrast is Aschaffenburg and Maas’s examination (1997) of the
role of cultural capital in school success. In that work they test competing
mobility (DiMaggio, 1982) and reproduction theories (Bourdieu and Passeron,
1977) and conclude that the mobility model is dominant but that the repro-
duction model is the more important in terms of college enrollment.

Psychology
A number of articles in top psychology journals examine the influence of the
family context on student success. Among the relevant aspects of the family
context, from the perspective of this discipline, are strength of ties to parents,
parenting style, and parents’ job security. The sole qualitative psychological
article in this review suggests that students’ plans are shaped, at least in part,
by the tension between increasing autonomy and sustaining ties to parents
and other loved ones (Shilkret and Nigrosh, 1997). Other research shows that
students’ academic achievement is influenced by parenting style, although the

relationship appears to be weaker for college seniors than for other students
(Glasgow and others, 1997; Strage and Brandt, 1999). An exploratory study
suggests that, when students perceive job insecurity among their parents, the
students experience cognitive problems, which reduce students’ academic per-
formance (Barling, Zacharatos, and Hepburn, 1999).

Other research published in top psychology journals shows that the rela-
tionship between aspects of the family context and student success varies based
on parents’ educational attainment, ethnicity, and immigrant status. Research
shows variations based on parents’ educational attainment and ethnicity in the
effects of parental involvement on eleventh grade students’ educational and
occupational aspirations (Hill and others, 2004) and students’ academic
achievement (Hong and Ho, 2005). Other research shows that, compared with
students from United States-born families, students from immigrant families
have higher academic motivation (which promotes academic achievement) but
greater family demands (which reduce academic achievement [Tseng, 2004]).

Education
A substantial share of articles in education show that student success is related
to students’ sociodemographic characteristics, particularly socioeconomic status,
race, and ethnicity. Educational research consistently shows that, even after tak-
ing into account other variables, socioeconomic status is positively associated
with such measures of student success as choice of institution attended (Astin
and Oseguera, 2004; Perna and Titus, 2004; Teranishi and others, 2004) and
graduate school enrollment (Walpole, 2003; Zhang, 2005a). Educational
research also shows that the predictors of such indicators as predisposition to
college (Hamrick and Stage, 1998), college enrollment (Heller, 1999), college
grade point average (Hoffman and Lowitzki, 2005), and plans for graduate
school (Pascarella, Wolniak, Flowers, and Pierson, 2004) vary by racial/ethnic
group. Although fewer studies examine variations in broad racial or ethnic cat-
egories, the small amount of available research shows that such indicators as
choice of institution attended vary by ethnicity in a particular group (for exam-
ple, Asian Pacific American [Teranishi and others, 2004]).

Research in education also includes attention to the role of family or
parental involvement in promoting student success. In particular, articles in

43Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

top educational journals have examined the contribution of parental involvement
to such indicators as college enrollment (Perna, 2000; Perna and Titus, 2005)
and the role of family background in shaping impressions and realities of
attendance and choice constraints (Paulsen and St. John, 2002).

Summary
All four disciplinary perspectives inform our understanding of the ways that
the family context (Layer Two of the model) influences student success. Econ-
omists have examined the influence on student success of such characteristics
as parents’ occupation and family structure as well as parents’ role in paying
college prices. For sociologists, families are central to “status attainment” frame-
works and perspectives examining the sources of continued stratification of
educational opportunity and outcomes. Psychologists include attention to the
strength of ties to parents, parenting style, and parents’ job security as well as
variations in outcomes based on family characteristics. Educational researchers
often examine the contribution to student success of such characteristics
as socioeconomic status and parents’ involvement in their children’s education.

Layer Three: School Context
Layer Three of the model, the school context, reflects the attention that various
disciplines, particularly economics, sociology, and education, devote to under-
standing the contribution of K-12 schools and higher education institutions to
student success. Attention to the school context, from primary school through
college, enables the identification and understanding of compounding effects
that determine the educational resources, academic preparation, and educational
orientations that subsequently determine success at the college level.

Economics
School effects are an important domain of study in economics. Much of the eco-
nomics literature in this layer addresses the role of years, type, and quality of
education on subsequent indicators of student success. A review of literature
published in top economics journals suggests three themes pertaining to the rela-
tionship between institutional characteristics and practices and student success

nyusp
Highlight

indicators: (1) interplay between two-year and four-year institutions; (2) eco-
nomic returns to institutional characteristics; and (3) the effects of institutional
packaging of financial aid on retention and degree attainment.

Economists have devoted significant attention to understanding differences
between and relationships among influences of two- and four-year institutions.
The subbaccalaureate labor market is the focus of Grubb (2002a, 2002b), who,
through reviews and his own empirical analysis, concludes that, although there
is little effect of course taking by itself, there exists a significant return to
completion of subbaccalaureate credentials in certain areas. Alfonso, Bailey, and
Scott (2005), however, show that “occupationally” oriented students are less
likely to complete their degree programs and call attention to mission ambi-
guity in today’s community colleges. Other researchers focus on the difference
in returns among two- and four-year graduates (see, for example, Kane and
Rouse, 1995), concluding that, relative to high school graduates, an earnings
premium exists at each level of attainment and to a lesser degree for those leaving
college without a degree (Grubb, 2002a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).

The role of the two-year school in determining aspirations, transfer behavior,
and completion has been the focus of a number of researchers in the economics
literature. Ehrenberg and Smith (2004) develop a useful evaluation scheme for
states to use in determining the degree to which four-year institutions graduate
two-year transfer students. Their framework calls attention to the role the two-
year schools play in terms of academic preparation and the responsiveness of
four-year institutions to the needs of these transfers. Leigh and Gill (2003, 2004)
show how two-year schools enhance educational aspirations of their graduates
and improve their probabilities of baccalaureate attainment. Taken together,
Sandy, Gonzalez, and Hilmer (2006) and Gonzalez and Hilmer (2006) show that
two-year colleges democratize opportunity and improve the likelihood of bac-
calaureate attainment for Hispanic students in particular. They explain the lower
rates of baccalaureate attainment by two-year transfers as a function of their
propensity to transfer to lower-quality four-year institutions rather than inade-
quate preparation at the two-year level (Gonzales and Hilmer, 2006). Surette
(2001) focuses on gender differences in two- to four-year transfer, failing to arrive
at a plausible explanation for the persistently lower rate of transfer and comple-
tion among women than men.

45Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

nyusp
Highlight

While Kane and Rouse (1995) focus on two- and four-year rates of return,
Arias and McMahon (2001) focus on an improved model for estimating private
rates of return (which they claim have been seriously underestimated in most
of the economics literature). Looking beyond direct wage benefits, Eide (Eide
and Waehrer, 1998; Eide, Brewer, and Ehrenberg, 1998) offers considerations
of the option value that more selective colleges confer on their graduates and
argues that a sole focus on wage premiums obscures the larger picture of bene-
fits accruing to graduates from more prestigious schools.

Pricing and the influence of financial constraints in attendance decisions
and college choices have also received a great deal of attention in the economics
literature. For example, financial constraint has been shown to play a lesser role
in college choice at the application stage than students’ sense of institutional
fit (Toutkoushian, 2001). Analyzing college application behavior, Toutkoushian
concludes that a student’s sense of ability relative to that of the student body
at colleges in a potential choice pool plays a larger role in deciding where to
apply than does their sense of affordability.

Although substantial work has been devoted to understanding the effects
of financial aid and subsidies on student attendance patterns more broadly,
the literature at Layer Three reveals economists’ interest in institutional behav-
iors relating to aid and subsidies that can influence student attendance. Good
examples of research along this line include Singell (2004) and Kerkvliet and
Nowell (2005). Both studies examine the role of aid in persistence and arrive
at different but not conflicting conclusions: aid matters but it depends on the
context of the institution and degree to which students are influenced by their
perceptions of opportunity costs.

Sociology
Sociologists also devote substantial attention to the role of the school context,
with particular focus on structural antecedents to postsecondary student success
indicators. Much of the research that is relevant to this layer focuses on theoret-
ical tensions between cultural reproduction and social mobility. Karen (2002)
paints a powerful picture of stratified opportunity, showing that although
disadvantaged students begin with a lower chance of college continuation, those
that do go on most often enroll in less selective institutions that provide fewer

academic support resources—institutions that have also been shown to confer
lesser returns in the postgraduation labor market (Thomas 2000; Thomas and
Zhang, 2005).

The process through which students are advantaged as a result of their
K-12 experiences is an important interest of sociologists. Attewell (2001) and
Espenshade, Hale, and Chung (2005) have scrutinized the effects of the ultra-
competitive high school environments that many parents seek for their chil-
dren. Attewell’s analysis (also cited in our consideration at Layer Two of the
model) suggests that these schools penalize students because of the probability
of an otherwise top-performing student’s being ranked lower in the class
simply because of the intense academic competition. Espenshade, Hale, and
Chung (2005) revised this “frog-pond” effect and reaffirmed Attewell’s findings
with the important qualification that the overall performance of students in
the schools generally outweighs any disadvantage resulting from lower ranking
as a result of the intensity of competition at the school.

Alon and Tienda (2005) and Hurtado and Carter (1997) address issues of
institutional “fit” among minority and Latino students, respectively. Alon and
Tienda (2005) develop a more nuanced model to estimate the success rates of
minority students attending highly selective institutions, concluding that,
when modeled properly, the rates of minority and nonminority student suc-
cess at these institutions is the same. In contrast, Hurtado and Carter (1997)
find that Latino students’ sense of belonging on four-year campuses after trans-
fer from a two-year school is not as strong as for their peers who enrolled as
native freshmen on the four-year campus.

Although the majority of work in sociology addresses issues related to the
process by which schools structure opportunities for success at the postsec-
ondary level, a few studies examine program effectiveness in colleges. Two
studies of interest have already been cited as examples of work addressing issues
in Layer One of our model. The first of them is Rau and Durand’s examination
(2000) of the academic work ethic and its relationship to academic perfor-
mance. Although the idea of an ethic clearly relates to Layer One, the study
also provides insight about how colleges could best foster this ethic on their
campuses. Collier (2000) was concerned with the impact of capstone course
experiences on the development of student identity, which is in turn linked

47Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

to academic performance. Similar to Rau and Durand, Collier offers a con-
sideration of what colleges might be able to do to make these programs effective
on their campuses. Additional sociological work on program effects includes
Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum’s examination (2002) of “stigma free” remedia-
tion programs at two-year colleges. They use a qualitative approach and con-
clude that the “stigma free” programs can work, sometimes too well. They note
that some students failed to develop a realistic sense of their abilities and there-
fore held unrealistic expectations about their future academic opportunities.
Regina and James (2004) examine differences between two-year for-profit and
not-for-profit schools’ programs for maximizing employment possibilities for
their graduates. They conclude that community colleges could benefit from
institutionalizing their employment processes in ways that are similar to their
for-profit counterparts.

Psychology
Only a small number of articles in top psychology journals examine the influ-
ence of school context on student success, suggesting that psychology theories
may be less relevant than other perspectives to understanding this layer. The
available psychology articles generally illustrate the ways that particular inter-
ventions or experiences contribute to various aspects of student success. For
example, one study shows that the negative effects of stereotype threat on female
students’ math performance are reduced when students learn of a “disconfirm-
ing example,” for example, a female role model in math performance (Marx and
Roman, 2002). Another study shows that, by building interpersonal skills and
educational aspirations, participating in extracurricular activities contributes to
higher levels of educational attainment at age 20 (Mahoney, Cairns, and Farmer,
2003). A third study shows that students who request and receive personal psy-
chological counseling have higher retention rates than students who request but
do not receive counseling (Wilson, Mason, and Ewing, 1997). Another study
suggests that, among students with high levels of emotional and psychological
stress, an intervention that requires students to write about the stress prevents a
decline in grade point average (Lumley and Provenzano, 2003). Providing stu-
dents with a decision-making aid that helps them to identify the reasons for their
decision improves students’ satisfaction with their choice of college (Kmett,
Arkes, and Jones, 1999). Other research suggests that students’ SAT verbal scores

(but not course grades) depend in part on their relative skill with multiple-choice
rather than essay examinations (Bridgeman and Morgan, 1996).

Education
Educational research also recognizes the role of the institutional context in deter-
mining student success. Some studies demonstrate that particular indicators of
student success are associated with the characteristics of the high school attended,
while other indicators are related to the characteristics of the higher education
institution. For example, studies show that high school context is directly related
to college access and choice. Factors such as high school quality and ethnic mix
shape students’ opportunity for college; these high school influences are known
to vary by racial background (Perna, 2000). Other work shows that choosing to
attend a historically black college or university rather than a predominantly white
institution is related, at least in part, to the characteristics of the high school
attended and students’ experiences at that school (Freeman, 1999). High schools
with well-developed guidance and advising programs have also been shown to
have important influences on subsequent college enrollment behaviors and insti-
tutional choices (Plank and Jordan, 2001; Tierney and Jun, 2001).

In terms of the higher education context, research in top educational jour-
nals shows that such institutional characteristics as single sex, race, and qual-
ity contribute to student success. Based on his review of research, Mael (1998)
concludes that academic achievement is higher for students who attend a
single-sex institution (junior high school, high school, or college) rather than
a coeducational institution. Other research suggests that success varies in part
based on whether a student attends a historically black college or university
or a predominantly white institution, with black students having more posi-
tive experiences at historically black colleges or universities than at predomi-
nantly white institutions (Fleming, 2002; Fries-Britt and Turner, 2002). The
quality of the higher education institution attended is positively related to such
indicators of student success as graduate school enrollment and degree
completion as well as earnings (Zhang, 2005a, 2005b), and institutional
expenditure patterns are related to students’ self-reported gains in various
aspects of college performance (Toutkoushian and Smart, 2001).

Other educational research focuses on the contribution to student success
indicators of particular programs or experiences at an institution. Using an

49Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

nyusp
Highlight

experimental design, Nagda and others (1998) found that participation in
an undergraduate research opportunity increased rates of persistence through
graduation, especially for African Americans with academic achievement below
the median. Other research suggests that participating in community service is
positively related to such indicators as graduate school enrollment and degree
attainment (Astin, Sax, and Avalos, 1999). Reviews of research suggest that
academic achievement improves when a student participates in some form of
peer assessment (Topping, 1998) or participates in an intervention designed
to enhance study skills (Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie, 1996). For science, math-
ematics, engineering, and technology courses and programs, academic achieve-
ment and persistence increase when the student engages in some form of
small-group learning (Springer, Stanne, and Donovan, 1999).

Summary
The conceptual model also assumes that context of the “school” attended,
including both K-12 and higher education institutions, influences student suc-
cess. Attention to the school context is relatively more common in economics,
sociology, and education than in psychology. Economic frameworks may be
particularly useful for informing our understanding of differences in outcomes
for students attending two-year and four-year colleges and universities, the eco-
nomic returns to different characteristics of colleges and universities, and the
effects of a college or university’s financial aid programs on student outcomes.
Sociological perspectives shed light on the ways that K-12 schools and higher
education institutions structure educational opportunities for students. Drawing
on both economic and sociological perspectives, education research also stresses
the ways that school and college characteristics influence various indicators of
student success. Psychological perspectives may be especially useful for under-
standing how the effects of a particular policy or program on a given outcome
may be mediated by cognitive and affective processes.

Layer Four: Social, Economic, and Policy Context
The fourth layer of the model, the social, economic, and policy context, rec-
ognizes that numerous external forces also influence student college choice,

nyusp
Highlight

both directly and indirectly through other layers of context (Perna, 2006a).
Although less commonly examined than the other layers of the model, at least
some research in all four disciplines suggests the importance of considering
how the social, economic, and policy context influences student success.
Among the potentially influential forces are social conditions (societal norms),
economic conditions (unemployment rate), and public policies (establishment
of a new state-sponsored non-need-based grant program).

Economics
Economists have contributed significantly to our understanding of issues
connected to this layer of the model. Representative work addresses the role
that state aid policies play in college choice (Niu, Tienda, and Cortes, 2006)
and the ways that education-related debt influences employment decisions
(Minicozzi, 2005) and educational attainment (Monks, 2001). Supply and
demand issues related to regulation and state appropriations for higher education
present challenges for state struggles to maintain enrollment levels (Berger and
Kostal, 2002). As demand inevitably declines when tuition increases, Berger
and Kostal (2002) argue that states must choose between reducing supply
through further reductions in appropriations or increasing regulation of colleges
and universities. Supply and demand are dominant themes in work related to
this layer. Additional research in this layer of our proposed conceptual model
considers effects of public financing of K-12 schools (Deke, 2003) and the role
of financial aid (Dynarski, 2002; Keane, 2002; Ichimura and Taber, 2002).

Sociology
Sociological inquiry draws attention to the ways that larger societal inequities may
be related to higher education. Some of this work focuses on occupational gen-
der segregation and its relationship to persistent gender bias in students’ choice of
major (Bradley, 2000). Other work in sociology attempts to account for observed
increases in women’s participation in science and engineering major fields. For
example, Ramirez and Wotipka (2001) suggest that increased participation in
science and engineering fields is simply a function of increased participation overall
by women. More refined analyses of gender bias in occupations and earnings
conclude that women’s major choices limit their occupational choices and that

51Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

nyusp
Highlight

women are more likely to find themselves in lower-paying government and non-
profit jobs (Roksa, 2005). Roksa’s work also shows that, despite lower pay in these
jobs, women tend to enjoy more rapid elevation to management positions.

Psychology
Very few articles published in top psychology journals inform understanding
of the contribution of the social, economic, and policy context to student
success. One exception shows the role of the media in shaping student success.
This study suggests that, by activating stereotype threat, stereotypic commercials
contribute to lower math performance among women than men (Davies,
Spencer, Quinn, and Gerhardstein, 2002).

Education
A small number of articles in educational journals illustrate the role of the pol-
icy context in shaping student success. Some research shows that aspects of
such state public policies as tuition, financial aid, appropriations, and K-12
academic preparation are related to college access and choice (Heller, 1997,
1999; Perna and Titus, 2004), while other research shows that racial or eth-
nic stratification in college enrollment increased in one state despite the pres-
ence of various higher education policies (Perna, Steele, Woda, and Hibbert,
2005). K-12 educational reform, challenges to affirmative action, and changed
student demographics appear to shape college admissions processes (Sireci,
Zanetti, and Berger, 2003). Although desegregation initiatives are typically
associated with increased enrollment of black students in predominantly white
colleges, one study shows that desegregation initiatives and demographic
changes appear to have contributed to greater enrollment of white than black
students at one historically black college (Brown, 2002).

Summary
The outermost layer of the model explicitly recognizes that aspects of the
social, economic, and policy context may also shape student success. Economic
perspectives appear particularly useful for informing our understanding of the
ways that particular public policies influence student success. Sociological
perspectives draw attention to the role of broad social forces and social

inequities. Although few articles in psychology journals appear relevant to this
layer (that is, Layer Four of the model), one potentially relevant perspective
considers the role of the media in shaping student success. By including attention
to federal and state public policies, demographic changes, and other forces,
education research also suggests that the social, economic, and policy context
influences student success.

Conclusion
This chapter illustrates the perspectives that four disciplines (economics, soci-
ology, psychology, and education) contribute to each of the four layers of the
conceptual model. The chapter also offers examples of studies from each of
the four disciplines for each layer of the model. Based on our review of research
published in top journals, we conclude that psychological perspectives domi-
nate the understanding of the “internal context” of student success (Layer One
of the model). With their focus on an individual’s cognitive and affective
processes, psychological perspectives seem ideally suited for understanding
how such core attributes as an individual’s attitudes and motivations influence
student success. Although stressing different facets, all four disciplinary per-
spectives recognize the contribution of the family context (Layer Two of the
model) to student success. Economics, sociology, and education perspectives
often include attention to the ways that characteristics of the K-12 schools and
higher education institutions that students attend (Layer Three of the model)
influence student success, while psychological perspectives typically devote less
attention to this layer of context. A review of research in these four disciplines
also sheds light on the various ways that student success is influenced by the
broader social, economic, and policy context (Layer Four). The final chapter
builds on these understandings to offer implications of the model for policy-
makers and practitioners as well as future researchers.

53Theoretical Perspectives on Student Success

Rubic_Print_
Format

25.0%

10.0%

Format 10.0%

5.0%

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
EDL-822	EDL-822-O500	The Education Pendulum	270.0
Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%)	Satisfactory (82.00%)	Good (91.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	80.0%
Research-supported Discussion of Educational Paradigms, Including the Current Paradigm		2		5.0%	Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is either missing or not evident to the reader.	Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.	Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth.	Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is adequately presented and includes all necessary elements.	Research-supported discussion of educational paradigms, including the current paradigm, is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.
Research-supported Discussion of How the Education Pendulum Influences Education	Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is either missing or not evident to the reader.	Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.	Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth.	Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is adequately presented and includes all necessary elements.	Research-supported discussion of how the education pendulum influences education is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.
Research-supported Discussion of the Importance of Educational Paradigms	20.0%	Research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms is either missing or not evident to the reader.	Research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms is present, but incomplete or inaccurate.	Research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth.	Research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms is adequately presented and includes all necessary elements.	Research-supported discussion of the importance of educational paradigms is thoroughly presented with rich detail and includes all necessary elements.
Synthesis and Argument				10.0%	No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.	Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Organization and Effectiveness
Thesis Development and Purpose	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.	Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.
Mechanics of Writing	Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
APA Format	Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.	Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.	Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.	Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.	The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%

Title:

Authors:

Source:

Document Type:

Subject Terms:

Geographic Terms:

NAICS/Industry Codes:

Abstract:

Author Affiliations:

Full Text Word Count:

ISSN:

Accession Number:

Database:

Record:

DÉJÀ VU: THE ACCESS/SUCCESS PENDULUM.

GÁDARA, PATRICIA

ORFIELD, GARY

Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. 10/14/2010, Vol. 27 Issue 18,

p20-21. 2p.

Article

*RIGHT to education

*ACADEMIC achievement — United States

*HISTORY of education policy

*EDUCATION — United States

*EDUCATION of minorities

*AMERICAN civil rights movement

*AFFIRMATIVE action programs in education

*UNIVERSITY & college admission

UNITED States

912910 Other provincial and territorial public administration

913910 Other local, municipal and regional public administration

611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

In this article the authors discuss access to education and academic

achievement for minority students in the U.S. They offer a brief

history of U.S. educational policy for African-American and Latino

students which includes a discussion of the Civil Rights movement,

affirmative action, and college admissions standards and financial

aid. They argue that the increasing minority student population

makes it imperative that both academic success and access are a

focus of U.S. educational policy.

Professors of education and co-direct The Civil Rights

Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, University of California, Los

Angeles

1487

1557-5411

55123480

Academic Search Complete

DÉJÀ VU: THE ACCESS/SUCCESS PENDULUM

As higher education renews its focus on college completion, we should be mindful about past

failure to hold steadfast to access and success

In education, reform tends to follow cycles, often bouncing from one extreme to another without considering

the possibility of incorporating multiple perspectives simultaneously. Policies aimed at helping more

1
1
1

EBSCOhost https://web-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=859…

1 of 4 8/11/2021, 9:09 PM

nyusp
Sticky Note
Gandara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). Déjà vu: The access/success pendulum: As higher education renews its
focus on college completion, we should be mindful about past failure to hold steadfast to access and
success. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 27(18), 20-22.

underrepresented students enter college and complete degrees have bounced from one pole to another,

embracing access as the primary goal without giving adequate attention to successful completion, which

results in many underrepresented students coming through the campus gate but relatively few leaving with

degrees.

There has been considerable publicity lately about the U.S.’s declining rankings in international

comparisons of young people with college degrees. Today, we are not among the top 10 developed

countries for degree attainment, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,

with flat completion rates placing us so low in the rankings, Americans are waking up to the fact that

something must be done to increase the rate at which our youth gain degrees — especially youth of color —

if the U.S. is to remain competitive in international markets. Just 21 percent of African Americans and an

appalling 12 percent of Latinos have completed a degree by age 29. The Obama administration has set an

ambitious goal for the U.S. to lead the world in the percentage of adults with a college degree by 2020, but

this will require that we pay attention to both access and success in ways that we haven’t before.

Breaking Down Barriers

Much of the first half of the 20th century was characterized by a long march toward providing equal access

to a basic education to African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and, to some extent, Asian students.

Up to midcentury, these groups fought just to gain access to schools with equal resources. Importantly,

many of the court rulings that resulted in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which promised

access to the same schools for all children regardless of color, were decisions about access in higher

education, such as the Sweatt v. Painter decision of 1950 that opened access to the University of Texas law

school for students of color. Having been denied access to an equal education, it was logical that all efforts

would be concentrated on the access issue during this period, culminating in Brown, the 1964 Civil Rights

Act, the 1965 Higher Education Act and the creation of Work-Study under the War on Poverty. The barriers

were supposed to fall and the students were to have the resources to enroll.

By 1975-76, an African-American or Latino high school graduate had an equal chance of attending college

as a White high school graduate. The civil rights era shone a light on the yawning gaps in educational

attainment that existed between White students and students of color, and the mid- to late-1960s and

mid-1970s saw a strong focus on the importance of access to higher education, including opening the

segregated public universities in the South and creating tribal colleges for Indian nations to help narrow

those gaps. Almost all selective universities adopted affirmative action. Nonetheless, by 1975 only 15

percent of non-White young adults held college degrees compared with 24 percent for White students. It

would take time, though, before the challenge of college completion became a focal point in struggles for

equality.

Forty years ago the focus was on providing more equality of opportunity through affirmative action and other

strategies to increase access to college. And it worked. However, by the early 1980s it became clear that

access was not enough. Students of color entered college at all-time-high rates but they were too often not

completing degrees. This fact stimulated competing responses between conservatives and progressives.

On one hand, social conservatives argued that the students should not have been admitted because they

weren’t prepared, which was the reason they weren’t completing degrees. Efforts to limit access to more

selective colleges by redirecting “under-prepared” students to two-year colleges coupled with assaults on

EBSCOhost https://web-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=859…

2 of 4 8/11/2021, 9:09 PM

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=859c4297-9015-4afe-8f7f-94c6aee553d5%40sessionmgr4008&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.a.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail%2fdetail%3fvid%3d0%26sid%3d859c4297-9015-4afe-8f7f-94c6aee553d5%2540sessionmgr4008%26bdata%3dJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#toc

affirmative action policies were underway.

The 1980s became the era of “educational excellence,” in which a conservative rhetoric focused on framing

the problem as incompatibility of excellence and diversity. Conservatives argued that American education

had become mediocre because standards were not high enough. Although this was most directly

communicated in the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” document that critiqued public schools, it was also a theme

that played out in higher education. The question was posed in mainstream media as well as in academic

publications: Could we have internationally competitive universities and still maintain a commitment to

diversity? Weren’t these two goals fundamentally incompatible?

Dr. Alexander Astin countered the argument that excellence and equity were in conflict in the academy with

his 1985 book, Achieving Educational Excellence, in which he proffered that excellence in higher education

institutions in multicultural societies was only possible through diversity. The debate is like choosing

between giving a child food or health care — both are necessary and strongly related. In addressing the

completion problem, social progressives argued that, if the country was to move forward socially and

economically, it required that marginalized populations be admitted to selective universities and be

supported to succeed there.

College success became a new focus, and programs to help ensure that students of color completed

degrees increased in number and importance on campuses. However, support programs served few

students, and the nagging gaps remained between White (and increasingly Asian) students and students of

color with respect to degree attainment. Research showed that being admitted to a competitive college was

a completion strategy because affirmative action students’ completion rates in these colleges were higher

than in open-access colleges because there was a clear pathway and positive peer groups. Graduation was

the default outcome.

There was also a change in the political climate of the country in the 1980s, ushered in by the Reagan years

and the retreat from affirmative action and progressive policies to support low-income and students of color

in higher education. The Bakke affirmative action Supreme Court decision at the end of the 1970s sent out

alarms that the era of affirmative action was on life support. At the same time, fewer colleges were built,

admissions standards were raised and tuition constantly went up faster than family incomes as state

support declined. The impact was particularly pernicious for students of Color, including Latinos, who did not

have the HBCU-type institutions and were concentrated in states that relied too heavily on community

colleges. Thus, we saw a steady downturn in access through the 1980s and increasing gaps among

advantaged and disadvantaged groups in college admissions. The “success” part of the higher education

equation was lost in the new swing of the pendulum away from access and an increasing concern that

access to higher education was being lost for the nation’s minorities.

The 1996 anti-affirmative action initiative (Proposition 209) in California and the Hopwood decision, which

likewise found affirmative action illegal in Texas the same year, resulted in huge drops in admission to

selective public colleges in those states. Proposition 209 was followed by similar initiatives and court

decisions in other states, with predictable downturns in minority access. During the 1990s, concerns of

progressives once again became fixated on the access problem.

Changing Course

EBSCOhost https://web-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=859…

3 of 4 8/11/2021, 9:09 PM

More recently, we have seen a return to the discussion about the “success problem,” with colleges under

attack for providing too much remediation. Social conservatives have once again suggested the place for

students shortchanged by inferior high schools is community colleges, not the four-year institutions from

which they are more likely to graduate with a degree. The dramatic growth of the Latino population — now

the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority — has also raised new concerns about college success as

a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Latinos go to college at rates comparable to

other groups but they lag far behind others in degrees. The gaps in college attainment for this group are

alarming in states where they constitute the majority of the school-age population. Financial aid policies that

reward “merit” rather than need have proved debilitating for African-Americans, Latinos and other low-

income groups as working too many hours makes completing college much more difficult. And so once

again we shift our lens toward the challenges of success in college.

In a nation that will soon have a majority of non-White students in its public schools, the stakes are too high

to focus on only one issue at a time. Access of the right kind fosters success and completion. Focus on

support for students who fall behind makes access a better investment. We must do both all the time.

~~~~~~~~

By PATRICIA GÁDARA and GARY ORFIELD

Drs. Patricia Gándara and Gary Orfield are professors of education and co-direct The Civil Rights

Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at the University of California, Los Angeles.

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

EBSCOhost https://web-a-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=859…

4 of 4 8/11/2021, 9:09 PM

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjeh20

Journal of Educational Administration and History

ISSN: 0022-0620 (Print) 1478-7431 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

From content-centred to learning-centred
approaches: shifting educational paradigm in
higher education

Nicole Mary Rege Colet

To cite this article: Nicole Mary Rege Colet (2017) From content-centred to learning-centred
approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education, Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 49:1, 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

Published online: 07 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1130

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjeh20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjeh20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjeh20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-11-07

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737#tabModule

nyusp
Sticky Note
Rege Colet, N. M. (2017). From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: Shifting educational paradigm in higher education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(1), 72–86.

From content-centred to learning-centred approaches:
shifting educational paradigm in higher education
Nicole Mary Rege Colet

Institut de développement et d’innovation pédagogiques (IDIP), University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

ABSTRACT
This article reviews changes in pedagogical approaches in higher
education at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first century
from a creative perspective, by looking back from the future on
the shifts that occurred in conceptions and approaches relating to
teaching and learning. Reflecting on moves from one-dimensional
thinking to complex-oriented system thinking, and referring to the
transformational framework of theory U, it discusses how the
technological revolution and the increase in attendance of higher
education triggered transformations in teaching practices and
academic identity. Inputs from cognitive psychology and adult
education led to a pedagogical revolution reframing teaching
practices that would, hopefully, serve student learning. The article
draws on the metaphor of ‘the learner in the driver’s seat’ to
explain the new teaching and learning philosophy that unfolded
changing, through sustainable educational innovations, the
landscape of higher education.

ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 30 September 2016
Accepted 6 October 2016

KEYWORDS
Architectural education;
Higher education pedagogy;
student-centric approaches;
paradigm shifts; change
management; innovation
higher education;
educational psychology

1. Looking back from the future

I am not a historian and do not claim to be so. I see myself as being very grounded in the
present reality of educational development in higher education, whilst experiencing
changes in our ways of thinking of the field of higher education. I have a close colleague
who is a well-known educational historian. I admire her line of work, in particular how she
looks at the social histories of curriculum development. Her scholarly approach has little
to do with the action research I carry out for building up teaching and learning capacities
in higher education and promoting professional development of academics. So why am I
contributing to a special issue on the history of higher education?

When I look back on the past years, I see myself walking through times of great changes
and actively taking part in shaping the landscape of twenty-first century European higher
education, a movement that started with the signature of the Bologna Declaration in June
1999. As an educational psychologist, I have been embodying interdisciplinary approaches
and crossing boundaries in order to foster innovation in teaching and learning practices,
and to support organisational and leadership development in higher education. In short, I
have been focussing on change management and shifting paradigms in the way we think
and carry out teaching in higher education.

CONTACT Nicole Mary Rege Colet nicole.regecolet@gmail.com

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY, 2017
VOL. 49, NO. 1, 72–86
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1252737

mailto:nicole.regecolet@gmail.com

http://www.tandfonline.com

I am assuming that future historians will look back on the turn of the twentieth and
twenty-first century and immediately recognise that these were times of big changes for
higher education. They might even be seen as part of the global transformation that
societies experienced in the early twenty-first century when facing several acute disrup-
tions. My intention is to unfold part of this transformation looking at the rise of a new
teaching and learning philosophy that, after decades of pedagogical approaches based
on knowledge dissemination by scholarly academics, put the learner in the driver’s seat.

The narrative should be met as a philosophical and leadership journey into transform-
ing higher education. What triggered the need to change paradigms and espouse a new
pedagogical philosophy? What were the consequences and the expected outcomes?
How did this affect teaching and learning practices? What are the scientific findings
that supported this shift? How did it impact academic identity and organisational devel-
opment of higher education institutions? The story will reveal the admittedly difficult
journey of academics letting go of strongly embedded traditions and embracing new
systems of thought and action. Will this qualify as a scholarly piece of work on the
history and administration of higher education? Let’s see it as a reflective contribution
from someone who not only aspires to reform teaching and learning practices in higher
education and to take academics on a transformational journey, but has also been actively
engaged in doing so.

The creative exercise of looking back at present reality from the future requires to look
at the shifts going on without getting tangled up in conventional mind-sets and tumbling
over deep-rooted assumptions. How can we look at the unfolding paradigm with fresh
eyes? This is where theory U, a framework devised by Otto Scharmer and his team
from the Presencing Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
comes in handy (Scharmer 2009, Scharmer and Kaufer 2013). Theory U suggests a
social technology that enables us to step out of the systems that hold us so that we can
see them from outside and get a deeper understanding of how they operate and their
internal dynamics. Scharmer advocates that listening to the emerging future supports
shifts in systems. More than a theoretical and practical framework, theory U also stands
out as a source of inspiration for thinking creatively.

2. Witnessing shifts in systems of thought and action

Let’s imagine we are in the early years of the twenty-third century. What will future edu-
cational historians see when they look back on higher education from 1980 to 2020? It is
quite likely that academics – if they still exist as we know them today – looking at material
and documents will declare that people were studying organisational development and
leadership, and redefining higher education. They will probably add that this discourse
was not only going on within higher education, it was present in many sectors leading
to the assumption that organisations were undergoing shifts and experiencing deep trans-
formations both in how they were structured and how they operated.

Future scholars will notice that the leading episteme at the time acknowledged that pro-
cesses of thought informed and were reflected in processes of action. They will therefore be
examining evidences of shifts in systems of thought and action, and how they unfolded in
higher education. Researchers, for instance, were facing a scientific revolution (Kuhn
1970) as they went from one-dimensional thinking and normal disciplinary-based

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 73

research towards complex-oriented system thinking and interdisciplinary action research.
Innovation in higher education was highly encouraged based on a statement credited to
Albert Einstein that ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used
when we created them’. The purpose was not to invent something new in order to
patch up whatever problem had occurred, it was more about changing the system of
thought that was guiding actions. Future historians will note that several governments
provided special funding in order to promote innovation in higher education and research
with the hope of modifying the mind-set (system of thought) and how people addressed
issues (system of action).

According to T.S. Kuhn’s theory on scientific revolutions, shifts occur when a deep and
long-term crisis challenges our assumptions and ways of operating. In other words, and
going back to Einstein’s quote, the prevalent thinking can neither solve the problems
nor define them, and a new way of thinking is called for. Future historians will probably
suggest that the period from 1980 to 2020 marked the end of the age of the scientific revo-
lution, an era that started with the Renaissance and led to modernism with its tradition
regarding knowledge production, bringing together science, politics and economics
(Harrari 2011). The growing crises revealed the divides produced by the system that
were challenging models of thought and action. In theory U, MIT economist Otto Schar-
mer called attention to three divides, the ecological divide between self and nature, the
social divide between self and others, and the spiritual divide between self and self
(Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, p. 4). These divides told of the complexity of the system
where silo-thinking and organisations, as produced in modern societies and through
one-dimensional thinking, became inadequate for addressing the complex issues at
stakes. This meant that institutions, such as higher education institutions, also needed
to shift from organisations built on hierarchical distribution of power to organisations
open to creativity and shared responsibilities. The theory U framework then suggested
four levels of organisation: level 1.0 referred to traditional state-centric systems dominated
by hierarchy and centralised control, level 2.0 referred to free-market systems based on
competition driven by individual awareness, level 3.0 referred to social-market systems
promoting networking and negotiations between the various stakeholders, and level 4.0
referred to co-creative eco-systems driven by a collective awareness of the whole system
(Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, pp. 13–14).

Looking back on innovation in higher education, future educational historians might be
able to see how change leaders started to pay attention to the way they saw the system cap-
turing by this means the main frameworks and assumptions used to understand mani-
fested reality. From the future they will identify the common stories and myths that
held together communities, as well as the network of strategies and tactics that were
held as efficient. They will understand how stepping back from deep-rooted assumptions
and routines enabled to gain in awareness of the complexity of systems and, through this,
build up capacities in system thinking and approaches, which would then guide
transformation.

For supporting transformation, theory U advocated for a threefold journey called pre-
sencing (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, pp. 21–22). The first phase called for suspending
habits and routines, and moving towards the edges of the system through observation.
The second phase consisted of reflective practices so as to let go of previous conceptions
and approaches, and allow in new ways of seeing. The third phase, based on exploring by

74 N. M. REGE COLET

doing, encouraged acting swiftly and smoothly, and tapping into creativity to innovate.
Historians might even pick up on U. Lab, the massive online open course (MOOC)
launched in 2015 promoting theory U, which bought together a thriving community of
500,000 innovators and change leaders crafting post-modern universities. Was their
success due to the fact that it came from the MIT, one of the leading universities according
to the Shanghai ranking of higher education institutions? In two hundred years time will
historians fully understand the purpose of such rankings and their consequences for
shaping the landscape of higher education? Will they untangle the growing fascination
for rankings that were also highly criticised and debated?

3. Reframing higher education

Future historians will start looking at the disruptions that were pushing organisations to
evolve towards new open models. Institutions issued from the scientific revolution such as
nations, banks and stock exchanges, universities and research institutions, trade unions
and global industries all needed to undergo deep transformations. They will also record
that reframing higher education was high on the agenda, as universities, born from the
rise of modern science in the second half of the nineteenth century, were no longer
adapted to the way research was conducted, nor capable of providing graduates embracing
complex-oriented system thinking.

Three elements convened to build up the crisis that hit higher education at the end of
the twentieth century: (1) growth of higher education that saw a rapid and massive
increase in the number of people attending higher education, (2) diminishing of public
funding putting a strain on higher education institutions to provide more high-level scien-
tific education with less resources and to seek alternative sources of funding, (3) a disagree-
ment between academic leaders and policy-makers over the purpose of higher education
institutions and how they should be governed and managed. The clash of the tectonic
plates of political thought, economic drive and knowledge production caused an earth-
quake that would bring down the research-led universities founded in the second half
of the nineteenth century – the so-called ivory towers – that has become cut off from
reality and societal needs.

Old traditional universities had originally been designed to train a small number of aca-
demics, who would then become members of an elite. It was even said that academics
invented universities as a breeding ground for their own. The inbreeding of academics
and the tribulations of the tribes defending their territories were frequent topics of dis-
course not only in scholarly works on academia (Becher and Trowler 2001) but also in
literature such as David Lodge’s highly successful and witty novels. Paradoxically, the
driving force of the scientific revolution that created research-led universities would even-
tually also lead to their dismiss.

How could provision of higher education meet the ever-growing demand as more and
more people claimed their right to higher education? Expanding population led some
countries, like China, to export their students whereas other countries decided to set up
their campuses in countries lacking the resources to build up research and innovation
capacities, thereby gaining precious parts in a highly profitable market.

The rise of a global market for higher education turned education into a commodity
that could be regulated according to the market. Universities got caught up in the belief

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 75

that global higher education was an indicator of growth; they succumbed to standardis-
ation, rankings, quality enhancement procedures and accountability exercises in order
to prove their value on the global market. Financing higher education became a challenge
as state funding diminished and the cost of supporting cutting-edge research exploded.
Knowledge production and dissemination became a very expensive business that drew
attention to egalitarianism, in a context where higher education was becoming a consumer
product.

Expanding higher education also meant catering for a very diverse population where
adult learners were no longer an exception. Universities became places of initial and
increasing continuous education. Programmes and courses needed to become more flex-
ible and designed to fit the purpose of the students and other stakeholders. Technology
revolutionised academia as knowledge was externalised and no longer in the head of
the academics. New forms of communications between scientific communities became
commonplace, and blended-forms of teaching and learning became the rule.

Last of all, issues of governance and ownership became critical since mass higher edu-
cation could not be left in the hands of a small elite concerned about its reproduction. The
industry of higher education bought about many changes in governance and management
of institutions, redefining academic leadership and its impact on the development of
higher education. Servant leadership, for instance, seemed a better fit for societal
demands claiming that higher education should serve the growth of the whole rather
than the elite.

As the walls of the Ivory Tower came tumbling down it also became clear that the teach-
ing and learning practices, established in the early Renaissance universities from the
heights of the cathedra, based on knowledge dissemination and accumulation, had to
be reviewed. This growing awareness preceded the pedagogical revolution that would
strike higher education and eventually put the learner in the driver’s seat after having
kicked the professor off his chair.

4. Fostering transformation in higher education

The technological revolution, the need for fresh pedagogical approaches, the rise of aca-
demic development and leadership all led to promoting pedagogical innovation as a
means of fostering transformation both in curriculum development and in teaching prac-
tices. The pioneers of innovation claimed that if new methods were introduced and widely
spread, they would predictably induce changes in conceptions and approaches of teaching
and learning, thereby shifting the system. Future historians looking back on the first ped-
agogical innovations in higher education, in the last decade of the twentieth century, will
probably notice the drive for using technology, which rapidly separated the digital passio-
nate from the digital sceptical who saw little point in falling to the fascination of technol-
ogy as a means of transforming teaching. The idea of catering for the so-called digital
natives did little to prevent spreading the idea that innovation could only be achieved
by drawing on digital technology.

At the same time, twentieth century cognitive psychology emphasised that changes do
not occur simply because we change something in the way we do things. Studying the link
between our conceptions – the way we see things – and our approaches – the way we do
things – revealed a much more complex interdependence. Systems of thought based on

76 N. M. REGE COLET

beliefs, assumptions, implicit theories and experience are not always rational, as pointed
out by Kahneman (2011). All cognitive scientists were supporting that changes in beha-
viours and patterns of thought required working on the underlying assumptions and
the mind-set that guided actions (Varela et al. 1991). In other words, introducing new
digital tools cannot, by itself, drive transformation, and future historians will comment
how they only yielded cosmetic innovations that were short lasting, expensive and
ineffective.

Historians will understand that, based on the assumption that processes of thought and
processes of action are co-dependent, and drawing on theory U’s social technology, change
management in the early twenty-first century was about helping the actors in their specific
organisations to see themselves by paying attention to the way they thought, told and
operated within the system.

The early unsuccessful experiences related to wide dissemination of technology and the
growing knowledge on transformational processes emphasised the conditions to be ful-
filled for sustainable pedagogical innovation as opposed to cosmetic. The first condition
was to experiment – learning by doing – and to prototype a budding idea in a safe environ-
ment, in other words to risk an idea and to let go of the results. The second condition sup-
porting sustainable innovation was to be able to reflect on the experiment and, in doing so,
to draw on the power of collegial work and collective intelligence. To experience some-
thing and then to reflect on this experience fitted in well with the assumption that
systems of thought and action are co-dependent. The third condition addressed the
issue of how collective reflection was carried out and what types of conversation were
needed to generate collective creativity and to support sustainable innovation.

The backbone of fostering transformation in higher education, in the early twenty-first
century, was about creating a holding space that could empower academics to become
innovators in a system undergoing deep transformation and that could help them not
to withdraw from the change processes but rather to embody shared values and principles.
Transformational processes bought to light factors slowing down innovation such as the
dominant mind-set (i.e. reactive and pushing for adaptation versus creative and opening
up to new possibilities) and the characteristics allocated to the system (hostile or suppor-
tive of change, focussed on control or growth, inspirational or prescriptive). Together that
could regulate the capacity to grow and expand in a given system. For instance, a reactive
mind-set would most likely conclude that the system was hostile to change and that inno-
vation was impossible, when not dangerous. Whereas a creative mind-set would see the
many opportunities open where creativity could seep through. As with all major shifts,
a fertile soil for pedagogical innovation always started with a fundamental issue or ques-
tion that could not be left unattended. When a core group of committed people followed
up on their inspiration, changes happened. The saying went that it only needed five people
to change the world.

5. Putting the learner in the driver’s seat

The twenty-first century shift in pedagogical philosophy involved letting go of a teacher-
centric knowledge-dissemination model to summon up a student-centric learning-
focussed approach. The need to take these two steps – the first from teacher to student,
and the second from content dissemination to learning experiences – grew from

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 77

pioneer studies on teaching and learning in higher education carried out in the 1990s
(Biggs 1999, Prosser and Trigwell 1999, Hativa 2000, Ramsden 2003). These studies
invariably highlighted the link between teachers’ conceptions of teaching and their
assumptions regarding learning processes, and their teaching practices and how students’
achieved and also learned to learn.

Educational historians will suggest that the need to focus on learning grew from twen-
tieth century psychology revealing the complexities of learning processes. Another quote
of Albert Einstein summarises the standpoint ‘I never teach my students: I only attempt to
provide the conditions in which they can learn.’ Pioneers in professional development of
academics made understanding how students learn a core principle for effectiveness in
teaching. Therefore educational psychologists were encouraged to draw on modern
psychological knowledge for designing curricula and teaching practices that supported
learning.

5.1. Understanding learning

Socio-constructivist theories of learning, flowing out of Jean Piaget’s constructivist frame-
work, presented a promising background for primary and secondary education and were
very present in educational discourse. Future historians will notice that it took longer for
higher education to draw on psychological knowledge on learning and to start thinking of
providing conditions that supported student learning, as suggested by Einstein. They
might hypothesise that the reason being was that academics were the only teachers that
do not need any formal training to be assigned teaching duties. It took decades for acade-
mia to acknowledge that teaching in higher education required specific skills, and that
training could help build up teaching capacities. Many academics assumed that psychol-
ogy only related to children and that pedagogy – which literally stands for ‘the art and
science of teaching children’ – was out of place in higher education where emphasis
went on training adults to carry out high-level research. Programmes on teaching and
learning in higher education were often considered an offense to the noble art of teaching
research and likely to turn universities into upper secondary schools. Historians will prob-
ably pick on the ferocious opposition to even thinking of teaching in higher education.
Nonetheless massive increases in attendance of higher education and the need to care
for a wider and more diverse student population changed things dramatically, especially
when student attrition and drop out rates raised, or when policy-makers requested that
a higher percentage of the population should achieve a first degree in higher education
to boost the economy.

Caught up in the commotion of knowledge society and economy higher education
systems needed to understand how people learn, grow and thrive in order to respond
to the agenda. The main concern was to understand the specifics of adult learning and
identify the conditions that support efficient learning strategies. Initial studies in
student learning revealed a strong connection between students’ approaches to learning
and the teachers’ approaches to teaching (Marton et al. 1984). The concept of surface
and deep learning was largely studied in order to understand which teaching practices
could support deep learning and knowledge production as opposed to short-term super-
ficial surface learning.

78 N. M. REGE COLET

Malcolm Knowles’s (1998) work on adult education, as from the mid-twentieth
century, challenged the assumption that learning stops at adulthood. This led to thinking
in terms of life-long learning suggesting that higher education could not only expand on
initial training but also spread out in the field of continuous education. Various studies
looking into adult learning were able to pinpoint the specifics of the adult learner such
as taking ownership and responsibility for their learning, drawing on their experience,
engaging in learning when ready and when the goal is within reach, learning for purposes
of personal or professional growth, and relying on intrinsic motivation rather than extrin-
sic. Because of the growing numbers of adult students in higher education from the late
twentieth century onwards, academics needed to distinguish between pedagogical
approaches for children and teaching approaches for adults in research-led environments.
Andragogy – ‘the art and the science of helping adults to learn’ – therefore became an
acceptable way of thinking of teaching. It also sustained other learning models relevant
to adult learning such as experiential learning (Kolb 1984) or transformative learning
(Mezirow 1991).

Knowles pioneer work on adult learning led to re-examining inputs from educational
psychology crisscrossing various schools of thought and weaving together concepts for
understanding learning. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, for instance, gave
insights on setting learning goals that were attainable and sufficiently challenging to
sustain motivation. Motivational theories and frameworks were designed and tested in
order to reduce student attrition and support engagement in learning as well as building
up self-esteem. Positive psychology bought ground-breaking ideas on the well-being that is
essential for learning to occur (Seligman 2011). Cognitive sciences continued to further
understand how the mind works and the different mental processes that comprise
human rationality. Teaching practices based on inquiry-based learning and problem-
based learning grew in order to strengthen the research-teaching nexus characteristic of
academia, and reinforce higher order skills associated with scientific knowledge and
thinking.

Over time and through action research, the combined threads of psychology wove a
comprehensive framework for understanding learning in higher education. Academics
could gradually see the point of putting the learner in the driver’s seat, a metaphor that
was suggested by the theory U framework for designing innovative learning environments.
The metaphor gave substance to the principle of shifting pedagogies from teacher-centric
to student-centric. It helped focus on designing contexts for deep and transformative
learning, grasp what affected student motivation and self-efficacy, endorse self-directed
learning and student autonomy, and expand the rationale for assessment practices and
feedback aiming at personal growth and professional development.

5.2. Empowering the learner

The metaphor of the learner being in the driver’s seat holds the idea that the student is in
charge of his learning process. Future historians will notice how often the idea of ‘learning
to learn’ featured in mission statements and official governmental documents or in leaflets
promoting higher education institutions. Implementing the principles of andragogy was
certainly more oriented towards helping students take advantage of the enriched learning
environment they are immersed in, than asking them to swallow up large chunks of

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 79

knowledge straight out of the heads of the professors. As a matter of fact, due to the tech-
nological revolution and its impacts on communication, knowledge no longer resided in
the sole heads of scholars; it had been externalised and was accessible on a wide range of
social media. This challenged traditional views regarding the roles of professors and how
they were to relate to their students.

If teaching was not about handing down knowledge and testing mastery of scientific
evidence, what was it all about? What could the purpose of academics be if all the infor-
mation was out there and available to all? Fortunately, externalisation of knowledge did
not imply obsolescence of academics. It just required a shift in their role as teachers.
Their expertise was still needed and highly valued since being exposed to knowledge,
however vast and carefully crafted, did not automatically lead to learning or acquiring
new skills. The increasing quantity of information available required training inquisitive
minds and teaching students to sort through the information. They also needed to
learn to collect relevant data with suitable methods, and to interpret them drawing on
an appropriate conceptual and theoretical framework. Future historians will suggest
that models in educational psychology shifted as a result of the technological revolution
and its implications for the relationship between a teacher and his students. The socio-
constructivist models from the twentieth century based on incremental construction of
knowledge gave way, early twenty-first century, to connectivist models that focussed on
learning as processing information and making sense of complex systems. And only qua-
lified experts in their field can accompany students to undertake such a learning journey
both pointing out what they need to master and how to carry out a scholarly inquiry fitting
the scientific norms and cultures. There was a popular saying at the time that summarised
the change in role. Teachers could no longer be a sage on the stage, they needed to become
a guide on the side, shifting from hierarchical relationships to learning partnerships.

Historians should be able to trace how educational psychologists shaped their field of
studies and why they carried out action research to provide evidence-based knowledge
supporting their inquiry. For instance, as connectivist views on learning and developing
the higher order skills needed to navigate complexity grew, they became interested in
the idea of self-directed learning and achieving self-concordant goals. Drawing on moti-
vational theories and self-determination, they focussed on the components of autonomy
and ownership, and what supported learners in staying in the driver’s seat, taking respon-
sibility for their learning. Developmental psychologists came up with the concept of self-
authorship (Baxter Magolda 2009) exploring how students stepped away from external
formulas and built internal foundations, and how they travelled the many steps to
become self-dependent.

The idea of enhancing learning partnerships bought attention to the importance of
social interaction in learning. Although many innovators agreed on the principle, it still
needed to be implemented in teaching practices in higher education. As a result, historians
will probably see an increase in experiences in collaborative learning, peer teaching and
learning, tutoring and mentoring as models for redesigning practices and helping teachers
find their place in the new environment. The purpose of these experiments was to make
sure that the learner stayed in the driver’s seat with the help of other learners rather than
hand over the seat to the teacher when in got too difficult (especially when the teacher
standing by would probably have been more than happier to take over the driver’s seat).

80 N. M. REGE COLET

Hopefully historians will notice an interesting concept for empowering the learner put
forward by social psychologist Ed Schein, the democratic classroom. Referring to Kurt
Levin’s work he made a distinction between a teacher-dependent authoritarian classroom
and a democratic classroom, where the students learn together and manage their own
learning process. The democratic classroom encouraged letting the learners decide what
they wanted to learn and required that the teacher became a resource. Ed Schein did
emphasise that the teacher was needed to start the process, before stepping back to let
the learners climb into the driving seats. Prototyping democratic classes helped define
the role of teachers in innovative learning contexts where they were no longer requested
to be constantly in charge running the classroom as would be done in an authoritarian
manner. The new role was to light up the process and trust that the learners would
grow and, of course, learn from it.

Societal shifts in the early twenty-first century were questioning democracy and how
organisations were governed and managed. In fact, due to the repeated crises in both gov-
ernance and economy, there were several voices pondering on the scope and meaning of
democracy, and how to implement democratically managed communities. The reform of
the European Union, when the United Kingdom stepped out as a result of a democratic
referendum, was one of many incidents that illustrated the questioning about the value
of democracy as opposed to authoritarianism. Therefore thinking of a classroom in
terms of a democratic process contributed, to a certain extent, to reframing democracy
and how it was practised.

Unusually, traces of Ed Schein’s reflections did not show up in an authorised publi-
cation, the most common way of disseminating knowledge in twentieth century academia.
It was documented in interviews and conversations as part of an innovative experience in
online teaching and learning. The twenty-first century saw the growth of global collabora-
tive learning platforms where people could share their experiences and benefit from feed-
back from other co-workers. Through technological innovation, the videos and recordings
comprised a new body of knowledge and changed the way people published their findings,
spread ideas and reflected together on the next steps. This supported experiencing collec-
tive intelligence and building up capacities for collaborative work and delivering construc-
tive feedback.

So in a few words, empowering the learner to learn was about supporting self-author-
ship, encouraging collaborative learning and experiencing democratic learning environ-
ments. Looking back on the wide range of experiences carried out to reform higher
education and to take academia through the shift from teacher-centric to student-
centric pedagogies, future educational historians will understand how these principles
found their way into the new pedagogical paradigm of post-modern higher education.
They will also be able to fully understand the influence of the technological revolution
in accelerating reforms in teaching practises.

5.3. Focussing on learning journeys

What was the rationale behind the new pedagogies? Why take up a metaphor such as
putting the learner in the driver’s seat? What was the purpose? Was there an agenda
behind all these novel educational psychologies? Future historians will probably want to
look at their first readings of the rising pedagogical philosophy and look out for new

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 81

insights. Obviously they will shift through material on educational policy in higher edu-
cation looking at priorities and main trends, seeking for traces of the driving forces
behind educational innovation.

Clarifying the learning outcomes of graduates was high on the agenda of most reforms
in higher education from the onsets of the twenty-first century. They showed up in curri-
culum development in the wake of the Bologna process as a means of taking attention
away from content and knowledge-driven courses and moving towards competence-
based programmes catering for a wide range of societal needs in education and training.
Universities were requested to explicit the outcomes of higher education not only in terms
of the skills developed or the generic attributes acquired, but also in terms of the potential
contributions to social development. Learning outcomes were supposed to explain the
added value of higher education and impacts for economic growth. In many respects,
they were seen as the perfect indicator for measuring effectiveness and efficiency in
higher education and monitoring progress.

Historians will probably surmise that the economic crises of the twenty-first century
and the increasing costs of higher education intensified the faith in measurement and
they might also see how this often led decision-makers into blind corners. As markers
of system performance, learning outcomes were not the best indicators, as they tended
to be fuzzy and not always accurately measured. Relying mainly on indicators also tells
of an inclination to look for cause–effect relations where system thinking would have
been more appropriate for untangling complex phenomena. Expliciting learning outcomes
did however facilitate the shift in educational paradigm as far as curriculum development
was concerned, because it encouraged programme leaders to design courses in terms of the
learning pathways that would supposedly lead to the expected outcomes.

Advocating for learning outcomes within the metaphor of the learner in the driver’s
seat is another way of asking the following questions: Where is the car driving to? And
who sets the destination? The answers to both questions depend on what the system
values. Otherwise said, the purpose of learning outcomes and how they shaped the curri-
culum depended on the level on which the system was operating. Therefore, historians
might be drawn to use the theory U framework and its four levels of organisation to
discuss issues of autonomy and control within learning environments. And this is what
they may come up with.

In a traditional 1.0 higher education system based on control and hierarchy, the learn-
ing outcomes would inevitably focus on knowledge acquisition and keeping up academic
standards. The learner would have had no say in where he had to drive to and how to get
there. He would have followed the tracks set by academics and focussed on getting over the
hurdles in due time and with a minimum effort.

In a free-market 2.0 higher education system, the learning outcomes would have
focussed on employability and gains in terms of competitiveness for securing external
funding and positions in international rankings. Employability of graduates was the
driving force for many higher education systems, and the key purpose for designing
courses and programmes, much to the dismay of traditional academics who claimed
that the standards of academia were being discarded. The learner in the driver’s seat
was expected to take the most direct route to a job and to bring in bonus points for the
reputation of his university.

82 N. M. REGE COLET

In a social-market 3.0 higher education system based on partnerships and negotiation,
the learning outcomes were set in an open field with various options reflecting the stake-
holders’ recommendations. The driver could then decide on the destination that appealed
to him within a predetermined framework. He was invited to choose whichever route he
fancied, to come in when and where he thought he needed to be, to set the pace for achiev-
ing his goals, remembering nonetheless to negotiate his road map with the other partners.

In a 4.0 creative higher education system, the learning outcomes were believed to be
somewhere out there in the vast field of future possibilities. There was no set agenda,
the purpose being, according to quantum theory, to tap into the emerging future and
the unfolding qualities of reality. The learner did not need to decide where he wanted
to go. He could just start up the car and drive off confident that he would be picking
up some knowledge and skills along the way. He could follow his calling and highest
aspirations and decide how he was going to be a contribution to his eco-system.

Observing these different levels, historians might wonder if the metaphor of ‘the learner
in the driver’s seat’ reflected a new educational utopia. As for all metaphors, looking back
on it, they will most likely see what was not addressed at the times, such as the need to
align individual pursuits with collective targets, and attain a form of equilibrium. Ques-
tions as to who built the roads the learners were driving on and where the blind
corners were might not have been discussed, leaving a few unturned stones on the
pathway to paradigmatic change.

6. Embodying a new academic identity

As mentioned in the previous section, putting the student in the driver’s seat and promot-
ing democratic classrooms led to major changes in the teacher’s position. Who was he
going to be? And where was he going to stand? A passenger on the back seat? An instruc-
tor on the passenger’s seat?

Future historians will notice that transformation of academic identity was much dis-
cussed in the context of the rise of the European area of higher education that came
out of the Bologna process (Fanghanel 2012, Evans and Nixon 2015). The main issue
was reframing the dual identity, inherited from traditional research-led universities, of
being a researcher and a teacher who teaches his research. This definition of academic
identity fitted in well with a 1.0 level of higher education, but needed to change as
higher education systems evolved towards dynamic eco-systems. Shifts in educational
development inevitably led to shifts in professional identity of academics, reaffirming
the values of academic culture and embodying a transformed scholarly attitude.

Historians will suggest that the America educator Ernest Boyer, president of the Car-
negie foundation for the advancement of teaching, probably foresaw the important
changes about to happen regarding academic identity and the need to apply the same
scholarly attitude towards teaching and learning as was done for research. They will
notice how often his paper on scholarship and professoriate was quoted (Boyer 1990).
His framework of scholarship in a knowledge society and economy comprised four
forms of scholarship: (1) scholarship of discovery (producing new knowledge), (2) scho-
larship of integration (spreading knowledge), (3) scholarship of application (transferring
knowledge) and (4) scholarship of teaching (sharing knowledge). These distinctions
helped see that research and teaching were not necessarily two conflicting activities.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 83

Boyer was the first to outline academic identity from a holistic perspective focussing on the
importance of developing appreciative inquiry and an inquisitive and curious mind-set for
understanding complex phenomena of which, of course, the specifics of teaching and
learning.

Nonetheless, for a long time, research did remain highly valued for pursuing a career
and achieving international recognition. Gradually the concept of scholarship of teaching
and learning – inquiring into teaching practices and effective learning – was put forward to
support professional development of academics and reconcile them with the ‘noble art and
science of teaching’. Developing a scholarly attitude towards the effects of teaching on stu-
dents learning was an acceptable approach, which did not involve having to go back to
school to learn some new fashionable technology expected to revolutionise the classroom.

Historians will note that professional development of academics took off during the
twenty-first century. The first step was to declare that doctoral education comprised the
initial professional training in research. It led to designing doctoral programmes and pro-
viding workplaces in research labs where doctoral students – who were renamed ‘early
stage researchers’ – did their research under the supervision of their peers and mentors.
Initial professional training in teaching slowly made its way to the scene either as part
of the doctoral programme or as a separate programme offered to academics during
their first years of teaching duties. In some countries it was mandatory to have followed
such a programme in order to secure teaching responsibilities. In others it was highly rec-
ommended and left up to the individuals. Those who intended to pursue an international
career did do so, knowing that their chances of securing a position, and later a tenured
professorship, would be stronger if they could show evidence of their professional devel-
opment as a teacher in higher education.

The reluctance to go back to school to learn to become a higher education teacher made
continuous training and job-place learning more acceptable. Professional development of
academics became an open field where different experiences and manners of accounting of
professional growth became widespread. Workshops and comprehensive courses blos-
somed, but so did alternatives such as taking part in innovative projects and communities
of practice, applying for mentoring and trying out peer observation, developing evaluation
of teaching effectiveness or carrying out applied research on teaching and learning, sharing
the outcomes and publically communicating on the results. Accounting for professional
development as a teacher was not reduced to obtaining a recognised certificate. Other
forms reflecting a scholarly attitude were encouraged such as producing a teaching port-
folio or publishing the outcomes of a research into teaching and learning, both of which
were peer-reviewed according to academic culture.

Historians will understand that implementing new pedagogical approaches and foster-
ing professional development of academics opened the way for establishing centres for
teaching and learning that rapidly grew and settled in the new landscape of higher edu-
cation, although – a bit like the egg and the hen – it might be difficult to see which
came first. The purpose of the centres was to build up the teaching and learning capacities
in higher education and faculty developers, as they were often called, suddenly appeared on
the scene. Drawing on their experience in change management and their work supporting
academics develop their teaching practices, they put together a framework that captured
the meaning and scope of educational development and innovation in higher education
(Saroyan and Frenay 2010). They were able to explain the expertise of educational

84 N. M. REGE COLET

development and to monitor the effects of academics shifting in the system. Through
servant leadership and transformational learning journeys, they helped academics step
down from the stage and become passionate guides on the side, comfortably finding
their place in the community of learners that comprised post-modern higher education.

7. And where do we go from here?

In this article I have chosen to tell of the story of shifting educational paradigms in higher
education, as it might be understood from the future. I hope I have captured the narrative
of what triggered the need to transform higher education to meet new societal needs. Part
of the story is about the inertia of higher education institutions slowing down creativity
and innovation, thereby threatening the existence of research-led universities and challen-
ging the essence of being an academic. I have suggested that educational transformation is
about shifting from teaching to learning and I have used the metaphor of ‘the learner in
the driver’s seat’ to explain the new teaching and learning philosophy with its conse-
quences for reframing the landscape of higher education and academic identity.

Paradigm shifts require us to go on a long transformational journey as we go to the edge
of the system and step into the emerging future. Although the destination remains uncer-
tain it is important to stay open to unexpected possibilities. All the same, I cannot help
wondering what the landscape will look like on the other side of Alice’s looking-glass in
the twenty-third century. Transformative learning, as supported by theory U, is about pur-
suing noble pursuits and becoming who we truly are. I have always felt passionate about
higher education as a place of countless learning and creativity. I feel very privileged to
have been able to work in this field for so many years, honouring our legacy and contri-
buting to supporting growth both within the system and within the people who comprise
it. So I would like to conclude my narrative by sharing what I hope will come out of the
transformation.

In my vision, higher education will reflect a social contract, as suggested by Rousseau,
bringing together many stakeholders and interest groups who see in higher education a
tool for promoting citizenship and democracy-based organisations. Leadership, author-
ship and ownership should be the basis of the social contract. Teaching will serve learning
and, as a result, the boundaries between teachers and students, between teaching and
learning will have blurred enabling learning communities bringing together people
sharing commons interests and pursuits to spring up all over the place. Educational
sciences, that were so severely criticised by academics, will have disappeared replaced
by learning sciences. Universities will no longer be built around disciplines and depart-
ments reflecting disciplinary boundaries. Passion, curiosity, eagerness and willingness to
step out of the comfort zone will lead to more agency and virtuosity. I also see a learning
community busy shaping 5.0 and 6.0 frameworks for appreciating systems and their evol-
ution. Unfortunately their work is beyond the reach of our present understanding of
higher education in much as our current organisation of higher education would have
been out of grasp of medieval monks copying books to gather knowledge in libraries.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND HISTORY 85

Notes on contributor

Nicole Mary Rege Colet is a professor in educational psychology who has carried out her
career exploring educational development in higher education, with an active role in the
Bologna process. Her work is mostly about implementing innovative teaching and learn-
ing and supporting academics to adapt to the new environments and engage in pro-
fessional and organisational development. Drawing on her interdisciplinary and
intercultural experience, her recent inquiries look at leadership development and
change processes. She is interested in understanding how people, communities and organ-
isations can shift and engage collectively in meaningful and socially responsible projects
letting go of old paradigms of thought.

References

Baxter Magolda, M.B., 2009. Authoring your life. Developing an internal voice to navigate life’s chal-
lenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R., 2001. Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University.

Biggs, J., 1999. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Boyer, E., 1990. Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities for the professoriate. New York, NY: The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Evans, L. and Nixon, J., eds., 2015. Academic identities in higher education. The changing European

landscape. London: Bloomsbury.
Fanghanel, J., 2012. Being an academic. London: Routledge.
Harrari, Y.N., 2011. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage.
Hativa, N., 2000. Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
Knowles, M.S., 1998. The adult learner. The definite classic in adult education and human resource

development. Houston, TX: Gulf Publication Company.
Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chigaco

Press.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N.J., eds., 1984. The experience of learning. Edinburgh:

Scottish Academic Press.
Mezirow, J., 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K., 1999. Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher

education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
Ramsden, P., 2003. Learning to teach in higher education. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Saroyan, A. and Frenay, M., eds., 2010. Building teaching capacities in higher education. A compre-

hensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Scharmer, C.O., 2009. Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. The social technology of pre-

sencing. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
Scharmer, C.O. and Kaufer, K., 2013. Leading from the emerging future. From ego-system to eco-

system economies. Applying theory U to transforming business, society, and self. San Francisco,
CA: Berret-Koehler.

Seligman, M., 2011. Flourish. A new understanding of happiness and well-being and how to achieve
them. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E., 1991. The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

86 N. M. REGE COLET

Abstract

1. Looking back from the future
2. Witnessing shifts in systems of thought and action
3. Reframing higher education
4. Fostering transformation in higher education
5. Putting the learner in the driver’s seat
5.1. Understanding learning
5.2. Empowering the learner
5.3. Focussing on learning journeys
6. Embodying a new academic identity
7. And where do we go from here?
Disclosure statement
Notes on contributor
References

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /PageByPage /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile () /CalRGBProfile (Adobe RGB \0501998\051) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings false /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 300
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects true
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description << /ENU () >>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [595.245 841.846] >> setpagedevice

May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. 86-110 ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p86-1

A New Approach to Educator Preparation Evaluation:

Evidence for Continuous Improvement?

Corinne Baron Donovan

Jane E. Ashdown
Anne M. Mungai
Adelphi University

Abstract

The landscape for educator preparation has shifted to accountability models emphasizing
performance assessment of teaching, employer feedback reports, newly approved accreditation
standards showing impact on K-12 student learning, and expectations of public access to all of
this information. This article provides a perspective on the extent to which this change offers
promise for improving educator preparation programs and consequently excellence in teaching in
K-12 schools. Two accountability reports are used as the empirical evidence for review; one is a
pilot institutional feedback report from the Teacher Quality Research Center (Boyd, Lankford, &
Wyckoff, 2009) and the second is a new Teacher Preparation Program report prepared by New
York City’s department of education (NYCDOE, 2013a). Ultimately, a systems perspective is
recommended, in which candidates, IHEs, and K-12 schools are involved in the process of how
educator preparation is evaluated and how that connects to other aspects of the education
profession.

Historically, educator preparation evaluation models have relied on state
approval of programs, pass rates on licensure exams, and meeting accreditation
standards that privileged operational and descriptive data as a basis for evaluating
program quality. That landscape has shifted in educator preparation to accountability
models emphasizing performance assessment of teaching practice, employer feedback
reports that include growth scores for program graduates based on their students’
standardized test scores, newly approved accreditation standards that require evidence
of positive impact on K-12 student learning, and expectations of public access to all of
this information. This article provides a critical perspective on the extent to which this
changing accountability landscape offers promise for improving educator preparation
programs and consequently for driving excellence in teaching and learning in K-12
schools as evidence of continuous improvement.

The empirical basis for this article is two reports that establish data linkages
between the graduates of one Institution of Higher Education’s (IHE) educator
preparation program and the school systems where those graduates have been

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 8

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Sticky Note
Donovan, C. B., Ashdown, J. E., & Mungai, A. M. (2014). A new approach to educator preparation evaluation: Evidence for continuous improvement? Journal of Curriculum & Instruction, 8(1), 86-110.

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 201

May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

teaching. The first report is a pilot institutional feedback report from the Teacher Quality
Research Center (TQRC; Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) and the second report is a
newly released Teacher Preparation Program report (2013) from the New York City
Department of Education (NYCDOE). The overall purpose of the TQRC report is to
provide schools and colleges of education in New York State (NYS) with information
about where graduates from their teacher education programs are in the teaching
profession NYS schools; the purpose of the NYCDOE report is to provide education
programs at local colleges and universities (N=12) with a snapshot of their graduates’
contributions to the NYCDOE schools after leaving their teacher preparation programs.

Purpose

The assumption behind the reports (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE,
2013a) and findings presented here is that for schools of education to improve and
produce more effective educators, they need to know what happens when graduates
finish their programs and become teachers in the classroom. To examine this
assumption in the context of the changing nature of teacher education program
accountability, we review the following questions. First, we consider the evidence from
a program improvement perspective and try to answer the questions: Which features of
teacher education programs do the findings from these reports help inform (e.g.,
sequence and content of academic course work, full or part-time program design, area
of preparation)? Will the findings from accountability reports lead to change and
enhance the effectiveness of teacher education programs?

The next question to consider is how the findings from these reports impact
clinical practice and the school partnerships essential to educator preparation.
Educator preparation is not a stand-alone endeavor, but rather requires cooperation
from skilled teachers and administrators in the current K-12 school system. We want to
know how information about our graduates arising from these reports impacts decisions
about school partnerships and clinical experiences which includes the placement of
teacher candidates in classrooms, the selection of teacher mentors, the selection of
supervisors, the nature of the supervision, and the impact of candidates’ teaching on
student learning.

Finally, we consider to what extent the data included in these reports (Boyd,
Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) are relevant and actionable from an
educator preparation policy perspective. The policy intent of the shift toward
accountability models is to drive reform in teacher education by making clear
distinctions between teacher preparation programs (U.S. Department of Education,
2011). Therefore, do the findings from these reports provide relevant and actionable
information with regard to policy decisions, for example about admissions’ standards
and selection policies for entry into an educator preparation program? Only when
information is relevant to the public and the parties involved (e.g., educator preparation
programs, participants in these programs, K-12 schools who hire graduates from
educator preparation programs, regulatory bodies such as state education departments,

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 87

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

policy makers, taxpayers) does it provide clarity for policy changes and actions needed
for teacher education program improvements.

After analyzing data in these reports and addressing this set of questions, we
conclude by recommending a systems perspective on accountability in teacher
education (Boulding, 1956; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Parsons, 1951). Systems theory, in this
respect, considers individuals and organizations as part of a larger open system, where
the environment and all parts of the system have an impact on the survival and success
of the system. Early theorists in organizational theory and social sciences sought a new
and common paradigm that would allow researchers across multiple disciplines to
access common terminology (Hillon, 2005). Much of this work is grounded in biological
sciences, considering such concepts as energy to sustain a system, homeostasis,
entropy, and system cycles (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Parsons (1951) pointed out the
defining feature that holds a system together is the integrated values or norms which
drive the system. In the current study, we consider educator preparation the system
under review and analysis.

The Research Context

Teacher education is under immense pressure to change and improve, pressure
driven in large part by the poor performance of P-12 students in the nation’s public
schools especially when compared to international student achievement outcomes
based on recent data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development Progress on International Student Achievement (OECD, 2010). This
concern is accompanied by a persistent failure to adequately address the widening
achievement gap among diverse student groups (Wiseman, 2012).

Historically, research studies show that teacher quality varies and that variation
in quality is associated with both student success and with compounding disadvantages
for low achieving students (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff,
2002). This variability has put a spotlight on impact and outcomes in teacher education
and has resulted in a paradigm shift away from measuring teacher quality and toward
measuring teacher effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, 2000) with the achievement test
score gains of students a key component. In turn, teacher education programs are
increasingly being held accountable for their graduates’ impact on student learning as
measured in some instances by the use of value-added measures.

Longitudinal databases and the accompanying capacity to track the impact of
education program graduates on student learning have been lacking in many states;
however, increasing numbers of states are now able to or are committed to doing this
(Henry, Kershaw, Zulli, & Smith, 2012). This development is in part leveraged by
federal and state stimulus funding and through accountability requirements associated
with Race to the Top (RttT) grant awards that require grant recipients to build
comprehensive tracking databases and to recruit and retain effective teachers
especially in high needs schools and fields (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 88

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Henry et al. (2012) provided a snapshot of 12 state’s RttT proposals with regard to the
assessment of teacher preparation programs. Their analysis draws attention to the
challenges states face in establishing a “true effect” of a preparation program on student
test scores (p. 350). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that
41 states along with Washington, DC have each received at least one grant for the
development of statewide longitudinal data systems providing evidence of this
increasing trend toward tracking and linking data (NCES, 2012).

Gansle, Noell, and Burns (2012) provided findings based on one year’s analysis
from Louisiana’s implementation of a Teacher Preparation Accountability System for
evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs. This was one of the
earliest accountability systems to incorporate multiple data points, involve the redesign
of university-based teacher education programs, and incorporate an evaluation of new
teachers’ performance based on their students’ achievement on standardized tests.
Using hierarchical linear modeling with data from this comprehensive tracking database,
the authors estimate the degree to which the students of new teachers from different
types of teacher preparation programs achieved more or less than predicted outcomes
in key content areas on state achievement tests. Results showed variation in
achievement gains between students taught by teachers from different educator
preparation programs; however, the authors caution that particular results for an
institution do not explain why those results occurred. The teacher preparation program
is then left with the challenge of unpacking the data and developing hypotheses about
which variables are driving particular outcomes.

Plecki, Elfers, and Nakamura (2012) also examined the extent to which value
added measures are a useable source of evidence for improving teacher education
programs. The authors used fifth grade teachers’ value added scores to investigate
whether student achievement varies by teachers’ preparation program (in-state versus
out-of-state programs) and by years of teaching experience. Although the relation
between years of experience and teacher value added scores was significant, outcomes
in terms of the relation of value added scores to teacher preparation programs were
mixed. The authors concluded with important recommendations about the need for
cooperation among multiple stakeholders with regard to accountability, a
recommendation that is also considered in relation to this investigation.

The Data Bases

The reports (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) referenced as
an empirical basis for this article, reflected a trend in longitudinal database development
and represent distinct moments in the history of educator preparation program
accountability. The TQRC report is the outcome of a pilot study funded through a
partnership between an institution of higher education, a state education department,
and a philanthropic foundation. The context for this initiative was twofold. Firstly, in
2001, the Carnegie Corporation launched a major reform initiative in teacher
preparation called Teachers for a New Era (TNE; Carnegie Corporation of New York,

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 89

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

2001) and offered grant awards to institutions of higher education to implement reforms.
These awards were given to selected institutions of higher education (N=11) who were
committed to partnerships between their education and arts and sciences programs in
the preparation of teachers and also committed to measuring the impact of their
education programs in terms of evidence of student learning. This required education
programs to rethink their assessment systems with a focus on collecting persuasive
evidence of impact on student learning (Fallon, 2006; Kirby, McCombs, Naftel, &
Barney, 2005). Secondly, a study of urban public school teachers was undertaken a
few years later and examined the effects on student learning of different features of
teacher preparation programs (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wykoff, 2009). This
study was funded through a partnership between an institution of higher education and
several philanthropic organizations and was one of the first studies to use value added
modeling to estimate the effects of different teacher education program features in
relation to beginning teacher effectiveness. One finding of interest was that preparation
programs providing more oversight of student teaching supplied more effective first year
teachers to schools.

Both the TNE (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2001) initiative and the study
of urban teachers (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) described above placed
substantial emphasis on the collection and analysis of evidence about the impact that
teacher education candidates and graduates have on student learning as a critical
indicator of program effectiveness. The TQRC report under discussion here represents
a continuation of that effort to engage more systematically in linking information about
K-12 schools and students with graduates of teacher education programs. The Teacher
Quality Research Center was housed on the campus of the New York state university
system and the TQRC reports were developed through a consultative process with the
teacher education community reflected in membership of an advisory group established
to provide feedback on report design; one author was a member of that advisory group.
The reports were prepared for each approved teacher education program provider in
New York State (NYS; N=100), and for the first time provided institutions of higher
education with comparative information as well as aggregate measures of student
learning. The reports were not publicly available and this was a one-time endeavor as
funding was not forthcoming to support multi-year reporting.

The second report discussed here was prepared by a local education authority
(LEA), the NYCDOE (2013a), for the IHE of interest. Similar individual reports have
also been developed for 11 other IHEs supplying teachers to the NYCDOE public
schools as well as a report comparing all 12 IHEs on the selected metrics. All reports
are publicly available at http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/TPPR.
This reporting strategy reflects the increasing capacities of LEAs and state education
authorities to collect data and use it to report on variables of interest (Henry et al.,
2012). This strategy aligns with current federal education policy exemplified in RttT
competitive funding awards to state education departments requiring that teachers be
evaluated based on the achievement gains of K-12 students. Similarly, the public

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 90

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/TPPR

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

availability of this set of reports aligns with current expectations for transparency in
teacher, principal, school, and teacher education accountability.

Table 1 provides a summary comparison of the distinctive design features of
each of the reports (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) used as the
data base to address the research questions. The two reports were produced within a
relatively short timeframe, yet it is worth noting the differences in features of access and
transparency between them. While the reports share a common purpose, differences in
their design reflect the rapidly changing landscape of educator preparation program
accountability.

Table 1
Summary Comparison of Educator Preparation Program Accountability Reports

Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009
(University based initiative)

NYCDOE 2013a
(Local Education Authority
initiative)

Consultation Advisory group representing IHEs
reviewed drafts with study authors

Pre-publication draft shared by
LEA with each IHE for
feedback

Transparency All IHEs remained anonymous All IHEs identified by name

Purpose To help teacher preparation

institutions in program planning,
assessment, and program
improvement

To help colleges and
universities assess and refine
their teacher preparation
programs

Access Password protected, zip file in Excel Available on LEA website in
PDF format

Impact on student
learning

Uses K-12 school level 4 & 8 grade
test scores as a measure of
graduates’ impact on student
learning

Uses individual teacher growth
scores based on 4-8 grade
student test scores aggregated
for each IHE’s graduates

Publicity None LEA press release and press
coverage

Length of report 19 tables 6 tables

In question is whether the right variables are being examined and whether the
resulting findings are causally robust and can be used to make significant improvements
in teacher education programs (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2010; Donovan, Ashdown, &

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 91

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Mungai, 2013). We now consider some of the challenges in using the findings from the
TQRC pilot study (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) and the NYCDOE Teacher
Preparation Program report (NYCDOE, 2013a) for teacher education program
improvement purposes in one IHE of interest located in NYS.

Data Analyses by Report

The TQRC report (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) integrated data across six
sources of information about cohorts of teachers (referred to as program completers) in
NYS who completed their educator preparation between 2000 and 2005 and allows
tracking of early teaching careers through the 2006-2007 school year. The Teacher
Preparation Program Report created by the NYCDOE (2013a) analyzes the
performance of 12 teacher education programs that supplied the most teachers to New
York City’s public school system from 2008 to 2012. The report is the nation’s first
district-level teacher preparation report to analyze the quality, distribution, and retention
of new teachers hired from traditional college and university teacher education
programs.

TQRC report. Data from six different information sources were integrated to
complete a TQRC report for each IHE as follows:

1. A Personnel Master File includes information on the schools where the
program completers teach in the NYS public system.

2. The Exam History File includes NYS certification exam scores.
3. The TEACH file lists teaching certificates awarded by NYS.
4. The Program Completers File includes information about each individual

recommended for teacher certification by a NYS approved preparation
program.

5. Elementary and Secondary School data file includes demographic information
about school populations and accountability status (in terms of need for
improvement).

6. The College Board File, which includes SAT math and verbal scores for all
program completers who took the SAT in NYS between 1980 and 2000, as
well as high schools attended.

The report includes summary data for three comparison groups: a sector
grouping (Public or Independent IHEs), a regional grouping based on an IHE’s
geographic proximity, and a statewide comparison. For purposes of this article, we limit
the data presented to the IHE of interest and the statewide comparison.

Ultimately, the report (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) included 19 tables of
information such as demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), results for program
completers on the NYS Teacher Certification Exams and NYS Awarded Certifications,
initial employment of program completers (general information; percentages by subject,

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 92

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

grade level, and type of school; and demographic attributes of the K-12 schools where
program completers taught), K-12 educational outcomes in NYS public schools where
program completers initially taught, location of K-12 schools, and retention data.
Results are shared here on variables of interest to teacher education leaders at the IHE
of interest as a basis for meeting accreditation standards in the areas of assessment
(including employer feedback and evidence of student learning), for implementation of
the IHE’s conceptual framework, and for overall continuous improvement purposes.

The total number of program completers with enough data available for analysis
across the six data sources in the report for NYS was 56,000, and the total for the IHE
of interest was 2,559. This is about half of the total number of program completers who
graduated from the IHE in that timeframe. The report authors explain that data were
missing due to incomplete information or errors in the files (e.g., names and
identification codes could not be matched across files).

TQRC results. Table 2 provides demographic information for the IHE of interest
compared to the NYS total for the 2000-2005 cohort used for analysis.
Demographically, the IHE of interest has program completers who are slightly younger
than program completers across NYS; about 24% of IHE of interest program completers
are younger than 25, compared to the state average of 13%. The IHE of interest has
slightly more female program completers (85% female) compared to the state rate of
75%. The IHE of interest has slightly higher rates of program completers who are
Hispanic (6.5%) compared to the state average of 5.8% and White (70.5%) compared to
66.5%. The IHE of interest also has a higher rate of program completers who are
recommended for initial or provisional certification (78%) compared to the statewide
average of 63%.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 93

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Table 2
Demographics of Program Completers, 2000-2005 Cohorts, IHE vs. NYS
N IHE Statewide-NYS
Age
< 25 612 23.9% 13.2% 25-30 1,012 39.6% 46.8% 31+ 934 36.5% 39.9% Total 2,558 100.0% 100.0% Gender Female 2,165 84.6% 75.4% Male 352 13.8% 19.0% Unreported 42 1.6% 5.6% Total 2,559 100.0% 100.0% Ethnicity

White 1,803 70.5% 66.5%
Black 155 6.1% 6.6%
Hispanic 166 6.5% 5.8%
Other 57 2.2% 2.9%
Unreported 378 14.8% 18.1%
Total 2,559 100.0% 100.0%

The report includes general counts and percentages by subject taught for the first

year of teaching in NYS public schools (Table 3). The IHE of interest, for example, has
a slightly higher percentage of program completers who teach at the elementary level
(35%) compared to the percentage of elementary program completers across NYS
(33%). The IHE of interest has the same percentage of program completers who teach
math at the state level (5.3%) but slightly lower percentages of program completers in
English and social studies. The IHE of interest has a slightly higher percentage of
program completers in special education (18.7%) compared to the NYS percentage
(16.7%) and a higher percentage of other teaching areas (25.4%) compared to the NYS
percentage (18.3%), which includes subjects such as physical education and health.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 94

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Table 3

Subjects Taught in First Year of Teaching in NYS Public Schools 2000-2005 Cohorts, IHE
vs. NYS
Subject Area IHE FTE IHE % NYS %
Elementary 233.1 35.0% 32.7%
Literacy 17.9 2.7% 3.5%
Special Education 124.6 18.7% 16.7%
English 42.8 6.4% 8.0%
Mathematics 35.5 5.3% 5.3%
Science 14.9 2.2% 8.0%
Social Studies 27.4 4.1% 7.4%
Other Teaching 169.1 25.4% 18.3%
Total 665.2 100.0% 100.0%

When examining the data for program completers teaching in high needs
schools, the IHE of interest has a higher percentage of program completers working in
schools with the poorest students (see Figure 1). For example, when program
completers across the state are rank ordered by the percentage of K-12 students
eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRL), the top 25% of IHE program completers
are in schools with 71% or more K-12 students receiving free or reduced price lunch
compared to the top 25% of NYS program completers who are in schools with 63% of
K-12 students receiving free or reduced price lunch. Similarly, the IHE of interest has a
higher percentage of program completers who teach in schools with Black and Hispanic
students (see Figure 2). For example, when program completers across the state are
ranked by number of K-12 students who are Black or Hispanic, the top quarter of
program completers from the IHE of interest and across the state are in K-12 schools
with 79% or more Black or Hispanic students (IHE) compared to 63% or more Black or
Hispanic students (NYS).

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 95

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Figure 1. Rank ordering of program completers by the percentage of their K-12 school’s
students on free and reduced price lunch status.

Figure 2. Rank ordering of program completers by their K-12 schools’ percentage of Black or
Hispanic students.

6
36

0 20 40 60 80

Bottom 25% FRL

50% FRL

Top 25% FRL

Percentage of K-12 School Students Who Qualified for Free
or Reduced Price Lunch

R
a
n

k
O

rd
e
r

o
f

P
ro

g
ra

C
o
m

p
le

te
rs

NYS

IHE

0 25 50 75 100

Bottom 25% K-12 Black/Hispanic

50% K-12 Black/Hispanic

Top 25% K-12 Black/Hispanic

Percentage of K-12 School Student Body who are Black or
Hispanic

R
a
n
k
O
rd
e
r
o
f
P
ro
g
ra
m

C
o
m
p
le
te
rs

NYS
IHE

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 96

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Retention is presented in the report relative to initial employment in NYS public
schools (Table 4). The data reveal that roughly 81% of teachers statewide and at the
IHE of interest are still teaching in the NYS public school system three years after initial
employment. However, these data must be interpreted with caution, since the number
of program completers that are tracked after three years declines by roughly 50% (407
compared to 824) from the number tracked at initial employment. This is the same
attrition rate for both the IHE of interest and IHEs statewide. It is difficult to interpret the
81% rate without further context and details about the dataset.

Table 4
Teacher Transfers and Attrition Relative to Initial Employment in NYS Public Schools,
IHE vs. NYS

Initial

Employment
1 Year
Later

3 Years
Later

IHE
Number of Program Completers 824 769 407
Still Teaching in NYS Public School System 90.2% 81.3%
Teaching in Same District 80.9% 73.2%
Teaching in Same School and District 73.0% 71.3%

NYS
Number of Program Completers 16,740 15,533 8,565
Still Teaching in NYS Public School System 88.8% 81.2%
Teaching in Same District 79.0% 75.3%
Teaching in Same School and District 72.6% 71.4%

One of the more interesting tables in the report includes Educational Outcomes
data for students in NYS public schools where program completers initially teach (Table
5). Outcomes data are reported for students in grades 4 and 8 on math and English
Language Arts (ELA) tests, as well as English and math Regents exams (NYS high
school proficiency exams by subject). Outcomes on the grade 4 tests indicate that
program completers of the IHE of interest teach in schools where the students have
slightly higher rates of proficiency compared overall to IHEs across the state. In 4th
grade math, the IHE of interest has 80% of students proficient compared to 78% for
NYS. In ELA, the IHE of interest has 70% of students proficient compared to 66% for
NYS. This trend continues on the grade 8 exams with approximately a 6-point
difference. Program completers from the IHE of interest have students with higher
percentages performing at the proficient level compared to the state overall. In 8th
grade math, the IHE of interest has 61% of students proficient compared to 55% for
NYS. In ELA, the IHE of interest has 56% of students proficient compared to 50% for
NYS.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 97

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

The data shown in this report are difficult to interpret with regard to K-12 student
achievement since outcomes are presented at a group level. In other words, K-12
student achievement is calculated and reported across an entire grade level for a school
where program completers from the IHE of interest teach, and each program completer
may be one of several teachers providing instruction at the 4th or 8th grade level.

Table 5
Educational Outcomes of Students in NYS Public Schools Where Program Completers Initially
Taught, IHE vs. NYS

Percentage of Student Proficiency
Outcomes by Grade

IHE NYS
Percentage

Points
Difference

Grade 4 Math Exam 80.1% 77.8% +2
Grade 4 ELA Exam 70.2% 66.0% +2
Grade 8 Math Exam 61.3% 55.2% +4
Grade 8 ELA Exam 55.8% 49.5% +6
Students Scoring ≥ 65 on English Regents 90.2% 90.0%
Students Scoring ≥ 65 on Math Regents 85.8% 85.2% —

As a summary of the TQRC pilot study (2009) results, the IHE of interest has

program completers who teach at the elementary level at roughly the same rate as
program completers across the state. Program completers from the IHE teach at K-12
public schools that have a greater percentage of students receiving free or reduced
price lunch and students who are Black or Hispanic. The K-12 schools with teachers
from the IHE show a greater number of students scoring proficiently on the 4th and 8th
grade math and ELA exams. Finally, program completers from the IHE persist in the
public school system at the same rate as program completers across the state.

NYCDOE teacher preparation program report. The NYCDOE Teacher
Preparation Program Report (2013a) not only provides an analysis of graduates from
the teacher education programs at the IHE of interest, but also analyzes in separate
reports the performance of 11 other IHE teacher education programs that supplied the
most educators to the NYCDOE city public school system from 2008-2012 (NYCDOE,
2013b).

All reports are publicly available, and thus, comparative data across teacher
education programs can be accessed. In the time frame covered by the report, over
10,000 new teachers were hired by the NYCDOE (N = 10,135) from traditional
pathways (e.g., graduated from college and university education programs) with 51.6%
(N = 5,229) of new hires graduating from the 12 schools included in the reports. The
reports provide analysis of the quality, distribution, and retention of new teachers and
focuses on promoting awareness and cultivating productive partnerships between local
schools of education and the NYCDOE. Specifically, the reports aim to evaluate the
education programs’ contributions toward preparing teachers to meet the diverse

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 98

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

recruiting needs of the NYCDOE. The reports describe the hiring and retention of
effective teachers as being inextricably tied to partnerships between the NYCDOE and
local schools of education as the certifying institutions.

The reports provide metrics in three areas: (1) Meeting the Needs of the
NYCDOE, (2) Performance, and (3) Retention. There are a total of 6 measures across
these three areas. Representatives from the NYCDOE met with each educator
preparation program to review a draft of the report, and there are plans for continued
collaboration around the reports and their uses.

NYCDOE teacher preparation program results. In evaluating contributions to
meeting the staffing needs of the NYCDOE, two personnel metrics are presented:
Highest Needs Schools and Subject Shortage Licenses. The first metric shows the
percentage of new teachers hired into the Highest Needs Schools across the city. This
includes all schools designated for special education, as well as schools from the top
25% of need as measured by a prior year progress report using a peer index developed
by the NYCDOE. Overall, across the NYCDOE, 30% of the 10,135 teachers were hired
into highest needs schools, with a range from 16% to 48% hired into highest need
schools across the 12 IHEs; the IHE of interest has 24% of program completers hired
into highest needs schools out of a total of 264 hired from the IHE across the four years.
The second metric presents the number of teachers hired by highest need license area
which includes teachers of English as a Second Language (ESL), Math, Science,
Special Education, and Other (bilingual and other foreign language certification areas).
The NYCDOE hired 69% of new teachers over the past four years into one of the
highest need license areas. Across all 12 IHEs from 55% to 92% of graduates’ hired
held licenses in these areas; the IHE of interest has the third highest rate with 75%
hired in highest need areas out of 175 completers hired from 2009 to 2011.

Three metrics are used to assess performance of the recently hired NYCDOE

teachers: Tenure Decision, Unsatisfactory Ratings at year one performance reviews,
and Growth Scores. The tenure findings identify the percentage of teachers who
achieve three different ratings: approved, extended, or denied. Results in the report
only include the first tenure decision point for teachers hired by October 31 in each of
three academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. The mean percent of
NYCDOE teachers approved at the first tenure decision point is 60% and ranges from
51% to 67% across the 12 IHEs. The IHE of interest has the highest percentage of
approval at the first decision point with 67% approved out of 150 hired from 2008
through 2010. The second metric reports the percent of teachers rated Unsatisfactory
in their first year of teaching for those hired in each of four academic years from 2008-
2009 through 2011-2012. The NYCDOE average rating of first year teachers receiving
an Unsatisfactory is 3.1% across the four years and ranges from .7% to 4.8% across
the 12 IHEs. The IHE of interest has 2.3% of its 264 alumni rated Unsatisfactory in their
first year teaching.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 99

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

The third metric used to assess performance is the 2011-2012 Growth Score.
For the NYCDOE report (2013a), this score is only calculated for those teaching 4th and
8th grade math and English Language Arts (ELA) during the academic year 2011-2012.
The Education Department growth scores are calculated using 4th and 8th grade student
scores on state exams in math and ELA. Scores are only calculated for students who
have two consecutive years of test data on record and are determined by a statistical
model that rates students’ growth in each content area relative to other similar students.
This growth calculation, therefore, is designed to assess relative student growth and not
achievement, which prevents teachers from being penalized for students who are not
performing at grade level. Growth scores for individual teachers are then calculated by
taking the average of student growth percentiles taught by each teacher.

There are four rating levels on the growth score model: Ineffective, Developing,
Effective, and Highly Effective. Using only growth scores for 4th and 8th grade math and
ELA teachers leaves a limited group of students and teachers being assessed (N =
1,466) relative to the total number of teachers hired (N = 10,135). The report notes that
results should be interpreted with caution. The NYCDOE overall reports 82% of
teachers are rated in the top two categories: Effective (75%) or Highly Effective (7%).
This same rating ranges from 61% to 91% across the 12 IHEs. The IHE of interest has
80% of its 41 math and ELA teachers rated in the top two categories (68% Effective,
12% Highly Effective) based on the growth scores, an overall percentage slightly below
the average for the NYCDOE, although it has a higher percentage of graduates rated
highly effective compared to the NYCDOE. At the same time, 12% of the teachers from
the IHE of interest were rated as Ineffective compared to 6% of the overall NYCDOE
teachers; the percentage with ineffective ratings vary between 2% and 14% across the
12 IHEs.

The final metric presented in the NYCDOE report is the retention of teachers
after three years of teaching, and therefore includes only those hired by October 31 for
2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The NYCDOE three year retention rate is 80% and across
the 12 IHEs ranges from 72% to 94%. The IHE of interest has a retention rate of 83%
for its 131 program graduates.

As a summary of the NYCDOE report, graduates from the IHE of interest are
teaching in highest need schools at slightly lower rates than for newly hired teachers in
the NYCDOE, but a greater percentage of hires are in the highest need subject fields
compared to the NYCDOE teachers overall. Graduates from the IHE of interest are
retained at about the same rate as the NYCDOE newly hired teachers, are pacing
slightly ahead of newly hired NYCDOE teachers overall in first time approved tenure
decisions, and are less likely to receive an unsatisfactory rating than NYCDOE
teachers. Their ratings in terms of student growth scores pace ahead on highly
effective ratings compared to the NYCDOE teachers, but there is a higher percentage of
ineffective teachers from the IHE of interest compared to the NYCDOE.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 100

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Discussion and Implications

Implications and limitations of the reports are considered for both the IHE of
interest and for other IHEs facing the implementation of new evaluation systems for
their educator preparation programs.

Implications of the Reports Beyond the Local Context

The results of the reports presented here reference IHEs in one geographic
region of the country. However, for IHEs in states that have not yet implemented an
educator preparation evaluation system or are facing newly implemented evaluation
systems, this particular set of reports is illustrative of both what to expect in terms of
increasingly sophisticated measures available for accountability purposes and in terms
of the limitations of these newly developing systems.

Of most significance in comparing these reports in terms of measures of impact
on student learning is that the earlier TQRC report (2009) uses group level K-12 test
scores as one measure of program completers’ impact on students’ learning in 4th and
8th grade. The NYCDOE report (2013a), on the other hand, uses more advanced
teacher impact measures now available, such as teacher growth scores. The shift to
this advanced analytical capability allows analysis at the individual teacher level rather
than at the group level as the latter approach confounds inferences of teacher
effectiveness. While the more sophisticated growth score results are only available for
math and ELA teachers at this point, the advanced capability to look at individual
teachers facilitates more accurate ratings of individual teachers on their own merit,
although these methods remain controversial among researchers and educators alike.
For example, Henry et al. (2012) caution about generalizing from state teacher
preparation program reports given the challenges of obtaining unbiased estimates of
programs’ impact on student learning.

More broadly for those IHEs in other states facing newly implemented program
evaluation, the TQRC report (2009) reflects a challenge facing many longitudinal data
systems, that of following consistent cohorts of teachers across time and geography.
As noted in the TQRC report, 50% of the teachers initially tracked into their first
teaching position were not in the database three years later. Without inter-state
education agency cooperation, it is not clear whether these individuals left the
profession, relocated to another school system within the state (e.g., parochial, private,
or charter), or simply relocated to another part of the country. An additional complexity
is pointed out by Plecki et al. (2012) whose analysis of teacher preparation programs in
Washington state related to value added measures revealed a significant, positive
relationship between teacher experience and value added scores. The positive
relationship did not change in magnitude or significance even after accounting for
differences in gender, education level, or race/ethnicity. Novice teachers, with less than
three years of experiences, had a lower value-added measure by more than one point
each for reading and math. Therefore, if a 50% teacher attrition rate is a reasonable

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 101

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

estimate three years after initial employment and if, as Plecki et al. suggest, less than
three years into a job teachers have lower value-added measures, it is critical to ask if
these new evaluations of preparation programs are looking at the most accurate
evidence to measure program effectiveness.

Finally, the ability to link data across multiple systems and take into account
various individual factors in order to calculate student and teacher growth scores
requires careful and time-consuming work which must be supported by adequate
resources. The TQRC (2009) reports were only available for one year due to a lack of
further funding. The report results served as a baseline of educator preparation
program performance, but without further reports the findings are of limited value from a
program improvement perspective. The NYCDOE report (2013a) was produced under
LEA leadership that is no longer in place. There is some uncertainty about how the new
LEA leadership will act with regard to the development of future reports. It is
encouraging from one perspective that this level of evaluation is being promoted;
however, the return on investment is not obvious as the extent to which the findings
from either of these reports can lead to change and improvement in the effectiveness of
teacher education programs is not well established.

Implications for Program Improvement

As we consider the first set of questions posed for these report findings (TQRC,
2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) and examine the evidence from a program improvement
perspective, it is difficult to determine which educator preparation program features are
implicated by the findings from these reports. For example, the IHE of interest has a
higher percent of graduates rated as ineffective compared to NYCDOE teachers overall
based on growth scores and a slightly lower percent of graduates rated as
unsatisfactory in their first year compared to the DOE teachers overall (NYCDOE,
2013a). A logical program improvement goal for the IHE of interest in the service of
producing more effective teachers is to identify program changes that would eliminate
the likelihood of any graduates being rated unsatisfactory in their first year teaching and
to eliminate the number of teachers rated as ineffective based on student achievement
gains. The logical question then is which features of teacher education programs do
these findings point to in terms of change? The unsatisfactory rating is based on
classroom teaching observations conducted by a building leader, but without more
proximal information about the evaluation rubrics used, identifying program changes
would only be speculative. The ineffectiveness ratings based on growth scores are for
math and ELA teachers only. One possible area for consideration for program
improvement is the teaching methods courses (math and language arts) that graduates
complete during their preparation program. Another possible action step is to compare
educator preparation program features at the IHE of interest with program features at
IHEs in the NYCDOE sample with the fewest teachers rated as unsatisfactory and
ineffective. It is not clear, however, for either of these possible actions, which features
of course work or program designs should be studied and changed in order to achieve
the goals identified above.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 102

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Results from both reports provide some findings for the IHE of interest that reflect
positively on the institutions’ mission and core values of social justice and inclusive
community. Graduates from the IHE of interest were reported as teaching in highest
need schools, in highest need subject fields (e.g., special education), and in schools
with greater percentages of children receiving free or reduced price lunch at similar or
greater rates than comparative graduates. This appears to provide some confirmation
that graduates are reflecting the institution’s core values in their career trajectories (e.g.,
Inclusive Community and Social Justice are two of the core values).

The more recent NYCDOE report (2013a), however, shows that over the past
four years, when compared to the DOE overall, a smaller percentage of graduates from
the IHE of interest have been hired into highest need schools in the city. Across all 12
IHEs, the range is from 16% to 48% of graduates hired into highest need schools,
suggesting that for the IHE of interest there is still room for improvement. An
appropriate goal, therefore, might be to at least match the NYCDOE percent hired into
highest need schools overall. Of note, the IHE with the biggest percentage of graduates
teaching in highest needs schools is itself geographically located in the vicinity of high
needs schools. It is well established that teachers typically work close to home and to
where they attend school. For the IHE of interest, which has its main campus in a
suburban neighborhood, to improve on the percent of graduates teaching in highest
need schools would require strategizing about ways to counter this employment trend
among teachers.

Implications for Clinical Practice and School Partnerships

It is difficult to determine what the implications are for the design and
implementation of clinical experiences and for school partnerships from the reports
(Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a). The IHE of interest has two
distinct tracks for clinical experiences both of which comply with state regulations, but
one of which goes far beyond state requirements and involves a yearlong immersion in
the K-12 school environment. The question of whether graduates who participate in this
immersion track are more likely to be retained in teaching arises. Similar questions
surround how the quality of supervision and mentoring and the characteristics of the
student teaching placements associated with the IHE of interest might shed light on the
outcomes for graduates who receive unsatisfactory ratings or who are ineffective or
conversely highly effective in terms of student growth scores.

In the absence of a roster tracking individual graduates from either report (Boyd,
Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a), it is difficult to know what aspects of
clinical practice would benefit from change and improvement. As noted earlier, teacher
preparation is not a standalone endeavor, and it would be reasonable to assume, for
example, that graduates from the IHE of interest teaching in the NYCDOE might well
have undertaken clinical experiences in the NYCDOE public school system. Further
then, might it be reasonable to assume that the effectiveness of graduates from the IHE
of interest in part reflects the quality of those K-12 clinical placements? If so, actions to

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 103

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

improve educator preparation programs and the effectiveness of their graduates do not
rest with IHEs alone. A systems analysis is required to provide greater clarity in
understanding which type or types of field experiences help prepare teacher candidates
most effectively as they begin their teaching careers (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Parsons,
1951).

Whether considering changes to academic programs for educator preparation or
changes to the design of clinical experiences, timing plays an important role in deciding
when and how changes are made. For the TQRC report (2009), three-year retention
data were not available for May 2005 program completers until 2008. Similarly, K-12
student test data require time for analysis and reporting. Even current state teacher
growth scores for 2013 require two consecutive years of test data on file with the state
(2011-2012, and 2012-2013) in order to calculate the growth score of students, and in
turn, teachers, from one year to the next. Such a time lag impacts the ability to provide
real time analysis of the education system for any parties involved, including schools of
education, K-12 teachers, school leaders, students, and parents. Time also is required
to monitor any changes made to evaluate their impact. At best the reports could offer a
baseline from which to monitor performance over time; however, only the NYCDOE has
indicated plans to continue with the reports; the TQRC report was a one-time effort.
Such one-shot reports are severely lacking in their ability to provide meaningful
feedback to the educator preparation profession. Systems invariably are a product of
the environment and the people in them (Boulding, 1956; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Parsons,
1951; Senge, 1990). Systems, especially if they are to be considered effective, must
establish feedback mechanisms and cycles, provide opportunities to set goals, and
monitor progress towards those goals (Emery, 2000; Senge, 1990). Senge describes
different types of feedback cycles, reinforcing or balancing, which either (1) reinforce or
amplify a process within a system or (2) balance and stabilize a process in a system. In
a similar way, the educator preparation in the United States, and specifically in New
York State, is a system that needs continuous feedback mechanisms which will help
balance or reinforce this profession. If the ultimate goal of educational change is to
enhance the quality of teachers, then adjusting entry variables (e.g., licensure
qualifications) is one part of the system. Others include adjustments to tenure and
promotion decisions. As each of these new or revised processes are put in place, one-
shot evaluations will not provide consistent and continuous input to help regulate the
system as a whole.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 104

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Considerations for Policy Implications

Finally we consider the extent to which either of these reports (Boyd, Lankford, &
Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) provides relevant and actionable information for
making broad policy changes with regard to educator preparation programs.

The current education reform agenda at both federal and state levels is focused
on making every high school graduate ready for college or a career (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011). As noted earlier, the assumption behind this agenda is that more
rigorous accountability models will drive improvements system-wide.

It is not obvious, however, that either report discussed here has had or will have
an impact on educator preparation policies or on policies relating to other components
of the system. In part we hypothesize that effecting changes is difficult within a system
and associated accountability model that is highly segmented, and that policy changes
occur within, rather than across, system components. For example, the NYSED has
already taken action to make revisions to the licensure process in the state, partly
through the addition of a performance assessment, edTPA, that requires candidates to
submit a portfolio with sections on planning and preparation; evidence of teaching
practice, including video segments; and assessment of their own impact in the
classroom. The state education department has also made revisions to the in-service
teacher performance review process via the Annual Professional Performance Review
(APPR), which requires multiple points of assessment, including leader and peer
observations, growth scores, and other local evaluation metrics. These two evaluation
tools, edTPA and APPR, are not linked to provide a developmental trajectory of
teaching, however, and each only provides feedback within one particular component of
the system: teacher education programs or the K-12 school.

In addressing results from these reports (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009;
NYCDOE, 2013a) regarding clinical experiences and school partnerships, we noted that
additional information that could be useful to assess the quality of pre-service
preparation is tracking where teachers conduct their clinical practice component of their
preparation. Many have argued that this component of pre-service preparation is
critical, as highlighted in recommendations set forth by the report of the Blue Ribbon
Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning
commissioned by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010).
One significant policy change that could emerge by examining evidence from each
report from a system perspective is to require all student teachers to be placed only with
those teachers rated as highly effective. For the first time, these new accountability
models could allow cross-sector policy changes. It is now possible to identify highly
effective teachers, and it would be possible to track outcomes over time from a policy
change that paired teacher candidates with those most effective in the classroom.
Considering and using information from multiple components of the state education
system could enhance effectiveness within the system overall. In this case, selecting

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 105

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

nyusp
Highlight

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

highly effective mentor teachers could enhance the ability to transition entry-level
teachers into the profession.

In summary, neither the TQRC (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009) nor the
NYCDOE (2013a) report appears to have had any direct influence on NYS educator
preparation policy changes. As noted above, the TQRC report was a one-time effort,
but it has likely served as a precursor to a new feedback report that the NYSED plans to
issue for each IHE across the state in the coming year. It is not clear which variables
and metrics will be used for these new state reports, and the NYSED would do well to
review recommendations from Henry et al. (2012) regarding concerns about accuracy
and fairness.

Overall there is a lack of a system perspective with regard to the evidence
emerging from these new accountability models. What is clear is that educator
preparation accountability will continue to be the subject of ongoing reports such as the
ones discussed here, and thus, they reflect a policy trend in state wide comprehensive
database development.

Conclusion

In reviewing both reports (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2009; NYCDOE, 2013a), it
is clear that the evidence for program improvement is sparse and that causality is
difficult to determine. In fairness, neither report set out to provide a comprehensive set
of causal linkages for program improvement purposes. It is also clear from a review of
the reports’ findings that the reports are limited in impact because, by their design, the
responsibility and accountability for preparing effective educators is placed largely at the
foot of IHEs rather than treated from a system perspective as an endeavor involving
multiple stakeholders.

We recommend treating educator preparation from a system perspective
involving candidates, IHEs, K-12 schools, and policy makers across a timeframe from
program entry to early career. A system perspective could lead to more productive
outcomes from accountability reports. For example, the absence of a systems
approach to the evaluation of educator preparation programs means that program
elements that might be most critical to producing effective teachers, such as the quality
of faculty and program design, the quality of the clinical placement, the quality of the
supervision, and the selection of mentor teachers do not fit neatly into currently
available measures, but rather fall into gaps that currently exist in the accountability
system. Plecki et al. (2012) in the conclusion to their study noted the need for
cooperation among and across programs and institutions about “what elements matter”
(p. 331), and therefore what variables and measures should be consistently obtained
and used as a basis for improvement. This level of cooperation would help move
educator preparation program accountability beyond a task undertaken by one agency
about another agency.

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 106

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

A further recommendation is that all stakeholders should have the opportunity to
develop specific questions to investigate. Neither report (Boyd, Lankford, & Wyckoff,
2009; NYCDOE, 2013a) presented here was driven by the development of specific
questions about preparation program improvements by any of the stakeholders
involved. For example, Plecki et al. (2012) were able to use a state database to
address specific questions of interest concerning teachers’ value-added scores in
relation to years of teaching experience. Again, this would involve cooperation and
collaboration among stakeholders about developing both the questions and suitable
measures.

As noted there have been several changes in reporting capabilities in the four
years between these reports. These changes include enhanced transparency and
greater public access to information about program completers. A second major
change is the capability to track impact in the classroom to individual teachers, allowing
evaluation at an individual rather than group level. While facets of this process are
controversial, we believe that the capability in and of itself is useful to help answer the
question of teacher effectiveness. While there has been increased sophistication in the
development of such measures to capture teachers’ impact on student learning, this
article points to a lack of sophistication in the processes by which educator preparation
accountability is being developed. We recommend a system approach, driven by
specific improvement questions, developed through collaboration around the critical
dimensions of effective teaching.

References

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory – the skeleton of science. Management
Science, 2(3), 197-208. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher
preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31(4), 416-440. doi:10.3102/0162373709353129

Boyd, D. J., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Tracking program completers: Teacher
quality research pilot report. Unpublished report.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2001). Teachers for a new era. Carnegie Reporter,
1(3), 36. Available from http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-
reporter/single/view/article/item/36/

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student
achievement in high school. A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects.
The Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681. doi: 10.1353/jhr.2010.0023

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 107

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129

http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/36/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2010.0023

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(10). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Donovan, C., Ashdown, J., & Mungai, A. (2013, February). Useful and relevant? One
institution’s findings from a state-wide, career path, pilot study linking teacher
education data with school and student level data. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Orlando,
FL.

Emery, M. (2000). The current version of Emery’s open systems theory. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 13(5), 623-643. doi:

Fallon, D. (2006). The buffalo upon the chimneypiece: The value of evidence. Journal of

Teacher Education, 57(2), 139-154. doi:10.1177/0022487105285675

Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes
differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in
Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 304-317.
doi:10.1177/0022487112439894

Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed?
Washington, DC: University of Washington and the Urban Institute. Available
from http://www.urban.org/publications/410958.html

Henry, G. T., Kershaw, D. C., Zulli, R. A., & Smith, A. A. (2012). Incorporating teacher
effectiveness into teacher preparation program evaluation. Journal of Teacher
Education, 63(5), 335-355. doi:10.1177/0022487112454437

Hillon, M. E. (2005). A comparative analysis of socio-ecological and socio-economic

strategic change methodologies. (Doctoral dissertation. Lyon 3).

Katz, D. & Khan, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY:

Wiley.

Kirby, S. N., McCombs, J. S., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2005). Implementing teachers for
new era: Some promising indicators of change (Working Paper, W-R 278). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(1), 37-62. doi: 10.3102/01623737024001037

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2012). State wide longitudinal data
systems. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 108

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285675

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487112439894

http://www.urban.org/publications/410958.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487112454437

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737024001037

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Transforming

teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare
effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE). (2013a). Teacher preparation
program reports 2013. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/TPPR.

New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE). (2013b). Teacher preparation
program reports: Raising the bar for students in schools. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D9840D7D-7A36-4C66-817C-
C48CFE5C017C/0/NYCDOETeacherPreparationProgramPresentation_August_2
013

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009
Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading,
mathematics and science (Volume 1.) Paris, France: PISA, OECE Publishing.
doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Plecki, M. L., Elfers, A. M., Nakamura, Y. (2012). Using evidence for teacher education
program improvement and accountability: An illustrative case of the role of value
added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318-334.
doi:10.1177/0022487112447110

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

U.S. Department of Education (2011). Our future, our teachers: The Obama

administration’s plan for teacher education reform and improvement.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/our-future-
our-teachers-accesible

U.S. Department of Education (2014). Race to the Top Fund. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop

Wiseman, D. (2012). The intersection of policy, reform, and teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 63(2), 87-91. doi:10.1177/0022487111429128

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 109

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/HumanCapitalData/TPPR

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D9840D7D-7A36-4C66-817C-C48CFE5C017C/0/NYCDOETeacherPreparationProgramPresentation_August_2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487112447110

http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/our-future-our-teachers-accesible

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429128

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI) Copyright 2014
May 2014, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pp. ISSN: 1937-3929
http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p

About the Authors

Corinne Baron Donovan, PhD, is the Assistant Dean of Research and
Evaluation for the Ruth S. Ammon School of Education, Adelphi University,
New York. Dr. Donovan’s research includes a focus on career development of
pre-service through in-service teachers, evaluation of teacher education, and
development of teacher dispositional and attitude instruments. She has a
broad background in adult learning and development as well as program
evaluation and a degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Email:
cdonovan@adelphi.edu

Jane E. Ashdown, PhD, is dean and professor at the Ruth S. Ammon School
of Education, Adelphi University. She has been an early childhood classroom
teacher and directed a university-based early literacy intervention project that
partnered with high need school systems to improve teaching effectiveness
and children’s literacy achievement. Her research interests include teacher
development and strategies for improving educator preparation. Email:
jashdown@adelphi.edu

Anne M. Mungai, PhD, is a Professor of Education, Chair of the Curriculum
and Instruction Department and Director of the graduate Special Education
program at the Ruth S. Ammon School of Education, Adelphi University, New
York. Her research agenda over the last several years has revolved around
the concept of multicultural issues, Special Education inclusion issues, staff
development, gender issues, and learning. She is the author of the book
Growing up in Kenya: Rural Schooling and Girls, the co-editor of the books
Pathway to Inclusion: Voices from the Field, and co-editor of In the Spirit of
Ubuntu: Stories of Teaching and Research. She has published articles on
Multicultural Education and issues of Special Education Inclusion. Dr. Mungai
has served as a consultant to several schools that have started inclusion and
has provided service to schools as a professional developer and field
researcher in the area of cognition and classroom instruction with racially,

ethnically, and linguistically diverse populations. Email: MUNGAI@adelphi.edu

______________________________________
Donovan, Ashdown, and Mungai 110

http://www.joci.ecu.edu/

mailto:cdonovan@adelphi.edu

mailto:jashdown@adelphi.edu

mailto:MUNGAI@adelphi.edu

Copyright of Journal of Curriculum & Instruction is the property of East Carolina University
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

nyusp
Sticky Note
Royster, V. (1983). Watching the pendulum in education. The American Scholar, 52, 193-204.

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ The Education Pendulum ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order

Rubic_Print_ Format

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Rubic_Print_
Format