Values in education: a challenge for teacher educators

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspondi

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 205–217

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Values in education: a challenge for teacher educators

Martijn Willemse�, Mieke Lunenberg, Fred Korthagen

Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV-Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

The (growing) political, social and scientific attention to the moral aspects of teaching also concerns teacher

education.This article reports an exploratory study into the preparation of student teachers for moral education. The

designing of goals, program parts and teaching and learning methods for a part of the first year curriculum of a teacher

education institute for primary education is described. Next the teacher educators who carried out the curriculum and

the student teachers who participated in it, were asked whether they recognized the moral aspects of the curriculum as

designed. Finally, we tested the effects of the curriculum on the learning of the student teachers, using a pre- and post-

test. The results of the study evoke, among others, the conclusion that more attention is needed to the implicit and

unplanned aspects of preparing students teachers for moral education.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Values; Teacher education; Teaching; Teacher educator; Student teachers

1. Introduction

The idea that teaching is a moral endeavor is atleast as old as recorded knowledge of thepractice. Plato, Confucius, Lao Tzu [y.] allprovide arguments and testimonials about themoral significance of teaching (Hansen, 2001, p.826)

Since Ducharme’s (1993) study, attention hasbecome increasingly focused on the nature ofteacher educators as a professional group. Thisconcentration of attention has been particularly

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2004.12.009

ng author.

ss: [email protected] (M. Willemse).

influenced by self-studies of teacher educationpractices as demonstrated by, for example, Buch-berger, Campos, Kallos and Stephenson (2000)and Loughran and Russell (2002). However, thereis still little empirical research that focuses on theactual practices of teacher educators themselves.In this article we attempt to address this situationthrough a focus on a specific aspect of the work ofteacher educators: the preparation of teachers forthe moral aspects of teaching.

In the quotation at the beginning of this article,Hansen states that teaching is, and always hasbeen, a moral activity. In his review, Hansen(2001) referred to a large number of studies on thissubject, which together showed the complicated

ed.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Willemse et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 205–217206

nature of teaching as a moral activity. Thesestudies raised a variety of questions, including: Towhat extent, and how should teachers commu-nicate with pupils about values? How shouldteachers promote the development of values intheir pupils? How should they foster the ability ofpupils to put these values into practice?

In his literature review, Hansen did not mentiona single research project that focused on theconsequences for teacher education of the findingsfrom research on teaching as a moral activity.Similarly, a review study by Vedder and Veugelers(1999) led to a similar conclusion: there is astriking lack of research on the question of howstudent teachers can be prepared for the moralaspects of teaching.

We believe that this conclusion leaves teachereducators in an awkward situation for theirteaching—as is all teaching—is always a moralactivity (e.g., Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002). Teachereducators express personal values in the way theyrelate to their students, and they must stimulatetheir student teachers to develop their own valuesand norms, and to become teachers who are awareof the ways in which they express their own valuesthrough their teaching. Further to this, the work ofteacher educators has an additional dimension inthat they must also prepare student teachers tohelp their pupils to develop norms and values, andto prepare them for citizenship. Despite the lack ofempirical research on the moral task of teachereducators, in practice, many institutes for teachereducation have overall goals that somehow relateto preparing student teachers for moral education.For example, many teacher education programsseek to promote reflection among teachers. Suchgoals express an underlying value (e.g., theimportance of taking responsibility for one’s ownactions). Yet, the consequences for the teachereducation program and for the work of teachereducators themselves are seldom discussed indepth (some noteworthy exceptions are Zeichner,1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1987; Valli, 1990). In anattempt to address this gap in the research, weconducted a study of the current practice ofteacher educators at a Christian teacher educationinstitute in the Netherlands, focusing on thepreparation of student teachers for moral educa-

tion. This article presents a report of ourdescriptive study and discusses its consequencesfor further research on teacher educators and thepreparation of student teachers for moral educa-tion.

2. Theoretical background

In reviewing the literature, we consulted threemain sources in order to compile the informationfrom the last 10 years concerning the preparationof student teachers for moral education. First, weconducted an ERIC search using the followingterms: socio-pedagogical, moral education, char-acter education and value education, combinedwith the term teacher education. Second, wescreened 13 journals (e.g., Teaching and TeacherEducation, Journal of Moral Education, Educa-tional Researcher). Third, we examined the Hand-book of Research on Teaching (Richardson,2001). Our search yielded only a few studies.Stephenson, Ling, Burman, and Cooper (1998),for example, asked (prospective) teachers inseveral countries what they perceived to be themost important components of value education inteacher education courses. Wakefield (1997)strongly recommended explicit attention to char-acter education instruction in teacher education.Sockett and LePage (2002) designed and studied ateacher education program that was, ‘‘explicitlycommitted to a moral conception of professional-ism in teaching’’ (p. 159), and Bebeau (1993), madesuggestions for teacher education based on aprogram in professional ethics for dentistrycourses.

To broaden our perspective, we extended theliterature search to include the discussion aboutmoral education in schools, a subject on whichthere is more literature. This literature can becategorized into three strands. The first strandconcerns the question of whether teachers have amoral task at all. Although some authors statethat schools should focus primarily on teachingsubject matter (e.g., Dodde, 1992; for an overview,see De Jong 1998), other studies (e.g., Goodlad,1990, 1992; Solomon, Watson & Battistich, 2001;Hansen 2001) argue that the general opinion is

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M. Willemse et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 205–217 207

that teachers do indeed have a moral task. In linewith Oakeshott (1989, 1991) and Peters (1964,1968), Hansen (2001) argued that a teacher’sbehavior plays a vital role in the moral develop-ment of students. Citing Oakeshott, he stated that:‘‘One may set apart an hour in which to learnmathematics and devote another to Catechism,but it is impossible to engage in any activitywhatever without contributing to [y] moraleducation’’ (Hansen, 2001, p. 837; Oakeshott,1991, p. 469).

The second strand concerns the question of howto define the moral task of teachers. Vedder andVeugelers (1999) found in their review the follow-ing inter-related terms in the Anglo-Americanliterature for defining this task: value education,character education, personal and social educa-tion, citizenship education, civic education, reli-gious education, moralogy and democraticeducation (compare Berkowitz, 1995). The varietyof definitions and terms reveals a considerablediversity in meanings, movements, approaches,and paradigms. They differ, for example, in thedegree to which they focus on personal or socialvalues, or on religious or humanistic education.There are, however, also similarities. Biesta andMiedema (2002) note that in Anglo-Americanstudies, the word ‘‘pedagogy’’ is used increasinglyin this context, and often for the purpose ofemphasizing that education has a broader meaningthan that expressed by either training or schooling,and that it includes the teaching of values andnorms. Van Manen (2002) explains the termpedagogy as, ‘‘the complexity of relational, perso-nal, moral, emotional aspects of teachers’ everydayacting with children or young people they teach’’(p. 136).

The literature in the second strand shows thatnot only pedagogical, but also social aspects areimportant in teaching. Ten Dam and Volman(1999), for example, emphasize that teachersshould prepare their pupils for their future rolesin society and for citizenship (which is mirrored interms such as citizenship education and democratic

education). In the Netherlands moral education isgenerally perceived to be a combination ofpedagogical and social aspects. This is also howwe have come to define moral education for this

article. According to this view, teachers areexpected to stimulate pupils to develop their ownidentities and to become citizens participating in amulticultural society (Wardekker, Biesta & Mie-dema, 1998; Ten Dam & Volman, 1999, 2000;Vedder & Veugelers, 1999; Veugelers et al., 2002,Veugelers, 2003). In this context, ‘‘to stimulate’’refers not so much to the clarification of values orindoctrination as it does to the development ofawareness on the part of teachers of their ownvalues, being explicit about these values, and thesimultaneous creation of opportunities for pupilsto develop their own sets of values and norms.

Studies in the third strand address the questionof how moral education should be carried out.Hansen (2001), for example, emphasizes theimportance of the teacher as a person. As a person,the teacher influences the values of studentsthrough the curriculum and through instructionalapproaches. Moreover, Hansen states: ‘‘teachersfeel compelled to enact qualities that they believetheir students both want and need to see in them:confidence, poise, fairness, commitment, [...]’’(p.851). Ten Dam and Volman (2002) indicatethe possible contribution of a problem-basedcurriculum and the use of cases for carrying outmoral education, but they add that the effective-ness of such approaches has not been proven.

Lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness ofstrategies and teaching methods is a more generalproblem in this field. Based on their review ofresearch on moral and social development ineducation, Solomon et al. (2001) summarize themajor variables that may have positive effects onstudents’ sense of community and moral reasoning(e.g., student interaction, collaboration, teachersupport, teacher modeling, and training in socialskills). They complain, however, about the qualityof this research. In their opinion, many studiesshow ‘‘little more than anecdotal evidence ofeffects, [y] and many reports do not give cleardescriptions of the programy’’ (p. 594). Boos-trom, Hansen, and Jackson (1993) came to aninteresting conclusion after hundreds of hours ofclassroom observation in primary and secondaryschools. They found that the unplanned andimplicit moral dimensions of daily practice weremore important and more enduring in their

ARTICLE IN PRESS


formative effects on pupils than were any explicitattempts to do so.

It seems reasonable then to conclude from theforegoing discussion that the complexity of currentviews and theories and the lack of clear programdescriptions and sound studies into their effectsmake the choice of a definitive standpoint difficult.Likewise, these factors present obstacles forderiving theories about the preparation of studentteachers for moral education, and for testing sucha theory in current teacher education programs.

Teacher educators, like all teachers generally,must consider how and to what extent they shouldcarry out their moral task. They must reflect onhow best to promote the development of values intheir student teachers, how to stimulate them tobecome participating citizens, and most of all, howto prepare them to fulfill their moral task in theschools where they work or will work. Teachereducators should therefore help their studentteachers to develop the attitudes and knowledgethey will need to do so.

3. Method

3.1. Research goal and general research question

Given the complex and often confusing body ofknowledge on moral education , and given the lackof research on the consequences for teachereducation, we embarked on conducting an in-depth study at one teacher education institute inthe Netherlands. Our goal was to provide furtherinsight into the actual practices of teacher educa-tors in this area, and into the effects of thesepractices on student teachers. Our starting pointwas that the preparation of student teachers formoral education occurs within all subjects in theteacher education curriculum. To provide asharper focus, our study concentrated on one termof the curriculum. The following general questionthen guided the study:

How do teacher educators prepare studentteachers for moral education when designing andcarrying out the teacher education curriculum, andwhat effects does this preparation have on thestudent teachers?

3.2. Context

In 2001, the curriculum for the last 4 months ofthe first year program was redesigned as part of alarger project for renewing the entire 4-yearcurriculum of the teacher education institute understudy. The institute has a set of overall goals thatstudent teachers must achieve before receivingtheir teaching certificates. For this term the overallgoals that related to preparing student teachers formoral education were as follows:

1.
The student will be able to justify his or hercontacts with the pupils in elementary schools.
2.
The student will be able to clarify his or herteaching values and norms, and will be able torelate these to his or her teaching practice.
3.
The student will be able to reflect continuouslyon his or her own attitudes, opinions andteaching and on new innovations, and will beprepared to change his or her teaching throughself-evaluation.
4.
The student will be able to choose teachingobjectives related to his or her own identity andthe identity of the school.
5.
The student will have knowledge and under-standing concerning the identity, emotional,cognitive, creative, social, ethical, religious,cultural, and physical development of children,and will be able to stimulate this development.
The curriculum was designed to consist of threemain elements:

I.
Subjects: language and communication, arts,music, mathematics, nature and society (i.e., acombined subject including biology, geogra-phy and history), and religion
II.
Problem-based learning tasks III. A period of teaching practice in schools.
A lesson that provided an overview of thecurriculum was included for all students at thebeginning of the term. In addition, the period alsoincluded a 3-day meeting aimed at the discussionof a specific theme. To document the learningprocess, each student teacher was required to puttogether a portfolio.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Nine teacher educators—four men and fivewomen—had been appointed to redesign thecurriculum for this particular time-period. All wereexperienced teacher educators and each representedone of the various elements comprising the curricu-lum. Below, we refer to the members of this team asthe designers. The new curriculum was first carriedout in the spring of 2002 by 27 teacher educators,four of whom were also designers. A total of 288student teachers, varying in age from 17 to 21,participated in the curriculum. Of these studentteachers, 37 were men and 251 were women.

Because our goal was to approach the researchobjective from a broad perspective, the ninedesigners of the curriculum, the 27 teachereducators delivering the curriculum, and the 288student teachers participating in the curriculumwere all included in our study.

3.3. Types of curricula

When studying a curriculum, the exact researchobjective must be clear. Several scholars (e.g.,Goodlad, Klein, & Tye, 1979; Akker van den 1988;Kessels, 1993) make distinctions among differenttypes of curricula. Kessels states that the intended

Table 1

Sub-questions and instruments

Sub-questions

1. For the 4-month term under research, which objectives do the

preparing student teachers for moral education?

2. Which parts of the curriculum and accompanying teaching and

find most characteristic for achieving the objectives?

3. Do the teacher educators who carry out the curriculum recogni

designers?

4. Which parts of the curriculum and accompanying teaching an

educators who carry out the curriculum find most characteris

5. Do the student teachers recognize the objectives formulated b

6. Which parts of the curriculum and accompanying teaching an

teachers find most characteristic for achieving the objectives?

7. Do student teachers achieve the objectives as formulated by t

curriculum focuses on management, the formal

curriculum involves the developer and the perceived

curriculum involves the teacher who actuallydelivers the curriculum. According to Kessels(1993, p. 22), ‘‘the perceived curriculum reflectsthe trainer’s perception of the curriculum. Whenthe developer and the trainer are not one and thesame person, their perceptions of the purpose, therelevant objectives and the learning situation thatwill eventually lead to the desired training outcomemay differ.’’ Kessels further distinguishes the

curriculum as experienced by the students.

3.4. Sub-questions

We formulated seven sub-questions from thebroader general research question, and used fiveinstruments to gather data concerning these sub-questions. The relations between the seven sub-questions and the instruments are shown in Table 1.

3.5. Instruments

The group interview with the designers was heldat the end of the design process, but before theredesigned curriculum was first carried out. The

Instruments

designers formulate in relation to I Group interview

(designers)

learning methods do the designers

ze the objectives formulated by the II Questionnaire

(teacher educators)

d learning methods do the teacher

tic for achieving the objectives?

y the designers? III Questionnaire

(student teachers)

d learning methods do the student

he designers? IV Pre- and post-tests

for student teachers

ARTICLE IN PRESS


group interview was intended to find answers tothe first and second sub-questions and to providekey information for developing questionnaires forteacher educators and student teachers. In prepar-ing for the group interview, the designers receivedquestionnaires with open questions, which theywere asked to answer individually.

One question concerned the connection betweenthe five overall goals for moral education assignedto this term and the objectives formulated by thedesigners for each of the various subjects, pro-blem-based learning tasks, and the teachingpractice period. During the group interview, thedesigners discussed whether they agreed with theway in which their colleagues had connectedcertain sets of objectives to the overall goals. Inthe case of disagreement, participants couldsuggest either content changes for the objective,or relate it to a different overall goal. In the end,the group interview led to consensus concerning alist of objectives that were connected to the fiveoverall goals.

Other questions in the interview allowed de-signers to identify the parts of the program thatthey found most characteristic for reaching theobjectives (and the overall goals), which charac-teristic teaching and learning methods accompa-nied these program parts, and which notes theywould add to guide themselves and other teachereducators throughout the teaching. The answers tothese questions were discussed during the groupinterview until consensus was reached.

The questionnaire for teacher educators wascompleted at the end of the term, after thecurriculum had been completed. The questionnaireprovided information relating to sub-questions 3and 4, and was also intended to give the teachereducators who had carried out the curriculum, theopportunity to suggest revisions for the curricu-lum. The teacher educators were asked to indicatethe extent to which they had recognized theobjectives formulated by the designers, using afive-point scale ranging from 1 (‘‘I completely donot recognize the objective’’) to 5 (‘‘I completelyrecognize the objective’’). They were also asked toindicate the extent to which they agreed with thecharacteristic program parts and accompanyingteaching and learning methods that had been

selected by the designers. This question also madeuse of a five-point scale, this time with responsesranging from 1 (‘‘I completely do not agree’’) to 5(‘‘I completely agree’’). The teacher educatorsrated only the items about the objectives, char-acteristic program parts, and teaching and learn-ing methods that involved subjects or problem-based learning tasks which they had carried outthemselves. For example, a religion teacher edu-cator did not rate the items relating to art. If theteacher educators did not agree with the char-acteristic program parts or the accompanyingteaching and learning methods, they were askedto indicate other parts and methods that theyconsidered more appropriate.

The questionnaire for student teachers, whichgathered information relating to sub-questions 5and 6, was combined with the post-test at the end ofthe term under study (as described below). Theitems on this questionnaire addressed the samecontent and had the same structure as thoseincluded on the questionnaire for teacher educators.

Pre- and post-tests for student teachers, whichmeasured knowledge and attitudes, were used toanswer sub-question 7. The pre-test was adminis-tered before the start of the term, and the post-testwas administered at the end of the term. Thedesigners developed both. However, during thedevelopment process concerns arose over thequality of the test items. The face validity of thetests was therefore screened by three independentresearchers and then discussed. Two main pointsdominated this discussion. First, many objectiveswere unclear, complex, and not measurable. Thefollowing objective is an example: ‘‘The studentwill be prepared to discuss his or her own point ofview about faith and religion and [will be willing]to accept his or her peers as equals in thisconversation.’’ The phrases ‘‘prepared,’’ and ‘‘will-ing’’ make it difficult to determine whether astudent teacher had achieved the objective, parti-cularly with the pre-test. Further, the objectiveconsisted of two parts. Second, it appeared thatmany objectives were measured by only one item,despite the fact that the objectives were sometimesrather complex.

Because our main goal was to describe currentpractices in a teacher education institute, we could

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Distribution of the objectives over the various parts of the


have settled for the conclusion that the assessmentwas rather meager and based on unreliable andinvalid test items. In order to make use of theopportunity to investigate whether a step beyondthis unsatisfactory answer to sub-question 7 waspossible, we attempted a limited intervention byasking the designers to omit or reformulate someof the most vague objectives, and to add test itemsfor objectives that were not measured. Thisintervention was successful in only a few cases.

3.6. Analysis

The data gathered during the group interview

provided direct answers to the first and second sub-questions. The answers to the pre-structured ques-tions from the questionnaire for teacher educators

and the questionnaire for student teachers concerningrecognition of the objectives and agreement on thecharacteristic program parts and accompanyingteaching and learning methods (sub-questions 3–6)were analyzed by calculating and comparing themeans for each group. The differences between thescores on the pre- and post-tests were meant to assessthe effects of the curriculum on the students (sub-question 7). Drawing a plausible conclusion aboutwhether student teachers had achieved the objectivesrequired that we examined the validity and relia-bility of the pre- and post-tests. As mentionedabove, we already had concerns about the quality ofthe test items. We therefore examined the reliabilityof the tests by calculating Cronbach’s alpha for thefive overall goals, instead of for the objectives. Wedistinguished between attitude and knowledgeitems. We hoped that by relating the items to thefive overall goals, we would be able to identifyreliable subscales. In addition, we used PrincipalComponents Analysis to search for underlying datastructures, using a Varimax rotation procedure.

curriculum

Parts of the curriculum Number of

objectives

Problem-based learning tasks 34

Subject: religion 14

Subject: nature and society 5

Subject: language and communication 3

Subject: arts 3

4. Findings

4.1. Objectives

First, we consider sub-questions 1, 3, and 5.The group interview, intended to generate data

to answer sub-question 1, revealed that there was

considerable confusion among the designers withregard to the objectives. Forty-eight proposals forchange were discussed, and 39 were finallyaccepted. The discussion among the nine designersduring the group interview focused on threeaspects. First, most proposals for change dealtwith the grammatical formulation of the objec-tives. For example, in the interest of clarity,objectives were divided into two parts. Somesuggested adding words, subjects, or verbs. Asecond aspect of the discussion during the groupinterview involved proposals for relating particularobjectives to other overall goals. Third, a fewproposals called for, for example, the addition ofobjectives for specific subject areas. This third typeof proposal seemed to suggest that there had beenlittle discussion among the designers over whatthey meant by ‘‘preparing student teachers formoral education’’(or over the subjects that wererelated to it). The designers found the groupinterview productive. After the group interview,one of the designers commented: ‘‘We should havedone this much earlier in the design process.’’

The group interview led to consensus, ascribingeach of 59 objectives to one of the five overallgoals. The various subjects, problem-based learn-ing tasks, and the teaching practice period werenot equally represented by the objectives (seeTable 2).

As Table 2 illustrates, the objectives that hadbeen formulated related mainly to the problem-based learning tasks and to religious education.Examples of such objectives included: ‘‘Thestudent will be able to draw moral themes fromcurrent events in society’’ (a problem-based learn-ing task) and ‘‘The student will be able to clarify

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Recognition of objectives on a five-point scale

Parts of the

curriculum

Student teachers Teacher

educatorsa

M N M N

Problem-based

learning tasks

3.53 162 3.38 13

Religious education 3.63 164 — 0

Nature and society 3.63 164 3.20 1

Language and

communication

4.06 164 4.00 1

Arts 3.46 163 4.30 1

M ¼ mean score for items concerning the recognition of

objectives, by subject, N ¼ number of respondents.aFour designers also carried out the program (two teacher

educators for problem-based learning tasks, the religious

education teacher educator, and one nature and society teacher

educator). They are not included in this table.


and to discuss his or her own religious views’’(religious education). A few objectives were for-mulated for other subjects (e.g., nature andsociety, language and communication, arts). Forexample, the objective ‘‘The student will be able toexplain how human activity influences nature andthe environment’’ related to the subject of natureand society.

The quotation from Hansen that introduced thisarticle expressed the conviction that teaching isalways a moral activity. It is therefore interestingto note that the designers had formulated noobjectives through which the subjects of music andmathematics could help prepare student teachersfor moral education. This may reveal importantdifferences among the various types of curricula,particularly between the intended and the formalcurriculum. It is also remarkable that the designersmentioned no specific objectives focusing on theteaching practice period.

The questionnaires provided answers to theother two sub-questions concerning objectives(sub-questions 3 and 5). Of the 27 teachereducators who carried out the curriculum, 20completed the section of the questionnaire con-cerning the recognition of objectives. A total of164 student teachers also completed this section.The teacher educators and the student teachersgenerally recognized the objectives formulated bythe designers. Table 3 presents mean scores for theitems on the recognition of the objectives, allo-cated by subject.

The responses also contained a number ofcritical remarks. For example, one of the studentteachers stated: ‘‘Although Task 3 probablycovered the objectives as mentioned, in myopinion, they have never been achieved and thatis not my fault!’’ It is striking that neither theteacher educators nor the student teachers madeany remarks about the fact that no objectives hadbeen formulated for music and mathematics.

4.2. Characteristic program parts and teaching and

learning methods

We now consider sub-questions 2, 4 and 6.As discussed above, the group interview re-

vealed considerable confusion among the de-

signers. During the individual preparation, someforgot to consider the formulated objectives whilesearching for program parts characteristic of thepreparation for moral education. One designermentioned a characteristic program part that shehad designed herself, but that proved to be linkedto an overall goal from another term.

In the end, the designers reached a consensusconcerning 13 program parts considered charac-teristic for attaining the moral objectives they hadformulated. Of the 13 program parts, six involvedproblem-based learning tasks and one part in-volved a teaching practice assignment related to aproblem-based task. One example of a character-istic program part mentioned by the designers wasa problem-based learning task about health andbehavior, which required student teachers to serveas role models for pupils in matters related tosmoking, eating, and drinking. As part of this task,student teachers were required to make anddiscuss a list of do’s and don’ts concerning teacherbehavior. Other characteristic program partsinvolved a nature and society lesson and thesubject religion. The designers added four generalprogram parts which they considered character-istic for the preparation of student teachers tofulfill their moral task, namely (1) the introductionto the term, which provided an overview of theterm; (2) the 3-day theme meeting, in which the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


student teachers were introduced to the impor-tance of environmental influences on education;and (3, 4) two portfolio assignments. The firstportfolio assignment focused on making andreflecting on choices, and the second portfolioassignment involved formulating focal points forfurther learning.

The data obtained from the questionnairesshowed that the teacher educators and the studentteachers generally agreed with the designers aboutthe characteristic program parts (the mean scorefor student teachers varied between 3.13 and 3.45;the mean score for teacher educators variedbetween 3.00 and 4.00). The most frequentlyrecognized program parts included a problem-based learning task involving reading Harry Potterin the classroom and the two portfolio assignments(see Table 4). Neither the teacher educators northe student teachers added any program parts.

Regarding these 13 program parts, the designersdescribed 25 characteristic, but sometimes over-lapping, teaching and learning methods. Forexample, some mentioned ‘‘reflection’’ as a teach-ing and learning method, while others mentioned‘‘reflection on one’s own opinion’’, or ‘‘reflectionduring teaching practice’’. In addition to reflec-tion, ‘‘discussion’’ was also mentioned frequently.Other characteristic teaching and learning meth-ods described by the designers included demon-stration, making one’s own behavior explicit,observation, completing assignments, taking partin a Jewish theological study group, and self-study.

The data obtained from the questionnairesshowed that, for the most part, the teachereducators and student teachers agreed with the

Table 4

Agreement on the most characteristic program parts on a five-point s

Characteristic program parts Student teachers C

M N

Portfolio assignment ‘‘reflection’’ 3.45 162 P

p

Problem-based learning task

‘‘Harry Potter’’

3.39 163 P

‘‘

M ¼ mean score of the items concerning recognition of characteristic paFour designers also carried out the program (two teacher educa

teacher educator, and one nature and society teacher educator). They

designers about the most characteristic teachingand learning methods (mean score on recognitionbetween 2.17 and 3.73 for the student teachers andbetween 2.92 and 4.23 for the teacher educators).The most frequently mentioned teaching andlearning method was ‘‘discussion.’’ This teachingand learning method was, for example, related to aproblem-based learning task involving readingHarry Potter in the classroom.

One teacher educator added as a characteristicteaching and learning method ‘the final discussionsabout the portfolios the student teachers made’.Another added ‘using the student teacher him- orherself as an example’. The student teachers didnot suggest additional teaching and learningmethods.

4.3. Effects: did the student teachers achieve the

objectives?

In order to answer sub-question 7, changes inthe student teachers’ knowledge and attitudes weremeasured through the pre- and post-tests devel-oped by the designers. Each test consisted of 161items: 77 statements measuring attitudes on a five-point scale, 56 true or false questions measuringknowledge, and 28 multiple choice questions,which also measured knowledge. As mentionedin the methods section, we analyzed data for eachoverall goal in an attempt to identify reliablesubscales. As feared, both the pre- and post-testsrevealed Cronbach’s alpha scores between �0.3and 0.52. Our search for an underlying structurealso failed to yield any significant results. PrincipalComponent Analysis (using a Varimax rotation

cale

haracteristic program parts Teacher educatorsa

M N

ortfolio assignment ‘‘learning

oints’’

4.00 11

roblem-based learning task

Harry Potter’’

3.91 11

rogram parts on a five-point scale, N ¼ number of respondents.

tors for problem-based learning tasks, the religious education

were not included in this table.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


procedure) resulted in 55 components with low orno cohesion. One component showed high cohe-sion on nine items (r ¼ :78; n ¼ 158). Unfortu-nately, the content of these items was unrelated.

The analysis thus confirmed our concerns aboutthe quality of the tests. The outcomes show that noconclusions can be drawn about the degree towhich the student teachers achieved the overallgoals or the objectives.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The central question guiding the study reportedhere was ‘‘How do teacher educators preparestudent teachers for moral education when design-ing and carrying out the teacher educationcurriculum, and what effects does this preparationhave on the student teachers?’’

The teacher educators, who designed the curri-culum for the 4-month term in which this studytook place, mentioned 59 objectives as beingrelated to preparing student teachers for moraleducation. The teacher educators who carried outthe curriculum and the student teachers whoparticipated in it recognized these objectives.

According to the distribution of the objectivesover the subjects, the designers seemed to perceivethe problem-based learning tasks and the subjectof religion as the most important sources ofpreparation student teachers for moral education.The unbalanced distribution of the objectives overthe program parts and subjects was worthy ofnote.

The study revealed 13 program parts and 25teaching and learning methods mentioned by thedesigners—and recognized by the other teachereducators and the student teachers—as beingcharacteristic for preparing student teachers formoral education. According to teacher educatorsand student teachers, portfolio assignments andproblem-based learning tasks appear to be mostcharacteristic for preparing student teachers formoral education. The designers identified ‘‘reflec-tion’’ and ‘‘discussion’’ most frequently as char-acteristic teaching and learning methods.‘‘Discussion’’ was the most frequently recognized

teaching and learning method for both teachereducators and student teachers.

Because the designers had trouble developingvalid and reliable test items for measuring whetherthe student teachers had reached the objectives asformulated, we could draw no conclusions aboutthe effects of the curriculum on the studentteachers.

The fact that the designers mentioned noobjectives for teaching practice related to studentteachers’ preparation for moral education createsthe impression that they had barely considered thelink between the teaching in the institute and theteaching practices of the student teachers. This isconsistent with the conclusion drawn by Barone,Berliner, Blanchard, Casanova, and McGowan(1996) that many teacher education programsconsist of a collection of separate courses in whichtheory is presented without much connection topractice. Ben–Peretz (1995, p. 546) states: ‘‘Thehidden curriculum of teacher education tends tocommunicate a fragmented view of knowledge,both in coursework and in field experiences.’’

One main conclusion of this study is that theprocess of preparing student teachers for moraleducation remains largely implicit in this teachereducation institute, and that the practices of theteacher educators are hardly directed by anysystematic and critical analysis of the relationsbetween goals, objectives, teaching and learningmethods, and outcomes.

The group interview proved to be important forsupporting the design process. Before the groupinterview, the designers focused mainly on thoseparts of the curriculum for which they wereprimarily responsible. Only when the group inter-view took place, did the designers begin to get anoverview over the entire curriculum for the 4-month term.

There is no reason to assume that our observa-tions are relevant only to the preparation ofstudent teachers for moral education. In thisrespect, we believe that our study supportsZeichner’s (1999) statement that we know verylittle about what actually goes on in teachereducation. Our study leads to the view that teachereducation is more of a haphazard process than wewould like to believe. This view is congruent with

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the conclusion drawn by Clark and Peterson(1986) that, ‘‘the literature is in reasonableagreement that a narrowly construed version ofthe linear ‘rational planning model’ does notdescribe the planning behavior of experiencedteachers’’ (p. 268). This conclusion is supportedby the ideas of an increasing number of authorswho have begun to doubt whether curriculumdesign is a rational process, following a step-by-step procedure.

Walker (1971) was one of the very first to showthat, in practice, curriculum design is not a straightforward process, but is strongly shaped bydiscussions among participants. As Kessels (1999,p. 64) concluded, the importance of Walker’s so-called deliberative approach was that it recognizedthe variety of beliefs, aims and images to whichparticipants in a project on curriculum designadhere, which frustrates a rational, systematic, andlinear design process. A study by Odenthal (2003)into the process of curriculum development inteacher education revealed that this process washighly unsystematic and influenced by all kinds ofhuman factors. We agree with Clark and Petersonthat this phenomenon may be more the rule thanthe exception. As Kliebard (1975, p. 80) statedalmost 30 years ago, ‘‘One wonders whether thelong-standing insistence by curriculum theoriststhat the first step in making a curriculum be thespecification of objectives has any merit whatso-ever.’’

Finally, we wish to reflect critically on ourmethodology. As explained in the introduction,the purpose of our research was to study anddescribe the current practice of teacher educatorswith regard to the preparation of student teachersfor moral education. We chose methods andinstruments that fitted this purpose. During thestudy, however, we crossed the boundaries ofdescriptive research at least twice. Firstly, thegroup interview unintentionally became a meetingthat stimulated the designers to get an overview ofthe curriculum and to discuss their ideas in moredepth than they had ever done before. We haveeven been informed that the group interviewinitiated a discussion within the institute concern-ing the process of preparation of student teachersfor moral education and the process of curriculum

design in general. Secondly, we intentionallyintervened in an (unsuccessful) attempt to improvethe quality of the test items.

A more fundamental methodological questionmay be whether curriculum development is, or canbe, studied as a rational and systematic process.Visscher-Voerman, Gustafson and Plomp (1999,p. 17) observed that generally: ‘‘The majority ofcurriculum and instructional development modelsin the literature can be characterized as a form ofplanning-by-objectives.’’ They explained that thesemodels are based on an approach of technicalrationality (see Schon, 1983): once goals are madeconcrete, they serve as the basis for defining themeans to reach them. This approach is also knownas the Tyler rationale (Kliebard, 1975). Tyler(1949) was one of the first to define the steps totake in such a rational and systematic approach.Kessels (1999, p. 62) notes that many otherapproaches to curriculum design are based onthe Tylerian rationale. This also appeared to be theformal guiding idea in the teacher educationinstitute under study. Our research approach wasconsistent with this, as is clear from the ordering ofour research questions.

Our findings show, however, that practice maybe quite different, and we cited many authors whoarrived at a similar conclusion. This could alsoraise doubts about our research methods. Ourrather rational research approach may concurneither with the informal and implicit nature of thepreparation for moral education, nor with themanner in which curriculum design takes place inpractice. We must consider the possible conse-quence that our study did not (completely) revealthe moral dimension of the teacher educationprogram. Kliebard (1975, p. 80) states: ‘‘The mostsignificant dimensions of an educational activity orany activity may be those that are completelyunplanned and wholly unanticipated. An evalua-tion procedure that ignores this fact is plainlyunsatisfactory.’’

This statement is supported by the findings of anassessment committee that visited the teachereducation institute last year. This committeeconcluded that the preparation of student teachersfor moral education is ‘alive’ at this teachereducation institute. It is also in line with our own

ARTICLE IN PRESS


impression that the thought of ‘teaching as a moralendeavor’ is widely recognized in the describedteacher education institute: the decision to parti-cipate in this study was widely shared and our datashow that the teacher educators and studentteachers recognize the —from the perspective ofresearch hardly underpinned—choices of thedesigners. Hence, we cannot deny that it is possiblethat student teachers are prepared for moraleducation, but that we failed to measure it.

We are therefore currently conducting a follow-up study within the same institute that focusesmore on the actual practices of a number ofindividual teacher educators. In this way, we hopeto discover whether our current conclusions aboutthe preparation of student teachers for moraleducation should be corrected.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the teacher educatorsand student teachers who participated in this study.We are especially grateful to Frits Barth andFolkert Sonsma who facilitated the data collectionprocess and gave useful insider comments on theformat of the study and on this article.

References

Akker, J. J. H., & van den (1988). Ontwerp en implementatie van

natuuronderwijs. [Design and implementation of science

education]. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Berkowitz, M. W. (1995). The education of the complete moral

person. Aberdeen: Gordon Cook Foundation.

Barone, T., Berliner, D. C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U., &

McGowan, T. (1996). A future for teacher education. In J.

Siluka (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education,

(2nd Ed.) (pp. 1108–1149). New York: Macmillan.

Bebeau, M. J. (1993). Designing an outcome-based ethics

curriculum for professional education: strategies and

evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Moral Education,

22(3), 313–325.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Curriculum of teacher education

programs. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclo-

pedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 543–547).

Oxford/New York/Tokyo: Elsevier Science/Pergamon.

Biesta, G. J. J., & Miedema, S. (2002). Instruction or pedagogy?

The need for a transformative conception of education.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(2), 173–181.

Boostrom, R., Hansen, D. T., & Jackson, P. W. (1993). Coming

together and staying apart: how a group of teachers and

researchers sought to bridge the ‘‘research-practice gap’’.

Teacher College Record, 95(1), 35–44.

Buchberger, F., Campos, B.P., Kallos, D., Stephenson, J.

(2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe. Paper

presented at the conference of the thematic network on

teacher education in Europe, 2000, Thematic Network on

Teacher Education in Europe, Umea.

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of

teaching: language, power and culture in classroom interac-

tion. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought

processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research

on Teaching, (3rd Ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York/London:

AERA.

Dam, G. ten, & Volman, M. (1999). Scholen voor sociale

competentie: Een pedagogisch-didactische benadering

[Schooling for social competence: A pedagogical approach].

Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V.

Dam, G. ten, & Volman, M. (2000). Sociale competentie:

Reddingsvest en levenskunst. Over de pedagogische op-

dracht in praktijk. [Social competence: life jacket and life

art. About the socio-pedagogical task in practice]. Pedago-

giek, 20(2), 112–127.

Dam, G. ten, & Volman, M. (2002). Het sociale karakter van

kritisch denken: Didactische richtlijnen. [The social char-

acter of critical thinking: pedagogical guidelines]. Pedago-

gische Studien, 79(3), 167–183.

Dodde, N. (1992). Onderwijs niet geschikt om Waarden en

Normen bij te brengen. [Education is not suited to teach

values and norms.] Didactief, 22(8), 14–15.

Ducharme, E. R. (1993). The lives of teacher educators. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains

of curriculum and their study. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.),

Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice

(pp. 43–70). New York: McGraw Hill.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). The occupation of teaching in schools. In

J. I. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral

dimensions of teaching (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Goodlad, J. I. (1992). The moral dimensions of schooling and

teacher education. Journal of Moral Education, 21(2), 87–97.

Hansen, D. T. (2001). Teaching as a moral activity. In V.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (4th

Ed.) (pp. 826–857). Washington: AERA.

de Jong, J. M. (1998). Waardenopvoeding en Onderwijsvrijheid.

[Value education and Educational Freedom]. Enschede:

Ipskamp.

Kessels, J. W. M. (1993). Towards design standards for

curriculum consistency in corporate education. Enschede:

University of Twente.

Kessels, J. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design.

In J. Van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N.

Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in

ARTICLE IN PRESS


education and training (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht/Boston/

London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kliebard, H. M. (1975). Reappraisal: the Tyler rationale. In W.

Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: the reconceptualists (pp.

70–83). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2002). Improving teacher education

practices through self-study. New York/London: Routledge-

Falmer.

Manen, M. van (Ed.). (2002). Guest editorial. Introduction: the

pedagogical task of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 18(2), 135–138.

Oakeshott, M. (1989). Learning and teaching. In T. Fuller

(Ed.), The voice of liberal learning: Michael Oakeshott on

education (pp. 43–62). New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press (Original work published in 1965).

Oakeshott, M. (1991). The tower of Babel. In: M. Oakeshott

(Ed.), Rationalism in politics and other essays (expanded

ed., pp. 465–487). Indianapolis: Liberty Press. (Original

work published in 1962).

Odenthal, L. E. (2003). Op zoek naar balans: Een onderzoek

naar een methode ter ondersteuning van curriculumvernieuw-

ing door docenten. [In search for balance: a study into a

method for supporting curriculum renewing by teachers].

Enschede: University of Twente.

Peters, R. S. (1964). Education as initiation. London: Evans

Brothers.

Peters, R. S. (1968). Must an educator have an aim? In C. J. B.

Macmillan, & T. W. Nelson (Eds.), Concepts of teaching:

Philosophical essays (pp. 89–98). Chicago: Rand McNally

(Original work published in 1963).

Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching,

(4th Ed). Washington: AERA.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how profes-

sionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sockett, H., & LePage, P. (2002). The missing language of the

classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(2), 159–171.

Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., & Battistich, V. A. (2001).

Teaching and schooling effects on moral/prosocial develop-

ment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching, (4th Ed) (pp. 566–603). Washington: AERA.

Stephenson, J., Ling, L., Burman, E., & Cooper, M. (Eds.).

(1998). Values education. London/New York: Routledge.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and

instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Valli, L. (1990). Moral approaches to reflective practice. In R.

T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.),

Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 39–56).

New York/London: Teachers College Press.

Vedder, P., & Veugelers, W. (1999). De pedagogische functie van

het onderwijs. Waardenvormend onderwijs in een multicul-

turele en pluriforme samenleving. [The socio-pedagogical task

of education. Value education in a multicultural and pluriform

society]. Den Haag: NWO/PROO.

Veugelers, W., Miedema, S., Zwaans, A., ten Dam, G.,

Klaassen, C., Leeman, Y., Meijnen, W., & Sleegers, P.

(2002). Onderzoek naar de pedagogische functie van het

onderwijs op klas- en schoolniveau. [Research on the socio-

pedagogical task in education at class level and at school

level]. Den Haag: NWO/PROO.

Veugelers, W. M. M. H. (2003). Waarden en normen in het

onderwijs. Zingeving en humanisering: Autonomie en sociale

betrokkenheid. [Values and norms in education. Giving

meaning and humanizing: autonomy and social commitment].

Utrecht: Universiteit voor Humanistiek.

Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K., & Plomp, T. (1999).

Educational design and development: an overview of

paradigms. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K.

Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design

approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 15–28).

Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Walker, D. F. (1971). The process of curriculum development: a

naturalistic approach. School Review, 80(1), 51–65.

Wakefield, D. (1997). Who’s teaching teachers about character

education instruction?. Georgia: LaGrange.

Wardekker, W., Biesta, G., & Miedema, S. (1998). Heeft de

school een pedagogische opdracht? [Does the school have a

socio-pedagogical task?]. In N. De Bekker-Ketelaars, S.

Miedema, & W. Wardekker (Eds.), Vormende lerarenoplei-

dingen (pp. 11–21). Utrecht: SWP.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3–9.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education.

Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4–15.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student

teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),

23–48.

Documents

Values in education: a challenge for teacher educators