DOCOHENT PESOHE 

ED 193 215 SP 016 B32 

AUTHOR Smith, B. Othanel: And Others 

TITLE A Design for a School of Pedagogy. 

INSTITOTION Depaitment of Education, Washington, D.c. 

FEPORT NO E-B0-U2OO0 

POB DATE 80 

NOTE 12Up. 

EDES PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. 

DESCRIPTORS Classroom Techniques; Curriculum Design: •Educational 

Assessment: *Educational Change: Field Experience 

Programs: Higher Education: *Institutional 

Evaluation: *Instructicn: Policy Formation: 

•Preservice Teacher Education: Professional 

Development: Program Design: •Program Improvement: "* 

Teacher Certification 

ABSTRACT 

A perspective is given and recommendations are made 

for restructuring education personnel development with major emphasis 

on preservice teacher education. Issues facing teacher education are 

put in a socio-historical context. It is stated that teacher training 

has been largely separated from the public school system, and that 

training has teen overloaded with pedagogical theory before the 

prospective teacher's experience is broad enough to absorb it. The 

potential institutional arrangements required for a professional 

school of pedagogy are examined. A proposed program in pedagogical 

education is presented, with its focus on the ability to do the job 

for which training is given. Ihis program is mainly field-based with 

the campus serving for basic field preparation. Types of Knowledge 

are identified and their characteristics discussed by showing how 

each type functions in teaching behavior. What is known about how to 

teach skills and concepts to teachers is delineated. The final 

section presents ways to bring abcut the proposed changes. The role 

and responsibilities of college faculty and what sort of coalitions 

will be necessary to effect new policies and programs of pedagogical 

education are discussed. (JD) 

* 4 44ci»]»]»^i(ii»4i:4i*3|i«4i*]ti**4e*i(i4<*it(4t4t**i(iitc***«**4i**it<«)(t :4<itc4'** *4i4>«*V**)t<**iti**:t<**i«' 

• Reproductions supplied by EDES are the best that can be made • 

• from the original document. • 
Publication No. E-80-42000 

A Design 

for a 

Schoo of 

Peda^ogu 

by 

B. Othanel Smith 

in collaboration with 

Stuart H. Silverman, Jean M. Borg, 

and Betty V. Fry 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Shirley M. Hufstedler, Secretary 

3 OCT 2 8 1980 
DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.-No perMn in the United Statet ihall. 

on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation 

in, be denied the benefiu of, or be lubjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial auiuance, or be w treated on the 

baiit of lex under mott education programs or activities receiving Federal 

assistance. 

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy 

of the Department of Education, and no ofTicial endorsement by the Department of Education should be inferred. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1980 

For Mk by the Sup«rintrodcnt of Documenu. U.S. Govemmenl Priming Office 

Wuhingion. D.C. t040t 

t 
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 

WASHINGTON, 0 C 2020? 

The Department of Education is dedicated to fostering and 

encouraging a devotion to excellence in every aspect of 

education in this country. 

From the first whispers of independence to the brilliant, 

extended Constitutional debates about the best form of 

government for a free people, education was understood by 

all to be the cornerstone of successful democracy in 

America. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "If a nation expects to be 

both ignorant and free....it expects what never was '.id 

never will be." 

The key to educational excellence is teaching. Therefore, 

we must examine the quality of teacher training, the kinds 

of incentives that teachers are offered to improve their 

skills and to enhance their own feelings of worth, dignity, 

and achievement. A good place to begin is a definition of 

the issues. Dr. Bunnie Othanel Smith has had over 50 years 

of experience in the field of teacher education. Dr. Smith's 

work is a fine prologue to discussion. 

Shirley M. Hufstedler 
FOREWORD 

Education in the United States has finally achieved Cabinet-level status. A Department of Education will soon be established (and, in fact, will already be established 

when this book is published). 

"It will be a Department," in the words of Secretary Shirley Hufstedler, 

"that strives unceasingly for the highest possible quality at every level of the 

education process; a Department that seeks out models of success, of excellence, and holds them aloft for all to see." 

Such a statement offers both a challenge and a commitment, and sets an inspirational tone for the new Department. The time is ripe for our entire educational enterprise to make great strides. And it is ready to do so. 

Foremost among the areas in which education is ready to advance is the fleld of 

teacher education. This is a welcome and healthy sig^, because there is a direct link 

between the quality of education and training of our Nation's school personnel and the 

excellence we seek in the education of our children. 

A golden opportunity exists today for restructuring teacher education. We must 

take advantage of this opportunity. Timing is a crucial factor, and conditions at present are too favorable to ignore. If we act now, we will generate momentum —momentum that may otherwise be lost for a generation. 

It is imperative that we set a perspective and develop recommendations to meet this 

challenge involved in restructuring education personnel development. In this connection A Design for a School of Pedagogy provides an invaluable contribution that will 

stimulate thinking not only among professional educators but by the public at large. 

The author. Professor B. Othanel Smith of the College of Education of the University 

of South Florida — along with his collaborators, Stuart H. Silverman, Jean M. Borg, 

and Betty B. Fry—merit high marks indeed for this ouutanding work. 

Starting with the institutionalization of teacher education, the book, in Part One, 

indicates where we are and how we got there. It states the issues and puts them in a 

socio-historical context. It discusses the fact that teacher training has been largely 

separated from the public school system, and that training has been overloaded with 

pedagogical theory before the prospective teacher's experience is broad enough to absorb it. 

Among the questions explored are these: Is teacher education a g^raduate study? At 

what collegiate level should teacher education be offered? Who should train teachers? 

Is academic work necessary for effective training? Then, making a forceful case for 

using the term "pedagogy'' to refer to the science and art of teaching, the book examines the potential institutional arrangements required for a professional school of 

pedagogy. Also presented is a proposed program in pedagogical education, with a 

recommendation that pedagogy be treated as a postbaccalaureate study leading to a 

master's degree and that it focus on the ability to do the job for which training is given. 

For this purpose, the program is mainly field-based with the campus serving for basic 

field preparation. 

In Part Two the nature, types, and uses of pedagogical knowledge are examined. 

The author and his collaborators present pedagogy's present knowledge base and help 

to increase confidence in what we know and can do. Types of knowledge are identified 

and their characteristics discussed by showing how each type functions in teaching 

behavior. The distinction is also drawn between the use of knowledge as the content of 
training in school, classroom procedures and techniques and knowledge as a guide to 

the formulation of school policies. This sets the stage for exploring further how much 

knowledge and what kind of knowledge a teacher needs to be effective and looks at the 

differences among primary, intermediate, and high school teachers. The book then 

delineates what is known about how to teach skills and concepts to teachers, and 

discusses a need for assembling and organizing generic clinical knowledge and a way to 

accomplish this. 

Part Three discusses ways to bring about the changes proposed. How can this be accomplished? What can college faculty do and what sort of coalitions will be necessary 

to effect new policies and programs of pedagogical education? The challenge is raised, 

the need presented, and the possibility held open. 

Ten years ago Bunnie Smith's Teachers For the Real World made a marked impact 

on our thinking and on education programs throughout the country. In this book, ne 

again stimulates us to think and to act. Will we continue to restrict our thinking about 

the college of education to what it is —or to what it can be? Whatever position we take, 

the question is an important and timely one, worthy of exhaustive exploration. I applaud Professor Smith for giving us an opportunity to explore anew. 

April 1980 William L. Smith 

Commissioner 

U.S. Office of Education 

Washington, D.C. 
PREFACE 

In the fall of 1977, at a meeting of the Task Force on Demonstration for the National Teacher Corps, it was asked whether the knowledge base of pedagogy was sufficient to underwrite any significant demonstration. Some members of the Task Force 

were of the opinion that our knowledge, especially that related to instruction, was not 

only fragile but inadequate. We did not share this view then, nor do we share it today. 

Shortly after the Task Force completed its work. Teacher Corps authorized us to do 

a study of pedagogical education including its knowledge base and the relation of that 

knowledge to the training of pedagogical personnel. It was anticipated that such a 

study would be useful to Teacher Corps projects and colleges of pedagogy. 

We began our work with a review of the various studies of pedagogical education, 

dating back to the early decades of this century. The latest of these studies, The 

Report of the Bicentennial Commission on Education for the Profession of Teaching, 

opens up many more questions than the question of the adequacy of knowledge. It 

identifies and explores most, if not all, of the major issues of pedagogical education in 

the United States. Its recommendations are fundamental but brief. 

We have attempted to expand upon some of the recommendations of the Bicentennial Report by developing the outlines of a plan for the reform of pedagogical schools, 

a plan based on the belief that schools of pedagogy can now become genuine professional schools; that the program of professional preparation must be completely overhauled; and that the knowledge base for the scientific grounding of the pedagogical 

arts is now available and increasing. 

We hope th.it the plan herein proposed will not only stimulate thinking and discussion of the problem of designing a genuine professional school of pedagogy but also 

lead to action by the deans of pedagogical schools, professional organizations, and 

civic leaders. 

I'he reader who is initrested in the nature and use of knowledge in the training of 

educational personnel should turn to Part II. Those who wish to see the outlines of the 

program before becoming' familiar with the content and its uses will of course read the 

chapters in order, although parts of the program become more meaningful after Part 

II has been read. 

We had planned from the very inception of the project to consult with a number of 

people at various stages of our work. This proved to be fortunate, for the suggestions 

and criticisms from leaders in pedagogical education, in both schools and colleges, expanded and sharpened our conceptions and helped to define the scope of our undertaking. 

The tirst conference was held at the University of South Florida, December 11-13, 

1978. This conference considered a wide range of issues covering almost every aspect 

of pedagogical education. Participants in the conference we'^e Robert Ardike, Special 

Assistant to the Commissioner of Education and formerly Associate Director, National 

Teacher Corps; W. F. Connell, Professor Emeritus, University of Sidney, Australia; 

^Villiam Drummond, University of Florida; Robert Edwards, Principal, Youth Opportunity School North, Miami; David Gliessman, Indiana University; Gene Hall, University of Texas; Beverly Kelton, University of Kartford; Suzanne Kinzer, University of 

Florida; Donald Orlosky, Uni .-ersity of South Florida; Donovan Peterson, University of 

South Florida; Kevin Ryan, Ohio State University; and WilLam Smith. Commissioner 

of Education and formerly Director, National Teacher Co»ps. 
The second conference convened three months later in Washington, D.C., on 

March 12-IS, 1979. This conference dealt with questions somewhat more specific 

than those at the First conference. Two or three chapters were prepared in rough form 

and sent to participants in advance of the meeting. We thus had the advantage of 

specific reactions to both content and discourse as well as extended discuuion of new 

iuues, further sharpening our sense of direction and limiting the scope of our undertaking. Those who participated in the conference were Robert Bush, Stanford University; Asa Milliard, San Francisco State University; Beverly Kelton, University of Hartford; Margaret Lindsey, Professor Emeritus, Teachers College, Columbia University; 

James Tanner, Cleveland Public Schools; and William Smith, Commiuioner of Education and formerly Director, National Teacher Corps. 

An intensive three-day discussion was held with Margaret Lindsey and David 

Chessman, May 2-5, at the University of South Florida, which served to clarify our notions of training domains and the place of research training in programs of 

pedagogical education as well as such concepu as institutional autonomy and the role 

of outside agencies affecting Khools of pedagogy. 

In June, the first draft of the manuscript was submitted to a number of individuals 

who had attended the conferences and to others. Those who read and criticized the 

manuscript were Dwight Allen, David Berliner, Walter R. Borg, Robert Bush, David 

Clark, Alan Gartner, Gene Hall, Kenneth Henderson, Asa Hilliard, Margaret Lindsey, Daniel Purdom, Maynard Reynolds, Kevin Ryan, Lester Tuttle, Roger Wilk, and 

Elaine Witty. To these individuals we owe special gratitude. To read a manuscript is 

itself a chore but to criticize it thoroughly, as everyone did, shows a commitment to 

our field that one will not forget. The comments of these readers forced us to restructure the manuscript, delete parts of it, expand others, and to clarify many points we 

had slurred over. 

We are especially indebted to Margaret Lindsey for her thorough criticism of the 

manuscript at different stages of its development, for her insistence upon clarification 

of concepu and her insightful analysis of the various componenu of teaching. Had we 

been able to take advantage of all her suggestions, the book would have been much the 

better. She, of course, is not responsible for whatever shortcomings are to be found in 

the pages that follow. 

We wish also to express our deep appreciation to William Smith, U.S. Commissioner of Education, for his continuing insight into the problems of pedagogical 

educattjn as manifested in his intellectual, moral, and administrative support of our 

work, and to Robert Ardike, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, for his help at 

almost every step toward completion of this project. 

To all these and many others who provided us with information through their 

research, writing, and informal discussion we owe more thanks than we can ever pay in 

person. 

March 1980 B. Othanel Smith 

Clearwater, Florida 

.9 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Letter From the Secretary iii 

Foreword v 

Preface vii 

Chapter 

1. Introduction 1 

PART ONE 

Inititutional Alignment and Progranu 

2. Professional Status of Pedagogical Schools 11 

3. Toward a Professional School of Pedagogy 17 

4. Preprofessional Education: Outlines of a Program SI 

5. Toward a Program of Pedagogical Education 39 

PART TWO 

Pedagogical Knowledge 

6. Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Knowledge 49 

7. Pedagogical Knowledge: Its Forms and Uses 59 

8. Academic Pedagogical Knowledge: Its Nature and Utility 69 

9. Teaching and the Domains of Training 79 

10. A Profile of Generic Knowledge for Pedagogical Training 89 

11. A Profile of Specific Knowledge for Pedagogical Training 101 

PART THREE 

How to Get There 

12. Memo on the Problem of Getting There 107 

Index 115 

10 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

For over 50 years pedagogical education ha* been 

a concern of teacher educators, academic scholars, 

researchers, and layperson*. In surveys and reporu, 

individuals and organizatioiu have presented plan* 

and counes of action to improve programs for educating and training the nation's Khool personnel. 

A Parade of Survey* and Reporu 

Among the first of these was the Commonwealth 

Teacher-Training Study published in 1929.' Perhaps the most exteiuive and thorough exploration 

ever made of what teachers do, this study consisted 

of an analysis of over 200,000 statemenu of teacher 

activities. The statement* were analyzed and the activities classified into six categories: instruction, 

management, extra classroom activities, administrative relations, personal and professioiul advancement, and activities concerning supplies and plant. 

These activities were evaluated and put forth as a 

basis for developing a functional pedagogical curriculum. Whatever the shortcomings of activity 

analysis as a mode of curriculum development, this 

study still stands today as perhaps the only comprehensive and objective effort to provide a functional 

basis for pedagogical education. 

Only 4 years after the Commonwealth Study wais 

published the United States Office of Education 

issued its extensive survey of the education of 

teachers.' Among other things, the National Survey 

described better practices in teacher education and 

in rrcniitment and selection, and recommended 

the development of curriculums for various types of 

positions. It urged competence in the skills of teaching as a primary objective. 

Some 10 years later, in 1944, the American 

Council on Education issued the first volume of its 

Commission On Teacher Education under the little 

Teachers for Our Times,* followed two years later 

by the second volume The Improvement of Teacher 

Education.* The main purpose of the Commission 

was neither to make a factual survey nor to conduct 

research, but rather to stimulate institution* to improve their program*. Impelled by ideological considerations and by an urgent feeling of need to improve pedagogical education, it emphasized the 

contemporary social scene and the democratic way 

of life as points of orientation, urging that teachers 

become sensitive to the school's relation to social 

realities and ideal*. The Commisaion also emphasized the socio-civic resporuibilities of teachers. 

While it advanced no design for pedagogical education, the Commission did urge that each institution 

develop an effective program along the general 

lines suggested in its reporu. 

These three studies and reporu, like the ones to 

follow, reflect the temper of their time. In the closing years of the 1920's, the Nation was not yet 

aware of the impending transformations the Great 

Depression would make in the public mentality. 

Researchers and scholars alike could still think in 

detached, objective ways, although a few seers were 

sending out warning signals of the shoals ahead. 

Collecting, ordering, and analyzing data from 

surveys of one sort or another was the prevailing approach to the study of educational problems, and 

the Commonwealth Study and the National Survey 

reflected this social aloofness. 

However, the depressing years of the 1930's 

changed all this to an alarming degree. Ideologies 

became rampant. Communist, fascist, democratic, 

socialist, and technocratic ideologies emerged or 

took on new life, offering their panicular solutions 

to the Nation's problems if not those of the world. 

Teacher educators almost overnight became involved in social movemenu and deeply concerned 

with values, social reconstruction, and with the 

school as an instniment of social change. In this 

atmosphere of conflicting ideologies, extending into the war years, the American Council Study was 

conceived and carried out. It thus stands in stark 

contrast to the detached orientation of the National 

Survey and the Commonwealth Study. 

In a new era and a new day, almost 20 years after 

the American Council Study, the Conant report ap11 1 
pc.iicd ' III thr riuiy HKiO'ii tlir Nutioii ncrenrd lo 

III- .limoM (111 tlir vrrgr of a iirw view (if itsrif. With 

.1 young tnan in ilir Wliiir iiousf and youth brcoiii 

ing iiKiir iiiirrrjitrd and aitivr in political and 

si>(i,il iiiovriiiciiti, ii wu.<i only natural that ihr Na 

lion would (akr a new look at pedagogical rduca 

lion. .1 look that would cud in recommendations for 

.11 lion along iintitutional rather than ideological 

liiirs, Conant'!! study, backed by the Carnegie Cor 

poraiion, wan similar to Flexnrr's study of medical 

cdiK alioii. It rniaiird visits to schools of pedagogy, 

inirrvicws with teachers and professors, and thr 

jssisiaiuc of |M-dagogical specialists and political 

s( iciiiists. The report consists largely of Conani's 

ol)s<-rvaiioiis and recommendations about certifica 

lion, aiadrmic preparation of teachers, theory and 

practi(r of leaching, course requirements, and personnel 

Despite Coiiant's status as a national and inter 

national educator, his report made little more than 

a ripple on the surface of pedagogical education. 

The title he suggested for supervising teachers. 

C!linical Professor of Education, enjoyed a brief life 

that was not paralleled by any signiHcant change 

cither in the quality oi training or competence of 

per.sonnel. 

Although the study resembled Flexner's as to 

method, it lacked the trenchant prose of Flexner 

that named medical schools deemed to be worthless 

and areas of the country where they were concentrated. Sf>eaking of the South, Flexner said: "It is 

generally overcrowded witii schools with which 

nothing can be done; for they are conducted by oldtime practitioners, who could not use improved 

teaching facilities if they were provided."* Furthermore, the impact of Flexner's report, according to a 

r<?cent history of American medicine,' was probably 

due to Flexner's success in persuading the Rockefeller family to make grants to selected medical 

schools, grants that over a short time amounted to 

almost S50 million. This had the effect of elevating 

a few schools to such heights of visibility that others 

were lost to view and disapf>eared. Within 20 years 

after the report was issued the number of medical 

schools was reduced from 148 to 66. Conant had 

neither financial support nor the backing of the 

organized profession, both of which Flexner 

enjoyed. 

In 1961. the National Commission on Teacher 

Education and Professional Standards of the National Education Association issued the report of its 

task force, Ntui Hornons For The Teaching Profession, after an extended study of the following areas: 

professional standards, pre- and inservice education, accreditation, certification, and admission 

and retention policies and procedures. The purpose 

of this project was to develop plans to professionalize teaching, plans for action at local, State, and 

national levels. It emphasized, along with other 

aspects of pedagogical education, continuous experience throughout the period of undergraduate 

preparation, clinical experience, participation in 

community activities, controlled expciience in 

practice teaching, and internship. It recommended 

a program of preparation extending over five years 

and the development of a feeling of responsibility 

on the part of students for their own learning. A 

good part of the report was devoted to inservice 

preparation. Its analysis of standards, accreditation, and licensing was perhaps the most thorough 

treatment of the subject to be found in the literature. However, like the studies that preceded it, the 

report neglected the fundamental conditions that 

hamper the development of preservice pedagogical 

education. 

In addition to these studies and reports, the 

American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation issued two studies and sponsored the 

comf>etency teacher education movement of the 

1970's. One of these studies. Teacher Education 

For A Free People, published in 1956, was a byproduct of a 3-year self-study of member institutions.* The team created to assist these institutions 

in self-study took thf opportunity afforded by its 

visits to study the problems and trends in pedagogical education. This study, like the American Council Report of a decade earlier, was highly influenced by democratic ideology and the social scene. 

Academic preparation, the professional curriculum, laboratory experiences, and a number of 

other topics were emphasized by the study, but little 

recognition of advancements in the procedures, 

techniques, or knowledge of pedagog^ical education 

can be found in it. 

A second study. Teachers for the Real World, 

was a product of the NDEA National Institute for 

Advanced Study in Teaching Disadvantaged 

Youth, established under a Title XI contract between the U.S. Office of Education and Ball State 

University.' The American Association of Colleges 

for Teacher Education administered the institute 

under a subcontract. This study culminated 2 years 

12 
of Institute work. Like other studies, it reflected the 

conflicts and tensions of the time, especially those 

centering on cultural and ethnic prejudices and discriminations. Placing emphasis upon the belief that 

all ethnic and cultural groups learn alike, it urged 

that teacher education be based upon that fact. It 

advocated systematic training in skills, teaching of 

concepts in situ, reconsideration of subject matter 

preparation, a year-long intern experience following the bachelor's degree, and a training complex 

in which the personnel of all occupations directly 

related to the care and education of youth would be 

trained. 

With the support of the Federal Government a 

group of leading pedagogical educators in the 

1960's developed a number of elementary teacher 

education models, generally referred to as The 

Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education 

Models Project. Although fully expanded conceptually, these models never became operational and 

died for want of financial support. But they left a 

legacy of concerns and ideas about the development 

of competence. It was not surprising that this commitment to competence, carried over into the '70's, 

would contribute to the rise of the competencebased movement.'" Combined with the Models 

Project it perhaps generated more deliberation and 

developmental work in pedagogical education than 

had occurred in any previous decade. Specification 

of competencies and the development of practical 

plans and materials constituted the heart of the 

movement." 

Part Two of the Scjeruy-Fourth Yearbook of the 

National Society for the Study of Education explored some of the perplexing and pressing problems of pedagogical education, an exploration that 

not only brought our knowledge up-to-date but explored a number of fundamental issues about 

various conceptions of the school, accreditation and 

certification, and the nature and complexity of the 

teacher training establishment. While this yearbook dealt with several facets of pedagogical education, it made no attempt to suggest innovations and 

directions of reform, although one chapter took a 

futuristic look. In this respect the Yearbook is quite 

different from other v/orks on pedagogical education reviewed in thl; chapter. Nevertheless, it 

represents the most complete survey of the status of 

our knowledge about pedagogical education at the 

beginning of the last quarter of the 20th century. 

Another study of primary importance is The 

Report of the Bicentennial Commission on Education for the Profession of Teaching of the American 

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and 

is the most comprehensive study of pedagogical 

education of recent years." It culminated 2 years of 

study and was issued in celebration of the nation's 

200th birthday. The report covers not only the 

preparation of teachers, emphasizing a career-long 

pursuit of effectiveness, but also the status of teaching as a profession, influences controlling pedagogical education, and the control of quality. 

The Commission's primary purpose was to stimulate changes and to give them direction. Accordingly, the Commission provided its report with 

insights and rational justifications for its recommendations. It is not too much to say that one finds 

here an agenda for thinking and action that could 

take the profession through a generation of continuous improvements in pedagogical education. 

What Previous Studies Overlooked 

All of these surveys, reports, and movements 

have three things in common, each of which is a 

major feature of this book. First of all. they overlooked the university arrangements that throughout 

the current century stunted the development of 

professional schools of pedagogy. Colleges of 

pedagogy have been caught between the restraining 

influence of the graduate school mentality and the 

time restraints and academic animosities that come 

from the fact that pedagogical education is an 

undergraduate study. 

To be sure, the university structure is not the only 

influence impeding the rise of genuine professional 

schools of education. Equally enervating are t'ne 

lack of a stringent accrediting agency and the 

absence of direct support by teacher organizations. 

No less important is the fact that State legislatures, 

education agencies, and the Federal Government 

exercise more control over the profession of teaching and institutions preparing its personnel than 

over any other profession. In the entangling network of Federal, State, and local agencies and private and professional groups, the actual political 

and social forces shaping pedagogical education are 

no longer obvious. The motivation of these extraneous forces and their effects on pedagogical 

education, although explored in the Bicentennial 

1.1 
Commission's report, call for more critical examination than has been given to them heretofore. 

The original scope of this book envisioned a study 

of this web of influences. Had time and resources 

been available, they would have been treated. With 

many misgivings, however, these concerns were 

abandoned in the interest of treating the internal 

problems of pedagogical education. The reason for 

this choice is a conviction that colleges of pedagogy 

must first put their house in order before they can 

hope to attain the faculty cohesion and professional 

leadership necessary to cope with the social and 

political influences now threatening whatever 

autonomy they have, if not their very existence. 

The second thing these surveys and movements 

share is the failure to give primary consideration 

to the knowledge base of pedagogical education. 

Conant did discuss the professional sequences for 

elementary and secondary teachers, proposing that 

the secondary sequence be limited to 12 to 18 

semester hours and to 30 hours for elementary 

teachers. But his deliberations consisted mainly of 

selecting among existing courses, eliminating some 

as worthless, and endorsing others as necessary and 

still others as useful. Of course, the competencybased movement also considered the content of 

pedagogical education as it related to the objectives 

of a particular program. This represented a 

marked advance over Conant's approach. Ho^^ever, 

neither one recog^nized the disarray of pedagogical 

knowledge and the necessity of assembling and sifting the knowledge from all sources as a prior condition to formulating objectives of instruction and 

training. 

The third similarity among these studies of 

pedagogical education is that, while they all 

recognize the necessity of skill development, none 

gave an analysis of how pedagogical knowledge provides a basis for such development. The acquisition 

of knowledge and the development of skills have 

tended to fall apart, one taught as "theory"' and the 

other as "practice." This cleavage has given rise to 

divisive orientations in faculties and to discontent 

among students with pedagogy as a professional 

study. This condition need not have developed, for 

when knowledge is properly understood it is clear 

that the path from knowledge to skills is continuous. Furthermore, the relation of knowledge to 

program development and to policy and decisionmaking received little attention despite their obvious importance. 

A New Approach To Old Ends 

In view of the array of studies extending over 

some 50 years and the apparently meager influence 

they have had upon the course of pedagogical education, it may well be asked why still another effort 

should be made to lay the groundwork for reform. 

One might plausibly argue that pedagogical education is what it is and is what it will continue to be; 

that pedagogical institutions will continue to produce teachers of lesser quality than is now possible, 

and that they will continue to attempt to do in inservice what they failed to do in the preservice program. 

As part of that argument, it is often asserted that 

there is no adequate knowledge base of pedagogical 

education and that the most effective and efficient 

mode of teacher preparation is an apprentice 

system conducted largely by teachers in the public 

schools. This position is herein rejected, and for the 

first time an effort is made to examine the knowledge base of pedagogical education and to analyze 

the nature of that knowledge and how it can be 

made to relate to the task of preparing informed, 

inquiring, and skillful teachers. 

It is a propitious time for making this effort. For 

the first time in this century the demand and supply 

of teachers are approximately equal. Pedagogical 

faculties are for the first time relieved of enough 

pressure from the production of teachers to consider their programs and to attempt a thorough 

revision of them. 

Furthermore, the Teacher Corps has launched its 

5-year cycle, which gives the various projects more 

time to give thorough consideration to the basic 

elements of their programs. Also a new research 

base is developing in selected areas of pedagogy 

through programs funded by The National Institute of Education. In addition, the deans and 

membe.s of pedagogical faculties throughout the 

country are now concerned about the proper 

education of teachers for mainstreaming as well as 

for teaching skills and knowledge to children from 

low socioeconomic groups and backgrounds. 

Moreover, research on the general concepts, 

principles, and skills of teaching and classroom 

management have now begun to equal in dependability the research on the teaching of reading, 

mathematics, and other subjects. For a long time 

research knowledge in the field of reading and 

mathematics has made it possible to design effective 

14 
programs in these areas and to train teachers in the 

skills appropriate to the content and problems of 

instruction. That teachers have not always used the 

knowledge and skills thus available is not to be attributed entirely to the teachers themselves but also 

to the inadequacies of their preservice and inservicc 

training programs. Lacking knowledge and skills of 

management of classroom time and resources and 

student conduct and instruction, teachers are often 

unable to use content-specific skills and knowledge 

effectively. The research of the last 25 years has 

now accumulated a body of dependable generic 

knowledge with which to begin the development of 

a more effective program. It is this fact that makes 

an analysis such as the one herein discussed of paramount importance, especially at a time when interest in pedagogical education is at a new height. 

Why Preservice Education Is the Theme 

Perhaps a word of explanation should be given as 

to why this book is devoted wholly to preservice at a 

time when inservice education is receiving nationwide attention. The case for the latter is strong and 

almost compelling. We are told that the public is 

clamoring for better schools and that their 

demands can be met most immediately and 

thoroughly by increasing the competence of school 

personnel now on the job. Coupled with this point is 

the fact that the demand for beginning teachers is 

less now than it has been for several decades, with a 

resulting reduction in students seeking to become 

teachers. This decline in enrollment has been interpreted as an opportunity for schools of pedagogy to 

turn their resources primarily to inservice activities, 

an objective denied over the years because of insufficient staffing to carry on an all-out inservice program and a preservice program at the same time. 

But why is inservice deemed to be so important? 

In answer, it can be said that advancements in 

knowledge during the last two decades make it 

desirable that teachers update their knowledge and 

skill. The trouble with this answer is that although 

there have been significant breakthroughs in didactic instruction and teacher-student interaction 

variables, the increase in knowledge is hardly sufficient to justify the overwhelming energy now being 

devoted to gearing up for inservice education. 

Again, it can be said that innovations in instructional programs and in the structure of the 

school —for example, the open classroom —typically requires retooling of personnel. While much is to 

be said for this claim, all innovations should be 

thoroughly tested on a small scale before widespread adoption. This would eliminate many innovations that now absorb the energies of teachers 

and administrators in abortive efforts to improve 

the school's effectiveness. Inservice training would 

thus be noticeably reduced. 

A more plausible justification for the current emphasi:, upon inservice programs is that over the 

years beginning teachers have been ill-prepared to 

meet the requirements of the day-to-day classroom 

tasks. This means that the ranks of teachers have 

been too often filled with those who required further preparation in order to satisfy a minimum level 

of successful work. To continue this syndrome of inadequate preservice preparation followed by efforts 

to make up the deficiencies by inservice education 

can only accentuate the present state of affairs. 

The vision that this two-stage program of teacher 

preparation can make a marked improvement in 

public education is a mirage. Teachers now in the 

schools number a little over 2 million. About 

700,000 have master's degrees and the remainderabout 1,300,000 —hold the bachelor's degree." 

Colleges of pedagogy now enroll about 200,000 

students preparing to teach. To provide top quality 

preparation for beginning teachers and follow-up 

services in their first year, not to mention advanced 

students on the campus, overtaxes the meager 

resources of schools of pedagogy. When we add to 

this an inservice program for 1,300,000 teachers, 

the burden becomes overwhelming. Schools of 

pedagogy can scarcely hope to cope with this demand for both pre- and inservice training. This is a 

situation that invites ill-considered plans, private 

consultants who often claim more than they can 

deliver, and worst of all spokesmen for sensational 

solutions to dire problems. 

Moreover, inservice programs drain off the 

energies of faculties from the task of developing an 

effective school of pedagogy, one capable of turning out teachers whose future inservice preparation 

can be reduced to updating their knowledge and 

skills instead of eliminating deficiencies resulting 

from poor preservice education. 

No one can justifiably argue that inservice education today should be eliminated, for the requirement of improved schooling has been documented 

over and over again by achievement data. The posi-

( 1 ^ 
tion taken here is that inservice preparation should 

be limited largely to those areas where data show 

the need for more effective instruction and control 

of student conduct. This would free a large proportion of college faculties from inservice activities 

to engage in a complete overhaul of the preservice 

work, an overhaul to produce professional teachers 

capable of doing their work skillfully and with a 

feeling of confidence. 

Notes on Terminology 

A few words about terminology is appropriate. 

The term "pedagogy" has long been held in illrepute despite the fact that it designates the science 

and art of teaching. Nevertheless, we shall use 

"pedagogy" instead of "education" and shall use it 

to mean both the act of teaching and the art and 

science of education. 

We are abandoning the use of "education" to 

refer to the science and art of teaching for a 

number of reasons. For one thing, the term cannot 

be used as an adjective to describe a kind of education. We can speak of legal education, medical 

education, and religious education but it is odd to 

speak of educational education. To avoid this odoity the expression "teacher education" is used when 

what is meant is educational education. While this 

avoids the oddity, it creates a semantic bind 

because colleges of pedagogy are much broader in 

program and purpose than the work of the teacher. 

We can speak of pedagogical education without 

this awkwardness and restraint. 

For another thing, there is perhaps nothing that 

reveals so clearly our feeling of shame and inferiority for being teachers as our refusal to refer to our 

field as pedagogy. The use of "education," 

whatever the justification for it initially, is a subtle 

coverup of our feeling that association with the 

young and the task of shepherding them into 

adulthood is an inferior occupation. 

It should be noted also that the term "education" 

has made it easy for schools of pedagogy to expand 

their curriculums to cover almost any area of 

human interest regardless of its lack of relevance to 

the science and art of teaching. The dictinction between the content of a subject and the pedagogy of 

the subject has become so blurred that schools of 

pedagogy are finding it more and more difficult to 

rule out any subject. Either in formal courses or in 

workshops, hardly any subject is thought to be so 

removed from education as to be denied a part in 

the program of pedagogical schools. Consequently, 

we find courses or workshops in recreation, marriage, death, and human relations, to mention only 

a few, that have no unique pedagogical significance. Some colleges now offer more than 500 

courses, many of which are only remotely related, if 

at all, to pedagogy. 

Finally, the use of "education" to cover a field of 

study has been a continuing source of ill will toward 

schools of pedagogy. All university faculty members 

consider themselves as being in education regardless of their field. For a pedagogical institution 

within a univesity to designate itself as a college of 

education is to court criticism and the ill will of 

other faculties within the university. 

We are fully aware that once a term is built into 

the literature there is little likelihood of eliminating 

its use. Nevertheless, we feel impelled to use 

"pedagogy" to designate the art and science of 

education. 

"Training" is another term in disfavor. Nevertheless, we shall use it. It has a bad name because it has 

been interpreted to mean the inculcation of habits 

with little if any meaning to the learner. This interpretation came largely from Dewey, who used it in 

developing his conception of education.'* Dewey's 

preference for "education" rather than "training" 

rests in part on his failure to distinguish training 

from both drill and conditioning. As a result, he 

assimilated the mindlessness of drill and conditioning to training, thereby making it a pejorative 

word. Viewing the term historically, Dewey's 

distinction is overdrawn, for since the mid-1500's 

"training" has meant "to instruct and discipline 

generally: to educate, rear, bring up"; "to instruct 

and discipline in or for some particular art, profession, occupation, or practice." 

When we speak of "training," we refer to the 

practice of working with students in situations 

where they understand what they are to learn to do, 

why they are learning to do it, what the outcomes 

are expected to be, and the conceptual explanation 

of the performance being acquired. Students who 

have thus been trained are fully capable of 

monitoring their behavior, correcting subsequent 

behavior in terms of the preceding performance 

and the inteiided outcome. Students who act in this 

fashion are performing intelligently and professionally. We prefer "training" to "education" for 

16 
the simple reason that it designates the kind of 

education required for professional competence. 

In this connection, a word should be said about 

the term "inquiry." Some authorities insist that 

teachers who are properly educated will be those 

who face problematic situations in their classrooms, 

be it learning difficulties, conduct problems, or 

whatever, and will inquire into the situations by 

gathering data, thinking them through, and arriving at a plan of action to solve the problem. 

Properly understood, this is the conception of the 

inquiring teacher assumed in the following 

chapters. An inquiring teacher facing a problem 

will diagnose the difficulty in terms of professional 

knowledge. If it is a problem in reading, the 

teacher will know the total range of known difficulties of which the symptoms are an indication. 

In terms of the diagnostic data, the inquiring 

teacher will make a judgment as to which of the 

possible difficulties is involved, and from the known 

range of treatments decide the one most appropriate, try it out, assess its success, and analyze still 

further if other treatments must be considered. 

It should be remembered, however, that no matter how intelligent, knowledgeable, and skillful the 

teacher may be he or she will from time to time 

make errors of either observation or judgment or 

both. Perfection, however much we covet it, is not a 

human quality. The rare teacher of course will occasionally go beyond the known diagnoses and 

treatments and hit upon new ideas and new ways of 

doing things. However, there is no way of educating 

the teacher to guarantee the ability to discover or 

create effective novelties. 

Summary 

No one can study the foregoing reports without a deep sense of appreciation for the efforts of so many who have explored the problems of 

creating a profession of pedagogy. Perhaps no other profession has been 

so thoroughly studied with respect to the preparation of its members. 

Yet none of these studies has dealt expressly with the institutional 

culture that has dwarfed the development of the professional education 

of teachers, the nature and uses of pedagogical knowledge, the need to 

assemble and order the knowledge relevant to a viable program of 

pedagogical education and the development of an informed and skilled 

cadre of pedagogical educators, and an appropriate institutional system 

of pedagogical education. These neglected problems are addressed in 

the following chapters. 

17 
NOTES AND REFERENCES 

Chapter 1. 

1. Charters, W. W., and Douglas Waples, Commonwealth 

Teacher-Training Study. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Preu, 1929. 

2. National Survey of the Education of Teacherj. U.S. OfFice of Education, Bulletin, 19SS, No. 10. 6 vols. Relevant 

volume*: Rugg, E. U,, and others. Teacher Education 

Curricula; Caliver, Ambrose. Education of Negro 

Teachers; Evenden, E. S. Summary and Interpretation. 

3. Commission on Teacher Education. Teachers for Our 

Times. American Council on Education, 1944. 

4. Commission on Teacher Education. The Improvement of 

Teacher Education. American Council on Education, 

1946. 

5. Conant, James Bryant. The Education of American 

Teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 

1963. 

6. Flexner, Abraham. Medical Education in the United 

States and Canada, A Report to The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Science. New York, 1910, p. 

238. 

7. Duffy, John. The Healers, A History of American 

Medicine. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979, pp. 

264-265. 

8. Cottrell, Donald P. (editor). Teacher Education for A 

Free People. Washington: The American Association of 

Colleges for Teacher Education, 1956. 

9. Smith, B, Othanel, and others. Teachers for the Real 

World. Washington: American Association of Colleges 

for Teacher Education, 1969. 

10. Rosner, Benjamin, The Power of Competency-Based 

Teacher Education: A Report. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 

1972. 

11. Hall, Gene E., and Howard L.Jones, Competency-Based 

Education: A Process For The Improvement Of Education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976. 

12. Howsam, Robert B., Dean C. Corrigan, George W. 

Denemark, and Robert J. Nash, Educating A Profession. 

Washington: American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education, 1976. 

13. Ream, Marsha A. Status of the American Public School 

Teacher, I97f-1976. Washington: National Education 

Association, 1977. 

14. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: 

Macmillan Company, 1916, pp. 15-16. 

18 
PART ONE 

Institutional Alignment and Programs 

How pedagogical education became deprofessionalized as 

it was incorporated into the university 

The institutional arrangements for a professional school 

of pedagogy 

Outlines of a preprofessional program for preparation in 

the subject matter of instruction and the behavioral and 

social sciences 

A proposed program in pedagogical education for the 

master's degree in pedagogy 

A brief for professional specialization leading to the doctor of pedagogy and to the doctor of philosophy 

19 
Chapter 2 

Professional Status of Pedagogical Schools 

There are approximately 1400 senior colleges 

and universities in the United Status in the business 

of pedagogical education. They fall roughly into 

four categories: private liberal arts colleges with 

departments of pedagogy; universities, recently 

converted teachers colleges, with schools of 

pedagogy; older State universities with schools of 

pedagogy; and private universities some of which 

refer to their pedagogical units as graduate schools 

of education and others as departments or schools 

of education. The private colleges make up the 

largest proportion of these 1400 institutions. 

Are Schools of Pedagogy Professional? 

Strictly speaking, are any of these pedagogical 

schools and departments professional? If we use the 

classical examples of professional schools, medicine 

and law, as the source of criteria for deciding 

whether a school is a professional one, we arrive at 

the following conditions. A school is professional if 

its 

— sole purpose is to train personnel for a profession 

— program focuses on the development of practical knowledge and skills 

— program is designed without interference by 

other departments and schools 

— program is influenced by professional organizations and public criticism 

Schools of medicine and law satisfy these criteria. 

They are single-purpose institutions that emphasize 

the education of practitioners. While some of their 

graduates become researchers, programs for professional degrees are not designed to produce them. 

Their programs are planned without regard to other 

departments and schools including graduate school 

regulations, save where the Doctor of Philosophy 

degree is involved. Unlike academic departments 

such as mathematics and history, which are relatively insulated from public pressure, schools of 

medicine and law are responsive to professional 

organizations and public criticism. In the final 

analysis, a professional school's commitment, like 

the profession itself, is to the well-being of the people the profession serves. Consequently, a professional school is subject to external pressures from 

both the profession and the public. However, the 

strength and frequency of such pressures are directly 

related to the social position of a profession and to 

the esteem in which the professional school is held 

by the profession and the public. 

The schools that provide some form of pedagogical education measure up to these criteria in 

varying degrees. Although they train teachers, 

liberal arts colleges cannot be called professional 

schools. They are not single-purpose institutions, 

and their pedagogical departments function under 

the general policies covering all departments. 

The private universities are not all of a kind. 

Some, Tulane University for instance, have a department of pedagogy, but they cannot be considered 

professional schools for the reasons just given for rejecting that status for liberal arts colleges. 

Other private universities such as Stanford and 

Chicago emphasize graduate study in pedagogy. 

The primary mission of their pedagogical unit is to 

prepare personnel for university and college positions, to conduct research, and to prepare 

specialists for the public school. Little if any attention is given to the preparation of beginning 

teachers. Their faculties are oriented to 

pedagogical studies that ultimately focus on 

research for the doctor's degree rather than on 

competence for either positions in the public school 

or in the training function of pedagogical schools. 

These schools are divided as to purpose. In the 

same graduate-oriented program they purport to 

prepare at once students for research positions and 

high-level school personnel. The fact that their 

products are more able in academic than in practical pedagogy helps to account for the inferior 

pedagogical training in less prestigious institutions 

that employ them. In fact, the private universities 

along with the large State universities have over the 

20 11 
years supplied the personnel of the private colleges 

and smaller universities. Consequently, these dominant schools have set the pattern of pedagogical 

education and prepared personnel to fit it. While 

these schools appear to be relatively free of university restraints, except where graduate policies and 

finances are concerned, and are influenced to some 

extent by professional groups, they are nevertheless 

more graduate than professional institutions, divided in purpose with little emphasis upon practical 

competence. 

Except for undergraduate work in pedagogy, the 

foregoing analysis holds for the large State universities; for example, Wisconsin and Texas. The 

schools of pedagogy at these universities arc dual 

purpose institutions, trying to amalgamate the requirements for research degrees with those for practical competence. At the master's level the programs contain little that can be called clinical experience despite the fact that mini-courses in 

microteaching, protocol films, and other clinical 

materials are now available. 

With few exceptions, the newer universities are 

following the same path, providing graduate-type 

programs heavily weighted with academic pedagogical courses and skirting the question of how to 

give the beginning teacher thorough training in 

clinical knowledge and skills. 

Perhaps the most common characteristic of 

pedagogical departments and schools is that their 

clinical work is largely under the control of, and 

carried on by, the public schools whose personnel 

are unprepared to train teachers. Unless the primary emphasis upon clinical knowledge and skills, 

a school can hardly be called a professional institution. And clinical work under the direct control 

and supervision of pedagogical schools throughout 

the Nation is almost nonexistent. 

At the undergraduate level colleges and departments of pedagogy actually function as service 

departments. The work in pedagogy is concentrated in the junior and senior years and varies from 

approximately 18 semester hours for secondary 

teachers to some 36 or more for elementary 

teachers. Pedagogical students are typically enrolled as juniors and continue to take a large proportion of their studies in nonpedagogical departments. Thus time for pedagogical education is inadequate, contributing to its deficiencies that in 

turn give comfort to its critics. 

While the postbaccalaureate preparation of 

school personnel is typically concentrated in the 

college of pedagogy, the college in fact functions as 

a department of the graduate college, or, where 

there is no graduate college per sc, as a graduate 

department of the university. The distinction between these two ways of categorizing colleges of 

pedagogy is considered by some to be important. 

The first, it is claimed, places restraints on the program of the college while the second leaves the college unfettered. But it is a distinction with little 

difference, for in either case the program of instruction is shaped almost entirely by the pervasive 

influence of the graduate mentality rather than by 

demands for professional competence. Tolerance 

for, and in some cases defense of, this graduate 

orientation by faculties of pedagogy betray their attitude toward the college as a professional school, 

i'cdagogical faculties, educated in the graduate atmosphere, absorb its norms and unwittingly carry 

on its traditions. 

How Did We Get Tha t Way? 

It was not always so. The normal schools, 

however poorly staffed and financed, were devoted 

solely to the preparation of teachers and more nearly met other criteria of professional institutions 

than the pedagogical colleges today. 

How was the further development of normal 

schools aborted?' It began in the middle of the last 

century with the movement that ultimately took the 

training of teachers into the universities. The normal schools of that time were autonomous, singlepurpose institutions, devoted solely to the preparation of teachers. In 1859, Richard Edwards, president of Illinois Normal University, speaking in 

defense of normal schools, emphasized that their 

sole purpose was to train teachers; that they gave 

instruction in the science and art of teaching; that 

they provided experience in the practice of 

teaching; and that they developed an esprit de 

corps and exalted the business of teaching. These 

purposes are as forward looking today as they were 

then. But even these essential functions were to be 

seriously eroded as pedagogical education came 

under the pervasive influence of the norms and 

folkways of the academic community. 

In their early days, normal schools prepared 

elementary teachers and were not affiliated with institutions of higher learning. While they enrolled 

12 9 
students who were typically no further along in 

their education than the eighth grade, they took the 

very best of these. The curriculum provided for 

professional training and for preparation in the 

subject matter of the elementary school program. 

A few years after the rise of normal schools, high 

school enrollments began to increase and the demand grew for secondary school teachers. Almost 

from the beginning, however, the preparation of 

teachers for the high school was considered a function of the liberal arts college. It was generally 

believed that there was little, if any, need for instruction in pedagogy, for academic knowledge was 

thought to be sufficient for success as n teacher. It 

was also believed that the liberal arts were superior 

to all other subjects and that they were superior 

because they provided general education and intellectual discipline. 

However, professional subjects became more and 

more a part of the university curriculum as the elective system, beginning at Harvard, made its way into the university and belief in formal discipline 

broke down under the impact of psychological investigations. Despite the long standing belief that 

vocational subjects in general and pedagogy in particular were inferior to the liberal arts, pedagogy 

was nevertheless incorporated into the liberal arts 

curriculum. The inferior quality attributed to 

pedagogy, however, tended to shape its program in 

terms of those subjects most closely allied to the 

conventional disciplines. Hence the history of 

education was most commonly taught, second only 

to educational philosophy and psychology. Courses 

in methods, and especially such practice courses as 

observation and teaching, were considered weak 

and unsuitable for collegiate pursuit. Furthermore, 

pedagogical instructors were induced by the 

academic climate as well as by their own inclinations to accept the modes of instruction thought to 

be conducive to intellectual rigor. The courses in 

pedagogy were thus taught didactically with emphasis upon memory and verbal learning, a practice continued by pedagogical faculties when 

teacher education became a function within the 

university. 

In competition with liberal arts colleges, normal 

schools expanded their prog;rams by creating liberal 

arts departments and employing graduates of 

liberal arts colleges as faculty members. The mentality of the liberal arts departments, often quite 

out of sympathy with the science and art of pedagogy, thus crept into the normal schools. The academic departments in time became influential in 

shaping the programs of pedagogical preparation. 

And differences in orientation between the academic and professional faculties often gave rise to 

divisive issues such as the relative amount of time to 

be allocated to academic and professional courses, 

graduation requirements, the relevance of academic work, and the utility of pedagogical courses. 

With the addition of liberal arts departments, 

the normal schools were transformed into institutions of higher learning, signaled by the new name 

— teachers college. Gradually these colleges began 

to admit more and more students who did not propose to teach but rather to acquire a liberal education. Partly as a result, the teachers college lost its 

single purpose —to prepare teachers—bequcthed to 

them by the normal schools. The surrender of the 

single purpose, so staunchly defended by proponents 

of the old normal schools, led in the end to multipurpose institutions and the consequent assimilation of teachers colleges into universities. 

In the course of this development, the teachers 

college came to be nothing more than liberal arts 

schools with a service department of pedagogy to 

provide a modicum of professional preparation. 

Thus the first teachers colleges, while in no way 

associated with the universities, were nevertheless 

not professional schools. In fact, if not in principle, 

they became liberal arts colleges not unlike private 

liberal arts schools with departments of pedagogy. 

Thus the movement to upgrade the normal school 

ended in the demise of the single-purpose, autonomous, professional school for the education of 

teachers. 

Influence of the Graduate School 

Liquidation of the 19th century ideal of a professional school of pedagogy is attributable as much 

to the incorporation of pedagogical education into 

the graduate school as to the emergence of the 

dual-purpose teachers college. 

After graduate programs were introduced at 

Johns Hopkins University around 1880, universities 

began to develop graduate departments by extension of the liberal arts to higher levels. The curriculums of the various branches of liberal arts were 

accommodated to graduate requirements by speci13 

9 9 
fying majors and minors believed to be prerequisite 

to advanced learning. This was the mold into which 

advanced study of pedagogy was cast, so that the 

net effect of the influence of the university upon 

pedagogical education was to eliminate, or reduce 

to the lowest level, clinical work in favor of academic pedagogy, and to lock advanced study into 

the framework of the graduate school. 

Widespread agitation for the creation of university colleges of pedagogy began around 1900. By 

1923, some 34 State universities had established 

such a college. These colleges prepared beginning 

high school teachers and sometimes elementary 

teachers as well. They also provided programs for 

experienced teachers who desired to return to the 

university to complete work for their bachelor's 

degree. In keeping with graduate requirements, 

they also offered advanced studies in pedagogy 

leading to master's degrees, which initially required 

a thesis, and later to the Doctor of Philosophy 

degree and still later to the Doctor of Education. 

It is important to note that colleges of pedagogy, 

while satisfying their hankering for academic status 

by stressing academic pedagogy, nevertheless tended 

more and more in the direction of clinical studies — 

general methods, sf>ecial methods, practice teaching 

- but even these, except the latter, were typically 

taught didactically. At the very outset colleges of 

pedagogy were therefore torn between the desire to 

achieve academic respectability and the need to 

prepare students to perform effectively on the job. 

With the growth of pedagogical faculties at the 

graduate level, colleges of pedagogy as departments 

in the graduate school, or else on their own, began 

to develop programs leading to the Doctor of 

Philosophy degree. Emphasis was thus placed upon 

research and the development of research scholars, 

even chough they would be engaged in the training 

of teachers and only a small fraction would ever do 

research. 

As pedagogical education came under the influence of graduate requirements and the liberal 

arts orientation, the college of pedagogy was caught 

between the influence of the graduate mentality 

and the demands of the public school for cfFicient 

and capable personnel. By trying to fulfill two purposes at once, colleges of pedagogy have been 

unable to realize either. 

It has been recognized for some time that neither 

teachers nor researchers have been adequately prepared by this dual-purf)ose program. From time to 

time a separate program leading to research capabilities, if not degrees, has been propoc-d, but remained undeveloped. And modifications in the 

training of teachers have likewise been advanced, 

tried out, and abandoned. Pedagogy is today in a 

stalemate. Neither the demands for research nor 

the practical requirements of the profession have 

been met by the schools of pedagogy. 

9') 

14 
Summary 

The drift of pedagogical education into iu present setting was not the 

work of any one individual or group of individuals, but rather the result 

of the hidden forces of history. Who could have foreseen that the introduction of subject-matter departments would in the end convert normal 

schools into dual-purpose institutioiu, that the emergence of universal 

secondary education would ultimately transform them into teachers colleges, and that advanced study of pedagogy would respond more to the 

mores and folkways of the academic community than to the practical 

requiremenu of the profession? What pedagogical education is today 

could hardly have been averted. That it could have been, otherwise, is 

profitless speculation. 

So, our schools of pedagogy are not strictly professional. So what? 

Would not a rose smell as sweet by any other name? Yes, but it is neither 

the name nor the fragrance that counts, but whether or not the rose is 

really a rose. Are our schools really professional schools? Do they meet 

the criteria? If they do, their graduates are likely to acquire the knowledge and skills of practical competence. If they do not, then meeting the 

criteria will render them more effective. How we got where we are, and 

the conditions we must satisfy as we move to a higher level of professional competence, is the sole purpose of the foregoing analysis. 

What is important now is to consider the modiflcations that 

pedagogical faculties have the power to make. It is to these modifications that we turn in subsequent chapters, beginning in the next with 

elements of institutional culture that must be modified as progress is 

made. 

Chapter 2 

1. This analysis is based upon the classic work of Waller S. 

Monroe, Teaching-Learning Theory and Teacher Education, 1890-1950. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 

1952: Pangbom. Jessie M. The Evolution of the American 

Teachers College. Contributions to Education. No. 500. 

New York. Teachers College. 19S2; Gartner, Alan. The 

Preparation of Human Service Professions. New York: 

Human Sciences Press, 1976. 

15 
Chapter 3 

Toward a Professional School of Pedagogy 

What can a pedagogical faculty do in order to 

move its school closer to a professional leveli> Consider, first, things it cannot do, or can do only to a 

limited extent. These concern factors external to 

the school and on which the faculty can have little 

direct influence. Examples are Federal restraints, 

regulations of State departments of education, 

legislative enactments, judicial rulings, attitudes of 

the public, Hnancial support, influences of accrediting agencies, attitudes and policies of professional 

organizations, and the excessive number of schools 

in the business of pedagogical education. 

However, certain internal conditions yield to 

faculty influence and control, such as the institutional level of professional study, amount of time 

allotted to it, the preprofessional and professional 

curriculum}, the involvement of public school personnel, the quality of the faculty itself, and policies 

governing rank and pay. It stands to reason that if 

these conditions are modified in positive directions, 

a pedagogical school can make marked progress 

toward becoming a full-fledged professional institution. 

As we approach the question of what changes 

should be made in these conditions, it is instructive 

as well as encouraging to note that pedagogical 

education today confronts about the same problems 

as medical education did at the close of the last century. 

An Historical Parallel 

Comparisons are sometimes made between (ledagogy and medicine in respect to methods: for example, diagnosis and prescriptive procedures and clinical approaches to training. The comparisons are 

just as often questioned. It is pointed out that pedagogical problems are not pathological and that, unlike medicine, the purpose of p)edagogy is to raise 

individuals to new and higher levels of interaction 

with their environment and not to restore a body 

equilibrium. These arc interesting claims and 

counter claims, but they overlook a more interesting and striking similarity; namely, the similarity 

between medical education at the close of the last 

century and pedagogical education today. 

Even in the cloiing years of the last century a student could enter medical Khool with only a common school education and complete the requirements for the doctor's degree in 2 terms of 4 months 

each. The low quality of medical schools in the 

1880's is vividly portrayed in the 1889 annual announcement of the medical department of the 

University of Georgia. The close parallel with the 

conditioru of colleges of pedagogy today is all too 

striking. Here is the announcement: 

The Medical College of Georgia, since 1872 

the Medical Department of the University of 

Georgia, received iu Tirst charter in 1829, and 

rapidly attained a marked success. With all 

facilities for imparting iiutniction in every 

department of medicine, an exceptionally able 

Faculty and an ample income, its classes increased yearly until they numbered from 150 

to 200 students, among whom were many of 

the most noted men of Georgia and the surrounding States. It would, undoubtedly, have 

become one of the foremost institutions of the 

land if Georgia, conjointly with other States 

had not adopted the very foolish policy of 

chartering a number of competing colleges, all 

sole judges of their own requirements, both for 

matriculation and graduation. Of such charters, ten have been issued in Georgia and nearly 

400 in the United States. The consequence 

might have been foreseen. Students as a class 

are distrustful of their own powers when contrasting their modest acquirements with the 

vast store of knowledge they are expected to attain, extremely sensitive to the disgrace of rejection, and anxious to obtain their licenses in 

the shortest possible time. Hence, they naturally patronize not the best colleges, but such 

where the requirements are the least exacting 

and the time the shortest. 

25 

17 
It is but natural that the colleges, dependeni 

as they are up<m their patronage for their very 

existence, should have been influenced by this 

tendency to lower their requirements, until the 

standard of medical education is actually lower 

in Georgia and the surrounding States than it 

was thirty years ago. It is no secret that young 

men are annually graduated from all the colleges who are by no means competent to practice the difHcult art of medicine, and have 

neither the talent nor the education to obtain 

the requisite knowledge by their own endeavors. 

The University has made unceasing endeavi)rs to escape from this degrading position, 

but has learned from experience that to persist 

would result in driving its students to other colleges and close its doors without in the least 

altering the condition of things. The case seems 

utterly hopeless without the aid of the Legislature, to which it has hitherto been considered 

vain to apply to remedy the mischief for which 

it is largely responsible.' 

As noted earlier, there are some 1400 pedagogical institutions. The content of their programs 

consists of personal experience of instructors, doctrines, pedagogical formulas, opinions, and 

research knowledge. Competition for students 

among instructors as well as among schools, even at 

the crest of the enrollment swell of the 1960's, was 

keen enough to loosen the rigor of instruction. 

Legislatures establish and support pedagogical institutions with little regard to either need or quality. Yet there is cause for hope. If medical schools, 

in comparable circumstances, raised themselves to 

admirable levels of quality in less than a century, 

there is reason to hope that schools of pedagogy can 

at least establish themselves as genuine professional 

institutions. 

Those of feeble hofje will say that medical education [lossessed a knowledge base at the turn of the 

century and that the task of medical schools was to 

develop and institutionalize an effective training 

program, but that pedagogical education today has 

insufficient knowledge for a program. We venture 

on shaky ground when we begin to compare knowledge in one field to that in another. But the anemic 

state of medical education in the closing decades of 

the last century is evident from the fact that 8 

tnonths of medical sclio m..^ ->' sufficiriit to 

c|ualify one as a physician. 

The medical curriculum at the University of 

(Georgia in 1HH9 consisted of anatomy, pathology, 

pharmacy (called medical chemistry), obstetrics, 

gynecology, eye and ear and throat, surgery, 

medical jurisprudence, and practice of medicine. 

Comparatively little was known about any of these. 

The theory of di.sease had been established, 

although limited to bacterial causes. Little or 

nothing was known about viral, genetic or nutritional diseases. Diagnostic knowledge and techniques were crude, and physicians prescribed for 

obvious symptoms sore throats, coughs, diarrhea, 

fevers, and consumption. Medical treatment was in 

its infancy. Quinine for malaria, aconite and 

digitalis for the heart, splints for broken bones, carbolic acid and iodoform as antiseptics, and after 

these we soon run out of specifics. Many drugs affected only the symptoms. Among these were 

bismuth, opium, alcohol, spirits of ammonia, and a 

few analgesics. Surgery was still primitive: Keen, 

Crile, Halsted and others had barely begun to 

develop the science of the art. 

Pedagogy today is much beyond medicine when 

Johns Hopkins initiated the program that ultimately 

transformed medical education. While we do not 

know the cause(s) of learning, we do know the condition.v of learning both in and outside the classroom. The general outlines of human development 

have been discovered and we are beginning to learn 

the effects of some environmental factors upon 

human potentials. We know how to identify many 

obstacles to learning, particularly in reading and 

mathematics, and how to help learners cope with 

them. Our knowledge of exceptionality and how to 

provide for it is considerable and increasing. While 

our knowledge of social and emotional development is more fragile than our knowledge of cognitive development, still much progress has been 

made in procedures and techniques of promoting 

effective growth in the classroom. In later chapters, 

pedagogical knowledge will be discussed at length. 

It should suffice for now to say that if the history of 

medical education has any lesson for us, it is that 

the problem of pedagogical education is not the 

lack of knowledge so much as the lack of will to institutionalize an effective program of pedagogical 

education. 

18 

2V> 
Proposed Institutional Arrangements 

While new knowledge is always to be cherished, 

and pedagogy, like other professions, can always 

use more of it, the shortcomings of pedagogical 

education today can be attributed more to deficiencies in institutional arrangements, programs, 

and instruction than to lack of knowledge. In the 

remaining pages of this chapter an institutional 

framework for pedagogical education is suggested. 

Programs and instruction will be treated in later 

chapters. 

The reader should remember, however, that 

elements of the plan will change, perhaps fundamentally, between our conception and the final 

realization of a professional school of pedagogy. 

There may be better formulations than the one we 

suggest. And new conditions, not now foreseeable, 

may arise whose demands will require drastic 

changes in our design. It would be strange indeed if 

our prospectus were not improved upon greatly as 

others consider the problems and conditions. 

Our schools of pedagogy would be well on their 

way to becoming genuinely professional, however, 

were the arrangements finally worked out to adhere 

from school to school. What we need least of all is a 

multitude of different institutional and program 

designs, giving rise to endless debate and schemes of 

evaluation. 

Consider the following schema for the preparation of pedagogical personnel. It begins with the 

first year of undergraduate study and ends for 

teachers with 2 years of professional study in the 

school of pedagogy and for specialists after 2 additional years. 

Students would enter the undergraduate school 

and pursue work for admission to the school of 

pedagogy. Certain curriculums would be open to 

them: a curriculum in the subject matter required 

to teach the elementary school curriculum, including early childhood and primary; a curriculum 

in each of the various content areas of the junior 

and senior high school; and a prepedagogical curriculum consisting of introduction to psychology, 

learning theory, human development, sociology, 

anthropology, and philosophy. These studies are to 

be taken as a foundation in the behavioral sciences 

for work in academic pedagogy. At the present time 

few students come to the study of pedagogy with 

adequate footing in these areas, a deficiency that 

handicaps them in their study of the concepts and 

principles underlying the programs, policies, and 

practices of the schools. 

Admission to the school of pedagogy would be by 

specified criteria and contingent upon completion 

of the baccalaureate program, except as indicated 

below. Students would then pursue professional 

studies until completion of the course requireDiagram 1. Schema for Preparing Pedagogical Personnel 

Si 

OO 

u Q 

o 

00 

•T« 3 

^ &. 

o 

o 

o 

o 

5 

CQ 

o 

Q o 

a 

Liberal Arts and Sciences 

and 

Other Non-pedagogical Schools 

and 

Departments 

School of Pedagogy 

4 years 2 years 2 years 

19 
ments. This would entail at least 2 years of study. 

At that time the student would be granted the 

master's degree in pedagogy upon satisfactory performance on examinations and demonstration of 

competence. 

Now, the exception. Articulation of the undergraduate program and the first year of professional 

study can be so ordered that the last semester of the 

senior year and the first semester of pedagogical 

study can be interchanged, thus enabling the student to become involved in clinical pedagogjy somewhat earlier. The academic work for the bachelor's 

degree would be completed and the degree 

awarded during the first year of professional study. 

The sole aim of the program for the master's 

degree is to develop competent teachers, and the 

time of the student will be devoted entirely to professional studies. The program will be discussed in 

Chapter 5. Suffice it to say here that it will consist 

of various types of clinical experiences and pedagogical practice throughout the 2 years, coordinated with academic and clinical pedagogical 

studies. 

Naturally, specialization with respect to pedagogical functions will be built into the program. 

The areas of specialization will include early childhood and primary pedagogy, elementary pedagogy, 

and secondary pedagogy. Exceptionality will not be 

an area of specialization except in the doctoral program. However, all students will be prepared in the 

elements of exceptionality and in the skills of mainstreaming. 

Although they are intensively trained, graduates 

should be followed up during the first year and provided with such assistance as is necessary to assure 

their success. To this end, a follow-up corps should 

be established by the college to study its products, 

to provide them with assistance, and to supply information to the faculty bearing upon the strengths 

and weaknesses of its program of training. 

Requirements for admission to the doctoral program will vary with specialization. Students who 

wish to pursue a career in research and evaluation 

may go into advanced study directly, or they may 

teach for a year or two and then enter the program. 

In any event, research and evaluation should be the 

dominant interest of the student and only the most 

capable should be admitted. The program should 

be distinctly different from professional programs 

to prepare specialists in various areas of 

pedagogical practice. The program should lead to 

the Doctor of Philosophy degree, and students who 

become researchers should not thereby be considered capable of training pedagogical personnel. 

The number of students being prepared for 

research careers at any one time should be small, 

and only those schools having an active research 

faculty and resources should offer work leading to 

the research degree. 

Programs leading to the Doctor of Pedagogy are 

to be planned to prepare competent specialists in 

all areas of educational endeavor except research 

and evaluation. Students admitted to the advanced 

program to become prepared as specialists in pedagogical practice should have had some experience 

in educational work, for students are more likely to 

be successful as specialists if they have first demonstrated their competence as teachers. 

Areas of specialization should be quite diversified, as are the positions in education generally. A 

few are mentioned here as examples: specialists in 

exceptionality, reading, vocational pedagogy, counseling, school psychology; educational directors in 

the private sector, and in government. 

Curriculums leading to the degree of Doctor of 

Pedagogy should emphasize clinical work and pedagogical practice in the student's specialty as well as 

substantive courses. Although the student must be 

thoroughly steeped in research literature and its 

significance for the practice of pedagogy, no theses 

or dissertations should be required for the doctorate 

in pedagogy. And students should not be expected 

to do research in the course of their training. 

A college, no matter what it calls itself, can function as a professional institution only if it separates 

its program for the preparation of practitioners 

from the progfram for researchers. This does not 

mean that the program for practitioners is to ignore 

the results of research. On the contrary, research 

knowledge is its very substance. But it does mean 

that the requirement of a research project and 

other trappings of a research-oriented graduate 

program are barriers to the development of a program for professional personnel. 

It is claimed by some authorities that teachers 

should themselves engage in research and should 

therefore be prepared to do so in their professional 

training. This is a worthy objective, but it does not 

require a graduate-oriented program for its attainment. We know from other professions that a few 

practitioners do engage in research from time to 

time and that their preparation also enables them 

20 28 
to conduct on-the-job studies when they choose to 

do so. Research by teachers is not the issue. Instead, 

the question is whether the program of professional 

preparation is to be shaped by the research mentality. 

The Need For Clinical Facilities 

Institutional arrangements for pedagogical education are incomplete without clinical facilities that 

can be provided by the public school, governmental 

departments, and the private sector. Although the 

facilities of all these are needed, the public schools 

are crucially important in the first 2 years of pedagogical study. The key role of the school follows 

from the fact that most graduates will become 

teachers and from the further fact that the clinical 

principles of teaching and learning as well as pedagogical skills, both of which are necessary in any 

pedagogical function, are best acquired in school 

settings. 

To acquire pedagogical skills is to practice in a 

school setting in which the trainee's performance 

can be observed, diagnosed, and corrective feedback given as practice is continued. This requirement has fundamental implications not only for the 

personnel of the college of pedagogy but also for the 

relationship between the college and the schools. 

These implications have never been satisfactorily 

derived, explicated, or translated into practice. For 

one thing, neither the local board of education nor 

the State has seriously committed itself to the task 

of providing the proper clinical conditions for 

pedagogical training. For another thing, colleges of 

pedagogfy have never committed their resources or 

staffs to the task of pedagogical training nor provided the leadership to induce local school personnel to join in a study of the mutual problems of 

pedagogical education. The crucial function of 

school clinics in the training of all pedagogical personnel makes it mandatory that colleges of pedagogy seek the cooperation of local education 

authorities to establish a system of clinical laboratories. 

The number of training sites will depend upon 

the number of trainees and the optimum number 

that a given school can properly train without disrupting its program. The number of trainees per 

site can best be answered by the experience of each 

school, for the circumstances may vary widely from 

school to school. 

This injunction applies equally well to the colleges of pedagogy. Admit no more students than 

the faculty can properly train. It is not the primary 

responsibility of pedagogical schools to turn out 

graduates in sufficient number to fill every vacancy 

in the public schools or elsewhere. Their first commitment is and must be to the education of competent professionals. To water down that commitment in order to turn out enough personnel to meet 

demands is to surrender whatever right pedagogical 

schools have to call themselves professional institutions. If the graduates of the schools of pedagogy 

are not numerically sufficient to fill the jobs, let the 

State provide the necessary resources to train the 

needed personnel without sacrificing the quality. 

To meet the demands for educational personnel at 

the expense of quality is to betray the public and its 

children. 

Some will hold that the State will meet the 

demands for teachers by other means. If pedagogical schools continue to turn out quality personnel, however, their products will be in demand by 

the better school systems. And the State, not the 

pedagogical schools, will bear the burden for the 

depressed quality of schooling. 

Clinical facilities for the third year present a problem quite different from that of the first 2 years. 

Clinical training required for the master's degree is 

common to all pedagogical work, as noted above, 

and can best be provided in a school setting; that 

for the doctor's degree is specialized and prepares 

individuals for differentiated positions in private 

and governmental domains as well as for specialized 

work in the schools. Since the number of doctoral 

students will be comparatively small, fewer clinical 

sites will be required. The clinical situations, 

however, may be extremely varied because of the 

uniqueness of the job demands from one enterprise 

or organization to another. Nevertheless, these 

clinics will fall into three groups: scholastic, governmental, and nongovernmental enterprises and 

organizations. The relationships of the college of 

pedagogy to these clinics are likely to be tenuous 

and fleeting at the begjinning, but can be stabilized 

with experience. 

T h e Quest for Clinical Facilities 

Pedagogical schools have been plagued throughout the current century with the question of where 

29 21 
to train their students. In the first half of the century the typical provision for training was the campus school, variously referred to as the experimental, practice, demonstration, or laboratory school. 

From time to time the campus school encountered 

serious objections. It was not like the public schools 

and hence maladapted the trainees for work success; it cost too much per trainee even though the 

school often served as a research center; and it was 

too experimental and offbeat to serve as a demonstration center. Although these objections were not 

infrequently justified, the campus school lingered 

and is still found in a few institutions. 

However, its displacement by the public schools 

as the training facility resulted less from criticism 

than from the influx of students into pedagogical 

education in the 40's and 50's, overcrowding the 

campus school and driving colleges of pedagogy to 

seek training facilities in the public schools. One 

study showed that by 1945 some 75 percent of the 

trainees of forty large universities were being placed 

in the public schools' while another study reported 

2 years later that, of 135 teachers colleges, 108 still 

operated campus schools but also used public 

schools to ease the overload.' 

In the long run, however, the laboratory schools 

would probably have dropped by the wayside anyhow. Their faculties were no more capable of identifying the deficiencies of trainees and showing how 

to overcome them than the better public school 

teachers themselves. And it is only fair to say that 

this is a condition with which faculties of pedagogy 

are still struggling, even though the knowledge for 

removing it is becoming increasingly available. 

From the beginning the use of public schools as a 

training facility rested upon an uneasy partnership.* 

Use of the schools was informally arranged. Neither 

the university nor the college of pedagogy negotiated contracts for the services of the schools. In 

moving its trainees to the schools the college gained 

a natural setting for its training function, but at the 

same time it lost control of the training personnel. 

The critic or supervising teachers were typically 

recommended if not selected by the principal, although the college sometimes exercised veto power. 

They were poorly paid, typically by small stipend.-

or tuition waivers, and as critic teachers totally untrained; nor did the college provide training for 

them. Even today only a few colleges provide a 

modicum of training. Furthermore, the services of 

supervising teachers were over and beyond their 

normal teaching loads, overtr.xing their energies 

and rendering them even less effective as critics. 

Against all this was the claim that the teacher and 

the school profited from the growth of teachers who 

served as supervisors, a dubious claim at best. 

Moreover, college supervision of training was 

seldom, if ever, adequate. The college supervisor 

infrequently observed the trainees' performance 

and thus lacked the understanding of their problems that can come only from direct observation.' 

Discussions between the supervisor and trainees 

were thus often academic if not irrelevant. Furthermore, the college supervisor was typically no better 

prepared for the training function than the critic 

teachers themselves. The large universities tended 

to use supervisory positions to support graduate 

students. While these students were usually diligent 

and conscienticus, still they were unprepared for 

the task. And, a;.- in the case of critic teachers, the 

college provided little or no training for its supervisors. 

The training program suffered still further from 

college policies on salary and promotions. The 

supervisory faculty was considered of less importance than the faculty who taught pedagogical academic courses, did research, or published articles 

and books. The supervisors were thus the underdogs of the college faculty, even when they held 

rank, and received less attention when salary increases and promotions were passed around. 

While the foregoing account of the facilities and 

staffing of ihe training program is presented in 

historical perspective, it describes in general outline 

the training component of pedagogical education 

today. 

New Conditions Call for New Arrangements 

Dissatisfaction with the provisions for trainees is 

being expressed in new and forceful ways.' Teachers 

are becoming aware of themselves as professionals 

and are demanding to be treated as such. One expression of this awareness is a growing revolt against 

the use of the schools for pedagogical training without involving teachers in the formulation of policies 

about the number of trainees, how they are assigned, 

status of supervising teachers, modes of training, 

and evaluation. 

Moreover, the demand and supply syndrome is 

uppermost in the minds of teachers today, for the 

22 30 
oversupply of teachers tends to reduce mobility of 

those who hold positions and to cast a shadow of 

uncertainty on their tenure. It is not surprising 

therefore that teacher associations are looking 

askance at the use of the schools to provide teaching 

experience for students in excess of the demand for 

new teachers. And the practice of placing trainees 

with selected teachers, difficult as it has been in the 

past, promises to be even more difficult as both individual teachers and the organized profession seek 

to exercise more control over assignments. 

There is little likelihood that a genuine professional school of pedagogy can be sustained and improved unless its training facilities are of high quality. Yet the present facilities are unsatisfactory. To 

return to the campus school as a training center is 

not a feasible alternative. It was not satisfactory in 

the first place, and the demands for quality 

teachers, even when school enrollments are decreasing, is far in excess of what campus schools can supply. Besides, the present partnership with the 

public schools is encountering new conditions with 

which it is unlikely to cope. 

At the same time our conception of the role of 

the teacher is undergoing fundamental modifications. The teacher today is expected not only to be 

competent in the classroom and the school per se, 

but also to understand both the broad social context and the narrow context within which a particular school carries on its work. This means, 

among other things, that teachers should understand the various social groups and agencies that 

impinge in one way or another upon children and 

youth, and should also possess the skills of communication essential to successful interaction with 

these various entities. In addition, the involvement 

of teachers with parents and home influences of 

children and youth are such that knowledge and 

skills required for successful communication with 

parents are only less essential than the knowledge 

and skills for participating in the school itself. 

T h e Emergence of Community as a Laboratory 

The foregoing analysis points up the necessity for 

widening the arena, within which pedagogical 

trainees acquire their professional knowledge and 

skills, to include the whole community. The community is not the close intimate web of human associations we often read about in literature and that 

many now living experienced in their youth. In little more than a generation this mode of social existence has all but fallen by the wayside. In its place 

has evolved a conglomerate of social groups, corporate associations, and organized interests all 

loosely interdependent and held together partly by 

some sense of fair play and partly by antagonistic 

cooperation, to borrow an expression from Sumner, 

in which their unique and competing interests are 

temporarily subordinated to some special and compelling common concern. 

Gone also is the neighborhood school whose 

students lived in the vicinity and whose control 

rested with a board of trustees who knew the 

children and their parents. Today the school draws 

its students from a population scattered over an extensive territory. The school trustees also have been 

replaced by a single board of education that controls a number of schools and whose members are 

often known to the parents only through the media. 

All of this indicates that today the teachers often do 

not know the parents and many, if not most, of the 

children do not associate with one another save in 

the school itself. There is hence an impersonal 

quality about the school and its ties with the social 

milieu. 

When we speak of the community and its schools 

we have reference to this general situation of competing and often conflicting groups and interest, 

constantly coming together in varying combinations in efforts to resolve social issues of common 

concern. We do not mean community in the old 

sense, as a group of people living in the same 

neighborhood, sharing experiences, and having a 

large core of mutual interest. Community in that 

sense hardly exists save at the point of resolution. In 

short, community as a meeting of minds tends these 

days to be a recurring event rather than a constant 

state of affairs. 

This is the social setting in which the trainees are 

to be socialized and prepared in pedagogical skills. 

The question to be considered is what institutional 

structures, contractual arrangements, and laboratory facilities are indicated for pedagogical education by this complex set of social circumstances. 

The implication of this broader conception of the 

pedagogical arena indicates the need for a new conception of training facility. From the very beginning the training facility has been thought of as a 

particular school in which the trainees gain experience. This conception must be abandoned. The 

31 23 
Teacher Corps has taught us in no uncertain language that the community and its schools constitute 

the training laboratory. The pioneer work of the 

Teacher Corps in creating a new setting for the 

training of teachers has now begun to be realized as 

one of the most significant developments in pedagogical education in recent decades. It is this conception that must now be grasped, expanded, and 

institutionalized as a component of the school of 

pedagogy. In the remainder of this chapter we shall 

attempt to set forth the concept of a community 

and its schools as a pedagogical training facility. 

The Clinical Complex 

Visualize a school of pedagogy surrounded by a 

number of communities of varying sizes and 

distances from the campus as shown in diagram 2. 

Each of these communities will constitute a training 

facility with the school of pedagogy as the center of 

the cluster. We shall refer to such a group of communities and the school of pedagogy as a clinical 

complex and to each community as a training 

laboratory. 

The center of the cluster of community training 

laboratories is the school of pedagogy. For purposes 

of illustration let us assume that the cluster contains 

six communities with an average population of 

50,000 and that each community has 10 elementary 

schools and four high schools, two junior and two 

senior schools. If each elementary school accommodates seven trainees, one for each grade plus 

kindergarten, or a total of 70 for the entire 

laboratory, the complex of six laboratories would 

afford training for 420 trainees. At the same time 

the four high schools, combining junior and senior, 

could easily accommodate 12 trainees each, two for 

each grade, or a total of 48 for the laboratory as a 

whole or 288 for the entire complex. Furthermore, 

the community organizations and agencies could 

provide training experiences for at least 40 trainees 

per semester, or a total of 240 for the complex as a 

whole. All together the complex could accommodate 708 trainees in the schools and 240 in the 

community, or a grand total of 948 per semester. If 

each school of pedagogjy restricted its enrollments 

to the number of students it can train effectively, a 

complex of this scope would seldom be required. 

The foregoing description gives the general outlines of the clinical complex. Its scope will of course 

vary from college to college, depending upon the 

availability of communities and their geographic 

distribution. But the core of the concept would remain the same; namely, a college of pedagogy with 

a cluster of community training laboratories. 

Governance of the Clinical Complex 

An organization of this scope and complexity can 

operate smoothly and effectively only if it is functionally ordered to represent the interests and concerns of its constituents—community, schools, legal 

authorities, and the college of pedagogy — as shown 

in diagram 3. 

There are two levels of organization. First of all is 

the complex itself. The administrative organization 

at this level should consist of at least one representative from each laboratory, preferably the chairperson of the laboratory advisory board, and a representative of the college who should be the director 

of the complex. This group, referred to here as the 

clinical complex council, is responsible for developing the rules and regulations governing the operation of the complex, reviewing and evaluating its 

work, making suggestions for improvements, and in 

general advising the director, who is ultimately 

responsible to the dean and faculty of the college of 

pedagogy. 

The director is responsible for the administration 

of the complex which involves, among other things, 

negotiation of contracts with local boards, keeping 

abreast of the problems and developments in the 

various laboratories, selecting and working with the 

college faculty, including public school teachers 

who are members of the faculty, who are to serve in 

a clinical capacity in the laboratories. The director 

will also work closely with the appropriate members 

of the college administration having to do with the 

selection and retention of students and assessment 

of their readiness for assignments to the training 

laboratories. 

Governance of a Laboratory 

The second level of organization is the laboratory. A contractual agreement between the school 

of pedagogy and each local board of education 

would be negotiated. This agreement would specify 

24 32 
Diagram 2. Clinical Complax 

33 25 
Diagram 3. Governance of the Clinical Complex 

College of Pedagogy 

Director of the Clinical Complex t 

Contractual Negotiation 

Local Boards of Education 

College of Pedagogy Faculty 

in Training Laboratories 

the general policies under which the school of pedagogy and the board would cooperate to finance and 

staff the training facility. The contract should also 

provide for the establishment of a board of directors for the laboratory, as depicted in diagram 4. 

This board would consist of one elementary and 

one high school teacher, each a representative of 

the organized teaching profession. The board 

should also include an elementary and a secondary 

school administrator, university representative, 

community services representative, two parentteacher representatives, one of whom should be from 

a minority group, and a representative of the chamber of commerce or a similar organization. 

Each board of directors would operate within the 

policies laid down by the contractual arrangements 

between the school of pedagogy and the respective 

board of education. It would have direct responsibility for the formulation of policies about the 

number of trainees the laboratory would accommodate, the assignment of trainees to schools, the 

CLINICAL COMPLEX COUNCIL 

One or more representatives 

from each Training Laboratory 

responsibility of the clinical staff, the extraclassijom activities in which the trainees would engage, 

and such other policy questions and problems as 

may arise from time to time. The director of the 

clinical complex would be an ex officio member of 

the board. 

Staffing the Laboratory 

Traditionally the trainees have been confined to 

the school and the classroom during their clinical 

experience. This is no longer a viable practice. As 

indicated earlier, the trainee must now study not 

only the sociology of community life but also gain 

first-hand experience through observation and participation in a wide variety of community activities. 

This point has been emphasized by a number of 

authorities, and a few schools have arranged for 

such experience. But these ventures have for the 

most part been conducted informally and without 

26 34 
Diagram 4. Governance of the Training Laboratory 

Local Board of Education Contractual /ii^cciuciu 

Director of Clinical Complex 

ex officio member of 

Training Laboratory Board of Directors 

< p 

School of Pedagogy 

Training Laboratory Board of Directors 

Teachers Association Representative for 

Elementary 

Teachers Association Representative for 

Secondary 

Elementary School Administrator 

Secondary School Administrator 

University Representative 

Community Services Representative 

Two Parent-Teacher Representatives 

Community Representative 

« » 

Training Laboratory 

clear direction and control. In order for the trainee 

to receive proper experience and training in these 

broader pedagogical settings a definite program 

must be planned and staffed. 

The personnel to conduct this program should 

consist of a team of college faculty members 

selected from among those who are knowledgeable 

in the area of community life. This team would 

plan a program for review by the advisory board, 

and after the criticisms and suggestions of the 

board had been fully considered and the program 

revised, the trainees would be admitted for at least 

a quarter if not a semester's intensive work under 

the direction of the team. This means that the team 

would in effect be conducting a seminar-practicim 

in an actual community setting. 

Turning now to the schools, a team of clinical 

teachers would be constituted in each school to conduct the preparation of the trainees not only in the 

skills of classroom teaching but also in curriculum 

planning, participation in various school activities, 

and the development of skills in the various domains of training (see Chapter 9) with special emphasis upon the ability to observe and diagnose the 

difficulties students encounter as they engage in the 

process of learning. Diagnosing and planning is 

prerequisite to the conduct of instruction itself; 

their importance cannot be overemphasized. But 

they should, nevertheless, not preempt the program 

to the exclusion of other domains of preparation. 

All can agree that clinical teachers must be 

thoroughly versed in the knowledge and skills of 

35 27 
teaching based not only upon their own experience 

and professional wisdom but even more upon 

research. It is too much to suppose that any team of 

teachers, however successful they are as teachers in 

their own classrooms and school, will be equally 

prepared to conduct a training program. Even the 

most effective teachers perform in many ways of 

which they are not aware and attain results without 

knowing explicitly how they attained them. Furthermore, they are probably ill prepared to observe 

the behavior of teachers and students objectively 

and to analyze teaching behavior sufficiently to 

provide corrective feedback to a trainee. 

To prepare clinical teachers, both college and 

school, the college will need to designate instructors 

to work cooperatively with teachers in the development of a training program. It must be admitted 

that college instructors themselves are often no better equipped to conduct a training program than 

the teachers. This means that college instructors, 

those who are to engage in clinical work themselves, 

will be engaged in acquiring knowledge and skills 

about training along with the teachers who are to 

compose the clinical teams. While the question of 

training will be considered again in Chapter 12, it 

can be said now that such training will be mostly a 

bootstrap operation, for there are few experts to 

draw upon. 

Because differentiated staffing is the practice in 

an extremely small number of schools, the mores of 

public school faculties tend to produce negative attitudes accompanied by feelings of jealousy toward 

teachers whose assignments are different from those 

of other teachers. Clinical teachers are therefore 

likely to encounter coolness if not actual resentment 

because of the special character of their work and 

their rank on the college faculty. There is probably 

no way of avoiding this possibility, but perhaps its 

effects can be alleviated by opening up the ranks of 

clinical teachers to any teacher who satisfies the 

qualifications. If the criteria are stringent and 

rigorously adhered to, as they should be, not everyone will want to become a clinical teacher. Those 

who choose not to do so will at least have had their 

chance, and this fact should help to reduce jealousies and tensions. 

The clinical teacher would of course be given an 

assignment different from that of other teachers. 

They would also hold rank in the school of pedagogy, a recognition that would be contingent on the 

judgment of appropriate faculty committees and 

the dean of the college. All of this is possible only if 

there is adequate financing by the State to compensate teachers for that part of their load assigned to 

the clinical function. The funds thus appropriated 

should be channeled through the budget of the 

school of pedagogy. The salary of clinical teachers, 

however, must be determined jointly by the school 

of pedagogy and the local board of education. 

Other than providing funds to supplement the 

salaries of clinical teachers the State should exercise 

no influence over the program. 

Elements of a Clinical Program 

In order to picture the outlines of a program we 

shall walk a group of trainees from the campus into 

and through the program. Again the experience of 

Teacher Corps is of paramount importance. The 

Corps has developed a concept of a preinduction 

period in which the trainee is given a complete 

overview of the school and the community. We are 

adapting this concept for the program of the training complex. The director of the complex should be 

responsible for organizing the preinduction program, part of which might well be given on the college campus and another part at the laboratory 

itself. The trainees are informed about the different 

kinds of experiences they are expected to undergo, 

together with appropriate instruction about the 

rules and regulations of the schools, their administration, and the board of education. In short, they 

are given a preview of the school system in order to 

set the stage for their more direct socialization when 

they first visit the school as trainees. In addition, 

they should be provided with a preinduction experience to the community—its various power 

groups, its recreational and health facilities, its 

legal and judicial system, the agencies that administer to children and youth including juvenile 

courts, and, in short, to all the social interests, 

organizations, and agencies that in one way or 

another impinge upon the schools, teachers, 

parents, and children. 

The preinduction period should be positive in its 

tone so that the trainees approach the laboratory in 

a positive mood and with sufficient information to 

enable them to cope successfully with the demands 

they will meet. Much of the information necessary 

for their proper functioning can be supplied by 

representatives of the various organizations and 

28 3G 
agencies invited to participate in the program. 

These representatives, however, will need to be informed about the purposes of the preinduction 

program and of its importance in the education of 

school personnel. 

Let us assume that some 30 or 40 trainees will be 

assigned to begin their training in the elementary 

schools. They should probably meet as a group with 

representatives of the training teams, the college 

clinical specialists, and the director of the complex 

for further briefing on their duties and responsibilities and on the kind of activities they will be 

engaging in from time to time. Following this 

meeting they would go to their respective assignments in the schools. There are many details of 

operation that cannot here be imagined, but it 

seems reasonable to suppose that the clinical teams 

would meet with the director of the complex 

periodically to discuss common problems and to 

assess the training activities. 

In addition to engaging in the clinical work, the 

trainees would also be enrolled in seminars or 

courses, conducted by a clinical teacher and a college clinical specialist, and designed to deal with 

generic as well as content-specific problems of classroom instruction. These courses might be in the 

teaching of reading, mathematics, social studies, or 

what not. In some cases, the work may be organized 

with reference to clusters of specific difficulties 

trainees are having. The nature of this concomitant 

work will doubtless vary from college to college and 

from laboratory to laboratory. But the details thus 

far given should serve to indicate the general outlines of a program. 

A similar description could be given for secondary trainees, but since their program would differ 

only in details there is little reason to discuss their 

program. Both elementary and secondary programs will be further described in a later chapter. 

Following the community preinduction period, 

the trainees would begin to become familiar with 

demographic data, social structure, welfare levels, 

occupational structure, and other relevant information. At the same time they would begin their 

laboratory study, coordinated with the seminar, 

and based upon a laboratory guide. The guide 

might call for trainees to help parents work with 

their children; attend meetings of city councils, 

school boara meetings, court trials; work with 

juvenile agencies; become familiar with recreational facilities and health services; and so on. 

Summary 

The picture of a school of pedagogy projected in bold outline is what 

a professional school would conceivably look like if in fact it did exist. It 

recognizes a few compromises with the real world of pedagogical institutions. Yet it is not intended as a mere dream or a transcendent ideal, 

but a realizable picture of pedagogical education. 

It allows time for the prospective teacher to acquire a liberal education and to prepare to enter the schoolroom with the confidence that 

comes from realizing that one knows how to cope with moment to moment events and with the more intricate problems that arise less frequently in the classroom. It provides for the preparation of researchers 

as well as specialized practitioners. And it recognizes that clinical 

facilities are necessary and that they must be provided cooperatively 

with the public schools. 

The details of the picture —the knowledge and its uses, the domains 

of training, and the programs of instruction — must now be painted in. 

We turn to these in subsequent chapters. 

37 29 
Chapter 3. 

1. /innual Announcement, 1889-90. Augusta: 

The Medical College of Georgia; Archives of Records, Office of the Registrar. 

2. Brink, W. G. "Administration of Student Teaching in 

Universities Which Use the Public Schools." Educational 

Administration and SupiTvision. SI: 399-402, 1945. 

3. Blyler, O. M. "Student Teaching in the American Association of Teachers Colleges." Educational Adminislration and Supervision. 33: 75-87. 1947. 

Stiles, L. S. "Student Teaching Opportunities Provided 

by the Universities." £(<uca(iotui/ Research Bulletin. 25: 

67-74, 1946. 

"Supervision of Student Teaching in Universities." 

Education. 67: 8-11, 1946. 

Kaplan, Leonard. "Does Anyone Want Our Student 

Teachers?"youma/o/Teoc/ier Educadon. XXX, No. 5, 

May-June 1979 p. 62. 

38 

30 
Chapter 4 

Preprofessional Education: 

Outlines of a Program 

Total preparation to enter the clasaroom as a 

full-fledged teacher require* completion of two interrelated programs: a preprofeuional and a profeuional program, the latter consisting of a training 

component and a substantive pedagogical component. These componenu will be treated in the next 

chapter. In this chapter, we shall sketch the general 

outlines of a preprofessional curriculum. 

The preprofessional curriculum covers 4 years of 

work leading to the bachelor's degree. It is just as 

important as the professional program to the 

teacher's success. What future teachers learn in this 

first segment of their education and how well they 

learn it will affect their future intellectual development and their success as students of pedagogy and 

as teachers. 

The preparation of teachers in the subject matter 

they are to teach has often been considered unsatisfactory. Much evidence has accumulated in the last 

few years indicating that a considerable number of 

teachers do not know the mathematics they are supposed to teach and there is good reason to .suppose 

that the same deficiencies hold in natural science, 

social science, and language aru. Admittedly, the 

data bearing on this question are spotty and not 

altogether conclusive. Nevertheless, there can be 

little question that the subject matter preparation 

of both elementary and secondary teachers should 

be strengthened. 

Conditions Affecting Academic Preparation 

Academic preparation of teachers must parallel 

the public school curriculum. What one is lo teach 

in the elementary or secondary school must be 

studied at an advanced level in the college or 

university. As we consider what the teacher should 

know, we must keep an eye on the school curriculum and what its content requires of the 

teacher. At the same time, it is necessary to 

recognize that the various academic curriculums of 

the college or university were not designed to 

prepare teachers. Thus the school of pedagogy is 

faced both by the demands of the public schools for 

teachers who are knowledgeable with respect to the 

curriculum and by the task of persuading academic 

departmenu to make curriculum adjustmenu to 

meet the subject matter requirements for successful 

teaching. 

Certain conditions account in large part for the 

lack of adequate subject-matter preparation. We 

have already referred to the effects of time 

restraints at the undergraduate level. Removal of 

professional studies from the undergraduate years 

should alleviate scarcity of time. 

But there are still other restraining conditions. 

The academic departments have typically denied 

requests of the school of pedagogy for suitable 

courses for elementary teachers in the subjects they 

are to teach, often alleging that such courses were 

not of college grade. Nor have they been willing to 

waive the requirement of majors and minors, a requirement that often makes it difficult for elementary teachers to fit needed courses into their programs. 

Furthermore, schools of pedagogy, no less than 

the nonftedagogical schools and departments, have 

been, and continue to be, possessed by the magic of 

the expression "general education." The referent 

even in the most stringent deflnitions is elusive. Its 

meanings are as numerous as the points of view 

regarding what education is all about. To some it 

means dipping into a number of disciplines, tasting 

general courses here and there; to others it means 

pursuing a program in the humanities which 

strangely enough often skirts philosophy, the integrative discipline par excellence. 

As a result of preoccupation with the notion of 

general education, a considerable propK>rtion of the 

prospective teacher's academic program, sometimes amounting to half of the credit hours, has 

51 

3.9 
been distributed over a large number of fields from 

which the student has acquired only very superficial 

knowledge. 

Because of the term's ambiguity and vagueness 

and the tendency of those who use "general education " to stand for a little of this and a little of that, 

the term will not be used to designate any part of 

preprofessional curriculum for school personnel. 

It can hardly be overemphasized that the purpose 

of a preprofessional curriculum in pedagogy is to 

prepare the prospective teacher in the subject matter he or she is required to teach. That is the top 

priority and until it is provided for, there is no room 

for anything else in the program. What is needed is 

preparation in depth, or at least as much depth as 

time permits. 

The preprofessional curriculum for prospective 

secondary teachers, including junior high school, 

will be considerably different from that of elementary teachers. Secondary teachers must be prepared 

in depth in at least two disciplines, for in small 

schools a teacher is likely to be responsible for instruction in two subjects instead of one, as in large 

schools. The elementary teacher, on the other 

hand, is faced with a broad sjjectrum of subjects, 

for the elementary school is seldom departmentalized. However, the subjects of the elementary curriculum are not treated in as much depth as in the 

secondary school. Hence, depth can be somewhat 

sacrificed for breadth in the preparation of the 

elementary teacher. 

The Complementary Component of the 

Preprofessional Curriculum 

for Secondary Teachers 

It goes without saying that the preprofessional 

curriculum of the secondary teacher should consist 

of two components: teaching fields and complementary areas. By the latter we mean subjects that 

reinforce, enrich, and expand one's knowledge of 

his or her teaching field and yet are not part of the 

disciplines that comprise the field. Physics, for example, is part of a teaching field. Philosophy of 

science can enrich and expand one's knowledge of 

physics and other sciences whereas literature is less 

likely to do so. Philosophy of science thus complements a curriculum in science. 

Everyone is possessed in one way or another by 

orientations from which they can escape only under 

strong stimulation and even then for brief episodes. 

and they look at any program with these orientations in their heads. The multiplicity of conflicting 

views makes it unlikely that anyone can suggest a 

program that would be universally acceptable. In 

the final analysis, this means that the conception 

and program for teachers must be hammered out 

by representatives from pedagogy, the public 

schools, and the relevant university disciplines. 

Despite these difficulties and with the knowledge 

that there will be objectiotu raised to any suggestion, 

we shall nevertheless indicate the scope of knowledge from which the program should be formed and 

an outline of its content. Such a view of knowledge 

will sensitize us not only to the range of knowledge 

but also to some of the domains into which it can be 

classified. 

The time when the totality of knowledge could be 

encompassed by a single mind has long since 

passed. Nevertheless, a number of efforts have been 

made in recent years to provide a comprehensive 

map of knowledge. One of the most thorough, and 

for our purposes most useful, is the categorization 

of knowledge by Tykociner.' He classified knowledge into twelve areas, as follows: 

The arts - architecture, choreography, dramatics, 

graphic arts, industrial design, landscaping, literature, music, painting, and sculpture. 

Symbolics of information—linguistics, mathematics, logic, and information theory. 

Physical sciences - physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and mineralogy. 

Biological sciences —botany, zoology, taxonomy, 

morphology, cytology, genetics, physiology. 

Psychological sciences —experimental, developmental, abnormal, and others. 

Sociological sciences —sociology, human ecology, 

demography, social institutions, ethnology. 

Sciences about the past —history of the world at 

large, aggregates of human beings, and of society 

and its culture. 

Life sustaining —agriculture, medicine, technology, and national defense. 

Regulative sciences —jurisprudence, political science, economics, and management as administration. 

Disseminative sciences —education, library science, journalism, and others. 

Zetetic scien'-»s — taxilogy, problematology, general methodology, and others. 

Integrative sciences —philosophy, theologies, and 

others. 

32 40 
Each of these categories is connected to the one 

following it by a hybrid science. For example, the 

physical and biological sciences are related by biochemistry and the social and historical sciences by 

anthropology. 

To select from this array of knowledge what a 

future teacher should study to be able to discuss 

with students, colleagues, and citizens questions of 

personal and intellectual significance, to serve as a 

model of an educated person, and to increase the 

possibility of continued intellectual growth is a task 

almost too much for the mind to fathom. Yet it is 

done over and over again, however crudely, every 

time a student and an advisor design his or her program leading to the bachelor's degree. 

The task is difficult enough in its own right. Yet 

it is made even more complex by the conglomerate 

character of university curriculums. Except for a 

few traditional courses, those comprising the 

university curriculums today were designed to 

satisfy a few steps in a sequence, to introduce new 

knowledge, or to satisfy the interest of an instructor, courses determined by the latter perhaps being 

the most numerous. Consideration is not often 

given to the question of how the courses are to serve 

as an instrument for the intellectual expansion of 

students. 

Moreover, in the loose elective system of today, it 

is easy for a student to receive a bachelor's degree 

with little basic knowledge and no discipline in intellectual skills and without having faced any 

serious intellectual question. Teachers who attain 

only this level of learning are certain to reduce the 

possibility of raising the quality of education in the 

public schools. For this reason, if for no other, the 

preprofessional program must be designed to 

ground the teacher in the rudiments of at least a 

few areas of knowledge. 

Although any set of recommended courses will 

doubtless meet with objections, perhaps it is possible that all can agree on certain general functions 

of knowledge. The functions attributed by 

Tykociner to his areas of knowledge have much to 

commend them. They serve to group the areas and 

these groupings in turn provide a convenient way of 

indicating areas of concentration for both complementary studies and the teaching field. 

TABLE 1 

Functions of the Areas of Knowledge 

AREAS 

1. Arts and symbolics of information 

FUNCTIONS 

To develop systems of symbolic representation of 

perceptions and cognitive activity for communication 

2. Physical, biological, psychological, and social To systematize knowledge of basic facts and their 

sciences relations 

3. Historical, sustaining, regulatory, and dissemi- To systematize knowledge of the past, project fanative sciences ture needs, conduct regulative activities, and communicate information 

4. Zetetic sciences 

5. Integrative sciences 

To promote the gfrowth of all arts and .sciences 

To create an all-embracing synthesis 

41 33 
To be thoroughly educated, to have a renaissance mind, is to have mastered these areas and 

their functions. But this is an achievement beyond 

the grasp of anyone today. So educated persons, 

aside from their field of specialization, must be 

characterized as less than masters of these domains. 

For a secondary teacher, the scope of complementary studies should consist of a 15 semester hour sequence in each of two of these domains or a total of 

30 credit hours, exclusive of area 4 which is more 

suited to students who plan to pursue a research 

career. Even for them, however, work in this area 

should more appropriately be taken at advanced 

levels. Since the social and psychological sciences, 

area 2, are to be included in the prepedagogical 

curriculum, to be discussed in a moment, they 

should likewise be excluded. 

The areas chosen for the complementary component should enrich the student's teaching fields. 

Students who are specializing in the natural 

sciences should concentrate in the symbolics of information and the integrative sciences. For example, in the area of symbolics, science students 

should concentrate upon mathematics, and, in the 

integrative sciences, upon the philosophy of science 

and epistemology. 

Students v/ho are specializing in the social and 

historical sciences should complement their 

teaching fields by work in the integrative sciences 

with special emphasis on the philosophy of the 

.social sciences. In addition, they should take studies 

in the area of symbolics with special emphasis on 

mathematics or linguistics. 

The areas that complement symbolics of information when mathematics is the center of concentration are the integrative and physical sciences. 

Those who are planning to teach English, including literature, as the linguistic component of 

area one, should choose as complementary areas 

the integrative sciences with special emphasis on 

analytic philosophy and the historical sciences. 

These are rough suggestions to illustrate the 

point that the complementary component should 

serve not only to provide a breadth of knowledge 

but also to strengthen the prospective teacher's 

grasp of the disciplines he or she will teach in the 

secondary school. For too long we have allowed 

something called general education, something 

apart from the prospective teacher's field of specialization to comprise a large part of his or her program. The upshot of this has often been that prospective teachers missed the opportunity to understand the various dimensions of their specialty and 

the relations among the disciplines. Consequently, 

teachers are typically unable to grapple with the 

more fundamental problems concerning the relation of their speciplty to the deeper concerns of 

adolescent students about destiny, truth, and life. 

Preparation in the Student's Teaching Field 

The secondary teacher should be prepared in at 

least two disciplines, consisting of approximately 30 

semester hours in each. If the student intends to 

teach the physical sciences, he or she might choose 

to specialize in both physics and chemistry, or the 

biological sciences paired off with one of the 

physical sciences. If the student intends to specialize 

in the social sciences and history, 30 semester hours 

would be chosen from area 2 and 30 from area 3. 

The student preparing to teach English would 

specialize in area 1. Likewise, students looking forward to becoming teachers of foreign languages 

would concentrate in the same area. 

While the high school teacher is not ordinarily 

expected to teach either arithmetic or the language 

arts, nevertheless every secondary teacher should be 

proficient in the rudiments of arithmetic and in 

spelling, grammar, reading, and writing. They 

should be required to take a competence examination over these areas for the purpose of screening 

out those who need remedial work. Justification of 

this requirement is the fact that reasonable correctness in the use of the English language is expected 

of all teachers and the further fact that many 

students now reach high school deficient in the 

basic skills of mathematics and language. A secondary teacher who is unable to help students who are 

thus deficient, but are not serious remedial cases, is 

ill-prepared. 

The specialized program of prospective secondary teachers, like the complementary component, 

will evoke controversy and call out a multiplicity of 

points of view and conceptions of what knowledge is 

needed and how it is to be acquired. In order to 

thrash out these differences of opinion and to arrive 

at the best possible program of preparation in the 

teaching field and to assure that the complementary component reinforces and deepens the prospective teacher's area of specialization, the committee that decides the complementary program 

34 d2 
should also decide the specialized preparation. This 

committee should probably be a continuing committee in order to make adjustments in the program 

as problems arise and further experience indicates 

the need to make adaptations. 

To summarize, the program of students preparing to teach in the conventional disciplines should 

approximate the following work in the teaching 

fields and complementary studies. 

Considerable depth is provided for in at least two 

areas and a greater degree of thoroughness in the 

disciplines of the areas the student chooses as his or 

her teaching fields. Such a program should obviate 

the practice of taking one or two courses in this and 

that discipline, resulting in superficial knowledge 

and no sense of real accomplishment. 

The complementary component is marked by 

some sense of thoroughness in basic concepts and 

principles that illuminate wide domains of experience. The levels of discourse one learns in analytic 

philosophy, the nature of knowing, the nature of 

explanation, the principles of literary criticism, and 

the nature of mathematical knowledge are cases in 

point. To acquire such knowledge is not only to 

study the relevant disciplines but also to go beyond 

beginning courses. What the prospective secondary 

teacher needs is not superficial acquaintance but 

depth. The foregoing program provides some depth 

in at least two of the four recommended areas of 

knowledge in addition to the teaching specialties. 

TABLE 2 

Program for Secondary Teachers 

SUBJECTS 

Natural sciences 

(choice of two) 

— Sequence in physics 

— Sequence in chemistry 

— Sequence in biology 

SEMESTER COMPLEMENTARY 

HOURS STUDIES 

30 Sequence in symbolics 

30 Sequence in integrative sciences 

30 

SEMESTER 

HOURS 

15 

15 

2. Social sciences and history 

— Sequence in economics 

sociology' or anthropology 

— Sequence in history 

30 

30 

Sequence in integrative sciences 15 

Sequence in symbolics 15 

3. English 

— Sequence in symbolics and 

literature as art form 

— Elective sequence 

30 

30 

Sequence in integrative sciences 15 

Sequence in history 15 

4. Mathematics 

— Sequence in mathematics 

— Elective sequence 

30 Sequence in integrative sciences 15 

30 Sequence in logic and language 15 

5. Foreign languages 

— Sequence in one language 

— Sequence in second language 

30 Sequence in symbolics 

30 Elective sequence 

15 

15 

. 

43 

35 
Academic Preparation of Elementary Teachers 

What academic preparation elementary teachers 

should have is a question that has not been studied 

with much care. An early proposal by Bagley set 

forth the notion of professionalized subject matter, 

by which he meant that academic knowledge 

should be presented and studied in such a way as to 

show how it can be adapted and used in actual instruction at the elementary level. This has been accomplished, but the emphasis has tended to be 

more upon the techniques and procedures of teaching than upon study of the content itself. 

Many elementary teachers finish high school with 

only a limited competence in arithmetic and even 

less in algebra and geometry. They complete college 

work with no additional study in mathematics and 

consequently enter the classroom inadequately prepared. This fact has shown up time and time again 

in competence tests of teachers and indirectly in the 

fact that achievement of public school students in 

mathematics is low. The same observation holds for 

the rudimentary elements of the language arts — 

spelling, grammar, and composition. 

The curriculum of the elementary school consists 

of three parts: the content and skills of mathematics 

and language arts; the skills and values of art, 

literature, and music; and the facts, concepts, and 

principles of content subjects —biological, physical, 

and social sciences. Except for art, music, and 

physical education the elementary teacher is 

generally expected to teach all of the subjects of the 

elementary curriculum. 

Considering the breadth of the elementary curriculum, what should be the complementary component of the elementary teacher is a bogus question. To have sufficient knowledge to teach the 

elementary curriculum with enough margin to feel 

comfortable is to have acquired considerable 

knowledge in each of Tykociner's areas except 

zetetics. 

What then should be the subject matter preparation of the elementary teacher? We suggest a program as shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3 

Program for Elementary Teachers 

Area 1. Arts and symbolics of information 

— two courses in art and music 

— sequence of literature including children's literature 

— sequence in English and linguistics 

— sequence in mathematics 

6 semester hours 

12 semester hours 

15 semester hours 

15 semester hours 

Area 2. Physical, biological, psychological, and social sciences 

— sequence in the physical sciences including both physics and chemistry 

— sequence in biological sciences 

21 semester hours 

12 semester hours 

Area 3. Historical, sustaining, regulatory, and disseminative sciences 

— a sequence in history including world and American history 

— a sequence in economics or political science 

15 semester hours 

6 semester hours 

102 semester hours 

36 44 
The elementary teacher, as he or she enters the 

school of pedagogy, would have completed 102 

semester hours of academic work directly related to 

the elementary curriculum, and, as indicated 

below, 18 additional hours of prepedagogical 

studies, or a total of 120 semester hours. 

Institutional committees responsible for designing the program will naturally develop their own 

ideas of how the credit hours should be distributed 

with respect to the areas of knowledge. And they 

may even question the areas, but areas 1, 2, and 3 

certainly parallel most closely the elementary school 

curriculum. Their main effort, however, should be 

to persuade academic departments to offer courses 

designed especially for elementary teachers. 

Prepedagogical Curriculum 

Students intending to enter pedagogy should be 

prepared in a prepedagogical curriculum. All can 

agree that the student preparing to become a 

teacher should be well grounded in the behavioral 

sciences. This agreement rests upon the fact that 

since the teacher is intimately involved with students who vary —physically, mentally, emotionally, 

culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically —they 

consequently should be prepared in human 

development, conceptions of learning, conceptions 

of intelligence and its measurement, and principles 

of sociology and anthropology. 

The large proportion of students who now enter 

the study of pedagogy have practically no academic 

preparation in these areas, and the amount of time 

available for the study of them in their pedagogical 

preparation is almost zero. Some attempt is made 

to provide instruction in them by social foundations 

courses and by elective courses in educational 

sociology and anthropology. Furthermore, pedagogical psychology is often devoted to teaching 

elements of academic psychology that should have 

been acquired before admission to pedagogy. 

In order to rectify this condition and to provide 

an adequate preparation for the study of pedagogy 

we strongly urge the development of a prepedagogical curriculum. This curriculum should consist 

of at least 9 hours of psychology including learning 

and motivation, human development, and intelligence and its measurement. In addition, the program should include 9 hours of work in sociology 

distributed over community sociology, anthropology, and human ecology. This work will free the 

pedagogical school from the necessity of providing 

background for the study of academic pedagogy. 

ElectivL Courses 

There are those who will hold that the program 

suggested in the preceding pages is too rigid and 

that there is no room for the student to elect courses 

to satisfy his or her particular interest. A great deal 

can be said for the claim that students should participate in shaping their own education and that 

they should have extensive leeway to select courses 

that in their view are relevant to their interests and 

their development. 

It should be noted, however, that the principle of 

elective courses has not led over the years to 

stronger preparation of the teacher for classroom 

instruction. It was never intended even by President 

Elliot, the originator of the elective system, that the 

student would simply be free to taste any and every 

subject and gain no depth or discipline in the pursuit of academic knowledge. In a professional field 

where the academic preparation of students is 

closely associated with the work they are to do, as in 

the case of teachers, there is less room for the elective principle to function than in cases where the 

academic preparation is not closely associated with 

occupational responsibilities. It would appear, 

therefore, that elective courses should be strictly 

limited. Perhaps they should be allowed chiefly in 

cases where proficiency in a required course is 

demonstrated, where substitution is an equivalent, 

or where the overlapping of concentration and 

complementary studies occurs. 

.1 ^ 

37 
Summary 

The foregoing programs for prospective secondary and elementary 

teachers represent an attempt to satisfy three objectives: to provide 

depth of learning; to so shape complementary studies as to enrich and 

reinforce the secondary teacher's specialty; and to build the credit hours 

currently assigned to so-called general education into the elementary 

teacher's subject matter preparation. These programs are intended as 

examples and neither as prescriptions nor as imperatives. However, the 

scope of knowledge worked out by Tykociner, we believe, provides a 

most promising framework within which to begin the reconsideration of 

the academic preparation of teachers. 

Chapter 4. 

1. Tykociner, Joseph T. Outline of Zetetics. Philadelphia: 

Dorrance, 1966. 

38 46 
Chapter 5 

Toward a Program of 

Pedagogical Education 

There are two levels of pedagogical education: 

basic preparation in the science and art of 

pedagogy and specialization. It was proposed in 

Chapter 3 that each of these levels be allotted 2 

years of intensive study. The purpose now is to propose a program for each of these levels. 

Faculties of pedagogy are sharply divided on 

many aspects of pedagogical education. It is, therefore, unlikely that any program, however well conceived, will gain the approval of everyone. Nor is it 

likely that anyone can propose a program so optimal that it can, or should be, instituted without 

modification. Whatever its shortcomings, the program we propose is based on the belief that basic 

preparation should be focused on the development 

of scientifically grounded skills, where these are 

known, and that informed judgment should be ex 

ercised in their use. Where such skills have not yei 

been empirically established as reasonably depend 

able, professional wisdom (craft knowledge), rathe 

than personal opinion or doctrines, should prevail 

The character and quality of a program are con 

ditioned by the number and quality of students 

This is home out by the experience of other profes 

sional schools and departments that require clinical 

training. Hence the first and most important question for faculty consideration is that of how many 

students it can train. 

Admission to the School of Pedagogy 

In the last 50 years, a great deal of research has 

been done to test various criteria for admission to 

the study of pedagogy.' One criterion after another 

has been tested only to find that in most instances 

the relationship between teacher-effectiveness variables and the criterion is typically negligible or a 

low positive relationship at best. What all this 

research shows is not clear. It can be argued that 

this lack of relationship is attributable to ineffective 

training programs. If a program makes little difference in the performance of students when they 

enter the classroom as teachers, the criteria of admission may simply be predictors of initial teaching 

ability. 

From the very beginning of pedagogical edacation the policy of colleges and universities has been 

to produce teachers to fill jobs, rather than to produce quality personnel. If there is a demand for 

teachers, hire more instructors to increase teacher 

production. Faculties of pedagogy thus increased in 

size with each new demand for teachers. Big enrollments, big faculties, big production — that is the 

tune to which pedagogical schools have danced 

throughout this century. If schools of pedagogy are 

to continue that dance, it is folly to speak of admission criteria. 

Once a faculty has determined the number of 

students it can properly train, an admission policy 

can be worked out. While it s'lould be based upon 

the best available knowledge, certain general considerations should prevail. Admission to a school of 

pedagogy should be a significant event in the life of 

the student. Entering a school of pedagogy today is 

no more impressive than changing from one department to another. The admission procedure 

should emphasize that the student is entering a profession that profoundly affects the lives of every individual and ultimately the strength and well-being 

of the nation; that it is an occupation to be taken 

seriously and calls not only for the utmost ability >. i 

the individual but also for complete dedication. 

The admission procedure should include a ritual to 

impress upon students that they are asking for a 

chance to serve humankind in the oldest and most 

honorable profession. 

One of the features, revealing the bankruptcy of 

current admission policies, is the typical introductory course to enable the student to decide whether 

he or she wants to pursue a pedagogical career. 

While it is important to know whether a candidate 

for admission has reason to believe that teaching 

would be satisfying, a course for that purpose is 

gratuitous and worthless. While almost all colleges 

require an introductory course to acquaint students 

39 
with schoolwork, still more than a third of the graduates never entered the public school classrooms. 

Certainly a professional school of pedagogy will 

not leave to the applicant the decision to enter. It 

will decide whether or not the applicant is among 

those candidates who show proniise of becoming 

effective, dedicated members of the profession. It is 

folly to devote the time and energy of a pedagogical 

faculty, not to mention clinical teachers in the 

public school, to the education of individuals who 

are not going to teach anyway. 

When students are admitted, and before they 

begin courses, faculty members and public school 

teachers should impress upon all of them the importance of the teacher's work. In addition, the 

various opportunities in education should be explained and the various departments thoroughly 

described by their representatives. 

It should now be clear that there are three purposes of an admission policy: first, to decide the 

number of students a faculty can properly train; 

second, to make sure, at least as sure as possible, 

that those who are admitted and trained shall be 

those who are most likely to enter teaching when 

they graduate and to serve the children and the 

schools with maximum effectiveness; and third, to 

establish a ritual through which students are introduced to the study of pedagogy as an important life 

calling. 

The same is true of other courses. In some of 

these the content is so varied that no text is u.sed, 

leading many students to believe that the instructor 

is more important than the course. Indeed, some 

professors have been known to advise studcncs to 

select instructors rather than courses. The logic of 

this injunction is to substitute a program of persons 

for a program of knowledge and skill. This may be 

justifiable for so-called genc-al education, but for 

professional training it is an admission that anything goes so long as particular instructors go with 

it. 

The basic program should be shaped by a single 

overriding purpose; namely, to prepare prospective 

teachers for work success in the classroom, the 

school, and the community. Every course should be 

scrutinized with respect to its contribution to this 

end. If this were done, a large number of courses 

would be eliminated at the level of basic preparation. Candidate"! for deletion would be introduction 

to education, history of education, philosophy of 

education, social foundations of education, and a 

host of others including courses in learning and 

development provided for in undergraduate study. 

Work in these areas can be offered in programs of 

specialization leading to the doctor's degree. 

Basic Program: First Semester 

Focus of Basic Program 

The first thing to note about programs of pedagogical education today is that they have no focus. 

In some schools of pedagogy the courses number 

almost a thousand. Some of these courses are designed to produce effective teachers and other 

school personnel. But the great preponderance of 

them are offered because they satisfy the interests of 

particular instructors and departments. 

But even though some of the courses were designed to produce effective personnel, in reality 

they have no focus and add up to no particular set 

of competencies. It is true, of course, that at the 

undergraduate level there is a brief sequence of 

courses leading to student teaching, but these 

courses, all too often, are shaped by instructors to 

their own interests. Required courses in pedagogical psychology, for example, often vary from 

section to section, depending upon the particular 

interests and whims of the instructor. 

40 

The first semester should be devoted primarily to 

the mastery of clinical knowledge and skills of 

observation. All can agree that knowledge of the 

characteristics of children and youth, concepts and 

principles of teaching, concepts and principles of 

evaluation, and of the impact of home and community on children and schools are involved in 

school and classroom work. Accordingly, we suggest 

that the first semester should be devoted entirely to 

four courses: exceptionality, pedagogical psychology, measurement and evaluation, and the school 

and community. 

Each of these courses should consist of two components: a formal course and either clinical observation or laboratory work, depending on the content of the formal course. The formal course should 

carry 1 hour of credit for each clock hour of classwork, while the clinical work should require 3 clock 

hours for each credit hour. Although these components must be closely coordinated and integrated 

for instructional purposes, they should be treated 

separately for purposes of evaluation and grading. 

48 
Separation of these components will safeguard the 

integrity of both clinical work and courses, for poor 

clinical performance will not then be compensated 

for by good course work and vice versa. In Table 4 

is a list of courses and the allocation of credit and 

clock hours: 

TABLE 4 

Program of Studies: First Semester 

COURSES 

Elxceptionality 

Clinical Observation and Experience 

Clinical Psychology 

Clinical Observation and Experience 

Measurement and Evaluation 

Evaluation Laboratory 

School and Community 

Field Laboratory 

SEMESTER 

HOURS 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

16 

CLOCK HOURS 

PER WEEK 

2 

6 

2 

6 

2 

6 

2 

6 

32 

The justification of these courses for initial study 

is not far to seek. The concepts and principles pertaining to exceptionality provide a framework within which to understand all children. Much is to be 

said for the claim that normality, whatever it is, is 

best comprehended when viewed in the context of 

the total range of human variability. To understand the mentally retarded, the gifted and the 

talented, the emotionally handicapped, auditory 

and visually disabled, speech and language disabled, socletally neglected, and those with physical 

and specific learning disabilities, is to be well on the 

way to understanding all children and to becoming 

a knowledgeable teacher. 

The course in exceptionality should be systematic, thorough, and accompanied by clinical observation and experience with students who exen^alifv 

the various categories of exceptionality. This means 

that the work in the concepts, principles, and facts 

of exceptionality should be accompanied by a clearly developed plan of clinical work in the training 

laboratory. 

Pedagogical psychology should take full account 

of the fact that the student has already had work in 

behavioral sciences, covering human development 

and learning, and that the groundwork has thus 

been laid for pedagogical psychology to become a 

clinical study. Much of the content now included in 

pedagogical psychology will thus be deleted, at least 

in the basic program. Among the topics eliminated 

will be conceptions of learning and motivation, 

heredity and environment as related to intelligence 

and personality, definition and measurement of intelligence, and personality development. The time 

thus saved will enable instructors to zero in on 

generic concepts and principles underlying the domains of training: observation, diagnosis, planning, management of conduct, grouping, instruction, communication, and evaluation (sec Chapter 

9). Pedagogical psychology will thus come into its 

own as a distinct professional discipline and cease to 

be an adjunct to academic psychology. 

The concepts and principles should be taught 

whenever possible with protocols,' minicourses, and 

such other visual, auditory, and transcribed 

materials as exemplify them behaviorally. Furthermore, planned systematic observation and classroom experiences in the training laboratory should 

parallel the course work, beginning with controlled 

observation in one training domain and proceeding 

to another until the total range of domains is completed. The concomitant work in the laboratory 

t ' 49 

41 
should be planned in cooperation with clinical 

teachers and the work jointly conducted by campus 

instructors and clinical teachers. The utility of 

systematic observation and experience in the laboratory cannot be overemphasized when coordinated 

with course work and closely supervised. 

Measurement and evaluation should be focused 

on the knowledge and skills a teacher can use in the 

classroom and to some extent on the organization 

and interpretation of data bearing on problem 

cases and on the programs and policies of the 

school. This means, among other things, that a 

good part of the work should deal with diagnosis 

and feedback. The prospective teacher must learn 

to use test materials in order to uncover learning 

difficulties and to relate feedback to them, bearing 

in mind that evaluation should be primarily for the 

purpose of helping children to learn and only 

secondarily to ascertain the levels of their achievement. 

The formal course in measurement and evaluation should be accompanied by laboratory experiences in which the trainee would study, under 

supervision, different types of tests, their purposes, 

and their validity and reliability. Furthermore, the 

laboratory should provide practice in the development of tests, in giving tests, and in organizing and 

interpreting the data therefrom. 

Although teachers spend most of their time in the 

school and classroom, their work is nevertheless affected by the home and community. Studies 

abound that indicate the influence of the home 

upon the student, although the effects are not so 

overwhelming as has sometimes been supposed. 

While this influence is good reason for the prospective teacher to study community life, it is only one 

of the reasons for becoming acquainted with community structure and the nature and character of 

home life in the various areas of the community. 

Many children and youth today are disadvantaged 

in various ways and are assisted in their development by all sorts of community agencies and institutions. The requirements of the teacher are such 

that every prospective teacher should study the 

social classes, the welfare levels, the occupational 

structure, the power structure, the recreational resources, the system of juvenile courts, and such 

other community agencies as affect children and 

youth. 

The study of community should take into account the work the students will have already had in 

sociology and anthropology at the baccalaureate 

42 

level and should emphasize clinical experiences. 

This can be accomplished by a parallel laboratory 

in community life to take the student directly into 

the various socioeconomic areas of the community, 

the political and economic power systems, as well as 

the various institutions and agencies that administer to the many needs of youth. Emphasis 

should be placed upon ways of studying the community as well as upon the techniques of observation and the interpretation of firsthand experience. 

To sum up, the first semester is oriented primarily to the study of generic clinical knowledge and to 

the development of skills of observation. It combines formal classwork with an emphasis upon 

observation, using both media and actual situations 

in the school and community. 

Learning the skills of observation, however, 

represents only part of the skills required of a 

teacher. The other part consists of operational skills 

concerned primarily with diagnosis and instruction. 

In addition to generic knowledge and skills, 

teachers must also use content-specific knowledge 

and skills. Besides, they must also understand the 

educational program and how their work fits into 

the total scheme. It is to this that we turn in the second semester's work. This semester will therefore be 

concerned exclusively with the total school program 

from early childhood through the high school and 

with instruction in the various subjects. 

Basic Program: Second Semester 

With the foregoing purpose in view, we propose a 

program of studies as shown in Table 5. 

When we speak of the curriculum we do not refer 

to theories of curriculum development but rather to 

the actual curriculum of the school. It should be 

analyzed in the light of certain concepts and principles. For example, the existing curriculum entails 

two kinds of sequencing: program and instructional. Progfram sequencing is the order in which 

the Wajor components of the curriculum occur 

from year to year. By instructional sequence is 

meant the ordering of the items of content conducive to day-to-day learning. The concepts and principles on which program sequencing is based should 

be thoroughly explored, and the sequencing of instruction should be examined in relation to the content to be taught. Instructional sequencing in arithmetic, for example, is not the same as sequencing in 

literature or history, a difference attributable to 

50 
TABLE 5 

Program of Studies: Second Semester 

COURSES 

Curriculum and Instruction 

Curriculum Laboratory (including initial teaching 

experience) 

SEMESTER 

HOURS 

2 

3 

5 

CLOCK HOURS 

PER WEEK 

2 

9 

11 

Concurrent Specialized Courses—Early Childhood Through Middle School 

Pedagogy of Art and Literature 

Pedagogy of Language Arts 

Pedagogy of Mathematics 

Pedagogy of Reading 

Pedagogy of Science 

Pedagogy of Social Sciences 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

12 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

12 

Concurrent Specialized Courses—Junior and Senior High School 

Pedagogy of Major Subject 

Pedagogy of Minor Subject 

Pedagogy of Secondary Reading 

Electives 

disparities in the language and logic of the disciplines. 

Another theme to be explored is content selection. By what criteria was the subject matter of the 

curriculum selected? These criteria should be expressly formulated and examined by reference to 

what is known about child and adolescent development, learning, and the utility of knowledge. Likewise the principles of content organization should 

be examined with care, not merely in abstraction 

but in reference to the structure of courses of study, 

textbooks, workbooks, and other materials of instruction. 

As a rule, future high school and elementary 

teachers have been separated in their study of the 

curriculum. We suggest that this practice be abandoned. One of the persistent problems of schooling 

has been that of articulating not only the different 

grade levels but also the different segments of the 

school —primary, intermediate, junior high school, 

senior high school, and college. These problems 

can be obviated, at least partly, if the elementary 

2 

2 

2 

6 

12 

2 

2 

2 

6 

12 

and high school teachers are familiar with the entire curriculum from early childhood through the 

high school. For this reason we strongly urge that 

the course in curriculum be required alike of all 

prospective teachers regardless of what they will 

teach. 

Two programs, one for early childhood through 

middle school and one for junior and senior high 

school, would be taken concurrently with the 

general course in curriculum and instruction. Every 

prospective elementary teacher would be required 

to take a 2-hour course in each of the six specialized 

areas of the elementary curriculum in addition to 

the general course consisting of 2 semester hours 

plus the curriculum laboratory of 3 hours. Pedagogy of the different subjects would be integrated 

with work in the curriculum laboratory so that each 

student becomes familiar with instructional and 

learning materials of each area of instruction and 

for each grade level. Furthermore, the materials 

•»nd instructional principles and skills required for 

mainstreaming should be emphasized. 

51 

43 
The same arrangement would hold for students 

preparing to teach in the junior and senior high 

school, although the pedagogy of the subjects for 

each student would be limited to major and minor 

subjects. However, these students would be required to study their teaching fields from the early 

childhood program through the twelfth grade. 

In addition, they would be expected to take a 

course in secondary reading, since many problems 

of learning at the high school level are rooted in the 

inability of students to read in the different fields of 

instruction. 

The curriculum laboratory should provide opportunities for the high school trainee to become 

familiar with such learning materials as textbooks, 

workbooks, and their use. In addition, the trainee 

should become familiar with instructional materials, especially films, video materials, audio materials and such other technical instruments as may 

be conducive to instruction and learning. 

A part of the laboratory time should be set apart 

for all prospective teachers, both elementary and 

high school, to observe classrooms and to engage in 

actual teaching during this semester. Such initial 

teaching will give the students hands-on experience 

with the use of materials as well as provide them 

with a sense of the clinical work to follow. 

Basic Program: Third and Fourth Semesters 

The students now enter the second year of professional study, following a year in which they have 

had an opportunity to acquire basic clinical knowledge, both generic and content specific, together 

with skills of observation and a brief introduction to 

actual teaching. In addition, they have explored 

the community and its agencies and institutions. 

This year is to be devoted to full-time work in a 

training laboratory. How the work is to be organized and conducted can be decided only as plans 

are formulated, revised in the light of experience, 

and tried out and revised again and again until the 

training operation works smoothly and effectively. 

We can do no more here than suggest one possible 

approach. 

Before the students enter the laboratory as 

trainees, they should be thoroughly informed about 

the rules and regulations of the school, the various 

positions and their functions, and their own duties 

and responsibilities as trainees in the system. They 

should clearly understand that they are there to 

44 

learn to teach and not to reform the school or to 

criticize the people with whom they work, for it is 

important that they learn professional conduct as 

well as knowledge and skills. 

Each trainee should begin in some capacity short 

of full classroom responsibility. The trainee may 

serve as a teacher of a small group, as a diagnostician working with one or two children who need 

special help,or as a tutor of one or more exceptional 

children. 

Following this initial period of experience, the 

trainee should begin to be responsible for a larger 

proportion of a teacher's work. If the trainee is a 

prospective elementary teacher, he or she should 

begin to assume responsibility for two or three different subjects and after a brief period of time for 

the entire spectrum of subjects. The progressive increase in the amount of responsibility should reach 

a maximum point by the end of the first half of the 

year. The second half should be devoted to complete responsibility for classwork or as nearly that as 

the training laboratory can allow. 

If the trainee is a prospective high school teacher, 

the same initial period of introduction should be 

followed. By the end of the first half of the year the 

trainee would have had experience in teaching both 

major and minor subjects and in more than one section of each. The second half of the year should be 

devoted to as full a schedule of teaching as the 

training facilities permit. 

It would be desirable were the program to allow 

trainees to acquire experience in more than one 

school. The logistics of this may be difficult to work 

out, but attempts should be made to test its feasibility. It should hardly be necessary to point out 

that all trainees would have experience in working 

with parents, committees of teachers as they plan 

programs as well as day-to-day operations, and in 

such other activities as teachers engage in. 

Concurrently with the teaching experience, each 

trainee should be expected to attend a clinical 

seminar, conducted by a campus instructor and one 

or more clinic teachers, to help the trainee advance 

his or her knowledge and skill. These seminars offer 

opportunities to review videotapes of the trainee's 

performance and to diagnose deficiencies that may 

require more intensive training by such means as 

protocols or microteaching. 

The trainee should have been under review from 

the very beginning of professional study and should 

not be passed from one level of preparation to 

another without satisfactory performance. The 

52 
final evaluation should be made early in the second 

half of the last year to determine deficiencies in 

knowledge and skills so that they can be remedied 

before the end of the year. Inasmuch as the most 

promising candidates for teaching would have been 

admitted to the program, the faculty is obligated to 

use all the means at its disposal to see that the student is successful as a trainee. 

The faculty-student ratio is fundamental to the 

program's effectiveness. Enrollment in formal 

courses can probably run as high as a hundred or 

more students per section without serious impairment of instruction. However, laboratory courses, 

being primarily clinical in nature, should not exceed 10 students per section. This approximates the 

enrollment in other professional schools and 

departments where clinical work emphasizes observation. In any one of the flrst semester basic 

courses, exceptionality for example, a section of 

one hundred students would require 10 clinical sections. 

The second year of the basic program, being 

clinical work where skills of performance are 

primary, would require a ratio of not more than 

one or two trainees jser clinical teaciier. Clinical 

teachers will be drawn from the public school and 

specially prepared to conduct clinical work in both 

classroom and school. In addition, of course, a 

number of campus instructors would be required to 

conduct clinical seminars and to carry on follow-up 

activities. 

FoHow-Up 

Ideally, graduates of the program should serve at 

least a year as an intern under the supervision of 

trained personnel. Whether or not this is realized, 

the school of pedagogy should establish a team of 

campus instructors and clinical teachers to follow 

up each graduate. Voluntary seminars, meeting 

monthly or bimonthly, as the need may indicate, 

should be set up to assist graduates with problems 

of induction and with Jifficulties encountered in instruction and in classroom management and control. 

Programs Leading to the Doctor's Degree 

In chapter 3, two doctoral degrees were proposed: Doctor of Pedagogy, a practitioner's degree: 

and the Doctor of Philosophy, a research degree. 

These degrees call for specialized programs and can 

be discussed here only in general terms. 

Programs leading to the Doctorate in Pedagogy 

should consist of three components: further work in 

academic pedagogy such as the behavioral sciences 

and the social and intellectual background of educational institutions; work in a Held of specialization; and clinical training. 

To suggest courses for a wide diversity of specialized training would be of little, if any, value. But it 

may be appropriate to explore certain areas for 

consideration. 

Because of the tendency of some pedagogical 

leaders as well as citizens to concoct all sorts of innovations for the improvement of schooling, almost 

all of which have been tried at one time or another, 

it is important for those who are preparing to 

become educational leaders to know the history of 

educational thought and practice. It is also useful 

for educational leaders to know some of the history 

of schooling, especially in the last two hundred 

years when the school has been interwoven with certain social and economic developments having profound effects upon today's educational policies and 

programs. There is also justification for the study of 

pedagogical classics in relation to the political and 

social contexts in which they emerged. This should 

enable the student to view the pedagogical thought 

of our own time with much more wisdom and insight than is generally the case. 

The work in the behavioral sciences should emphasize not only the cutting edge of the psychology 

of human development but also that of learning. 

Naturally, the study of these sciences should emphasize the points at which they impinge upon educational thought and practice. 

The sociology and economics of education should 

be considered, especially for students of administration. Perhaps these subjects should be taught in a 

single course because of their close interrelationship. This work should deal not only with the social 

and economic conditions that influence the individual and the school but also with the influence of 

schooling upon society and particularly the utility 

of schooling as it affects certain aspects of society — 

its economic well-being, its political stability, its 

military power, and its influence among nations. In 

addition, it should treat the effect of schooling 

upon the community. We are accustomed to thinking of the advantages of schooling solely in terms of 

53 45 
itulividual brnrfits, hut thr truth is that the advantages of schooling accrue to almost every aspect of 

community life. 

Considering the fact that a great deal of educational knowledge is couched in statistical language, 

anyone preparing to assume a leadership role in 

public education should have command of statistics. This holds also for measurement and evaluation. Individuals who must deal with school problems in a broad sense must be able to organize and 

interpret data bearing upon various practical problems of educational management and finance. 

The language of pedagogy is so entangled with 

everyday language and so fraught with metaphors, 

both dead and living, that every educational leader 

should be introduced to philosophical analysis of 

language after the fashion of the analytic school. 

This should go a long way toward freeing thought 

of the pitfalls of language encountered so constantly in pedagogical discussions and discourse. 

In addition to work in academic pedagogy, the 

student should follow a well-planned program in an 

area of specialization. Among these areas are 

teaching, special education, school psychology, 

pedagogical education, administration, evaluation, 

counseling, and curriculum. Specialization in such 

areas should entail extensive clinical exfierience in 

training laboratories where the clinical instructor 

and a college advisor work together in designing 

and conducting a program of clinical experience. 

The objective is to develop a highly trained practitioner. To this end the student should be evaluated 

at each level of the program and additional instruction given wherever deficiencies are identified. 

The sole objective of a program leading to the 

degree of Doctor of Pedagogy is to develop a competent practitioner. As emphasized in chapter S. it 

is not a research degree and no dissertation or 

paper in lieu thereof should be required. To safeguard the program, however, it is necessary to 

establish a system of evaluation by which to decide 

the competence of the individual as progress in the 

program is made. In all probability it will be 

necessary to build an evaluation package for each 

individual containing records of performance on 

video and audiotapes, records of systematic observation by instructors, the student's written papers 

and examinations, and any other sources of information that may be useful. Thoroughneu and competence should be the criteria. While the program 

covers 2 years of professional study, most itudenti 

will find it necessary to spend 3 years to qualify for 

the degree. 

The program leading to the Doctor of Philosophy 

degree should include fundamental work in the 

various foundation subjects such as psychology, 

mathematics and statistics, and methodology. 

Although fundamental knowledge as well as 

mastery of methods and techniques of research are 

indispensable, they are not sufficient. The research 

student must also work closely with one or more 

professors who are deeply engaged in research, 

rather than working alone on some quasi-problem, 

The present practice of requiring students to do a 

dissertation, often insignificant if not worthless, just 

to complete the requirements for the Doctor of 

Philosophy degree should not be tolerated. The student should have done a significant study for the 

doctor's degree. The research for the doctor's 

degree of all too many faculty members has been of 

low quality and typically of no particular significance. Indeed, it is not unusual today for students 

to be told that they should choose some problem for 

research that can be readily completed. This practice of requiring research for a doctor's degree, 

treating it as something that the student must do 

just as he or she is required to pass courses and do 

term papers, tends to depreciate not only the quality of research but also the student's confidence in, 

and respect for, research itself. 

In view of what has just been said, it is not too 

much to add that no school should offer a doctoral 

program unless it already has a basic prog^ram and 

then only if it has sufficient staff to do so. Considering the requirements of the basic program, it seems 

obvious that only a few schools should offer work 

leading to the professional degree of Doctor of 

Pedagogy. The research program leading to the 

Doctor of Philosophy degree should be limited to 

those schools that have a basic program and enough 

professors actively engaged in research to provide 

not only technical courses but also apprentice experience with research professors who are conducting studies. 

46 51 
Summary 

In this chapter we discussed the bare outlines of a basic program of 

pedagogical preparation and doctoral programs only in the most 

general terms. But the argument should be clear enough to indicate 

that the basic purposes of a professional program are, and should be, to 

see that prospective teachers master clinical pedagogical knowledge, 

both generic and specific; to discipline them in observational skills; and 

to see that they master the basic skills of planning, diagnosing, feedback, reinforcement, management of instruction and learning, evaluation, and communicating with students, peers, and parents. The doctoral program for the practitioner extends the basic program into areas 

of specialization where academic pedagogical knowledge as well as 

clinical knowledge is emphasized together with specialized skills. The 

research program does not prepare the student to train school personnel, but to do research, to train researchers, and to give instruction in 

academic pedagogical subjects. 

Chapter 5. 

1. Schalock, Del. "Research on Teacher Selection." In D. C. 

Berliner (ed.) Annual Review of Research in Education, 

Vol. VII. In press. 

2. The Protocol Materials Program began in the summer of 

1970 under the direction of B. Othanel Smith with the 

support of the Bureau of Educational Personnel Development of the U. S. Office of Education. Protocol materials 

are reproductions of behavior that exemplify educational 

concepts, and they are used to help teachers learn to 

analyze and classify behavior. The first year 11 protocol 

project directors were selected across the Nation to receive 

training in the dcelopment and use of protocol materials 

for teacher training. The number of protocol projects 

funded annually varied from 11 to 17. During the 5 years 

the program was funded (July 1970 to June 1975), approximately 140 packages of empirically based materials were 

produced under specifled criteria, field tested, and disseminated. 

5.5 47 
PART TWO 

Pedagogical Knowledge 

• How fares pedagogical knowledge? Is what there is of it 

good? Is there plenty of it such as it is? 

• What is pedagogical knowledge? What are its types, how 

does it differ from skill, and how can it be used in pedagogical education? 

• Academic pedagogical knowledge. Is it theoretical? For 

what can it be used? 

• What is teaching and how can it be analyzed for purposes 

of training? 

• The need to assemble and organize generic clinical 

knowledge for skill development and a way to do it. 

• Content-specific knowledge for skill development in relation to domains of teaching. 

48 56 
Chapter 6 

Attitudes Toward Pedagogical Knowledge 

Pedagogical practice has made sig^nificant progress in this century largely because of the rise and 

growth of research. Despite this fact negative attitudes toward pedagogical knowledge are widespread. As we reconsider pedagogical education in 

the broad scope we are immediately confronted by 

the claim that there is no adequate knowledge base 

for such a program. Elxamination of this alleged 

poverty is the subject of this chapter. 

Sources of Pedagogical Knowledge 

Pedagogical knowledge is derived from two 

sources: research and clinical experience. Research, as the source of pedagogical knowledge, is 

just over 75 years old if the work of Joseph M. Rice 

is taken as the beginning. During this time an enormous amount of research has been published. 

Monroe estimated in 1937 that some 50,000 studies 

had been made.' The number of studies since that 

time has probably tripled so that today we may 

assume that approximately 150,000 studies have 

been published. 

If we use as a criterion of worth that a study is 

referred to 10 years after its publication, we estimate that approximately 10 percent of pedagogical 

research persists through any given decade. The 

survival rate over a period of 75 years would be considerably less, perhaps less than 3 percent. Even 

then the residue of important studies would be 

significant. 

Not all of these studies have been in pedagogy 

per se. Many have dealt with problems in such areas 

as administration and supervision, test development, retardation and dropout rates, teacher 

tenure and salaries, social class origins of teachers, 

social class and student achievement and equality 

of treatment. But teaching has had the benefit of a 

large number of studies. Research on teaching has 

focused on at least five areas: a) school and classroom environment — buildings and facilities, class 

size, social and emotional climate; b) characteristics of teachers—educational level, college grades, 

intelligence, personality; c) generic teaching 

behavior—questioning, reinforcing, planning, 

managing student disruption, grouping, and managing materials and instruction; d) teaching behavior as conditioned by subjects of instruction —reading, science, mathematics, and so on; e) exceptionality and how to diagnose and treat it. 

Pedagogical knowledge is also derived from 

clinical experience. The individual case is observed, 

analyzed, and a decision made as to what to do to 

help the individual. The teacher then tries out his 

or her hunch and if it works, the hunch is used 

again in similar circumstances. The same procedure applies to a group. If the group as a whole is 

having difficulties that appear to be similar, the 

teacher may observe the group and decide whether 

or not a particular form of help should be given. If 

it works, the teacher may use the procedure again. 

In the early stages of the development of any 

helping profession, most of the knowledge is derived from the experience of the practitioners. This 

has been true in all professions—agriculture, medicine, nursing, law, and others. The history of medicine, for example, is replete with modes of diagnosing and treating illness, some of which have 

withstood the test of time. 

Teaching is no exception. Over a long period of 

time teachers learned from observation of individual cases and groups that certain ways of 

behaving were more effective than others. Somewhere in the past of pedagogical practices, so far 

back that their origfins have been lost, teachers 

learned that it was more effective to begin with concrete rather than abstract objects, to begin with the 

simple rather than the complex, and that rewards 

and the fear of punishment could be inducements 

to learning. Thus over the centuries what is now 

referred to as the wisdom of the profession or craft 

knowledge gradually emerged and continues to 

grow as teachers learn new things from their experience. 

57 

49 
Craft knowledge consists of distillations from 

decades, if not centuries, of experience passed on 

from teacher to teacher through conversation and 

the printed page. An example of such knowledge, 

passed on to one of the authors by an older teacher, 

concerns the way to approach an irate student or 

parent. Induce the person to sit down with you, the 

teacher said, for in that posture anger tends to 

diminish and the person becomes more reasonable. 

Such knowledge consists of what teachers are aware 

of and (from experience) know will work. Unfortunately it has not been assembled and organized. 

As a profession matures and its research base becomes more and more highly developed, more and 

more knowledge tends to come from researchers 

and less from practitioners. This is just as true for 

pedagogy as it is for other empirical professions. 

Today, the primary source of knowledge comes 

from researchers who are studying the problems of 

teaching in the various disciplines and also in the 

more general problems of student management and 

generic teaching operations. This is not to say that 

knowledge no longer comes from practitioners, but 

rather that the proportion of knowledge contributed by the practitioner today is relatively small 

compared to that contributed by researchers. 

Another source of pedagogical knowledge is the 

clinical experience of counselors. Much has been 

learned from counseling experience about how to 

listen, how to recognize one's own reactions, how to 

understand the other person, and how to respond 

effectively. Out of this experience can be formulated a few rules of communication. For example, as a general rule, it is more conducive to 

smooth personal relationships in the classroom to 

answer a student's request to do something, noi at 

the moment appropriate, by a qualified "yes" than 

by a "no." A student says, "May I show John how to 

work this puzzle?" If the time and conditions are 

not appropriate, it would likely be more effective 

for the teacher to say, "Yes, as soon as we finish our 

work" rather than "No." 

Criticisms of Pedagogical Knowledge 

Despite the advances of research, especially in 

the last 3 decades, some practitioners, pedagogical 

educators, and researchers are skeptical of pedagogical knowledge, questioning it on various 

counts. Attitudes toward the subject matter of 

pedagogy may be expressed in the following ways: 

— The knowledge is not dependable because research methodology is flawed. 

— There are no general empirical principles and 

no cause-effect relationships. 

— Empirical principles of teaching behavior are 

not useful because of the extreme variation of 

circumstances in which they must be applied. 

— Most of our knowledge consists of the effect of 

single variables which account for minuscule 

increments of learning. 

Are Research Findings Dependable? 

From time to time, some researchers have become skeptical of their work. Perhaps one of the 

earliest skeptics was Stephens, who published his 

critical review of educational research some 50 

years ago under the title The Influence of the 

School on the Indiindual.^ This review covered 

almost every aspect of pedagogical research — 

methods, class size, teacher behavior, and so on — 

and concluded that the primary, if not the sole, 

variables that made any difference in student 

achievement were reward and punishment. He 

returned to this thesis about 2 decades later and 

reached about the same conclusion from an analysis 

of research studies on methods, team teaching, programmed instruction, and a host of other variables.' 

Recently a number of voices have been added to 

that of Stephens. After reviewing a number of critiques of educational research, Doyle concluded 

that there are few consistent results from studies of 

teacher variables and student outcomes.* Similar 

claims have "been made by Shavelson and 

Dempsey.' 

In addition to these claims, it is charged that 

process-product studies are flawed. A recent claim 

of this kind is that of Heath and Nielson, who criticized teacher effectiveness studies for failing to 

assign pupils randomly to treatments and for failing 

to show that the assumptions of various statistical 

operations were satisfied.' 

Gage has recently reviewed the technical criticisms of research and the work of those who have 

defended research against its critics.' He calls attention to a study by Glass who compared poorly 

designed and well-designed studies with respect to 

results. Gage then goes on to say that "Glass's own 

50 58 
[ 

impression is that the difference in results between 

well-designed and poorly desigpned experiments is 

'so small that to integrate research results by 

eliminating the poorly done studies is to discard a 

vast amount of important data.' " Gage also points 

to others who have made similar studies and 

reached the same conclusion. He concludes from 

his review of the pro and con critics, and of the 

research itself, that "we do have some relationships 

between teacher behavior and pupil achievement 

and attitudes on which a scientific basis for the art 

of teaching may be erected."' 

After making one of the most, if not the most, 

rigorous reviews of process-product research on 

teacher effectiveness to be found in pedagogical 

literature. Medley gave his own interpretation of 

what we know from this research, admonished us 

against interpreting the findings to suit our own 

ends, and then warned against the doctrine of 

waiting for definitive results before doing anything: 

This is a strategy that appeals to some because it sounds very logical. The argfument 

seems to be that if you don't do anything, you 

can't do any harm. Since we do not yet have a 

full and complete understanding of the dynamics of effective teaching, we are expected 

to ignore the imperfect knowledge that we do 

possess and do nothing that requires such 

knowledge. 

How fortunate it is for the human race that 

at least some of our ancestors did not subscribe 

to this position. If Columbus had waited until 

he had a complete and accurate ma p of the 

world before setting sail, his little fleet would 

still be sitting in Genoa. 

Very few decisions worth making can be put 

off until there is adequate information to base 

them on. In medicine —and poker, most actions 

must be taken, most decisions made, on insufficient data. Patients die, and money is lost, 

because action is taken when data are inadequate—but more patients and more money 

would be lost if no action were taken at all. 

So too, educators must make decisions everyday, regardless of the availability of hard evidence on which to base them. With this need 

in mind, we have proceeded. 

We believe that after reading this report and 

studying the findings presented, the reader will 

agree that no serious student of teaching can 

afford to be ignorant of the findings produced 

by research in teacher effectiveness.' 

We subscribe to this view. Throughout the next five 

chapters we not only have discussed the forms of this 

knowledge and its utility in pedagogical education 

but also have emphasized the need to assemble what 

we know from research, process-product studies as 

well as other types, and how to relate it to program 

development, policymaking, and pedagogfical training. 

Are There Empirical Principles? 

Those who hold that the knowledge base of pedagogical education is inadequate, if not entirely 

lacking, offer as evidence of their claim that no 

principles of teaching have been empirically confirmed. If it is meant that there are no teacher 

behaviors uniformly followed by specified student 

behaviors or achievement under the same conditions, much can be said for the claim. Neither the 

school nor the classroom is a closed system. Outside 

factors influence the classroom, and these factors 

apparently cannot be entirely controlled. Prediction of the state of the system at time <' from the 

state of the system at t is unlikely. Hence, it is risky 

to speak of empirical laws, in the classic sense, as 

pedagogical content. 

Another claim that the knowledge ba.se of pedagogical education is insufficient rests on the belief 

that causal connections between teacher behavior 

and student learning have not been established. 

Some authorities hold that only when we have 

causal knowledge can an optimum program of 

pedagogical education be developed. Waiving the 

question of what is meant by causation, all can 

agree that knowledge of causes is advantageous. 

With such knowledge, it is possible to contrive ways 

to remove the cause and thus to prevent unwanted 

outcomes. It also facilitates the production of 

desired results, for if we know the causal conditions 

it is possible to devise treatments for dealing with 

them. 

Nevertheless, a profession does not depend upon 

causal knowledge. It is well-known that means-ends 

relationships are established in many areas of 

endeavor without knowledge of causes. Striking instances are found in medicine and agriculture. 

Quinine, an effective treatment of malaria, was 

used by American Indians and later by physicians 

for centuries before it was known that malaria was 

caused by sporozoan parasites or why quinine cured 

51 

59 
the disease. Fish were used by the Indians as fertilizer centuries before the chemistry of plant food 

was known. There are many means-ends principles 

in pedagogy. For example, data show a resulting 

high rate of student engagement and achievement 

when teachers spend a high percentage of instructional time in giving corrective feedback, although 

why corrective feedback produces these results is 

unknown. 

Neither the lack of uniform relationships between teacher behavior and achievement variables 

nor ignorance of causes can be taken as evidence 

that pedagogical education is devoid of scientific 

knowledge. Statistically significant correlations between variables of teacher behavior and those of 

student behavior or achievement are well established. In practical terms, these correlations yield 

prescriptions for use in practical settings. For example, if a teacher plies low achieving students with 

low order questions, provides corrective feedback, 

assigns work, and holds the students accountable, 

they will do well on a standard test in the subject. 

This principle yields a prescription: ask low order 

questions, give frequent feedback, make assignments, and hold students accountable. However, as 

in the case of law-like knowledge in all professions, 

certain conditions not usually stated must be present. The ftudcnis must be able to read the text; 

there must be order in the classroom; and there 

must be sn.fficient time as well as other conditions. 

Statements of less than one-to-one correspondence between sets of data are prevalent in all empirical proft'ssions such as agriculture and 

veterinary meaicine. Nevertheless, law-like propositions in these fields are used to increase the yield of 

agricultural products and to safeguard animal life. 

Professional practice requires only probable, not 

exact, knowledge in order to be successful. That 

knowledge is probable and that there is often more 

than one means to an end are reasons why judgment is important to successful practice in any profession. For example, the question of whether to ignore or give attention to a particular classroom 

disruption, or what to do if attention is to be given, 

typically calls for professional judgment. Suppose a 

disruption occurs. The teacher must make a quick 

diagnosis. Which student did it? Are other students 

involved? Is that student normally orderly or one 

who often seeks attention? Is the student one who 

tends toward violence? 

The teacher is often in the position of having less 

than sufficient facts. Yet immediate judgement can52 

not be avoided. In such a situation the teacher will 

assess the circumstances and call upon prior experience and knowledge of reinforcement. Should the 

incident be ignored? Should it be stopped? Should 

the student be counseled by the teacher at a later 

time? There is no ready made formula by which to 

aaswer these questions. The teacher must judge 

among optional means of restoring order and seeking the prevention of future occurrences. 

To sum up, the position that pedagogical 

research is sterile because it has produced no causal 

relations and no empirical laws is without foundation, for neither of these is a necessary condition of 

effective professional practice. What is required is 

not certainty, but correlational knowledge that is 

reasonably dependable. 

Are Variables of Effective Teaching 

Behavior Useful? 

The reduction of principles to prescriptions is 

looked upon with skepticism by some and with outright disapproval by others. No one has stated this 

position more clearly than Fenstermacher in the 

following passage: 

Rules may serve as the means for bridging 

educational research and practice. This happens when the results of research are converted 

to imperatives for teachers to follow. For example, among the findings of phase III of the 

BTES is that "more substantive interaction 

between the student and an instructor is associated with higher percentages of student engagement.". . . Loosely restated in the large 

context of the BTES study, this finding stipulates that a student is more likely to show a gain 

in achievement of a basic skill if the teacher 

maintains a reasonably high level of academically relevant interaction with that student. 

One way for a person engaged in bridging to 

employ this finding is as a rule governing 

teacher practice. A principal, for example, 

might ask the school staff to devote not less 

than half the time available in a given instructional period to teacher led, small group instruction. . . . 

Bridging with rules brings little if any advantage to practitioners. Some of the reasons 

why this is so must await further development 

6(1 
of thi; argument. A few of the reasons are accessible now. In general, rules are based exclusively on the findings of research, and not on 

the research program considered as a whole. 

There are several faults with this exclusive reliance on findings. The first is the great potential for misinterpretation of the findings. Research findings read out of the context of the 

entire research effort may be very misleading. 

Though researchers make careful attempts to 

delimit their findings, there is simply no practical way to attach all the exclusions, exceptions, and "other things being equal," to each 

and every finding. Second, the findings themselves may be unworthy of great confidence, as 

would be the case if they were not highly confirmed by the data, or if they were artifacts of 

the way the data were analyzed, or if they were 

based on an inadequate or unrepresentative 

sample. Third, when findings are converted to 

rules the effect is to generalize the findings to 

everyone subject to the rule and the consequences of compliance to it. In many instances, the research simply will not support 

such pervasive and uncritical generalizations 

of findings. Finally the rule may be an invalid 

interpretation of the findings, as would occur 

if it were shown, in the example above, that 

teacher led, small group instruction did not 

enhance a student's engagement in a task. 

Perhaps the most debilitating aspect of bridging with rules is its effect on the practitioner's 

perception of his or her stature and competence. Persons expected to change their behavior on the basis of rules imposed by others are 

denied a portion of their freedom to think and 

act independently. Certainly we must all tolerate a degree of imposition in order to fare well 

in life. However, if practitioners are to have 

the opportunity to grow as professionals, other 

means of bridging research with practice may 

be far more productive of professionalism than 

the use of rules.'" 

This passage admonishes us on five counts: 

— The practitioner may misinterpret the findings. 

— The research itself may be faulty. 

— The rule may be generalized to cover everyone 

regardless of the limitations of the research. 

— The rule may be an improper interpretation of 

the findings. 

— Rules are an imf>osition upon teachers and thus 

tend to rob them of their status as professionals. 

These are proper warnings and disregard of them 

risks embarrassment and failure. But they do not 

indicate that the reduction of principles to prescriptions is to be avoided. 

Granted that the findings of research are to be 

used within strict limitations, it is not the responsibility of the practitioner to translate findings into 

useful knowledge nor is it an infringement upon 

them to provide rules and the conditions of their 

use. It would be difficult to make a more grievous 

mistake than to insist that practitioners apply the 

findings of research. They have neither the time 

nor the preparation to ferret out the significant 

studies, to evaluate them technically, or to identify, 

and interpret the limiting conditions that methodology imposes upon the use of research findings to 

say nothing of new skills required to apply the findings. 

This is readily admitted by those who place the 

responsibility for using research upon the practitioner. But they hasten to add that this deficiency 

can be remedied by work in research methods 

where practitioners can learn not only the procedures and techniques of research but also how to 

interpret and apply research findings. However, 

more than a course or two in statistics and research 

methods is required to qualify as a consumer of 

research findings, as anyone who has undergone 

such experience can readily attest 

It is a fundamental error to assume that practitioners—administrators, teachers, supervisors, and 

so on —are the avenue through which the findings 

and conclusions of research are to enter directly into practice. No other profession makes such an 

assumption. And, indeed, even in certain areas of 

the pedagogrical profession this assumption is not 

entertained. The research on reading, for example, 

is translated into various types of teaching materials, not by practitioners but by researchers themselves or as advisors to publishers and other producers of instructional materials. 

In all other professions, those who educate the 

practitioner build the findings of research into the 

programs of professional training. They do not expect the practitioners—physicians, farmers, veterinarians, foresters, or whoever — to use research save 

61 

53 
as it is translated into practical materials, procedures, and techniques. If research Hndings and 

conclusions are to make any difference in practice, 

they will do so when incorporated into the professional curriculum for all school personnel. 

The function of a pedagogical faculty is not only 

to conduct research but also to translate research 

findings and conclusions into programs of professional preparation. If pedagogical faculties do not 

make use of the knowledge resulting from research 

to develop a conceptual system for the practitioner 

and skill in performance in accordance with empirical propositions of a condition-consequence 

type, they should not expect the practitioner to 

make use of research findings either. 

The failure of research to make as great an impact upon practice as it might have done is not to 

be attributed so much to lack of research knowledge as the fact that pedagogical faculties largely 

ignore research findings as they train school personnel, especially teachers and administrators. 

When they have made use of research, they have 

done so in courses taught after the fashion of liberal 

arts courses which are largely verbal, inducing no 

operational understanding and no ability to perform in accordance with research knowledge. 

To invade the autonomy of teachers is to treat 

them as less than craftsmen, for not even a craftsman will suffer the effrontery of someone telling 

him how to do his or her work. The charge that 

prescriptions reduce the professional status of a 

teacher would be serious if it were true. It is not the 

prescription but the administrative behavior that 

robs the teacher of his or her autonomy. 

If neither teachers nor administrators are to 

evaluate and interpret research in order to bridge 

the gap between research and practice, who is to do 

it? The answer, as stated above, is that pedagogical 

faculties who educate teachers and train them for 

professional service are responsible for evaluating 

and interpreting research, and for specifying the 

exceptions, exclusions, and alternatives for special 

cases. Principles should be included in programs of 

training, in textbooks, and in handbooks for practitioners and all the qualifications stated therein. 

That little of this is now done by pedagogical faculties only indicates the quality of pedagogical e'?ucation. 

Most of us are unmindful of the extent to which 

our behavior is recjulated by prescriptions. For example, a package of lawn pesticide, recommended 

for use against chinch bugs, crickets, sod worms 

54 

and other pests, carries these instructions on the 

back. "Distribute at 6'/^ setting on spreader. Don't 

use when grass is wet; don't mow for 24 hours after 

application; don't use any other control product for 

a week after application." No research report is 

given to support the prescription or the exclusions, 

although research on these matters is in all probability available. Would a caretaker feel that his 

prerogatives have been abridged? Of course not, for 

his responsibility is to select and use the pesticide 

when he sees evidence of its need. 

But, some will say, a caretaker is not a professional. Then consider the following passage from a 

physician's manual: 

1. Treatment of the acute attack: The drug 

of choice in all types of malaria except drugresistant falciparum malaria is chloroquine. 

The dose is 1 Gm of chloroquine phosphate 

(600 mg base) orally, followed by 500 mg (300 

mg base) in 6 h, and then 500 mg (300 mg 

base)/day for 2 days. The total dose in 2.5 Gm 

(1.5 Gm base). Patients who are comatose or 

vomiting may be given chloroquine hydrochloride 250 to 375 mg (200 to 300 mg base) IM q 6 

h. Oral therapy with chloroquine phosphate 

should be resumed as soon as possible. 

Chloroquine-resistant strains of P. falciparum (any case contracted in Central or South 

America or the Far East may be resistant) 

should be treated with quinine, pyrimethamine, and a sulfonamide, all given concurrently. Quinine sulfate 600 mg t.i.d. is given 

orally for 10 days. If oral therapy is precluded, 

600 mg of quinine dihydrochloride may be diluted in 300 ml saline or glucose and given IV 

over 30 min. The dose may be repeated q 8 h, 

but oral therapy should be restarted as soon as 

possible. In cases with renal failure, the dose is 

limited to 600 mg once/day. Quinine may cause 

tinnitus and, occasionally, drug fever or allergic purpura. Pyrimethamine 25 mg b.i.d. is 

given orally for 2 days. It is a folate antagonist 

and may cause or accentuate anemia. Sulfadiazine 500 mg orally q.i.d. is gfiven for 5 days. " 

The prescription, for acute attacks of malaria, is 

that chloroquine should be given in specified 

amounts and time intervals. There are at least 

seven exceptions, side effects, and alternative treatments suggested. There is no reason to suppose, 

however, that a physician feels that his professional 

62 
[ 

status is reduced when he turns to these practical 

considerations derived from research. 

The view that prescriptions for classroom practice, derived from statistical generalizations, is 

necessarily misleading and that the use of them 

belittles teachers as professionals fails to take intu 

account the nature of principles and how they are 

used in professional training and practice. An effective program of pedagogical education would 

emphasize principles and their grounding in 

research together with exceptions, exclusions, and 

alternatives. It would also emphasize the development of skills indicated by the rules and how to 

identify those conditions in the classroom to which 

exceptions and alternatives apply. 

Recent research is beginning to provide information about the effects of teacher behavior upon different categories of students. For example, evidence 

is increasing that the procedures of teaching effective with low socioeconomic status students are different from those that are effective with students 

of high socioeconomic status. There is every reason 

to believe that as research advances we shall learn 

more and more about how to treat exceptional 

cases within a framework of principles pertaining to 

the general group. 

Is the Effect of the Single Variable Worthwhile? 

The view that pedagogical research is fragmentary and that its findings do not add up to a 

substantial body of knowledge is not unrelated to 

the criticism that the model of the single variable 

does not fit pedagogical phenomena. If one 

variable after another is studied and no way of 

relating them in a pattern of behavior is known, 

naturally the findings of research will make up a 

hodgepodge of unrelated propositions. 

It has been shown time and again that a single 

variable counts for little in the achievement gains of 

students. This fact has been advanced as a fundamental criticism of pedagogical knowledge. But the 

criticism is not as severe as it appears to be for two 

reasons. First, while a single variable may contribute little to the total achievement gains, it may be 

of tremendous value to the teacher in helping a student over the hump at a particular point in the 

teaching process. For example, corrective feedback 

to a student who is unable alone to solve a particular type of problem in arithmetic may count for little in the total picture, but it can make a lot of difference to the student and the teacher at the time. 

Second, in the actual operations of teaching, one 

variable alone is seldom, if ever, used in isolation 

from other skills, but usually in a pattern of teaching beiiavior. Its influence is weighted along with 

the effects of the total pattern. 

Yet it is important to be able to identify a particular variable at a given time and to know something of its effects. Unless teaching behavior is 

analyzed into its elements, it would be almost impossible to identify the points where a trainee needs 

further practice as well as conceptual enlightenment, for teaching behavior taken as a whole is a 

complex of variables and the pedagogical professor 

who cannot analyze it as it occurs in the classroom is 

not likely to be successful in training the prospective 

teacher. 

Alternatives to Research Knowledge 

It is right and proper that researchers be critical 

of their methods and that they weigh the dependability of knowledge by the stringency of the 

evidence. But their zeal for rigor should not be 

taken as evidence that the results of research count 

for naught. Of course, knowledge derived from 

research is to be taken cautiously, but not less so 

than craft knowledge. And either one is preferable, 

even when the evidence favoring them is fragile, to 

fictions and nostrums. 

Knowledge derived from scientific study of pedagogy has been held in ill repute almost from the 

beginning. When Rice reported his investigations 

of the effects of varying time allotments on selling 

achievement to the association of superintendents 

in Indianapolis in 1897, he was met by a storm of 

criticism. The purpose of spelling, so the superintendents proclaimed, was to discipline the mind. 

Rice "erroneously" assumed that the objective was 

to learn to spell. 

In this century there has been an increasing 

tendency among pedagogical leaders, school administrators, and practitioners to prefer fiction and 

nostrums to knowledge. Witness the rise and fall of 

the project method, activity movement, child 

centered school, core curriculum, structure of the 

disciplines, new math, process approach in science 

and social studies, and open education, to mention 

a few of the more conspicuous examples. And now 

faintly appearing on the horizon is the futurist 

6.5 55 
movement, heralding a society in which schools will 

disappear. 

This penchant for fictions and wholesale 

remedies is not restricted to pedagogy. Opium and 

calomel were considered cure-alls by physicians in 

the last century. Bloodletting was endorsed as a 

treatment of pneumonia by William Osier, a 

renowned physician and one of the founders of the 

Johns Hopkins medical school, as late as 1893. " 

Heroic medicine, the use of supposed powerful 

treatments, was not infrequent. The practice is illustrated by the treatment of a parturient patient in 

1887. According to the physician's report to the 

local medical society, he administered the following 

heroic treatment during a 24-hour period: "cupped 

and bled the patient of 80 ounces of blood, dosed 

her with castor oil, gave a purgative enema, and 

vomited her with tartar emetic every two hours." " 

The physician reported that as an outcome of his 

treatment the patient was restored to health in 

about 4 weeks. Practicing physicians and surgeons 

until recently fought almost every advancement in 

scientific medicine — the germ theory of disease, the 

use of antiseptics and anesthetics, to mention only 

some of the major battlegrounds. It took 25 years 

for farmers to accept hybrid seed corn. And courts 

of justice had to rid themselves of the notion of 

witches and racial superiority along with many 

other fictions. As a profession becomes aware of 

and respects its knowledge and techniques, those 

who espouse fictions, wholesale remedies, and Utopian scenarios lose their audience. 

64 

56 
Summary 

The knowledge base of pedagogy is increasing and will continue to do 

so at an accelerating rate if research is adequately supported by State, 

Federal, and private agencies. While research methods and designs will 

continue to evoke controversy as they are perfected, a residue of useful 

information will fall out as th'^y are applied to problems in different 

contexts. 

But it is one thing to do research and quite another thing to exploit 

research findings in the interest of developing ever more effective programs of professional preparation. What is now required is an about 

face for faculties of pedagogjy. They are accustomed to thinking in 

terms of what can be done to improve the schools. And professors of 

pedagogy have been all too ready to have teachers do thus and so, or administrators to introduce this and that remedy. But the time has come 

for improvements to begin at home, for faculties of pedagogy to look at 

their own programs in the light of research knowledge and to create a 

genuine program of professional education. We can no longer enjoy the 

luxury of trying to change everything but our own programs. 

Chapter 6 

1. Monroe. Walter S. "Progress toward a Science of Education." Schooland Society, Vol. 45, pp. 633-639, 1937. See 

also "Evaluation and Interpretation of Educational 

Research." American Educational Research Association, 

Official Report of the 1938 Meeting. Washington: 

American Educational Research Association, pp. 

190194. 

2. Stephens, John M. The Influence of the School on the Individual. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1933. 

3. The Proces' of Schooling: A Psychological Examination. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 

1967. 

4. Doyle, W. "Paradigms for Research on Teacher Effectiveness." In Review of Research in Education, Vol. 5, by 

L. S. Shulman (editor). Itasca. Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 

1978. 

5. Shavelson, R., and N. Dempsey. "Generalizability of 

Measures of Teaching Behavior." Review of Educational 

Research. Vol. 46, pp. 553-611, 1976. 

6. Heath, R. W., and M. A. Nielson. "The Research Basis 

for Performance-Based Teacher Education." Review of 

Educational Research. Vol. 44. pp. 463-483, 1974. 

Gage, N. L. The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. 

New York: The Teachers College Press, 1977. 

Op. cit.. p. 30. 

Medley, Donald M. Teacher Competence and Teacher 

Effectiveness. Washington: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 1977. pp. 3-4. 

Fenstermacher, Gary D. "On Learning to Teach Effectively from Research on Teacher Effectiveness." Newsletter 4. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. Sacramento: Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing. June 1979. 

Berkow, Robert (editor). The Merck Manual of Diagnosis 

and Therapy. Rahway. N, J.: Merck Sharp and Dohme 

Research Laboratories. (Thirteenth Edition). 1977, p. 

161. 

12. Duffy. John. The Healers, A History of American 

Medicine. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979. p. 

233. 

10. 

11. 

13. .. Op. cit., p. 232. 

6c o 

57 
Chapter 7 

Pedagogical Knowledge: 

Its Forms and Uses 

Pedagogical knowledge can be discussed from 

various standpoints: how it is come by, its kinds, 

and its relations to action. In the preceding chapter 

we briefly discussed the sources and status of pedagogical knowledge. In this chapter we shall examine the various forms of knowledge, how academic and clinical knowledge differ, and the relation of clinical knowledge to action. 

Forms of Pedagogical Knowledge 

There are four different forms of pedagogical 

knowledge, as follows: 

— Definition: frustration is an emotional tension 

set up by the blocking of a need, desire, or attempted action. 

— Principle: if a student is prevented from doing 

something in which he or she is deeply interested, he or she will likely exhibit aggressive or 

primitive behavior. 

— Value: frustration is sometimes beneficial. 

— Fact: Mary, a second grader, can recognize less 

than a third of the Dolch basic sight 

vocabulary. 

Definitional Knowledge 

The prime elements of pedagogical content are 

defined and undefined terms. Undefined terms are 

those whose meanings we take for granted. They 

are typically used in defining crucial terms. Starting with the word "frustration" we can get at its 

meaning by reference to words whose meanings are 

derived from other words. The expression "an emotional tension set up by the blocking of a need, 

desire, or attempted action" may be taken as defining "frustration." Now consider the term "tension" 

that is undefined in the expression. To define it we 

may say simply that tension is a state of 

psychological readiness to act. We stop there, for 

"state" is ordinarily not defined in pedagogical discourse. We know its meaning with enough accuracy 

to suit our purpose without further ado. 

Defined terms are our stock in trade. The 

development and use of professional knowledge in 

any field depends upon the development of a body 

of standard definitions. Pedagogy is no exception. 

If fundamental terms such as "learning," "intelligence quotient," "feedback," and "objectives" are 

not used in the same sense, no serious professional 

discussion can be engaged in. Vague or ambiguous 

definitions indicate that our concepts are ill-formed 

and imprecise. 

Professionals who have precise concepts, and use 

the same terms to designate them, can work together with a minimum of misunderstanding and 

with little friction as they try to reach agreements. 

But if their definitions are flawed, or if some of 

them insist upon using private language or meanings that belong to some special orientation, their 

efforts to carry on productive discourse will be 

hampered. 

A definition can be viewed as a rule for using a 

word or expression. Consider the definition of 

"frustration." First of all it is an equation, so to 

speak. The term "frustration" is equal to (has the 

same referent as) the expression "emotional tension 

set up by the blocking of a need, desire, or attempted action." The rule is that wherever "frustration" occurs we can substitute the equivalent expression and vice versa without loss of meaning. 

Substitution of one part of the definition for 

another is clear enough, but what does the definition tell us? For one thing, it tells us that frustration 

belongs to a class of thing's called emotional tension. Perhaps the class includes more than one kind 

of emotional tension. If so, the definition tells us, 

for another thing, how frustration differs from 

other sorts of emotional tensions; it is the kind of 

tension that results from blocking of a need, desire. 

66 59 
or action rather than one that re.sults, for instance, 

from anxiety. We now know in so many words what 

frustration means; we can use the term in a 

dialogue, in discourse, or in reading. 

Suppose we are asked to tell in concrete terms 

how to identify a frustrated person. What can we 

say? From our knowledge of the definition so far we 

can say very little or nothing. To identify a case of 

frustration is to know the observable attributes of 

an emotionally tense person. We can all agree that 

among these attributes are use of vile language, 

anger, temper tantrums, crying, aggressiveness, 

and withdrawal. These are manifested in observable behavior which most individuals can identify 

from their previous experience. Still we do not 

know whether these observable attributes indicate 

frustration, for individuals can cry, use vile 

language, and so on, because of other forms of 

emotional upset such as grief or anguish. However, 

if we know that the person was unable to attain a 

goal when he or she has been repeatedly successful 

before, as failure to score in a game, we can then 

say that this is a case of frustration. From this 

analysis it can be seen that in an empirical field 

such as pedagogy, the referent - some set of objects, 

events, or behaviors - of a technical term must be 

identified in reality. The generalized idea of the set, 

expressed as a definition, is a concept. In short a 

definition is a concept verbally rendered. 

A major flaw of pedagogical thinking is our 

failure to insist on precise and rigorous definitions. 

Pedagogical educators and teachers typically use 

language loosely and often spurn standard terms 

for vague and catchy expressions. The opposite is 

found in other professions where thinking is controlled by standard meanings even when the terms 

are commonsense words. 

Law is a case in point. It depends upon precise 

use of language. Offenses are defined in terms of 

such attributes as motives and types of behavior. 

Some are defined precisely. For example, assault is 

defined so strictly that an attorney knows whether a 

given act is a case of assault or assault and battery. 

Some definitions are open ended; while they are 

rigorous, they are incomplete. Consider the term 

"murder." The act of killing a person is not 

necessarily murder. The task of a jury, among other 

things, is to decide whether or not murder has been 

committed in a given case of killing. The term 

"murder" designates a residual category. A case of 

killing may be judged as murder if it is not known 

that the defendant was insane, acted in selfdefense, killed accidentally, and so on, and if a 

motive for the act is established. The meaning of 

the term is made clear for the most part by the exceptions. 

How the effectivenes.s of a professional depends 

in large part upon the mastery of terms is also illustrated in medicine. Diagnosis in medicine, as in 

any field, proceeds by definitions. Is X's illness a 

case of malaria? If it is, X will suffer from fever, 

chills, a swollen tongue as evidenced by the print of 

teeth on its sides, and other observable symptoms, if 

we go by the medical knowledge of the last century. 

While the diagnosis is made by blood tests today, 

the diagnosis still rests upon a definition in terms of 

the attributes specified for the test. 

The mode of di: gnosis in pedagogy such as telling whether a child is frustrated, or lacks the learning prerequisites to perform a task, wr does not 

comprehend what is read is made by observation of 

moment-to-moment behavior in the classroom and 

by tests, as in reading and mathematics. 

Some critics attribute the lack of discipline in the 

use of language in pedagogical discourse to the fact 

that most information about teaching, derived 

from practical experience, is couched in the vulgar 

language. Whatever the truth of that claim, the 

body of precise terms grows as pedagogical research 

advances. As research terminology is built into 

pedagogical education and the language consequently becomes more precise, exact use of 

language will increase. This consummation will be 

significant, for the applicability of pedagogical 

principles depends upon the rigor of definitions. 

It hardly need be said that to think of definitions 

as being either true or false is unprofitable. Definitions are either fruitful or unfruitful, depending 

upon the inferences they yield. If frustration is 

defined by reference to distinctions among emotional tensions rather than to the presence of some 

sort of evil spirit, it is not because the first is true 

and the other false. The first is preferable, because 

it opens up more effective ways of helping students. 

Uses of Definitions 

Turning now to the uses of definitions, there are 

three to which we wish to give special attention. 

First, since a definition is the verbal counterpart of 

a concept, the definition can be used to test the 

clarity of the concept and the degree to which it is 

the same from one individual to another. To agree 

60 

6 
.ilxitii (he substance oi u defitiilion is to sif(nify that 

ilic (oiKcpt is the same for all parties. 

.Second, (omrnonly defined ctmcepts enable 

members of the profession to know what they are 

working with or talking about. They f^uide observa 

lions; as someone has said, concepts are screens 

ihrough which the world is filtered as it enters our 

senses. We see with our concepts as well as with our 

eyes, for what we observe is dependent upon the 

menial content we bring with us. If a physician, a 

|)sy(lioloxist, a minister, and a teacher observe the 

same group of children, they will report quite different information. Kach will see the children from 

his or her concepts about children and their 

behavior. This is why da.ssroom observation by 

trainees undisci|)lined in concepts is often ineffective and why controlled ob.servation as in protocol' 

materials helps trainees to become disciplined 

observers. It cannot be overemphasized that one of 

the primary characteristics of a highly trained professional in pedagogy, as in all professions, is the 

ability to ob.serve dispassionately in accordance 

with commonly held sets of technical terms. 

Ii must be pointed out. however, that the rclaiij)nship between concepts and observations is not a 

one-way affair. At a fundamental level of research 

.md analysis, observational discriminations can impinge upon our concepts, causing us to reconstruct 

them and sometimes even our most fundamental 

notions of the grounds of our endeavor. Thus on a 

fundamental plane of analysis and observation, a 

plane on which practitioners seldom need to 

operate, the certainty of our concepts at any time is 

a {ielusion. for they are hedged around with unexplored territory. However, that is no reason for 

believing, as some skeptics do, that we should 

define terms as we please and that efforts to maintain a common professional language are misspent. 

Unfortunately, pedagogical concepts are typically taught almost exclusively at the verbal level. 

Their meaning for the student is derived from the 

context of discourse and from the student's ordinary experience. The referents of terms are 

seldom identified, and when they are the identification is likely to be made by verbal rather than concrete examples. If a student asks for an instance of 

frustration, anger over a teacher's failure to return 

examination papers on time may be cited. While 

this verbal instance may be clear, it lacks the reality 

of a classroom incident. How many practitioners, 

or even professors of pedagogy, can identify in the 

classroom instances of feedback, reinforcement, 

motivating behavior, sex discrimination, anxiety, 

advance organi/.ers, or chaining to mention only a 

sprinkling of concepts? And how many of their colleagues would agree with their identifications? If 5 

years experience of .some 17 profes.sors in developing protocols to exemplify concepts by actual 

behavior can be taken as evidence, the number will 

approach zero. Perhaps the failure of teachers to 

use technical terminology, as observed by Jackson,' 

is attributable to the disregard for precise definitions of terms and their referents, a deficiency that 

protocol materials were designed to correct. 

In the third place, definitions are useful in the 

application of principles to teaching. We learn 

from research that children who are persistently ontask are more likely to learn than those who arc intermittently so. But this principle will be of little 

use unless we can tell from observation whether 

students are on-task or not. What does it mean to 

be on-task? If the concept of on-task is taught so 

that we can identify on-task behavior in the classroom, we can apply the principle. Otherwise, the 

principle is of little use. 

Principles 

A principle is a statement of relationships among 

variables. A variable is a measure of concept and 

when the concept is expressed verbally it becomes a 

definition. The relationship between sets of 

variables in a principle is that of condition-consequence. For example, if teachers avoid negative affect when working with students whose socioeconomic status is low, student gain is increased. 

The condition is that the teacher avoid negative affect. The consequence of this condition is that student gain is increased. Now, the condition is made 

up of concepts—avoid, negative affect, and low 

socioeconomic status. The consequence is composed of two concepts —student gain and increase. 

Both sets are expressed in research as variables. 

Now, a principle is not a prescription. It is simply 

a statement of a relationship among two sets of 

variables. Some principles do yield prescriptions 

while others do not. The principle just cited has a 

high prescriptive potential. The prescription is — 

avoid negative affects when teaching low socioeconomic status pupils. A prescription is simply a 

statement of what can be done in a given case. But 

GS 

61 
whether to use this or that prescription is a matter 

of professional judgment. 

Some principles yield no prescriptions and others 

have low prescriptive potential. Consider the 

following principle: If groups have established 

norms, it is extremely difficult for a new leader, 

however capable, to shift the group's activities.' It is 

not easy to read a prescription from this principle. 

Probably the best that one can do is to say that if a 

leader wants to continue the leadership role, he or 

she should not try hard to change the group's activities. But there is no prescriptive potential in this 

principle for one who wishes to change the activities 

of the group. 

Principles are approximations, and their exactness can be increased by analysis of variables. Just 

for illustration let us consider first a principle from 

another field. We take this apparent detour 

because the case is simple, and, because it is in 

physical science, it will enable us to escape the 

engrossing attitudes about the complexities of 

human behavior. After looking at this case we can 

turn to a pedagogical parallel. Consider the statement: Iron rusts when exposed to the elements. 

This principle is known even to common sense. 

What we refer to colloquially as iron usually is in 

fact steel. Now steel consists of iron and carbon, the 

proportions determining the properties of steel. 

Steel can also be mixed with manganese, tungsten, 

chromium, and nickel to produce properties such 

as hardness, resistance to rust, stains, and so on. So 

when we speak of steel it may appear that we are 

talking about a homogeneous substance when in 

fact it is an alloy. 

Now, suppose we look at the pedagogical principle: If a teacher makes clear assignments, makes 

sure that the students understand the assignments 

and how they are to be done, gives corrective feedback and reinforcement, assigns homework, conducts reviews, and holds students responsible, the 

students will do well on tests. We note that a 

number of variables appear in the conditional part 

of the statement: teacher, assignment, student, and 

so forth. It goes without saying that teachers, like 

steel, are not all of a kind. Neither are the students. 

Some teachers are secure and some are not, some 

are better educated than others, some more unsure, 

some tend to individualize and some do not, and 

so on. Students also differ. Some are low achievers, 

some dependent, some high achievers, some independent, and so on. 

In any study of teaching based on a random sample of undifferentiated students and teachers all 

types of both students and teachers will be included. Suppose an experiment is conducted with 

such a sample and that the subject matter of instruction as well as the pattern of instruction are 

held constant according to the principle above. It 

will turn out that some students do well on tests, 

some poorly, and others somewhere between. This 

result is comparable to the physical example. Some 

steel does not rust when exposed to moist air. 

Whether it does or not depends upon its composition. The principle that steel rusts when exposed to 

moist air must therefore be qualified. It all depends 

upon its composition. Some types of steel will rust, 

others will not. This same mode of analysis holds 

for pedagogical knowledge. When the type of 

teacher is known and is matched with the appropriate type of student, as determined by analysis and 

experimentation, the number of students who succeed on tests is likely to increase.* 

Research in pedagogy no less than in other fields 

advances our knowledge by successive approximations. Our knowledge is built step by step, no one of 

which takes us very far, but taken in tandem they 

lead on to more and more knowledge. 

To sum up, if the concepts composing the conditional part of a principle are spelled out in behavioral terms, we can tell from our knowledge of a 

particular case whether the principle applies. If the 

concepts remain undefined, or if they are not 

spelled out in pedagogical settings, the principle 

will be of little or no use to teachers. Neglect of this 

aspect of both correlational and experimental 

knowledge by researchers as well as by instructors 

accounts for much negative reaction to pedagogical 

research. 

Value Knowledge 

Pedagogical discourse constantly resorts to value 

claims. We express value judgments about teachers, 

administrators, students, practices, conduct, programs, and so on. Here are some examples: 

— Miss B is a good teacher. 

—John is a poor student. 

— Mrs. A is a good person but an ineffective 

group leader. 

— This test is unreliable. 

— This is a beautiful school building. 

62 6'J 
— We should involve students in planning what 

they are to do. 

— We ought to abandon that sort of classroom 

control. 

In these examples the value terms are "good," 

"poor," "ineffecive," "unreliable," and "beautiful." 

They are applied to a teacher, a student, a group 

leader, a test, and a building, and are commonly 

used, as in these examples, to rate persons, objects, 

and the like. To say that Ms. Baxter is a good 

teacher is to rate her —she is at the upper end of a 

scale from poor to good. The terms "ought" and 

"should" are indirectly value terms, for they are intended to move us to take certain actions which are 

deemed to be desirable, worthwhile, or beneficial ' 

Values are a special kind of concept and are 

often confused with attitudes to which they are 

related. Values are ratings; attitudes are dispositions to be for, against, or neutral toward something.' If a teacher says "poor old John," she is expressing an attitude, and in no way valuing him. 

But if the teacher says, "John is a good principal," 

she is rating him —attributing value to him as a 

principal. As noted above value statements contain 

two kinds of expression: object terms and value 

terms. In the statement just given, "good" is the 

value term, and "John" designates the value object. 

The value object is that which is rated and the value 

term tells what the rating is. 

Value questions are seldom analyzed in pedagogical education. This is attributable to ;'•.?• failure 

to distinguish values from attitudes and to the Inability of instructors to analyze value language. To define a value term is to state the criteria for using the 

term. If one says that Ms. Baxter is a good teacher, 

the assertion tells us nothing about Ms. Baxter 

unless the criteria for using the term "good" in that 

context is given. "Good" is the most general term of 

commendation in the English language, as someone 

has said. It can be applied to almost any object — 

stones, animals, plants, persons, or what have you. 

But other than the fact that the object is commended, the bald term tells us nothing. Without 

the criteria for using "good" in a particular context, 

its meaning is indefinite. If anyone disagrees that 

Ms. Baxter is a good teacher, we can suggest that 

the criteria have not been given and that each party 

to the dispute is using its own criteria. But if the 

criteria are given and still there is disagreement, we 

can assume that either the criteria or the data 

about Ms. Baxter's teaching behavior are not acceptable to all parties. 

From what has just been said, it should require 

only a bit more discussion to show that values are a 

special kind of concept. To say that Ms. Baxter is a 

good teacher is to say that she is a member of a set 

of teachers that the speaker calls "good." When the 

criteria of that set are given, the teaching behavior 

of Ms. Baxter, or of any other teacher, can be 

observed to decide whether the teacher is or is not a 

member of that set. Value designates a special type 

of concept because the value term evokes differing 

and often conflicting preferences. And efforts to 

allay these preferences in the interest of an optimum set of criteria is the unique problem of value 

analysis in the context of research and practice. 

Some progress has been made toward standardizing the use of value terms. Yet value language in 

pedagogy is far from being an adequate tool. The 

criteria of some value terms are now relatively settled, others are becoming settled, and still others 

are openly controversial. The terms "validity" and 

"unreliability" were once controversial value terms. 

They were loaded with preferential connotations 

and without acceptable criteria for the use of either 

expression. But, in test development, criteria and 

procedures for applying them have now settled the 

use of these terms. 

Effectiveness, as a value term, applied to 

teaching, is becoming technical in the same way. 

When academic learning—in reading, writing, 

arithmetic, science, and so on —is taken as the outcome of teaching, effectiveness can be defined in 

terms of student outcomes associated closely with 

teaching behaviors not only in one school but also 

across schools for all teachers exhibiting those 

behaviors. Teachers whose behavior is comparable 

are members of the set of effective teachers. 

The catch is that some authorities claim that 

academic achievement is not the sole purpose of 

teaching and others that it is not even the primary 

purpose. They will consequently deny the foregoing 

criterion of effectiveness. These objections can be 

answered by showing that certain concomitant learnings—problem solving ability, positive attitudes of 

students toward themselves and the school, interest 

in further learning, and the like —are enhanced 

along with academic achievement. That these concomitants actually occur when teachers are effective is now apparent from recent research.' 

Were the results of research to turn out otherwise, however, teacher effectiveness might then be 

63 

70 
defined by reference to other types of outcomes. In 

that case, there would be a multiplicity of conceptions of effectiveness. If choices must then be made, 

and the profession cannot reconcile its divisions, 

some higher authority such as the State will intervene to say what the public supports its schools to 

do, or the State may allow alternative schools. In 

either case, the ultimate result will be the same, 

assuming that alternative schools are competitive, 

as Adam Smith proposed. From 2 centuries of competitive economic life it is clear that competition 

leads to standardization. 

Perhaps it should be noted in passing that preoccupation of professionals with questions of value 

is indirectly proportional to their knowledge of 

means. This fact is borne out by the history of 

science in general as well as by the history of such 

professions as medicine and agriculture. A great 

deal of controversy about values ultimately boils 

down to questions of means, and as these questions 

become settled the value questions tend to 

evaporate. The weight of values is greater in anticipation than in a. fait accompli. This is not to deny 

that there are genuine questions of value in all intellectual undertakings, nor is it to be interpreted to 

mean that those who raise value questions are simply throwing up smoke screens, although value 

questions have not infrequently served that purpose. 

Factual Knowledge 

The word "fact" is used in a number of ways.' It 

is used synonymously with the word "true." The 

statement "It is a fact that Thomas Jefferson died 

on July 4, 1826" means the same as "It is true that 

Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826." We are not 

concerned with this usage as an element in pedagogical knowledge. 

"Fact" is also used in the same sense as "datum. " 

"John's score on the test is 85" or "Mary was on-task 

20 minutes" are examples. Or again, it is used in an 

interpretive way. We say that John's score places 

him in the upper quartile of his class. But to place 

his score in the upper quartile is to interpret it. We 

have classified his score as a member of a set of 

scores and thereby added further meaning to it. We 

also use "fact" to cover statements of an invariable 

sequence or conjunction of characteristics. "All 

adolescents go through a period of strain and ad64 

justment" is a statement that exemplifies this meaning. When "fact" is used in this sense, it designates 

an instantial generalization similar to the statement 

"All crows are black." 

The importance of facts in pedagogfy, as in other 

fields, is found partly in their use as evidence and 

partly as sheer information relevant to professional 

performance. For instance, to diagnose the learning problems of students is to note facts about the 

types of errors they make. And principles are warranted by the facts adduced to support them. Much 

of the content of special methods courses in reading 

and other subjects consists of information about the 

elements of various processes, the kinds of errors 

children make, and differences among children. 

These are important items of information and are 

nonetheless useful because they are facts. 

Academic and Clinical Knowledge Distinguished 

Pedagogical knowledge consists of two types: 

clinical and academic. Clinical knowledge is that 

which teachers use as they help students, either individually or in groups. It is the verbal counterpart 

of pedagogical behavior, and is expressed as definitions, principles, facts, and values. It is used as 

teachers give instruction in the performance of a 

skill such as giving feedback, asking contrary to fact 

questions, making diagnoses or other judgements. 

Academic pedagogical knowledge consists of the 

definitions, principles, facts, and values that comprise the content of educational history, philosophy, 

sociology, psychology, and so on. It is used mainly 

in developing and justifying educational policies 

and programs. Clinical knowledge, on the other 

hand, is closely associated with classroom performance and with performance on other clinical tasks 

such as counseling. 

Admittedly this distinction is not clear-cut. Pedagogical practices are often illuminated by flashes of 

insight from academic ideas, and experiences from 

actual performance often enrich abstract notions 

about learning and development as well as programs of instruction. But if the line is not too finely 

drawn, it roughly separates what is loosely, if not 

erroneously, referred to as theory and practice. 

Academic and clinical knowledge are further 

distinguished in two ways: first, by the content of 

the forms of knowledge; and, second, by differences 

in prescriptive potential. Generally speaking, con71 
cepts in clinical knowledge are teacher-behavior 

variables and student-behavior variables. In contrast, concepts in academic knowledge are social, 

economic, psychological, and institutional variables and variables having to do with their effects 

upon children and youth, teachers, and the school. 

These differences in conceptual content are 

manifested in the following principles: 

— Lower class boys who go to college are more 

likely than others to have parents who are 

dissatisfied with their own class position. 

— If teachers structure lessons and give directions 

on task procedures, students experience high 

success rates with learning. 

The first principle gives no information as to 

what to do, as far as the school is concerned, to increase the number of lower class boys at higher institutions. We can infer from the proposition that 

one way to increase the number of lower class boys 

in college would be to increase the number of 

pirents who are dissatisfied with their social position. To this extent, the principle can be said to 

have a prescriptive potential, but its significance for 

action is feeble. Most principles in academic pedagogical knowledge either have a low potential, as in 

this case, or none at all. They describe a state of affairs, typically static, and its consequence. However, they can be very significant in the shaping of 

programs, policies, and decisions. 

The second principle represents clinical pedagogical knowledge. It has a high prescriptive capacity. It tells us what a teacher is to do if the teacher 

wishes students to experience high success rates. 

Clinical principles are typically those whose 

prescriptive potential is high. 

It can readily be seen from the foregoing analysis 

that the content of clinical principles differs markedly from the content of academic principles. It pertains to dynamic variables, variables that can be manipulated and controlled in order to help students 

achieve specifiable outcomes. It embraces both diagnosis and prescription and is involved, as will be 

seen in Chapters 10 and 11, in all domains of pedagogical training. The content of academic principles, on the other hand, typically consists of static 

variables such as social class, welfare level, peer 

group, and social mobility, which are least amenable to deliberate manipulation and control. Academic principles indicate relationships to be taken 

into account as clinical knowledge is used and as 

programs and policies are made. 

While academic pedagogical knowledge is drawn 

in part from sociology and economics and from the 

psychology of human development, intelligence, 

and learning, it is worthy of note that pedagogical 

psychology is in a state of fiux.' Only recently it 

consisted largely of a study of concepts and principles of learning and development without providing treatments, except in the very broadest 

terms, and of how these could be used by teachers 

in the classroom. In the last two decades, however, 

pedagogical psychology has become ever more like 

a technological study whose content consists largely 

of prescriptive principles. This trend is obvious 

from a casual examination of textbooks in pedagogical psychology. It is attributable to demands 

for practical measures and to the success of research 

on teacher effectiveness. As psychology becomes 

more and more a study in pedagogical technology, 

it tends to lose its status as an academic pedagogical 

study and to take on more and more the color of a 

clinical subject. Perhaps this is as it should be, and 

there is little reason to believe that this trend will be 

reversed. 

However, there is another part of pedagogical 

psychology which is academic. The study of human 

development in relation to curriculum development, the study of the relation between intelligence 

and the social environment, and countless other 

relations that can be expressed as descriptive 

knowledge are pedagogically significant, and, while 

they yield no prescriptions as to how to do this and 

that as one teaches, they do provide information to 

guide school personnel as they formulate programs 

and policies. 

T h e Uses of Clinical Principles 

Clinical principles constitute a large part of the 

content of a training program. We can learn them 

verbally, and, when so learned, they can be analyzed and discussed, but we may not be able thereby 

to use them in practice. They can also be learned as 

ways of behaving. Both modes of learning are 

necessary in a profession. Just to learn them verbally is to render the principles useless in practice. To 

follow them behaviorally without understanding is 

to use them mindlessly. 

The shortcomings of mere verbal learning where 

performance is required are well known, but the 

disadvantage of performance without conceptual 

65 

72 
understanding requires discussion. If teachers do 

not have command of the principles underlying 

their practice, they are at the mercy of their own 

propensities. Two teachers are discussing misbehavior in their classes. Susan, a fourth grade 

teacher, says that she nips disruption in the bud 

and that it works for her, implying that since this 

remedy works in my class it will work in yours. John, 

another teacher, goes back to his classroom and 

tries out the suggestion but it does not work. What 

can be wrong? This case is like that of two mothers, 

one of whom says my child was sick and I gave it so 

and so and she got well. The second mother tries 

the remedy only to find that her child's illness continues. The inference is that since this remedy 

cured my child, it will cure yours. The mother has 

no way of knowing whether the two children have 

the same disease, for she has no principle specifying 

the conditions to which her treatment is relevant. 

Reasoning from case to case without mediating 

principles is groundless and points up both the 

necessity for teaching principles per se and for using 

them to mediate skillful performance in professional training. 

How do principles function as mediators? If the 

teacher correctly identifies students who cause disruptions and acts to deter them (conditions), there 

will be fewer instances of disruptive behavior (consequence). The task of the teacher is to institute the 

conditions. To do this the teacher does not nip any 

and all disturbances in the bud, but only selected 

ones. A teacher who knows the criteria of disruptions that require attention and develops the ability 

to recognize instances that satisfy the criteria, is 

well on the way to acquiring control of classroom 

conduct. This ability can enable the teacher to nip 

disturbances in the bud successfully. Without it the 

teacher may nip the wrong bud and thereby increase the disruptions. In short, principles provide 

the basis for distinguishing among cases and 

deciding whether the means used in one case are 

likely to work in another. 

A clinical principle, as described above, yields a 

prescription for attaining a specified end. To know 

a principle, however, is not the same as knowing 

how to perform according to the prescription. A 

trainee may be able to recite a principle, write it in 

his or her own words, discuss it and identify the 

referents of its terms and yet be incapable of performing the activities the prescription calls for. 

Suppose that the prescription says: make your 

66 

assignments clear if you want your students to do 

them. Now, a trainee does not know how to make 

clear assignments, if all he or she can do is to recite 

the principle any more than he or she knows how to 

play tennis if only the rules are known. Something 

else is required and that something else is skill. 

What do we mean by "skill"? This is one of the 

most loosely used psychological terms, and we cannot analyze here the vagaries and ambiguities that 

surround its uses. But a few distinctions will help to 

pin down its meaning for the purposes of pedagogical education. 

A child learns the multip'lication tables, not by 

thinking them out or reasoning about them, but by 

sheer repetition. They are rehearsed in memory, 

recited aloud, written out, and so on until the 

various products can be used automatically. As they 

are repeated in various ways the child does not have 

to reflect upon whether he or she is following the 

right procedure or any procedure at all. The tables 

become habitual by repetition so that any element 

can be used at will without either reflection or 

variation. Learnings of this sort are habits and are 

acquired by sheer drill. 

Now, skills are not to be confused with habits. 

Habits, as we have just noted, are identified by 

fixed patterns of behavior. Skills are flexible. A 

teacher is said to be skilled in making assignments if 

the performance varies from one assigfnment to 

another, depending upon the interests and prior 

learning of students, content, time allocation, objectives, and so on. At one time the assignment may 

be written on the blackboard, given orally at 

another, or typed and given out at still another. 

Just as skills are not habits so are they not performance. Skills are dispositions and are manifested in 

performance, but they are dispositions which are 

expressed in a variety of ways. They are acquired 

not by sheer drill, as are habits, but by repetition 

under the critical eye of one who can look objectively at the performance from moment to moment, 

identifying mistakes and providing feedback, encouragement, and other help. Skills are also acquired by practice under the control of selfobservation as well as by the observation of a 

trainer. To practice a skill is to modify one's performance by what is learned from the preceding performance. Learning a skill involves constant use of 

intelligence, and that is how training differs from 

sheer drill. 

/J 
To teach a skill, corrective feedback for instance, how you do it." What we say to the trainee is pedawe must know its various forms and how they are gogical content. When the trainee can give feedexecuted so that if a certain kind of mistake is made back in a variety of ways in response to the situaby a trainee, we can say: "This is what you do and tion, he or she has acquired a skill. 

7-} 67 
Summary 

We have discussed the subject matter of pedagogical education from 

a particular viewpoint. As we think about subject matter, we can consider its components and how to classify and organize them for instruction. Or we can climb up out of and above the subject matter and look 

back at it, noting its elements and their form and utility. We have taken 

the latter perch. We have analyzed the subject matter into its logical 

forms and discussed their usefulness in ftedagogical education, and, in 

addition, identified and distinguished two types of subject matter — 

academic and clinical. In the next chapter we shall continue this 

perspective as we examine the academic subject matter of pedagogy and 

the claim that it is practical in a clinical sense because it is theoretical. 

Then in chapters 10 and 11 we shall turn again to clinical knowledge 

and how it is related to pedagogical training. 

Chapter 7 

1. "Thematic Section on Protocols and Other Training 

Materials." youTTui/ of Teacher Education. Vol. XXV, 

number 4; 1974. pp. 298S4S. 

2. Jackson, P. W. Life in the Classroom. New York: Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston, 1968. 

3. Berelson, Bernard, and Gary A. Steiner, Human 

Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: 

Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. p. 343. 

4. Good, Tom, and T. Beckerman, "An Examination of 

Teachers — Effects on High. Middle, and Low Aptitude 

Students." American Educational Research foumal, 

1978, Vol. 15, pp. 477-482. 

5. Metcalf, Laurence E. (editor). Values Education. 

Washington, D. C.: National Council for Social Studies. 

1971, 

Wilson, John. Language and the Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1956, pp. 65-70; Urmson, 

J. O. "On Grading" in Logic and Language, edited by 

Anthony Flew. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953. 

Roseruhine, Barak. "Content, Time, and Direct Instruction." Peterson, Penelope L., and Herbert J. Walberg, 

(editors). Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and 

Implications. Berkeley: McCutchen, 1979, pp. 28-56. 

Cohen, Morris R., and Ernest Nagel. An Introduction to 

Logic and the Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, 

Brace, 1934. pp. 217-219. 

Berliner, David. "Clinical Studies of Classroom Teaching 

and Learning." Paper presented at the meeting of the 

American Educational Research Association, Toronto, 

Canada, March 1978. 

68 / . J 
Chapter 8 

Academic Pedagogical Knowledge: 

Its Nature and Utility 

As noted in the preceding chapter, the knowledge base of pedagogy consists of those concepts 

and principles which guide and illuminate practice 

and those which provide the overall intellectual 

context within which policies and decisions are 

made. The first of these we call clinical and the second academic pedagogical knowledge. The word 

"academic" was chosen deliberately because this 

knowledge is derived in part from academic 

disciplines and, for the most part, can be taught 

apart from immediate practical operations. 

Academic Pedagogical Studies 

Pedagogy, like other empirical professions, 

depends upon supporting bodies of systematized 

knowledge. For example, engineering draws heavily 

from physics and chemistry; agriculture from 

chemistry and biology; and medicine from 

chemistry and molecular biology. Pedagogy 

depends upon the basic sciences of psychology, 

sociology, anth-opology, history, and philosophy. 

Elements of knowledge about learning and development, the sociologfy and anthropology of the school 

and community, the economics of schooling, and 

about existence, Weltansicht, and knowledge itself 

are all fibers of the intellectual web in which pedagogical issues are discussed, resolved, and the 

resolutions justified. 

These pedagogical studies can be grouped into 

three categories, depending upon the nature of 

their content: empirical and correlational; empirical and noncorrelational; and nonempirical. 

The first consists of pedagogical psychology, 

sociology, anthropology, and economics. Their 

content consists largely of facts, definitions, and the 

correlates of independent variables. For example, 

we learn in educational sociology that on the 

average disruptive behavior of a lower-social-class 

child is more harshly dealt with than that of a child 

of more favored classes. From a study of pedagogical anthropology we learn that the mores of 

minority groups are sometimes at odds with the 

rules and regulations of the school. If one must 

decide in a given situation how to handle a problem 

of conduct, or the reticence of a minority child to 

do something he or she has been asked to do, a wise 

decision is more likely if the ways of the social class 

or the minority group are known. It is the academic 

pedagogical studies that supply the knowledge base 

for such practical judgments. 

Pedagogical history is somewhat different from 

these empirical studies. While history is an empirical discipline it provides no correlational findings, but instead facts about past pedagogical 

undertakings. It tells us not only about the forces 

and influences that have shaped the institution of 

schooling but also about the ideas, the hopes, and 

the struggles of individuals who have devoted themselves to the task of providing education for all the 

children. Its content is largely factual and descriptive, yielding few if any empirical generalizations. 

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a nonempirical 

study. It consists largely of an examination and 

criticism of the mores of society as they affect 

schooling, of the nature and types of knowledge, of 

a broad context of thought within which pedagogical knowledge is viewed and criticized, and of 

skill in the analysis of language and fundamental 

ideas about the human condition. 

It is interesting to note again that in the last century, at the very beginning of pedagogical schools, 

history and philosophy of education were considered of primary importance. They had status 

within the university programs and were the dominant subjects. Clinical knowledge typically constituted methods courses and was not looked upon 

with as much favor, often being taught in institutes 

rather than in the university. Today the order of 

importance is being reversed with more and more 

attention being given to clinical subjects and less 

69 

76 
and less to academic ones. Most of the State and 

federally financed research is committed to the expansion of clinical knowledge. In the light of public 

demand for more effective instruction this emphasis 

upon clinical research is understandable. But in 

terms of long-range development of pedagogy the 

neglect of research in the academic areas is to say 

the least disconcerting. 

Not all of the loss of prestige by academic pedagogical subjects can be attributed to the demand 

for more effective instruction. Most of the loss is attributable to the fact that the usefulness of academic pedagogical knowledge to teachers and other 

school personnel is understood neither by those who 

espouse academic pedagogy nor by those who oppose it. Those who have attempted to justify 

academic pedagogical subjects have done so with 

the general claim that they are theoretical and that 

theory is the most practical form of knowledge. Yet 

the question of what is meant by theory has seldom 

been explored, nor has the bearing of theory upon 

classroom practice been attended to. It is the purpose of this chapter to explore the nature of 

academic pedagogical knowledge and to set forth 

its utility. 

Wha t Is Theory? 

When we speak of theory, just what do we mean? 

This question can be answered by simply providing 

a definition and then showing whether or not academic pedagogical knowledge is in fact theoretical 

as defined. Another approach is to give examples of 

how "theory" is used and from these examples arrive at the nature of theory and its utility. In short, 

we can look to see what is meant by "theory" not only in pedagogical discourse but also in other fields. 

This approach is more desirable than that of simply 

giving a formal definition, for the latter is 

necessarily more arbitrary than definitions derived 

from the use of "theory." 

"Theory" is used in a number of ways; some 

trivial and some significant. The following are four 

trivial uses with which we shall not be concerned: 

1. to refer to abstract and unfamiliar language, 

as when it is said: "Don't give me all that 

theory." 

2. to mention a conjecture, as when we say, "My 

theory is that he didn't study for the examination." 

3. to refer to a plan we have in mind for attaining an objective; for example, a teacher says: 

"My theory is that we can increase student appreciation of art by placing pictures and other 

art objects in the classroom rather than by 

giving courses in art appreciation." 

4. to refer to a verifiable proposition that has not 

yet been tested empirically, as when we speak 

of our hunch that feeblemindedness is premature senility as a theory. 

In addition, there are five usages of varying degrees 

of significance, as follows: 

1. to refer to propositions that explain certain 

phenomena as, for example, those that comprise the theory of light 

2. to refer to a system of ideals and a set of 

hunches for realizing them, as when we speak 

of the humanistic theory of teaching 

3. to refer to an extensive and detailed explication of a concept; for example, Dewey's theory 

of democracy 

4. to refer to a set of principles from which practice is derived; for example, the psycholinguistic theory of reading which embraces a set 

of concepts and principles upon which to 

develop modes of reading instruction 

5. to refer to the codified principles of a 

discipline, as when we speak of chemical 

theorj'. 

Theory as Explanatory 

Workers in almost all scientific disciplines have 

sought to develop theory in the sense of number 1. 

To understand this sophisticated meaning of theory 

is to see that the relation of theory to practice is 

more indirect and tenuous than is generally supposed. 

Let us consider first the Darwinian theory of 

evolution. Darwin had made extensive observations 

of the different species of animals and plants over 

the earth, especially on the voyage of the Beagle. 

He had also noted with equal interest the fossil remains of animals and plants buried in the various 

geological strata, indicating the dynamics of life 

forms throughout eons of time. 

The problem confronted by Darwin was how to 

account for all these different forms of life and the 

emergence of new forms from one geological period 

to another. It occurred to him while reading 

70 77 
Malthus that in the struggle for existence among 

members of a species some are more favored by 

variation than others to cope with changes in the 

environment. This meant that with environmental 

changes some members of a species were lost and 

others survived. Over time the surviving forms 

multiply and establish themselves. Thus the species 

is modified and a new and permanent variety is 

slowly established. Observations about the forms of 

life were explained by changes in circumstances in 

which some variations survived and others did not. 

Thus by variation and natural selection the 

dynamics of forms was explained. 

It should be noted that the utility of the theory of 

evolution was simply to explain a set of conclusions 

that had been reached; namely, that various forms 

of life had existed at different geological periods 

and that in the present period there is also a multiplicity of forms. How these came into existence was 

a question answered by the theory of evolution. The 

practical value of the theory, if it can be said to 

have had any, is simply that it explained how life 

forms had come to be as they are. No use could be 

made of it by turning the theory to an economic advantage in the production of better crops, animal 

forms, or whatever. Yet it has shaped in large 

measure the basic mentality of the Western World 

for the past hundred years. 

The biomedical theory of disease is another interesting explanatory system. The observable symptoms of disease are posture, facial expression, color, 

expressions of pain, physical disability, irritability, 

and general discomfort. These symptoms were 

noted by early man as indications of sickness and in 

extreme cases impending death. Sickness has been 

explained in various ways throughout history. Biomedical theory is the modern. Western explanation.' According to this theory, disease is the 

organic dysfunctioning of the body, and if the 

dysfunctioning is not at the biochemical level the 

term "disease" does not apply. Within the framework of this theory medical science has been able to 

develop a taxonomy of diseases from the findings of 

pathological studies. 

Although the biomedical theory of disease has 

been remarkably successful in alleviating the discomforts of illness and the reduction of death from 

almost all diseases, it has been criticized for its 

failure to explain psychological illness. Defenders of 

the biomedical theory have been quick to point out 

that psychological problems rooted in the dysfunctioning of the nervous system or the biochemical 

system are rightly diseases and can be treated 

ultimately by substantive means. Other problems of 

behavior such as character disorders, dependency 

behavior, social maladaptations, social deviancies, 

and problems of living are pure and simple 

behavioral problems and should be treated by 

psychologists, theologians, and counselors and are 

not within the domain of the science and art of 

medicine. This exclusion of behavioral problems 

from the biomedical theory of disease has been 

countered by arguments seeking to create a biopsychosocial theory that would be more comprehensive.^ The modern theory of disease is therefore 

in a state of flux and is likely to remain that way for 

some time to come. 

We are not concerned here, however, with the 

controversy about the theory of disease, but rather 

with the utility of the theory. It is to be noted that, 

like theory in the foregoing fields, the biomedical 

theory serves to explain phenomena, to make sense 

out of that which is either puzzling or disturbing. It 

explains disease, it does not produce remedies or 

treatments. These are typically developed by clinicians and pharmaceutical scientists who nevertheless approach their task within the framework of the 

biochemical theory. 

Medical scientists have been able to get inside of 

the black box, as it were, and to explain the symptoms of illness in terms of pathological findings. 

Psychologists have attempted to follow the same approach, but have been handicapped by the fact 

that the inside of the black box is not accessible. 

Consequently, the psychologist must hypothesize 

what goes on inside. 

Experimentally, as far as learning is concerned, 

the psychologist attempts to relate responses to environmental factors and conditions under which 

they occur. Thorndike found that as the cat attempted to escape from the puzzle box it finally 

reaches a point, after many trials, at which the correct response is made directly upon being placed 

again in the box. In short, incorrect responses are 

numerically large for the first escape and gradually 

diminish from one escape to another until the 

animal makes the correct response on first trial. 

From these observations he formulated his three 

laws of learning- readiness, exercise, and effect. 

These were empirical laws derived from observation 

of animal behavior. To explain these laws he 

resorted to physiological entities; namely the 

71 

7S 
neurons and synaptic connections. But the explanatory value of these entities was never established. 

Since Thorndike, several learning theorists have 

attempted to account for the learned relationship 

between the response and the environmental situation by reference to some sort of intervening variable; e.g., Tolman's needs and goals and Hull's 

stimulus trace and habit strength. A striking exception is Skinner, who ruled out any attempt to explain learning by reference to what goes on in the 

black box. He did not deny that something goes on, 

but refused to speculate about it. 

Now, we see in the case of psychology the same 

use of theory that was observed in the other fields. 

Theory, in the form of intervening variables, is used 

to explain that which is strange, puzzling, or disturbing. It should be noted, however, that such explanations have not been accorded scientific status. 

But these "theories," even were they established, 

would not provide us with prescriptions for accomplishing given ends. These are developed at a 

much lower level of abstraction and intellectual 

construction. 

Many other theories could be cited from the 

biological sciences, physical sciences, and 

behavioral sciences. But these few casts are typical 

of what would be found were we to recite a more extended list. We can therefore say that a theory, in 

this sophisticated sease, is a set of concepts and 

principles that explains some phenomena and 

which in its most highly developed form, as in 

theoretical physics, enables us to derive propositions testable by observation and in consequence to 

establish unsuspected relationships among observable variables. This form of theory is explanatory, 

not prescriptive. 

What then do pedagogical authorities mean 

when they ask what is the relationship between 

theory and practice? Or when they assert that 

theory is practical? It seems reasonable to assume 

that they are using the term "theory" in a different 

sense from the use of the term in other empirically 

based professions and disciplines. For it is clear 

from the foregoing analysis that theory is not practical in any sense other than that it satisfies our 

desire for explanations and for an intellectual basis 

from which to derive relations among phenomena 

as yet unknown. If there were genuine scientific 

pedagogical theories, and there is none, they would 

yield prescriptions of what to do in neither classroom nor school, but would serve to explain 

specified phenomena. 

Theory as Ideology 

"Theory" in the number 2 sense designates a 

pedagogical ideology, a formula put forth as a 

general remedy for educational ills. An ideology 

consists of a network of loosely defined concepts laced with undefined values, a set of concepts that 

determines social reality for its believers,' concepts 

defined so loosely that failure to achieve their promises can be explained away. Ideology does not 

lend itself to an objective analysis of a situation but 

aims either to justify it or to replace it with a new 

and untried reality. The child-centered movement 

of yesteryears, or open education today, are expressions of a liberal ideology, exposing the assumptions 

and biases of conventional practices rather than 

assessing the pedagogical condition and improving 

it by instituting tested programs and practices. As 

related to practice, an ideology is little more than 

an ill-assorted set of hunches. 

What practitioners object to when they exclaim 

against such theory, e.g., open education or 

psychosocial humanism, is that the ideas threaten 

to destroy the grounds of their activities vouched for 

by their professional experience. So long as ideas 

are perceived as an improvement in their activities, 

or as replacement of them by others compatible 

with their general situation, ideas are not likely to 

be decried as theory. 

In the absence of thorough preparation in 

clinical and academic pedagogy, ideologies move 

into an intellectual vacuum, giving rise to one 

radical innovation after another. These ideologies 

are put forth as if they were valid theories, justified 

by facts, values, impeccable logic, and theories of 

learning and development. Today, as in much of 

the past, pedagogical thought is rife with 

ideologfies. It is easy for the proponents of any 

ideology to claim superiority over the existing state 

of school affairs and to make its case plausible as 

long as no test of its claims is required. 

This is precisely the predicament of the pedagogical profession today. Its intellectual life is 

saturated with struggles among conflicting ideologies, unmindful that in a profession, as in society, 

too many ideologies lead in the end to the denial of 

72 79 
every system of meaning. Partly becau.se of 

ideological conflicts pedagogical faculties arc today 

on the verge of defeatism, consoled in some cases by 

the thought that perhaps a coherent program of 

pedagogical education is undesirable anyway. 

It would be shortsighted to dismiss ideology out 

of hand, for it can be a source of speculative 

thought, enabling the profession to think beyond 

the grounds of its dominant conceptual boundaries. 

All points of view, if coherent, possibly have something to contribute to our understanding of human 

learning and teaching, and each also suffers omissions and thus fails to embrace the totality of pedagogical phenomena. But no point of view, however 

consistent and promising in application, can be 

taken as inherently valid. Its ideas must stand up to 

the rigors of research and be warranted at the level 

of practice, or else treated as mere speculation. Just 

as children should not be subjected to the vagaries of 

individual teachers so should they not be required 

to urdergo unwarranted programs and practices 

emanating from notions that transcend the conventional order. The place of ideologies is not at the 

forefront of pedagogical training and practice but 

rather in the intellectual seedbed of those who are 

working at the cutting edge of pedagogical research, seeking to advance the knowledge base of 

pedagogy. 

Theory as Explication of Concepts 

In some pedagogical studies, particularly philosophy, explication of concepts is considered theory. 

A concept, typically one composed of several subordinate concepts, is analyzed and each component 

is interpreted so extensively as to expand the concept's meaning into a systematic essay. A classic example is G. E. Moore's elaboration of the utilitarian 

theory of ethics in which he answers the question of 

whether there is any general characteristic which all 

right or good actions have in common.* He sets 

forth the concept of voluntary action and then goes 

on to show how pleasure characterizes a given 

voluntary action as right, if and only if no other action the individual could have taker would have 

produced more pleasure under the circumstances. 

A case from pedagogical literature is Dewey's 

theory of democracy as set forth in his Democracy 

and Education.^ With far more care than we can 

give here Dewey elaborates the concept of democracy and the relation it bears to the quality of 

education. He begins with the claim that education 

depends upon the quality of group life. But there 

are all sorts of groups - business, professional, 

family, gang, robbers, or what have you. So what 

kind of group life best fosters education? It is one 

that maximizes both the number and types of 

shared interests and the interchange among groups 

comprising the society. And these, according to 

Dewey, are the earmarks of a democratic community. A gang, for example, minimizes its associations 

with other groups ^nd restricts the sharing of interests within itself. It is hence undemocratic and 

provides an undesirable context for education. A 

classroom optimizes its quality of life and education 

as it provides increasingly for shared experience 

and human associations within and beyond the 

classroom. 

In his elaboration of the concept of democracy 

Dewey tells us only in very general terms how these 

two criteria of democratic life are to be realized in 

the school. Among other things, we are to abandon 

the notion that utilitarian studies are inferior to socalled cultural studies, to develop a curriculum that 

makes thinking its central feature, and to emphasize teaching and learning as inquiry. But just 

how these exhortations are to be implemented is not 

suggested. A teacher who understood Dewey's 

theory of democracy, who clearly recognized what 

it called for, would still not know specifically what 

to do in order to put it into practice. So, what 

Dewey gives us is a rich and insightful explication of 

the concept of democracy that, like other notions of 

theory thus far discussed, is operationally groundless. However, the failure to suggest operations is 

not surprising, for it is not the province of philosophy to provide procedures and techniques for 

putting its theoretical constructions into practice. 

•Yet philosophy can make a significant contribution to the teacher's stock of skills, although this 

fact is seldom recognized. Philosophy is an explicatory study par excellence. There is no other 

pedagogical discipline that depends upon an exhaustive analysis of concepts as its primary intellectual tool.* This analytic tool can be constantly 

useful to the teacher as he or she carries on the process of teaching. It can be said with little risk of embarrassment that skills in explication are as important perhaps as any skill used in classroom performance, especially at the higher levels of instruction. 

But the program of pedagogical education has 

73 

S(i 
given all too little attention to the development of 

these skills. 

Theory as a Body of Prescriptive Principles 

"Theory" is sometimes used to designate a set of 

propositions that tell how to accomplish a particular objective. Usually these are correlational 

principles functionally harmonized to a set of objectives. They tell the consequence of a given way of 

behaving in a particular set of circumstances. For 

example, Morrison's theory of teaching distinguishes three types of learning outcomes —understanding, appreciation, and ability. These give rise 

to different modes of teaching, but certain principles are common to all modes, as follows: 

— Objectives are to be identified as a guide to 

teaching, testing, and learning. 

— The learning cycle of each mode consists of 

stimulus, assimilation, and reaction. 

— All learning begins with unfocused activities 

and the teacher must exercise patience as learning gets underway. 

— Teaching is to be direct as determined by the 

type of objective. Reading, for example, is not 

taught by lecturing but by engaging the student in practice. 

— Learning comes from study —"learning by 

one's own effort." 

— An adequate apperceptive mass must be established: new things are learned by relating them 

to what one already knows.' 

This sketch is not even the bare bones of Morrison's 

theory, which includes a number of other elements 

such as on-task behavior, formula for mastery 

learning and teaching, and control of pupil progress. But this brief sketch, although incomplete, 

gives a rough idea of prescriptive theory. 

Theory in this sense was foreshadowed in the 

preceding chapter where condition-consequence 

principles were discussed as a form of pedagogical 

knowledge. All that is meant by this notion of 

theory is a generalized plan of operation together 

with its conceptual underpinnings. 

Theory as a Body of Descriptive Principles 

Another conception has it that theory consists of 

a body of concepts and principles woven partly 

from the substance of academic disciplines and 

74 

partly from pedagogical research rooted in these 

disciplines. These concepts and principles comprise 

systematized bodies of knowledge referred to as 

educational sociology, anthropology, psychology, 

philosophy, and so on, and are theoretical in the 

sense that, with few exceptions, they are seldom 

related to the classroom work of the teacher. Consider the following statements as empirical principles from educational sociology: 

— "The higher the parents' status, the better the 

child's equipment for retaining his status, but 

the less his chances of improving it (simply because there is nowhere to go from high status 

but down)." 

— "The child's chances for upward mobility are 

directly influenced by his experience within 

the family. For example, the more the child is 

involved with his parents and other adults and 

the less with his peers, the more likely his upward mobility." 

— "Those ethnic groups that value learning, promote early independence of children, and defer gratifications are particularly likely to advance in the class system." 

— "The further lower-class youths go in school, 

the less vocational their training, the more opportunities open to them and the more deliberate and less fortuitous is their choice of a first 

job. " 

— "In broad terms, class continuity is more constant in a society than interclass mobility."' 

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify 

these principles in a program of pedagogical education on the grounds that they are useful in the art of 

teaching. Yet there are good reasons why they 

should be included in any defensible program. 

Are These Types of Theories Useful to 

School Personnel? 

When the claim is made that academic pedagogical knowledge is theoretical and that it is 

thereby practical, which of the foregoing senses of 

theory is meant and in what context and for what 

purpose is it practical? Since explanatory theory is 

seldom found, if ever, in the science of pedagogy, 

there is little likelihood that reference is made to 

this type of theory when academic pedagogy is defended. But even if explanatory theory were intended, the claim would be untenable because, as 

we have amply seen, such theory is useless except to 

SI 
explain some set of phenomena or to predict new 

relationships among phenomena. 

The second use of the term theory, namely, as an 

ideology, i.n apparently not what is meant by theory 

in academic pedagogical studies, for these studie.s, 

with the possible exception of philosophy, do not 

deal with ideologies. However, if this were what was 

meant by theory, the claim of teachers that theory 

is not practical would be easy to defend, for an 

ideology at best is an ill-assorted bundle of hunches 

about what might conceivably be done in the classroom but without any empirical validation of the 

means of achieving its ends. 

With the exception of philosophy, theory as explication can be ruled out of consideration for the 

simple reason that other studies give little or no attention to this view of theory, nor do they engage to 

any significant degree in explication itself. 

It is unlikely that a body of prescriptive principles 

is what is meant by theory in academic pedagogy, 

for such pedagogy does not include prescriptions 

but rather descriptive propositions about how 

things are, verified to some degree and operationally groundless. 

The concepts and principles comprising descriptive knowledge most nearly conforms to the content 

of academic pedagogical studies, save philosophy, 

and is perhaps what is frequently meant by "theory" 

when theory is said to be practical. But, in any 

event, academic pedagogy yields few, if any, rules 

of teaching behavior. 

The Utility of Academic Pedagogical Knowledge 

The upshot of the foregoing discussion of theory 

is that academic pedagogical studies are not practical in the clinical sense. They yield few, if any, 

principles that tell how to attain a given effect. 

Teachers are correct when they assert that what 

they learn in the so-called foundations of education 

is not helpful in managing the classroom and carrying on instructional activities. But this should not 

be taken to mean, as it often has been, that 

academic pedagogy is useless. On the contrary, it 

provides a body of descriptive principles which tell 

how things are, statements describing relationships 

between factors of the environment and the growth 

of children, the impact of the socioeconomic environment upon the school and the teacher's work. 

Let us now face the real question: fi what is the 

content of academic pedagogy to be used? 

Academic pedagogical knowledge functions in at 

least three ways: 

- a s the wellspring of our hunches 

— as the substance out of which policies are 

formed 

— as ingredients entering into and shaping our 

decisions. 

Just as discourse never exhausts its subject matter, so thinking never exhausts its knowledge. There 

is always something left over, unspoken, and 

perhaps unspeakable. This reservoir of hidden intellectual resources g^ves rise to "happy thoughts" 

about what to do, how to handle situations, how to 

solve problems, or whatever. We are not born wich 

these intellectual resources. Th<;y are acquired 

perhaps as by-products of our experiences that sink, 

so to speak, into the deeper layers of the self. From 

this wellspring come our most productive hunches. 

As Dewey said, we do not deliberately bring them 

about; they just happen to us. 

While we have no scientific evidence of how such 

a reservoir of intellectual resources is developed, we 

do know that individuals who have little or no experience in a given area of knowledge are unlikely 

to have fruitful hunches. An extensive literature attests the fact that almost everyone steeped in the 

knowledge of a discipline has had the experience of 

such ideas occurring at off moments after having 

worked intensively at a problem. It seems reasonable to assume that without some sort of intellectual 

resource not immediately expressible these 

moments of illumination would not occur. It must 

be recognized, however, that clinical knowledge 

contributes to this function perhaps no less than 

academic knowledge. 

The other two uses of academic pedagogical 

knowledge are more direct and evident. The classroom is not the sole domain of teachers, for they are 

necessarily caught up in networks of organizations 

and community relationships from which policies 

and actions arise that affect directly themselves, 

students, and school operations. What is true of 

teachers in this regard is no less true of all pedagogical personnel. To take part in efforts of the 

profession to turn these influences in constructive 

directions is the responsibility of teachers as well as 

of administrators and other personnel. If they are 

to understand and influence these social and 

8 

lb 

9 
political forces, the personnel must have command 

of the elements of academic pedagogical studies. 

It is equally important to recognize that teachers 

are also daily involved in the making of decisions 

and from time to time in the formulation of 

policies. Just as it is necessary to have certain 

academic pedagogical knowledge to understand 

and participate in the network of relationships that 

involve the school, so is it equally important that 

the teacher have such knowledge for the purpose of 

engaging in the process of forming policies and 

making decisions. 

Up to this point we have proceeded as if there 

were common understanding about the meaning of 

"policy" and "decision." Since there is probably no 

common understanding of these terms, it is in order 

to briefly indicate their use. By a policy we mean 

rules by which to behave in a set of similar situations.' For example, teachers and school authorities 

are confronted by a variety of instances in which the 

question of whether to promote a child to another 

grade must be considered and answered. To consider each and every case as though it were unique 

would require endless time and energy. To obviate 

this possibility a set of rules is worked out so that to 

promote or not to promote in a given case depends 

upon how it fits the rules. Such a set of rules is a 

policy. 

It is a well-known fact that as institutions become 

more complex it becomes necessary to deal less and 

less with each case as a distinct problem and to depend more and more upon rules that define the actions to be taken in all similar cases. Thus bureaucracies are the mother of policies. The more highly 

organized the school, the more the teacher is involved in the formulation of policies and in the application of them to particular instances. In pedagogical work there are policies about promotions, 

about student conduct, about the uses of the 

library, about participation in athletics, about 

faculty conduct, about bussing, about program requirements, and so on without end. Sometimes 

these policies are crescive, as when they are formed 

bit by bit over time; more often they are deliberately constructed by teachers and other school personnel, by parent-school committees, by professional organizations, by boards of education, and 

by State and Federal governments. 

It should be emphasized again that the use of 

academic pedagogical knowledge, unlike clinical 

knowledge, is not appropriate for the development 

of skills for either classroom or interaction with 

peers and laypersons. Its value lies in the fact that it 

can enhance the chances that wise policies will be 

made about children, educational programs, community relations, evaluation of va lous features of 

the pedagogical enterprise, and so on. School personnel, including teachers, who are uninformed in 

academic pedagogy are simply at a disadvantage 

when they have to deal with the political and social 

issues in which the school is necessarily involved, 

when they must confront pressure groups of one 

kind or another who are either protesting or 

defending a given policy or set of policies, or when 

confronted by the necessity for developing policies 

or programs to alleviate anxieties of various segments of the school community. 

Academic pedagogical knowledge is also useful 

in decisionmaking. But in order to understand the 

function of knowledge in this respect it is necessary 

to clarify what is meant by "decision." A decision 

marks the termination of thought and the point at 

which action may be taken. The need for a decision 

arises out of a situation in which the individual does 

not know what course of action to take. 

There are two kinds of decisions. The first kind is 

comparatively simple and is made by the application of policies to particular cases. If we have a 

school policy with respect to class attendance and a 

student is absent, we know what to do provided we 

know the circumstances and whether those circumstances come within the rules of the policy. If they 

do, a straightforward decision can be made with little or no further consideration. 

However, there are situations for which no 

policies exist. If a teacher, or some other member of 

the school personnel, is confronted by a situation of 

this kind, he. or she rnust make a decision and that 

decision should rest on as much evidence as possible. If, for example, there is a school activity such 

as the traditional celebration of a particular day, 

say May Day, and a child refuses to participate in 

the activities, the teacher may be in a quan'^ary as 

to what to do with respect to that particular student. However, if the teacher knows that the child 

comes from a minority group, let us say some 

religious sect or some minority that does not approve of the exercises, the teacher will likely treat 

the child differently if he or she is aware of the 

cultural orientation of the child. A decision in such 

a case may very well be different from what it would 

be were the child from a group quite in harmony 

76 Sii 
with the exercises. In the latter case, the teacher 

would have grounds for suspecting that the child 

had ulterior reasons, and might seek further information. 

In the foregoing case a decision situation is somewhat similar to a problem situation. In a problem 

situation data are collected and hunches are tried 

out in imagination. Finally the most defensible 

hunch is tested, and, if it satisfies the test, is taken 

as a warranted conclusion. Decision situations, like 

problems, require information for their resolution. 

But the two situations are fundamentally different. 

The termination of thought in a problem situation 

.settles a question of belief; in a decision situation it 

settles a course of action. Unlike a conclusion, a 

decision is neither true nor false but rather wise or 

unwise. 

When we speak of decisionmaking for teachers 

and most school personnel below the level of major 

administrative positions, we do not have reference 

to sophisticated models emanating from decision 

sciences. In recent years an extensive body of scientific knowledge has been developed concerning 

decision and policy analysis, much of it stemming 

from research on strategies and decisions in game 

theory. Those of us in pedagogy have not infrequently become enamored of developments in other 

fields that have limited application to our own, 

and, despite this limited utility, have attempted to 

build a complex structure of procedures that in the 

end proved to be more burdensome and less effective in pedagogical work than we had anticipated. 

In the preparation of administrators for universities and school systems as well as governmental 

agencies and research firms, there is probably good 

reason for intensive training in the decision sciences 

and policy analysis. Pedagogical schools should be 

prepared to equip school administrators in the 

techniques and procedures of the decision sciences. 

However, there is little reason to emphasize this 

sort of preparation for teachers. This seems 

justified on two grounds. First, many decisions that 

teachers make are for situations that are constantly 

recurring, and the teacher soon learns, on the basis 

of the recurring evidence, that such and such is the 

best course of action to take. In the second place, 

many other decisions are made by reference to 

policies well-formulated and understood. 

Nevertheless, teachers need to have experience in 

the course of their preparation in the use of 

academic pedagogical knowledge in formulating 

policies and decisions. This means that a case study 

and field approach to the teaching of academic 

pedagogical studies should be given serious consideration as a way of helping the teacher not only 

to understand the knowledge itself but also how to 

make use of it in all sorts of decision situations. 

Summary 

We have examined the claim that academic pedagogical studies are 

theoretical and for this reason practical. We found it necessary to examine this claim at some length in order to clear the gpround for a 

discussion of how academic pedagogy can contribute to the activities of 

the school personnel. The analysis of the various conceptions of theory 

enables us to see that theory in these senses, save prescriptive theory, 

have little or no clinical utility. If this analysis is correct, then it is clearly indicated that academic pedagogy must be taught for other purposes. 

These purposes, as we have seen, are to provide a seedbed of knowledge, 

to provide information for policy formulation and decisionmaking. If 

these .studies are taught with these purposes in mind, and if they are 

definitely related in field experiences and in case studies to these purposes, they can come into their own and prove their worth. 

8-i 

77 
Chapter 8 

1. Engei, George L. "The Need for a New Medical Model: A 

Challenge for Biomedicine." Science, Vol. 196, No. 4286, 

April 1977, pp. 1291S6. 

2. Op. cit. 

3. Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt. Brace, 19S6, pp. 49ff. 

4. Moore, G. E. Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 

1912. 

5. Dewey, John, Democracy and Education. New York: 

Macmillan, 1916, pp. 100102. 

6. Wilson, John. Thinking with Concepts. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963. 

7. Morrison, Henry C. The Practice of Teaching in the 

Secondary School. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 

1926, pp. 161179. 

8. Berelson, Bernard, and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt. Brace and World, 1964, pp. 468ff. 

9. Bcnnc, Kenneth D., and Max Birnbaum, Teaching and 

Learning about Science and Social Policy. Boulder, 

Colo.: Social Science Education Consortium, 1978, pp. 

25-34: Raup, R. B., Kenneth D, Benne, B. Othancl 

Smith, and G. Axtelle, The Improvement of Practical Intelligence. New York: Teachers College Press, 1963. 

passim. 

S-: 

78 
Chapter 9 

Teaching and the Domains of Training 

What is teaching? Is it an amorphous behavior so 

pliable that it can take on any form whipped up by 

the winds of doctrine? Or does it have a definite 

character, varying little with conditions, and strictly limited as to form? Implicit in this issue are certain fundamental questions: Whether in research 

and training to model the teacher or use the teacher 

as the model; whether teaching is a derived or indigenous form of behavior having its own structure 

and amenable to study and improvement in its own 

right. 

Tha t teaching can take almost any form is a presupposition of much current thinking. This presupfjosition is here directly held in question. Efforts 

to formulate models of teaching such as behavior 

modification and nondirective teaching reflect this 

assumption. The multiplicity of models of 

teaching, one compilation consisting of 16,' puzzles 

the mind and makes one wonder whether the poverty of pedagogical education as well as much 

research is attributable to divisions of opinion 

about the nature of teaching itself. 

Is teaching so complex, so many-sided, so 

variable with circumstances that it must be conceptualized in many ways? How can research results 

from a multiplicity of models be synthesized into a 

system of practice when a particular practice is 

itself held to be peculiar to a model? Or is it likely 

that behavior modification, nondirective teaching, 

and so on are not models at all but simply an exaggeration of certain components of teaching? Do the 

models spring from psychological, moral, and 

political doctrines and beliefs justified only by a 

modicum of data and the sentiment of logicality? Is 

it advantageous to view teaching as a pedagogical 

formula put forth ab a logical consequence of 

allegedly sound principles of some discipline such as 

psychology or philosophy? Have we dissolved the 

question —what is teaching—in a pool of models? 

Teaching As Indigenous Behavior 

Teaching is an ancient behavioral structure; its 

origin lost in antiquity. It antedates schools, and so 

far as is known, it was neither created nor enacted 

but evolved out of crude necessity as humankind 

began to pass on its folkways and mores to the 

young. Noninstinctual behavior was perhaps first 

learned by imitation, and as the complexity of the 

culture increased teaching began to take shape, 

first, as primitive ways of showing and telling, and 

then gradually, as a behavioral structure to serve 

the interests of the group; the whole course of its 

evolution guided perhaps from the beginning by 

some obscure sense of tribal welfare. 

Some idea of the early notion of teaching can be 

gained from the history of the word. "Teach" comes 

from the Teutonic term "taikjan," meaning to 

show. To teach is to show someone something. The 

term "token" is a conjugate of "taikjan" meaning a 

sign or symbol. "Teach" and "token" are related 

etymologically. To teach is to show, point to, call 

attention to acts, events, objects by signs or symbols. This primitive notion of "teach" appears to be 

simple bu. its complex ramifications can be seen 

from the following uses of "show:" 

— to reveal one's feelings, as the teacher showed 

his dissatisfaction with the work or his anger in 

the situation 

— to direct a person's attention to something, as 

the teacher showed them a picture 

— to guide behavior, as the teachers showed them 

how to place their fingers on the keyboard 

— to make clear analytically, as the teacher 

showed them the parts of the flower 

— to make clear by comparing, as the teacher 

showed them the difference between a rectangle and a square 

— to make clear by a series of operations, as the 

teacher showed them how to connect lights in a 

series or how to work the problem 

— to make evident by logical steps, as the teacher 

showed them how to prove the proposition.' 

By trial and error, showing and telling turned 

out to be more successful in inducing learning than 

mere imitation or situational learning without intervention. These successful modes were retained 

and through the ages became fixed in culture after 

culture. 

SG 79 
It is plausible that ways of obtaining food, 

clothing, and shelter were first passed on by example, although not deliberately, and learned by imitation much as speech is learned today. But the 

symbolic elements of the tribal culture —ceremonies and incantations —were likely instilled 

deliberately. These were rituals, and teaching had 

to be explicit to assure preciseness of performance. 

Language as an instructional medium became 

prominent because ceremonies and incantations 

were partly vocal. Speech also probably became increasingly used in teaching as deviations in performance were noted, and corrected by calling attention to them and showing how to correct the error. These individuals —medicine men, sorcerers, 

priests, call them what you will —were probably the 

first teachers although not designated as such. As 

primitive societies advanced, these early teachers 

developed priesthoods, and in time some individuals were given special instruction for admission to the priesthood. Teaching then probably 

became more formal and more explicit as a distinct 

form of behavior. 

Early teaching foreshadowed today's more 

sophisticated teaching. Whether it occurred in the 

tribe or family, teaching almost certainly consisted 

of a learner in a situation, being shown or told how 

to do something and corrected and approved or disapproved, depending upon his or her performance, 

or else, allowing learners to work themselves out of 

situations with little intervention. 

The point is that teaching is not a derived 

phenomenon. It was not evolved from psychological 

concepts and principles or from the principles of 

any other discipline. Just as the principles of cooking cannot be derived from studying eating, so the 

principles of teaching cannot come from the study 

of learning.' Throughout most of the current century the prevailing pedagogical opinion has held, 

however, that in order to know how to teach one 

must first know what learning is and the conditions 

under which it occurs. Since psychology is the 

source of such knowledge, modes of teaching, so it 

was believed, can and should be derived from it. 

This view has the ring of logical certainty, for if we 

know how to create these conditions it follows that 

we thereby know how to teach. This argument is 

not only logical but it also contains an element of 

truth. Teaching certainly has been improved by 

studying its components, and many of these improvements can be traced to psychological research 

itself and to the use of psychological concepts and 

principles in pedagogical research. But all this is a 

far cry from the notion that teaching has been or 

can be derived from psychological knowledge. 

It is well-known that the practical arts originated 

long before the sciences that provide insights for 

their improvement. The domestication of plants 

and animals preceded the development of agricultural sciences, and, while these sciences have 

revolutionized the production of food, the art of 

farming is in its basic elements unchanged. Treatment of the sick began long before the science of 

medicine emerged. Yet the art of the physician is 

basically the same as it was at the beginning —diagnosing and treating. Only the knowledge-base, materials, techniques, and procedures have changed. 

It is the same with the art of teaching. 

The psychology of learning itself has been 

developed, unwittingly to be sure, from experimental conditions that were replicas of primitive 

leaching situations. Thorndike contrived puzzle 

boxes and mazes for his experiments that placed 

animals in situations from which they learned as 

they escaped by trial and error. The animals learned 

by working themselves out of situations —rudimentary problem solving. Skinner's experiments were 

built upon Thorndike's work, refining it by introducing reinforcers, a form of rudimentary intervention, to shape the animal's random movements in a 

predetermined direction. These experimental conditions are mirrored by primitive teaching situations where the individual learned either by coping 

with a situation or by being shown or told how to do 

something. In other words, these studies of learning 

could be presented as studies of primitive teaching. 

T h e Prototype of Teaching 

Teaching is not only a natural form of behavior 

but also an interdependent system. In its primitive 

form it included the components of its most highly 

developed state: agent, subjects, ends, and circumstances. The circumstances consist of material 

means — tools and other paraphernalia— over 

which the agent has control; and conditions — 

material setting—under which the material means 

arc used and over which the agent has much less 

control. The ends are abilities and other dispositions engendered in the subjects. The agent is a 

bearer of knowledge superior to that of the subjects 

and who guides the learning. 

80 87 
In the advanced stage of teaching its components 

become so ramified and interrelated that teaching 

becomes a very intricate phenomenon, not only exhibiting a multiplicity of new relations among its 

components but also involving ends not served in its 

early development. 

Research is enabling us to understand the components as an interdependent system. While research 

is a long way from giving a description of teaching 

in its total variety, recognition of its components as 

foci of research is not a mean achievement. We shall 

not attempt to discuss the system in the context of 

research findings, for that will require more care 

than can be given here. Rather ours is a simple interest in showing the interdependence of the components. 

The material setting no less than the material 

with which they work influence learners and 

teachers alike. The interdependence of the learner 

and the material environment varies with the level 

of personal development. The very young child has 

little capacity to cushion the impact of environmental stimuli. The older child can more easily 

counter this influence by directing attention to 

olher aspects of his o*" 'ler world. Thus the material 

surroundings of the nursery school and kindergarten are more important than those of the high 

scl'.ool, although they are not to be neglected even 

there. 

Likewise, the teacher as agent is influenced by the 

circumstances of work. What teachers have to work 

with and the conditions of their work affect what 

they do, what they think is possible, and their feelings of satisfaction, and these in turn affect the 

learners. However, the teacher can modify the 

material setting, although narrowly, and thereby 

affect the students. The characteristics of 

students—achievement, level of 'i<*velopment, 

capacity and interests —aTfect the choice of ends. 

The ends-in-view influence the behavior of teachers, 

their choice of materials of instruction, and how 

they are to be used. The learner's reaction to these 

in turn affects the teacher's decision about what to 

do next. These components form a network of relationships so intricate, so wrapped in personal perspectives and interpersonal relationships, so pervaded with symbolic and linguistic behavior as to 

challenge our research knowledge as well as our 

understanding. 

Subsystem: Teacher-Student Interaction 

Within the interdependent system is a subsystem 

of interaction between teacher and students. This is 

the heart of the system with respect to pedagogical 

training, for the skills of teaching are exercised 

primarily in this part of the system. The teacher 

acts and the learner reacts to the teacher and in so 

doing influences the teacher's subsequent acts. For 

the students' state of learning—achievement, difficultiLS, tendencies, and needs —is reflected in their 

reactions and thesf reflections, as observed by 

teachers, are cues which guide the teachers' performances. These reciprocating acts can be initiated 

or terminated by either the teacher or the student. 

Such interaction is not the same as the interaction in a dogffight, although there are similarities. 

In the dogfight, the act of one dog is a stimulus to 

the other to act and its act then becomes a stimulus 

for the first dog to act. So the fight goes on in a sort 

of "conversation of gestures" as George Herbert 

Mead called it.* There is no reflection, for the act 

of one dog immediately follows the act of the other. 

But the interaction between teacher and student, 

except in cases of sudden and serious disruptive 

behavior, is gfuided by considerations stemming 

partly from the teacher's knowledge of how to proceed and partly from the fact that there is subject 

matter involved in the interaction. The teacher interacts with the student through a body of knowledge, and the student in turn interacts with the 

teacher through the same material. In this way the 

student and teacher interact until the student has 

either acquired the knowledge, or else has learned 

enough to pursue it alone. 

The component dominating the entire interdependent system is the teacher. In the final 

analysis, it is the teacher more than any other component that makes the system effective as measured 

by the ends achieved. While teachers can and do 

act deliberately from moment to moment, in a 

general and unobtrusive sense their performance is 

colored by the demands of the system. Unintentionally, but quite necessarily, teachers shape 

students in the image of themselves in the sense that 

they intend for students to acquire certain 

knowledge they have themselves acquired and in 

that sense become like themselves. Furthermore, 

teachers intend that objectives, when attained. 

S8 81 
shall become useful and permanent characteristics 

of their students as persons. No other occupation, 

save perhaps the priesthood, bears such formative 

relationship between the agent and the subject. 

This relationship, generalized to cover the teacher 

as a person, lies at the root of public concern about 

the preparation and conduct of teachers. Furthermore, because teachers intend to change the abilities and dispositions of their students as they interact with them, their discourse differs from ordinary 

utterance. They intend that what they say shall be 

remembered, not in so many words but in meaning. 

Their discourse tends to be cadenced and is perhaps 

most effective when it is free of ambiguity, vagueness, and indefiniteness.' 

Didactics and Heuristics 

Historically, the subsystem of interaction has 

been conceptualized in two ways. In the first, the 

direction and character of the activities involved in 

the teacher-student relationship are shaped by the 

teacher in terms of information about students, 

principles and techniques of teaching, the content 

of instruction, and other resources. The teacher 

determines what is to be done, how and when it is to 

be done, and what it is to be done for. This is didactics, sometimes called direct teaching. In the second, the formula specifies that the acts of teaching 

become acts performed conjointly by students and 

teachers. The students plan with the teacher what is 

to be done, how and when it is to be done, and the 

assessment of results. This is heuristics, variously 

called inductive method, discovery method, inquiry 

teaching, child-centered teaching, and the like. 

Didactics is the art and science of instructing 

students in knowledge and skills; heuristics is the art 

and science of training students how to search and 

find out for themselves. Both of these stem from the 

primitive conditions of learning. As noted earlier, 

teaching originally took one or the other of two approaches to learning: first, the learners acquire certain abilities by deliberate instruction, as in the fixing of ritual behavior, and second, by working 

themselves out of situations with little or no intervention. 

These *.wo modes of teaching are not entirely 

distinct, for they result in somewhat similar outcomes. Didactics develops the ability to solve problems and a positive feeling toward learning no less 

than heuristics. But if the distinction is not overdrawn, it is useful to recognize the difference between them. Since heuristics tends on the whole to 

allow more flexibility and variation of learning activities, it provides a freer change of pace for both 

teachers and students than didactic instruction. 

This was recognized by Carlton Washburn, superintendent of Winnetka Schools in the 1920's, when 

he introduced a program of systematic teaching for 

one part of the school day and an activity program 

for the other part.' 

These forms of teaching have become more accurately understood from research on the processes 

of human interaction in a variety of contexts — 

clinical, social, political, scientific, and educational. But unfortunately leaders of the pedagogical professions have failed to assimilate the 

relevant elements of this research to the didactic 

and heuristic modes of interaction. Instead they 

have attempted to mold the results of research in 

these various contexts into one model of teaching 

after another. Among these are such "models" as 

inquiry, group inquiry, inductive, advance 

organizers, nondirective, awareness training, conceptual, and operant.' Aside from the fact that 

these either are peripheral or are emphases upon 

one or another aspect of didactic, or heuristic 

modes, they accentuate the tendency among 

faculties of pedagogy to separate into camps, one 

trying to shape the teacher as a developer of the affective and personal side of students and the other 

the cognitive side. 

While these two patterns of teaching differ in the 

amount of student collaboration in determining the 

direction and activities of learning, the heuristic no 

less than the didactic teachers plan and direct their 

own acts by reference to their knowledge of 

students, principles of teaching, and content of instruction. The heuristic teacher decides how to 

manage and conduct his or her classroom as independently of students as does the didactic 

teacher. They both must decide how to engage 

their students, how to maintain momentum, how to 

manage materials, how to deal with disruptions, 

and so on. They differ in what they plan for; the 

heuristic teacher plans how to help the students 

help themselves, whereas the didactic teacher takes 

them directly to what they would find out if their 

self-search were successful. 

82 S.9 
The Knowledge Approach to Training 

Knowledge about these two modes of teaching 

falls into six categories and these constitute the domains of training as follows:' 

1. Observation 

2. Diagnosis of 

a) student abilities 

b) learning obstacles 

c) environmental conditions 

d) programs of instruction 

3. Planning of 

a) short-range program 

b) long-range program 

4. Management of 

a) space, time, and resources 

b) instruction 

c) students 

5. Communication with 

a) peers 

b) parents and other laymen 

c) students 

6. Evaluation of 

a) student achievement and conduct 

b) instructional program 

We are not concerned here with ways to conduct 

training, for they will be discussed in subsequent 

pages. Instead the categories of knowledge with 

which to carry on training is now the focus of our 

attention. To construct a program of professional 

training is to have a knowledge base and to know 

the categories of performance to which the knowledge belongs. In other words, we must identify the 

domains of performance for which the skills of 

pedagogy are to be developed. Once the domains 

are identified and principles of effective teaching 

classified according to these domains, it is then appropriate to develop the conditions of training. 

This reverses the current procedure for developing a program of pedagogical training that begins 

with objectives and then works cut activities and 

procedures deemed to be appropriate to their realization. Where the knowledge of a field is wellestablished and understood alike by those who 

represent it, the initiation of program development 

via instructional objectives is defensible. Since instructional objectives are derived from knowledge, 

there is little possibility of a disjunction between the 

two. But to approach program development by first 

formulating objectives in a field when its knowledge 

is not held in common or rrutually understood is 

likely to be misleading and unproductive. This has 

been a defect of pedagogical education throughout 

the current century. 

Anyone familiar with pedagogical faculties can 

attest the fact that their members arc of many 

stripes. Some are familiar with research on teaching 

but make no use of it. Others try to apply it but do 

not know how, or else find they have no resources 

for doing so. By far the largest number know 

nothing about it and some claim it does not exist. 

To begin with objectives where such disparity exists is to court faculty frustration and ultimately 

failure. For one thing, some objectives —especially 

those derived from ideological formulas—will be 

put forth without knowledge to validate and realize 

them. For example, efforts to prepare teachers to 

help students to be self-realizing individuals or to 

become creative have resulted in less than effective 

instruction when judged by either the intended 

goals or cognitive criteria. For another thing, to 

begin with objectives is to miss the range of clinical 

pedagogical knowledge and, in consequence, to 

neglect some elements of teaching which have been 

shown empirically to be effective. Were this not so, 

the research on didactics would have had more influence on practice during the last 25 years. For still 

another thing, professors are typically ill-informed 

about clinical pedagogical knowledge, not to mention research on training itself, and this is attributable in large part to preoccupation with objectives 

instead of knowledge from which objectives, it 

valid, are derived. No one has stated the matter as 

clearly as Medley when he said: 

Teacher education, both at the preservice 

and the inservice level, should adopt as primary 

goals the development of the competencies 

needed to create and maintain the learning environment, to engage pupils in learning-related 

activities, and to implement the kind of instruction that research indicates is provided by 

effective teachers. There is an abundance of 

practical knowledge available about how to do 

these things; what has been missing in the past 

is a clear conviction on the part of teacher educators that these things are what teachers ought 

to be doing. Much effort has been wasted in 

training teachers to behave in the ways that the 

least effective ones do. A change in direction, 

so that beginning teachers will no longer need 

to unlearn so much, should produce a substantial, if not a dramatic, improvement in the 

achievement of pupils.' 

83 

90 
We are approaching the problem of program 

development by identifying the domains of training 

and in the next chapter we shall present enough 

samples of knowledge in each of these domains to 

indicate the character of the knowledge appropriate for training. 

Domains of Trainin g 

The first domain, the one that permeates all the 

others, is observation. The ability to observe a 

phenomenon objectively is one of the primary 

marks of a professional in any field. In a Held that 

involves relationships among human being objective observation is especially important. It is a safeguard against biases and prejudices of all sorts 

racial, class, .socioeconomic, ideological, and personal. Equally important is the fact that only by objective observation of phenomena can a professional know what he ii ./orking with. The skills of 

observation are basic to the teacher's performance 

in the classroom. For a teacher who cannot tell 

what is going on will be unable to respond appropriately and effectively to the events. 

Failure to develop skills of observation accounts 

in no small measure for the fact that pedagogical 

faculties no less than public school teachers find it 

extremely difficult to observe v/hat goes on in the 

classroom without making judgments about its 

worth. Rating scales of instruction have tended on 

the whole to reinforce this failure to distinguish 

between objectivity and valuation in the process of 

observation. Rating scales are by nature evaluative 

instruments, and the use of them tends to inculcate 

habits of biased observation. 

As one observes the students in a class or the performance of a teacher he or she must be able to 

state what is happening without reference to any 

opinion about its value. What is the teacher doing 

at a given moment? Is the teacher -teaching a concept, asking contrary-to-fact question, teaching a 

principle, a skill, or whatever? Is the teacher reinforcing the behavior of a student? Or is the teacher 

giving feedback? Is the teacher identifying an 

obstacle to learning? Is the student's conduct disruptive? Is the student on task? What proportion of 

the class is on task? These are only samples of the 

simpler sorts of things that a professional should be 

able to identify objectively in a classroom situation. 

The question of how to develop the skills of 

observation is not of concern at the moment, but 

one or two points need to be made. In the first 

place, learning to observe is extremely difFicult. It 

requires that there be criteria, attributes, so to 

speak, which mark a particular bit of behavior as 

being one of this kind or that. It requires also that 

the individual be so familiar with these criteria that 

their occurrence in behavior can be recognized 

almost automatically in complex teaching situations. To acquire this ability requires extended 

practice in observing and analyzing behavior. 

Another domain of training is diagnosis. Diagnosis pertains to at least four aspects of the teacher's 

work: student abilities, learning difficulties, environment, and program of instruction. While 

teachers have for a long time been aware that some 

students do not learn because of one factor or 

another —failure to apply themselves, lack of proper parental influence, lack of interest, and so 

on —the skills and techniques of diagnosis have 

been identified and developed only in recent years. 

One needs only to note improvements in tests and 

other instruments for identifying pupils who suffer 

from physical handicaps such as sight, hearing, 

brain damage, and from psychological maladjustments of one sort or another to realize how pedagogical diagnosis has come into its own. 

Moreover, it has become evident that a large proportion of the difficulties students experience in 

learning are content specific. The difficulties children encounter in learning to read are quite different from those confronted in the learning of science 

or social studies. For example, there are obstacles to 

learning such as lack of knowledge or skill prerequisite to the learning of a task. In such cases, it is incumbent on the teacher to ascertain whether the 

student has the prerequisite learning if he is unable 

to cope with the task. 

The teacher must also have the knowledge and 

skill that enables him or her to identify environmental deficiencies that impede teaching and 

learning. The skills that are involved in this aspect 

of diagnosis are not as well-established as others, 

but there is at least enough information now available to enable the teacher to be sensitive to the 

classroom environment in its physical, social, and 

psychological dimensions. 

Diagnosing the environment from the physical 

standpoint is comparatively simple, for it involves 

84 91 
such matters as temperature, arrangement of seats 

appropriate to the immediate objectives of instruction, bulletin board displays, and appropriate books 

and other equipment of instruction. 

The diagnosis of the social aspects of the environment is somewhat more difficult, for it requires 

judgments about the degree of control to be exercised and the amount of warmth the teacher should 

display toward the students. It is well-known that 

there is some sort of middle ground with respect to 

the amount of freedom students may exercise in the 

class situation as opposed to the amount of systematic regulation the teacher may exercise. Too much 

of either will tend to depreciate the results of study 

and instruction. 

Diagnosing the instructional program is some 

thing that the teacher has to do in terms of his or 

her knowledge of the subject matter of instruction 

For example, a teacher who does not know the hier 

archical structure of arithmetic will be at a disad 

vantage not only in identifying the difficulty a stu 

dent has for lack of prerequisite knowledge but also 

in sequencing the content of instruction. 

Planning, as an area of training, is an activity in 

which the future teacher must learn to exercise a 

wide range of judgments. Planning has reference to 

what the teacher does to get ready for the activities 

to l)c carried on during a class period, all class 

[)eriods of a day, a week or longer. Planning for one 

or more class periods is usually thought of as instructional planning. Planning of a total program 

over a long period of time, say, for a semester, is 

considered program planning. Usually program 

planning is carried on by a group of teachers who 

are concerned with the same grades or a combination f)f grades. But the sort of judgments and skills 

required for planning a class may be involved in 

one way or another in program planning. 

In planning, the teacher gives attention to the 

following: objectives, assignments, flexibility, instructional activities, netds of individual students, 

the content to be included or emphasized, activities 

the students are to engage in, conduct problems, 

and evaluation. During the period of training attention should be given to all these aspects and 

perhaps others, although, as the teacher becomes 

experienced, .some of these will be performed automatically and thus drop out of planning. Recent 

research suggest,?, for example, that experienced 

teachers tend to give more attention to content and 

less to objectives.'" 

The fourth domain of training is management. It 

includes a number of component.'-. Among other 

things, the teacher manages the process of instruction, the utilization of time, space, resources, and 

pupil conduct. With the exception of diagnosis, this 

is the domain in which more time must be devoted 

to training than perhaps any other. It is here that 

the prospective teacher must be disciplined in the 

skills of teaching and all the various aspects of classroom management. It is here that skills involved in 

such activities as lesson development, conduct of independent work, recitation, reinforcement, feedback, assignment making, and student accountability are to be developed. 

I'rofessional communication is a domain of training that is typically neglected in almost all pedagogical programs. The teacher converses not only 

with students but also with teachers and parents in 

face-to-face .settings, in committees, and in large 

organizations as well as with administrative and 

supervisory staff. This entails skills of listening, interpreting, translating, and responding in ways to 

elicit further information. A great deal of the 

elementary aspects of counseling should be taught 

to teachers in order that they learn to communicate 

in ways that are ingratiating and at the same time 

effective in getting and giving information. 

The domain of evaluation is one in which the 

teacher must be trained not only in the techniques 

and procedures of evaluating pupil progress but 

also in the analysis of data related to diagnosing 

and planning of instruction. Hence, there is good 

reason to develop skills in evaluation along with 

diagnostic and feedback skills. The present practice 

of separating evaluation from diagnosis and instruction in a training program helps to perpetuate 

the isolation of work in evaluation as a form of 

study useful mainly at advanced levels. 

The Training Component Is Crucial 

The training component should consume the 

major part of the pedagogical, program regardless 

of whether the student intends to become a teacher, 

counselor, administrator, education director, or 

whatever, for teaching ability is basic to all pedagogical positions. The skills of teaching cannot be 

acquired by formal courses in method, or by uncontrolled experience in practice situations, or by any 

other means than that of systematic and progressive 

training. 

85 
Moreover, the teacher of teachers must use tested 

procedures, techniques, and materials of training 

as they arc available. And they must themselves 

possess the skills in which they are training the 

future teacher as well as the techniques and procedures of the training operation. We definitely 

know what we arc about when we proceed to train 

students for teaching, so that we can now carry on 

training with the thoroughness and care that the 

commitment of the profession to the Nation's 

children requires. 

The program of training must have first claim on 

the time, energy, and the resources of the institution. This training must be carried on, and carried 

on .systematically and thoroughly, to the end that 

the teacher is skilled and in possession of knowledge 

to justify and defend the skills. 

A considerable amount of research on the procedures and techniques of pedagogical training is 

available. In general, it bears upon two aspects of 

the teacher's preparation: the acquisition of concepts and principles, and discipline in skills of 

observation and classroom performance. 

The conventional practice has been to teach the 

concepts of psychology and other pedagogical subjects very much as the concepts of academic 

disciplines are taught. That is to say, the concepts 

arc either verbally defined, or the student is left to 

garner the meaning from the context of the 

discourse. The definitions are frequently loose, 

lacking the sharpness that distinguishes the concepts from other concepts with which they are easily 

confused. For example, it is difficult to find clearcut distinctions between reinforcement and feedback cither in the research literature or textbooks. 

Consequently, it is not unusual to find teachers who 

are unable to distinguish verbally the two concepts, 

not to mention the ability to recognize them in 

behavior. Even when behavioral definitions are 

given, the behavior is simply described. The student is thus more often than not unable to recognize the classroom behavior that corresponds to the 

description. Although this matter has not been 

thoroughly studied, there is good reason to assume 

that the failure of teachers to use pedagogical terminology is related to their inability to identify the 

behavior corresponding to the terms. 

One of the most thoroughgoing efforts to remedy 

this defect in the training of school personnel was 

the development of protocol materials. These consisted of films and videotapes to exemplify specified 

pedagogical concepts. I'hese films or videotaju's are 

u.sed to train school personnel antl prospective 

teachers to recognize and identify the classroom 

behaviors that correspond to the definition of concepts. Student manuals and instructor guides are 

provided for the film or videotape. The research 

evidence on this approach to the teaching of concepts indicates that it is effective." 

When the concept is exemplified as a skill, the 

amount of practice necessary to acquire the skill 

once the trainee can identify it behaviorally is 

reduced almost to zero. This appears to be especially the case where elements of the skill are already in 

the repertoire of the trainee and can be readily 

organized into a pattern of behavior. 

While skills can be developed through the use of 

protocol materials, there are other procedures and 

techniques for doing so. Among the more effective 

of these is the minicourse which incorporates the 

principles of microteaching and the use of films to 

exemplify the teaching behavior to be acquired. 

Protocol materials and minicourses are similar in 

the sense that they emphasize the exemplification of 

concepts and teaching behaviors. Protocol materials, however, place greater stress upon skills of 

observation and concept acquisition, whereas minicourses emphasize acquisition of particular teaching behaviors." These are complementary materials, each contributing to the other's effectiveness 

in a program that emphasizes both conceptual 

knowledge and know-how. 

While it is not possible here to present all the procedures, techniques, and materials that have been 

developed to train teachers, it is useful to call attention to one of the most comprehensive surveys of 

training materials to be found in the literature. 

This is the catalog of teacher training materials, 

designed to develop teaching skills in various subject areas and at various grade levels, developed at 

Stanford University. It describes more than 800 

products. The following classification of these 

products indicates their scope and general 

character. 

" 1 . The product's subject matter specificity. 

(Did it apply to the teaching of English, 

mathematics, science, social studies, or 

school subjects in general?) 

2. The target audience. (Was the product intended for prcservice trainee, inservice 

teachers, or what?) 

86 93 
The grade level specificity. (Was the 

teaching skill pertinent to early childhood 

education, to the high school level, to 

something in between, or to all levels?) 

The so-called target outcome. (Which aspect 

of teaching —such as planning, presentation, 

interaction with pupils, attitude toward 

teaching, or teacher's self-concept—was the 

product concerned with?) 

The target outcomes for students. (Which of 

various kinds of cognitive and socialemotional outcomes?) 

The training situation. (What materials were 

provided with the product and what 

materials and equipment had to be provided 

by the user?) 

The time nd number of persons required to 

administer training with the product. (How 

many trainees could use the product at one 

time?) 

The kind of practice provided. (Was it 

paper-hand-penciled exercises, or classifying 

incidents in a film, or playing a simulated 

teaching game, or teaching actual students?) 

The phase of teaching in which the acquired 

skills would be used. (Did the training apply 

to the teacher's work before, during, or after 

interaction with the student?)"" 

In the development of a training program it is 

necessary to screen materials discussed in the foregoing paragraph to be sure that they are based 

upon adequate empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of the skills they purport to develop as well 

as to their effectiveness in the actual training of 

teachers. 

These kinds of materials are useful in laboratory 

work carried on in connection with formal courses 

such as those set forth in Chapter 5. They of course 

cannot take the place of actual experience in the 

classroom, but their utilization in laboratory situations can prepare the teacher for successful experience in the classroom and in subsequent 

employment. Such materials have advaiitages over 

on-hands experience in the classroom in that, in the 

initial phases of training, it is desirable for the 

trainee to study the same behavior over and over 

again. Protocol and minicourse materials make this 

possible. Classroom behavior perishes as it happens 

and consequently cannot be observed a second 

time. For a trainee to gain maximally from observation of, and performance in, actual classroom 

situations, it is necessary that he or she be welldisciplined in the skills of observation and classroom performance as developed in laboratories. 

Summary 

We have identified and clarified the primary target of pedagogical 

education and set forth the areas in which training should be concentrated. If the faculty of a p>edagogical institution is in thorough command of its knowledge base and of its priorities, it will not be prone to 

run off in new and often irrelevant directions with each new pressure 

that outside organizations and agencies bring to bear upon it. When the 

faculty of pedagogy does not know what it is about, it grabs any and 

every newfangled idea and purpose that any organization or agency offers, suggests, or insists upon. It will take on the task of providing 

course^, workshops, or any other device for meeting such demands as 

the call for urban education, sex education, drug education, or human 

relations education, even though the faculty is already falling far short 

of performing the task it was created to do; to train teachers in the 

knowledge and skills of classroom work. 

87 

94 
Chapter 9 

1. Joyce, Bruce, and Marsha Weil. Modtb of Tiaching. 

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1972. 

2. Smith, B. Othanel. "Teaching: Its Elements and Structure: in TiachiT Comptttnci, Proceedings of the 1963 

Summer Conference, edited by J. Alan Ross and Ralph 

Thompson. Bellingham, Washington: Western Washington State College, Vol. LVIV, No. S, January 1964, p. 28. 

S. This sentence is quoted with permission from a letter of 

David Berliner to one of the authors. 

4. Mead, George H. Mind, Stlf and Socitty. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 19S4, p. 6S. pauim. 

5. Ryle, Gilbert. Tht Conctpt of Mind. London: Hutchinson's University Library, Hutchinson House. 1949. pp. 

S09ff: Land. M. L., and L. R. Smith. "The Effect of Low 

Inference Teacher Clarity Inhibitors on Student Achievement. "yourrui< o/T(acA<r£duca<ton. Vol. XXX. No. S. 

1979, pp. 55-57. 

6. Washburn, Carlton. "Winnetka." School and Society, 

Vol. XXIX, 1929. pp. 37-50. See also Adjuiting the 

School to the Child. Yonkers, No. 4: World Book Company, 1937. 

7. Joyce, Bruce, and Marsha Weil. Op. cit. 

8. We thank Margaret Lindsey for these categories. With 

minor adaptatioiu, they are a set suggested in conference 

when the manuscript was being prepared. 

9. Medley, Donald M. "Effectiveness of Teachers" in 

Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications, edited by Penelope L. Peterson and Herbert J. 

Walberg. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 

1979, pp. 25-26. 

Peterson, Penelope, et al. "Teacher Planning, Teacher 

Behavior, and Student Achievement." American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 15, No. 3, 1978, pp. 

<17 432. 

Borg, Walter R. "Protocol Materials as Related to 

Teacher Performance and Pupil Achievement."youma/ 

of Educational Research, 1975: 69:1, 23-30: Borg. Walter 

R. "Protocols: Competency-Based Teacher Education 

Modules." £<fuca<i(MUj/ Technology, 1973: 13:10. 17-20; 

Borg. Walter R., P. Langer, and J. Wilson. "Teacher 

Classroom Management Skills and Pupil Behavior."/ournal of Experimental Education, 1975, 44:2, 52-58; Borg. 

Walter R., and David R. Stone. "Protocol Materials as a 

Tool for Changing Teacher Behavior, "/ouma/ of Experimental Education, 1974: 43 (1) 34-39; Gliessman, David, 

and Richard C. Pugh. "The Development and Evaluation 

10. 

11. 

of Protocol Films of Teacher Behavior." AV Communication Review 24 (Spring, 1976), 21-48; Gliruman. 

David; Pugh, Richard C; and Perry, Fred L. "Effects of a 

Protocol Film Series in Terms of Learning Outcomes and 

Reactions of Users." Bloomington: Indiana University. 

National Center for the Development of Training Materials in Teacher Education, 1974; Kleucker, Joy C. "Effects of Protocol and Training Materials." Acquiring 

Teaching Competencies. Report 6. Bloomington: Indiana University, National Center for the Development of 

Training Materials in Teacher Education, 1974; Rentel, 

Victor M. "A Protocol Materials Evaluation: The 

Language of Children."youma/ of Teacher Education 25 

(Winter, 1974): S2S-29; Zidonis, Frank, and Sharon Pox. 

"Protocols of Children's Language." Theory Into Practice 

(Volume XIV, Number 5), December 1975: 312-317. 

College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. 

12. Borg, W. R.. M. L. Kelley, Philip Langer, and Meredith 

Call. The Minicourse: A Microleaching Approach to 

Teacher Education. Beverly Hills, California: Macmillan 

Educational Services, 1970; Borg, W. R., Kallenbach. 

W., M. Morris, and A. Friebel. "Videotape feedback and 

microteaching in a teacher training model." youma/ of 

Experimental Education, 1969, 37, 9-16: Copeland»W. 

D. "The relationship between microteaching and student 

teacher classroom performance."youma/ of Educational 

Research, 1975, 68. 289-93; Copeland, W. D., and W. 

Doyle. "Laboratory skill training and student teacher 

classroom performance."youma/ of Experimental Education, 1975, 42, 16-21; Fortune, J. C , J. M. Cooper, and 

D. W. Allen. "The Stanford summer microteaching 

clinic," 1965. youma/o/TeacAcr E(fuca<ion, 1967, 18, 

389-93; Huber, J., and B. E. Ward. "Preservice confidence through microteaching." Education, 1969, 90, 

65-68; Kallenbach, W. W.. and M. D. Gall. "Microteaching versus conventional methods in training elementary 

intern teachers."youma/ of Educational Research, 1969. 

63, 136-41; McCollum, R.. and D. La Due. "Microteaching in a teacher training program." Social Education, 

1970, 34, 353-36; McDonald, F. J., and D. W. Allen. 

Training effects of feedback and modeling procedures on 

teacher performance. Stanford University: School of 

Education. 1967, Boyaii, N. J., W. D. Copeland. R. G. 

Sell. The Instructioruil Supervision Training Program. 

Santa Barbara. Ca.: University of California. 1973. 

13. Gage, N. L. The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. 

New York; Teachers College Press, 1977, p. 54. 

95 

88 
Chapter 10 

A Profile of Generic Knowledge for 

Pedagogical Training 

Chapters 7 and 8 set forth the types and uses of 

both clinical and academic pedagogical knowledge, 

'["hrce propositions were elaborated. First, empirical condition-consequence statements represent 

practical classroom knowledge, where variables of 

teaching behavior are the conditions, and variables 

of student achievement, attitudes, or conduct are 

the consequences. These statements were called 

clinical pedagogical knowledge. Second, academic 

pedagogical knowledge, although containing conditional statements, seldom yields teaching prescriptions. However, such knowledge is particularly 

useful in making policies and decisions when it consists of social, economic, or psychosocial correlates 

of success and failure variables of students in school 

and community life. Third, theory has value in thf 

art of teaching only if "theory" is used to mean empirical clinical knowledge. Since this form of knowledge is not called theory in either pedagogy or other 

sciences, the appeal to theory as practical knowledge in classroom teaching is bootless. 

Finally, we noted in chapter 9 that program 

development which begins with objectives where 

the knowledge has not been assembled, sifted, and 

systematized either wallows in controversy or 

relapses into barren repetition resulting in varying 

degrees of disappointment and frustration. As an 

alternative, we suggested that we first assemble and 

organize the knowledge accumulated from almost a 

century of research, and from that knowledge 

derive objectives and progframs, revising them as 

further research, program evaluation, and experience indicate. 

The purpose of this chapter is to suggest a 

schema for collecting and organizing generic 

clinical knowledge, to sample this knowledge, and 

to explore further the role of clinical knowledge in 

developing a training program. 

Prerequisites of Program Development 

In an empirically based profession, whose 

research has not been assembled and sifted, certain 

steps are prerequisite to program development, as 

follows: 

1. The research must be assembled and classified with reference to various components of professional work. 

2. The knowledge-yield of research must be 

classified by types, particularly definitions and 

principles. 

3. Definitional knowledge must be analyzed as to 

its clarity and the directness of its referents. 

4. Both independent and dependent variables of 

coidition-consequence knowledge (principles) must 

be treated as in 3 above. 

5. For generic knowledge, both definitions and 

condition-consequence statements must be classified by domains of training; and for contentspecific knowledge by levels of schooling and content areas as well. 

When these steps have been completed an effective program of pedagogical education can be 

developed; one built upon knowledge that provides 

enough detailed information at the behavioral and 

manipulatory level for training to be direct, controllable, and challenging to both trainees and instructional staff. 

The failure to assemble the knowledge and then 

reduce it to an observable and manipulatory level 

partly explains the miscarriage of previous efforts to 

design and institutionalize an effective program of 

pedagogical education. To design a program by 

beginning with objectives or outcomes before !;nowing what the research of the last 75 years says in 

concrete terms is to provide ends without means. 

9G 89 
Research is now our chief .source of knowledge. 

However, except for a few cjuality textbooks, the 

vast amount of research of the last 75 years is almost 

in complete disarray when considered with 

reference to the sysiematization needed for program development in pedagogical education. Of 

course, encyclopedias of research, handbooks of 

research on teaching, and reviews of research are 

available, but these summaries are not oriented 

toward program development. From the information they contain, even when the knowledge is relevant, it is difficult to decide what grade level, subject, or tlomain of training it belongs to. 

Moreover, research knowledge is so loosely 

organized that researchers themselves have been 

shown to do over again, perhaps unwittingly and 

somewhat differently, studies made by others. For 

example, there is a recrudescence of research on 

adult learning, telling us over again much of what 

E. L. Thorndike discovered over 50 years ago that 

an old dog can learn new tricks and that intellectual deterioration with age is much less than 

popular opinion had supposed. 

Karly research on teaching usually ilefined the 

variables as static characteristics personality 

traits, academic achievement, years of experience, 

and so on instead of tlynamic variables, a practice 

continued by Coleman in his study of educational 

inequality. Beginning in the late 40's and early .5()'s 

a new emphasis crept into research teacher behavior became the object of study together with its effects on student behavior and achievement. This 

approach is now beginning to yield dependable 

knowledge of teacher effectiveness. It is to this 

research that we go primarily for much of the 

knowledge referred to in this chapter. 

Generic and Specific Clinical Knowledge 

We have mentioned various types of clinical 

knowledge: definitional, conditional, generic, and 

specific. How these are related is depicted in 

diagram 5: 

Diagram 5. Types of Clinical Knowledge 

Clinical Knowledge 

Definitional Conditional 

generic specific generic specific 

Definitional and conditional knowledge were 

distinguished in Chapter 7. We must now consider 

the distinction between generic and specific 

knowledge. The essential feature of specific clinical 

knowledge is that it suggests skills that are effective 

only in teaching a particular kind of instructional 

content. But the expression "kind of instructional 

content" is ambiguous. What is to be counted as a 

kind? Is it the content of a particular discipline or 

area of knowledge such as physics or language arts? 

Or is it logical types of content such as definitions, 

principles, and particulars? .^ 

Content identified with a field is exemplified by 

the teacher's knowledge of manuscript writing, and 

the pedagogical principle pertaining to it is as 

follows; If a teacher uses manuscript writing when 

teaching young children, achievement in writing 

and reading will be more a.ssured than if handwriting is u.sed. This principle tells how to teach 

particular abilities at a particular level of school90 
inj^. It is contenlspecific as to the ianguaj^earts 

area. 

A df-finition (concept) is an example of a logical 

type of content, a kind of content found in most 

di.sciplines or areas of knowledge. If a teacher uses 

rules (some form of definition) and instances in 

teaching concepts, students arc more likely to acquire them than if other practices arc followed. 

This principle tells how to teach a particular kind 

of knowledge, in this case definitional, regardless of 

the discipline to which it belongs or the level of 

schooling at which the teaching takes place. 

Although the principle is content-specific, as to 

concepts, we count it as generic because it is applicable to all subjects containing concepts and to 

all levels of schooling. We shall use the expression 

"content-specific" to refer to those principles that 

pertain to a particular di.scipline or area of the curriculum, and "generic" to refer to principles of 

more general application. 

However, a caveat is in order. Some principles 

appear to be grade-specific rather than contentspecific and others appear to be both grade and 

content bound. We have not concerned ourselves 

with this distinction. It is sometimes difficult to tell 

from the research whether the principle is content 

specific respecting a particular grade or a number 

of grades. We have, therefore, ignored this refinement in the present chapter as well as in chapter 11 

where content-specific knowledge is treated. 

Generic Definitional Knowledge and Skill 

of Observation 

Anyone in pedagogical circles who insists upon 

clear definitions is likely to be counted as an advocate of unpopular causes. Definitions channel our 

thinking just as they provide the basis of sound 

reasoning. All of which can get in the way of brainstorming, a popular but not unrewarding activity. 

While freewheeling is to the good, there comes a 

time when the ideas thus turned up must be refined 

if they are to be useful. For clear definitions are not 

only essential in research but also in practice. As 

pointed out in an earlier chapter, they render 

clinical principles applicable and provide the basis 

for the development of observational skills. 

The activities of the cla.ssroom are complex 

because of the density and rapidity of events. So 

many things happen at the same time and in such 

rapid sequence that only a highly trained observer 

can tell what is going on, and only then for some 

portion of the activities. Little wonder that to 

beginners everything in the cla.ssroom seems to happen at once. They have few concepts and no skills 

with which to analyze the flow of events and to sort 

out the significant from the insignificant. Even the 

experienced teacher, having had little training in 

observation, not infrequently makes unwise decisions because of inability either to see or to correctly 

classify events. 

It is well-known that we observe with our concepts as well as with our senses. Definitional knowledge is therefore a guide to observation. Definitions 

have two dimensions —verbal and referential. If 

definitions are clear at the symbolic level and used 

consistently in discourse, they provide a necessary 

condition for rigorous thinking where thought 

moves from one proposition to another. 

However, we can understand definitions in the 

verbal sense and still be unable to use them in the 

referential sense. That is to say. we may not know 

what the terms of a definition designate at the level 

of observation and manipulation even though we 

know what a definition says verbally. Suppose we 

define corrective feedback as any utterance, 

gesture, technique, or procedure thai provides 

hints to help the student respond correctly after an 

incorrect response. Although this definition is verbally clear, the trainee may still not be able to identify the actual utterances, gestures, techniques, or 

procedures as the referents denoted by the definition. 

The training procedure must be such as to 

discipline the student in the ability to identify the 

appropriate teacher behaviors. The complexity of 

this training task can be indicated by noting some 

different ways of giving feedback. For example, it 

can be given by an analysis of the student's oral 

response, explaining why the answer is incorrect or 

giving the correct answer; or by analyzing the student's written response, explaining why the answer 

is incorrect or giving the correct answer; or by probing questions to try to elicit the correct answer; or 

giving examples to clarify and help correct the student's response. Unless teachers are trained to do so 

they will not be able to identify corrective feedback 

even though they know the verbal definition. The 

training program must of course go on beyond the 

development of the ability to identify feedback 

behavior. It must make sure that the trainee can 

perform these behaviors also. 

9S 

91 
The importance of definitions in the diagnostic 

aspects of teaching is crucial, for in diagnosis we are 

required to observe student work performance objectively and to classify deficiencies correctly as a 

necessary condition of effective instruction. 

The utility of definitions in pedagogical training 

is consistently neglected. Despite the fact that 

definitional knowledge is at the heart of pedagogical training, only one collection of such knowledge, although limited in scope, is available.' Even 

that study has been all but ignored. It provides a 

number of definitions pertaining to groups and individuals, classroom cognitive processes, and control of content in teaching. It also gives referents as 

well as verbal definitions of terms. The following 

examples from this collection exemplify the sort of 

definitional knowledge needed to develop programs 

of training. 

Suppose it is desired that the trainee learn to 

recognize dependency behavior in the cla.ssroom. 

The term "dependency" must be defined not only 

verbally but also in terms of observable indicators 

that the trainee can be taught to identify in classroom situations. Here is an illustration. 

Definition: 

"Dependency is reliance on other persons and 

their actions for assistance and support." 

Indicators: 

1. "Continuous attempts to obtain assistance are 

symptomatic of dependency." 

2. "Dependency is indicated by reluctance to 

take independent action." 

Illustrations: 

1. "Everyday it was the same. One could predict 

the pattern of activity after an assignment was 

given. Some of the students would begin 

working immediately. Most would ask additional questions and then begin to work. A 

few would demand constant help until they 

had finished. On occasion these demands for 

help would become irritating; however, attempts to reduce the behavior had resulted in 

failure." 

2. "The next day after Mrs. Jones had attended 

the symposium on individualized instruction, 

she tried out a few of the ideas in her own 

classroom. A major obstacle soon appeared. 

Many students were unable or unwilling to 

work independently. So she went back to the 

old ways," 

Now consider a definition that pertains to 

teacher behavior. The ability to hold students accountable is closely associated with teaching success. But how does a teacher, or even a professor of 

pedagogy, know when a teacher's behavior is of the 

kind that holds students accountable? The answer is 

foreshadowed in the following definition: 

Definition: 

"Accountability is a dimension of group focus 

that refers to the degree to which the teacher 

holds the pupils responsible for their task performance during recitation sessions." 

Indicators: 

1. "The teacher makes an effort to assess 

children's behavior and communicates to 

them her knowledge of it." 

2. "The teacher requires pupils to demonstrate 

the skill or knowledge in question." 

3. "The teacher may employ the accountability 

tactic in focusing upon one pupil or the entire 

class." 

Illustrations: 

1. "The teacher may require an individual student to recite alone during which the other 

pupils may or may not be attending. The recitation may be an arithmetic procedure, the 

rehearsal of memorized material, or the location of States on a map. As the pupil 

responds, the teacher attends to his or her 

progress, asks questions, praises correct 

responses, corrects mistakes, calls for repetition, etc. He is focusing upon that pupil and 

holding that pupil accountable." 

2. "The teacher has several children working at 

the board on a set of problems. Children at 

their desks are working the same problems on 

paper. The teacher attends to the work at the 

board, and at the same time moves about 

among the seated children. From time to time 

she comments to members of both groups. At 

one point she stops and says, 'I think Tom is 

having some trouble with a real tough problem here. Let's all watch him at the board and 

see if we can help.' 

Definitions thus analyzed make it possible to 

develop training materials such as protocols' (con92 9f) 
ccpt films) and to discipline students in the difficult 

art of observation. 

Discipline in observation also requires that 

students learn to control their personal and social 

class prejudices as well as ideological preferences as 

observations are made. In other words, they must 

learn to observe with neutrality except for the technical concepts that guide observation. In a field 

where prejudices and value orientations play a 

heavy role, as in pedagogy, to learn to observe neutrally is a considerable achievement. 

Since objective observation is the sine qua non of 

professional work, it must be considered as a 

primary domain of pedagogical training. It will 

need to be attended to throughout the period of 

professional preparation, although the program 

should doubtless give particular attention to it at 

the very outset. Perhaps observation of exceptional 

students should be the point to begin. If teachers in 

training can learn to observe exceptionality with 

detachment and neutrality just as they can observe 

the behavior of other students, they are well on the 

way to becoming disciplined observers. 

Generic Conditional Clinical Knowledge 

Generic clinical knowledge must be called from 

research studies, professional wisdom, and counseling practices and then classified by training domains 

and in some cases perhaps by levels of schooling. 

The following items, classified by training domains, 

are examples of generic knowledge. Although some 

of these items were derived from studies at the 

elementary level, management of pupils for example, there are good reasons to believe they will hold 

for all levels. 

1. Diagnosis 

a) If teachers identify prekindergatten 

children with potential learning problems 

from genetic etiological factors and provide 

intervention, amelioration, preventative 

and/or remedial programs, they can avoid 

or reduce the long-term frustration, emotional consequences, and academic failure 

experienced often inappropriately labeled 

as obstreperous, lazy, ill-behaved, or mentally retarded.' 

2. Planning 

a) If teachers study and plan materials to be 

taught in order to reduce vagueness of presentation, student achievement will increase. This is true when the teacher is the 

only source of information about a topic 

as in a lecture on a special area.* 

b) If teachers plan a host of alternatives in 

light of their estimate of appropriateness of 

the alternatives for the student or group of 

students who are in particular "learning 

states" with respect to given objectives, then 

the utility of the teaching alternative will be 

maximized.' 

3a. Management of Time, Space and Resources 

a) If teachers spend a large amount of time on 

academic activities, then student achievement on both low and high complexity tasks 

increases.* 

b) If teachers arrange the physical layout of 

the classroom to allow for whole class 

monitoring during small group instruction, 

then classroom disruptions will decrease 

and student learning will increase.' 

c) If teachers involve parents in educational 

programs, then they are utilizing the most 

important influence on the pupils' intellectual and emotional development, and they 

will increase the possibility of obtaining optimal results.' 

3b. Management of Instruction 

a) If teachers direct classroom activities without giving students choices, approach the 

subject matter in a direct, business-like way, 

organize learning around questions they pose, 

and occupy the center of attention, then 

students show greater task orientation and 

greater gains in achievement, creativity, inquiry, writing ability, and self-esteem.' 

b) If teachers adjust the cognitive demands of 

their lessons to the level of students' 

capabilities, then student achievement increases.'" 

c) If teachers make use of probing techniques 

in instruction, then students will make more 

inferences, and more accurate inferences 

concerning subject matter. " 

d) If teachers give complete instructions and 

demonstrations of new materials and 

lOij 

93 
assignments, and check to sec that the 

Students do understand how to do the 

assignments before releasing them to work 

oil their own, then students will show gains 

in achievement." 

3c. Management of student conduct 

a) If a teacher gives a simple reprimand, saying in a matter-of-fact tone: "Don't do that 

again, please sit down in your seat now," 

J fid resumes the lesson, students will pay 

more attention to the lesson following the 

event and evaluate the teacher as fair and 

able to maintain order, in most classrooms. " 

b) If teachers use desist techniques that com 

municate to the students, through teacher 

behavior, that they know what the students 

are doing, then student work involvement increases and disruptive behavior decreases.'* 

c) If teachers use contingency management 

principles of personal attention and social 

reinforcement to increase attending behavior of students, then students will increase 

.study behavior and there will be gains in 

academic achievement and I.Q. scores." 

4. Communication 

The literature of counseling and group deliberation is the source of our knowledge about 

face-to-face communication. It should be 

combed for principles essential for effective 

communication of teachers with students, 

parents, peers, and others. The following are 

examples of likely findings: 

a) If teachers persistently ask "what" rather 

than "why" and do not accept "why" from 

the student, the student is more likely to feel 

responsible for his behavior." 

b) If the teacher persistently asks questions 

rather than makes statements — Is it worthwhile to learn to add and subtract? Is it 

worthwhile to take someone's book? —the 

student is more likely to engage in selfevaluation." 

c) If a teacher appears relaxed —voice, rate of 

speech, facial expressions, etc., —to a 

parent who comes to talk about his or her 

child, the parent is likely to feel more relaxed. " 

5a. Evaluation of student achievement 

If secondary teachers take the time and trouble 

to write comments (believed to be "encouraging") on student papers, then student performance improves significantly." 

5b. Evaluation of instructional program 

If teachers provide a stimulating environment 

for culturally deprived children through special 

programs such as Head Start then children perform better on standardized tests immediately 

following their exposure. The fact that they lose 

their gains after several years in a regular classroom might indicate the need for a continuing 

special program.'" 

Knowledge as Basic to Training 

Now that examples of generic knowledge, both 

definitional and conditional, are before us, it is 

time to emphasize certain aspects of this knowledge 

as they bear upon its utility in training. To emphasize an important point made in a previous chapter, 

attention is called again to the distinction between 

knowledge and skill. Knowledge is the accumulated 

definitions, principles, and other forms of information typically preserved and expressed in symbolic 

ioim. A skill is not knowledge, but rather behavior 

in which stimulus-response-feedback processes are 

highly organized with respect to an objective. It is 

not a habit in the sense of a fixed response, but acting so that subsequent responses are modifiable in 

the light of emerging conditions and the preceding 

responses." 

How are knowledge and skill related? Consider 

the following principle: If teachers hold students 

accountable for task performance during the 

lesson, behavior disruption decreases during the 

recitation. The teacher behavior refened to by the 

expression "hold students accountable or responsible" is the skill. Now, the behavior —what the 

teacher says or does and how it is said or done to 

hold students responsible —is not given in this particular principle. The original research defines or 

describes the behavior, otherwise the principle is 

worthless in a training program unless professional 

wisdom can supply the missing information about 

what the teacher does to hold students accountable. 

This is the chief reason why researchers must provide exact descriptions of teacher performance in 

94 K'l 
studies of teacher effectiveness if usefulness of their 

findings is to be assured in training programs. 

Unfortunately, the utility of conditioned knowledge is often diminished by failure to provide 

descriptions of teacher performance. This is readily 

seen by reference to the forms of clinical knowledge 

found in research literature. Some principles arc 

composed of two and some of three sets of variables, 

as follows: 

1. A C 

2. A B 

B _ 

C 

C 

Where A is the variables of teacher behavior; B is 

intervening variables, and C is the variables of student behavior achievement, attitudes, conduct. 

In the first case, the teacher behaves in a 

specified wav and student effect is direct. Here is an 

exampi'-: 

Student disruption ceases or 

diminishes. 

Teacher ignores student behavior by turning back on disruptive student, pnvs attention to 

desirably behaving student, or 

walks away from misbehaving 

student (where teacher attention is the reinforcer). 

In the second form, the teacher's behavior evokes 

an intervening set of behaviors which in turn results 

in the desired student conduct. The teacher's performance thus leads indirectly to the desired student behavior. An example is the following: 

B 

Student work 

involvement 

increases. 

Pupil deviancy 

decreases. 

A 

Teacher engages students 

in a variety of 

activities during a seatwork 

lesson. 

The third case is one in which the principle does 

not include teacher behavior. This is an example. 

A 

? 

B 

Students understand the 

lesson, according to their 

own rating of 

the lesson, (as 

shown by a research study). 

C 

Achievement 

gains in socia 

studies correlate with 

their ratings 

.56 and .44. 

Someone could ask wluther it is expected that 

students will learn from presentations they do not 

understand. However, the crucial point is not that 

students arc more likely to learn what they understand, but that the principle provides no teacher 

behavior. Th e intervening variable student 

understanding- is given, but what the teacher does 

to induce understanding is absent. For purposes of 

training such principles arc worthless. 

Principles of this type occur all too often in professional wisdom and not infrequently in research 

studies. Wisdom as well as research tells us that 

motivated students learn, that good classroom atmosphere leads to good student conduct, and that 

students who apply themselves learn more than 

those who do not. But, as in these instances, prescriptions are not infrequently lacking. 

Patterns of ClaMroom Operation 

The skills, of which definitional aiid conditional 

kno\ 'ledge are the verbal counterparts, are effective 

when they are orchestrated in the performance of 

teachers who are aware of what they are doing and 

where they are going. 

It has long been recognized by students of pedagogy that teaching is a pattern of behavior and not 

just a set of desultory acts. Historically the pattern 

has been referred to as methods of teaching, frequently referred to now as management, and these 

correspond to two forms - didactics and heuristics. 

Historically, one of the most influential formulations of didactics was Ziller's elaboration of 

Herbart's conception of teaching into five steps," as 

follows: 

1. Preparation. This phase prepares me students 

for reception of new ideas by calling up 

related ideas already known. This operation 

revives the apperceptive mass as a basis of further learning. 

2. Presentation. This sets forth the new ideas of 

the lesson. 

3. Association. In this step the new is actu;,lly 

combined with the old through irr.dgination 

and reflection. 

4. Generalization. In this step the general idea is 

separated from concrete particulars. It is a 

form of abstraction and occurs by reflection 

and expression through language. 

5. Application. The learner applies the general 

idea. This helps to fix the learning and to provide further insight into what has been 

learned. 

95 

I DO 
Another influential pattern of teaching, somewhat similar to Herbart's, was advanced by Morrison some fifty years ago. He called it direct 

teaching, by which he meant that objectives are 

understood, content directly related to objectives is 

selected, students arc introduced to the new material after a pretest to determine what the students 

know already, assignments are made and the 

students kept on task and given corrective feedback 

when needed. His formula was: "Pre-tcst, teach, 

test the results, adapt procedures, teach and test 

again to the point of actual learning."" He said: 

Teaching which aims at the objective directly, 

records pupil performance, and then passes on 

is however only half direct teaching. The more 

essential half is found in the principle of corrective teaching, or the application of the testing and reteaching members of the mastery formula. Apart from corrective instruction, there 

is fundamentally no systematic teaching at all 

but only the administration of one form of intelligence test.'* 

Recently, direct teaching has been enjoying 

renewed attention because of research results that 

support systematic performance not essentially different from Morrison's conception. Essentially, 

direct teaching is now conceived as teaching in 

which objectives are understood by students, content directly related to objectives is used and is extensive, pre.sentation or lesson development is 

specific and relatively short, questions pertain to 

the content and are at a low cognitive level, seatwork and home assignments are required, students 

are monitored and held accountable for assigned 

work, corrective feedback is provided, and the work 

is paced at an optimum level.'' 

It is evident from what has just been said that the 

pattern of didactic teaching has changed very little 

with time. Diagnosis, feedback, and objectives have 

become more pronounced since Herbart. But other 

cor<ponents are essentially the same, although 

changes in pedagogical language may give the impression that wholly new energizing ideas have 

emerged. This is not to depreciate advances made 

in clinical knowledge and skills. If didactic teaching 

is a natural form of behavior, as we suggested 

earlier, its basic pattern should show little or no 

change over the years. What research can and is 

providing is the knowledge by which to identify and 

improve the skills that make didactic teaching more 

effective. 

96 

Heuristics and Its Knowledge Base 

Mciuistics, like didactics, is a natural form of 

teaching. Its point of departure is the students and 

their interests, active or potential, rather tha'i the 

content of instruction. Its primary objectiv<- is to 

provide an experiential context for students lo learn 

the skills of identifying and solving problems. As 

they engage in problem solving, students come into 

purposeful relationship with the knowledge relevant to the problem. It is claimed that they thereby 

acquire the concepts, principles, skills of thinking, 

attitudes, and so on that they need to deal with the 

problems of life. 

Like didactics, the origins of the heuristic pattern 

4ire lost in antiquity. Its components have been 

identified from time to time and tagged with 

various labels. Perhaps the clearest description of 

this pattern, at least in the current century, is that 

of Kilpatrick, in which he proposed four operations: purposing, planning, execution of plan, and 

evaluation." Each of these components is carried 

out by the students under the guidance, cooperation, and assistance of the teacher. 

It will be readily recognized that these elements 

of the heuristic pattern are primarily the same as 

the elements of Dewey's complete act of thought; 

namely, felt needs, identification of the difficulty to 

be overcome in satisfying the needs, collection of 

data and formulation of a hypothesis or plan of action, elaboration of the hypothesis, and testing it 

either as a conclusion or as a course of action. 

There have been a number of other statements of 

the heuristic pattern since Kilpatrick's. but they 

consist essentially of the same ingredients. 

Research bearing on the efficaciousness of 

heuristics in comparison to didactics leaves much to 

be desired. Nevertheless, it appears from recent 

research that students who are taught didactically 

are just as effective at problem solving and have just 

as good attitudes toward themselves and the school 

as students who are taught heuristically." This 

should not be taken to mean that teachers should 

be given no training in heuristic skills. We do not 

yet know enough about the cognitive makeup of 

teachers and students, or the effects of different 

disciplines upon teaching behavior, to do anything 

other than to encourage further research on 

heuristics and to insist that teachers be prepared in 

heuristic as well as didactic skills. 

Training in these different modes of teaching 

should be clearly separated. Students should know 

10 :i 
when they arc being trained in either heuristic or 

didactic skills and modes of management, and no 

attempt should be made to mingle the ideas of 

heuristics with those of didactics and vice versa. 

They should be kept separate. It may be that some 

of the problems teachers are now having with student conduct are attributable to the fact that programs of pedagogical education have for some time 

tended to assimilate these two modes of teaching, 

and, as a consequence, many teachers have entered 

the service of the schools without clearcut ideas and 

skills of management. 

The problem of developing a program of training in heuristic skills is difficult because of the scarcity and poverty of research on the effectiveness of 

variations in heuristic performance from teacher to 

teacher. " Con.sequently, there is little research 

knowledge for heuristic training, forcing us to fall 

back upon craft knowledge to develop a training 

program. More specifically, we do not know the effectiveness of various teaching behaviors for helping 

students learn how to clarify their purposes or plan 

to realize them. Neither do we know what teaching 

behaviors are effective in working with students as 

they carry out their plans and evaluate the outcomes. 

Summary 

The domains of training constitute the categories of knowledge required for training in generic classroom skills. The task of program 

development can be carried out only if we have the knowledge appropriate to each of these categories. This knowledge is now sufficient to 

underwrite a program of professional preparation, a program that can 

guarantee a greater measure of work success than our pedagogical 

schools have heretofore provided. However, the knowledge base of professional training is only partly supplied by generic knowledge. The remainder must come from content-specific knowledge, to which we turn 

in the next chapter. 

Chapter 10 

Hud)5in.s. Bryce B A Calalofrue oj Concepts in the Prdu 

gof^ical Domain of Teacher Education .Syracuse. New 

York: National niwieminaiif>n Center. .Svratuse University. 123 Huntington Hall. 1(174 

.Smith. B Othanel; Donald K Orloskv; and Jean Borg 

Han'Hbook on the Oevetopment and Vie of Protocol 

Materials for Teacher Education United States Depart 

meni of Health. Kducation and Welfare, Office of Education. Leadership Training Institute. Chipley. Kl{)rida: 

Panhandle Education Cooperative. 197S 164 pg.; Borg. 

Walter R 'Withitnes.s," Protocol Materials Student 

Manual l.ogan. I'tah: I'tah State Iniversity. [uly 1174 

•^7 pg.i Borg, Walter R Protocol MateriaU InstrucUn 

Handbook for the Protocol Materiab on Clax^room 

Mana/^ement Tampa, Florida National Resource ,^t^d 

Dis-semination ("enter. I'ln^t-rsitv of South Florid.i. ii d. 

88 pg.: "Protocol Materials: What Are Theyr'" Hi mm, 

color film. I'ampa. Florida: National Resource and 

nis,semination Center, llniversitv of South F'loritla: Smith. 

B. Othanel, Teachers for the Real World Washington, 

D.C-.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher 

Education. 1969. 185 p. 

(ilaser. Kurt and Raymond I.. Clemmens. •'School 

Failure," Pediatrics. 35. 1965. pp 128 141; Hallgren. B. 

"S|)et ific Dyslexia: A Clinical and Ceneiic Study," Acta 

Psychiat S'eurol Supplement, Vol 65. 1960: Claser. 

Kurt I.eammK Difficulties Causes and Psychological Im 

plications A Guide for Professionals Springfield. II 

hnois: Charles C Thomas Puhlisher. 1974 pp 1819, 

IliUer, [jtk H., (ierald Fisher, and Walter Kaess. "A 

Computer Investigation of V'erhai C-haracteristics ot F^f 

fective Classroom Lecturing." American Educational 

Hesearch Joumal. VI, No 4, November 1969. pp. 

l!,»! 

97 
fihrdVfi; llillcr, jack 11. "Verbal Kcspon.sc Inilic aliifA of 

C:(iii(<'|i(ual Vamicncss," .•lrni'rir«ri Educational Research 

Journal, Vlll. N<i 1. Jaiiuaiy HIVl, pp I.'')! Itil: BDIK, 

Walifi K. "Iinprnving I'lipil At hicvrnicnl thiougl) 

riMil\tr l.aMxuaK''. Eield lest Heport, laiiipa, Kl : Na 

tioiial Krsourcc and Dis.scinination (Icnici, University of 

Soiitli Florida, n.d pp. 1 2(>; IlclKard. M ; 1) Rosi-n 

sliinr. and N I., (lanr. "1 he Icachir s Klifilivi'ni's.s in 

Kxplainin){: Kvidcnir on li.s (JiMicraliiy and Corrclaiion 

witli I'upils' Ratings and Alti-niion .Siiiics " In Ciam' ci 

al.. Technical Report No 4 .Stantord: .Siardord C'ciitcr 

tor Rfsrarcfi and Dcvrlopmrni in Teaching. 1!)6H; VVallrn. 

N K. Relationships between Teacher Characteristics and 

Student liehaiior, I'ari III .Salt Lake Cily: University of 

llah , I'Mid (T .S.O.K Coop. Res. I'lo). No SAK. l-:<) 

•> 11) IKI); lorrame . K I'. Characteristics oj Maihe 

inatics Teachers that Affect Students' Teaming Final 

Kipuit U .S () F, Bureau of Researil) (C'oop Res I'roj. 

No 10211 Contrail No. SAK H!)«S). Hllili. (FRIC no. Kl) 

nil :-l7S 1; Solomon. D.; I.. Rosenliern.. and W K. 

Bc/drk • Feat hei Behavior and Student I.earninj^.'/our 

nnl of Tducational Psychology, .')'». l*)t»-I. pp 2!i :ill; 

Bloom. Ben)amin S. Human Characteristics and .School 

Learning, New \'<)rk: MeCraw Mill Book Company. 

M17(). pp 2.=iH 2hO: Dunkin. M., and B. Biddle. The 

Study of Teaching,, New York: Moll. Rinehart. and 

Wmston. I'I71. p :<()H. 

.'i Sliavelson. RithardJ. "What Is the Basic'Feachinj< Skill.'" 

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 24. (Summer l'.17.'i). 

pp. IM 1.^)1; Shavelson, R. J. "'I'eachers' Oecision-

.Vlaking." In iN. I., (iajije (ed.). The Psychology of 

Teaching Methods: The 7^th Yearbook of the National 

.Society for the Study of Education, I'art 1. Chiiago: 

University of Chit ago Press, 1976. pp. .172 -IM: Koiinin. 

Jacolj. Discipline and Group Management 'n Classrooms 

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970; Rosen 

shine. Barak. "Objectively Measured Behavioral Predictors of F.ffectiveness in Explaining." In 1. 1). Westburv 

and A A. Bellack (eds.). Research into Classroom Proc 

esses New York; I eachers C:ollege Press. 1971; Rosen 

shini-, Barak. Teaching Behamors and Student Achieve 

ment. London: National Foundation for Kducatior al 

Research in England and Wa'es. 1971. 

6. Brophy. Jere E.. and Carolyn M. F>ertson. Learning from 

Teaching A Developmental Perspective. Boston: Allyn 

and Bacon. Inc.. 1976; St al lings, J. A., and D. Kaskowitz. 

Follow-through Classroom Observation 1972-7J. Mcnlo 

Park. California: Stanford Research Institute. 1974 

Medley. Donald .M. Teacher Competence and Teacher 

Effectiveness: ,4 Review of Process-Product ResearchWashington. D. C : American AsstK-iation of Colleges for 

I'eacher F^ducation. August 1977; Fisher, C. W . D. C. 

Berliner. N. N. Filby. R. Marliave. I. S. Cahen. M. M. 

Dishaw. and J. F^ Moore. Teaching and Learning in the 

Elementary School: .4 Summary of the Beginning Teacher 

Evaluation Study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratorv 

for F'.ducational Re.search and Development, BTF-S 

Report VII I, September 197H; Cooley. W.. and 

I.einhardt. The Instructional Dimensions Study. Final 

Report Piltsbuigh. I'ennsvlvania: Learning Research 

anil nevelopment Center. Univei.siiy of Piiishurgh, 197K. 

7. Kounin. Jacob Discipline and Croup Management in 

Cla.ssroiims. New York: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston, 

1970; Brophy. )ere F... and Caiotyn M. Evertson. Learn 

ing from Teaching ,4 Developmental Perspective 

Boston: Allyn and Bacon, lix . 1976; Cilaser. Kurt. 

Learning Difficulties, Springfield. Illinois: CMiarles C 

Ihomas. Publisher. 1971. p li:t; (ioitlieb. j , and Biidolf 

M. "Social Atceptability of Retarded Children in Nongraili'd Schools Differing in Architecture." American 

Journal of Mental Deficiency, 7H. 197.1, pp If. 19; 

Medley, Donald M. Teacher Competence and Teacher 

Effectiveness: A Reinew of Process l^oduct Research 

Washington. D. C : 'I'he American As.sociation of (a>lleges lor I'eacher Education, August 1977. 

H Bloom. B S.; A. Davis, and R. Hess Compensatory 

Education for (%ltural Deprivation. Based on working 

papers contributed by participants in the Resea ch C.im 

ference on Flducation and C'ultural Deprivation. New 

Y'ork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965; Ckirdon, 1. J. 

led ) Reaching the Child through Parent Education The 

Florida Approach CJainesville: Insiituir for the Develop 

inent of Human Resources. University of Florida, 1969; 

Colvin. Ralph W , anil Esther M. i^affiro. Preschool 

F.ducation: A Handbook lor the Training of Early Childhood FUiucators. New Y'ork: Springer Publishing Com 

panv. 1971. p 7«.; Kagan. J., and 11. A. .Moss «ir(/i to 

.Maturity .4 Study m Psychological Development New 

York: John Wiley. 1962; Strickland. S. P. "Can Slum 

Children I.earnr'" American Education, July 1971, pp. 

1 7. 

9 Coral, r.. and Beckerman, V. The Effect of Classroom 

Context on Student .•Ichievement lechnical Report N. 

14.^). ('oluinbia, Missouri: Center for Researth in Social 

Behavior, University of Missouri, 1978; Kounin, J. S.. and 

P. 11. Doyle. "Degree of Continuity of a Lesson's Signal 

System and Task Involvement of Children " youma / of 

F.ducational Psychology. 67, 1975. pp, 159 164; Kounin, 

Jacob S . and Paul Cump. 'Signal Systems of Lesson Set 

tings and the I'ask Related Behavior of Preschool Chil 

i\iex\." journal of Educational Psychology, 66. 1974, pp. 

554-562; Rosenshine. Barak, Teaching Behaviors and 

Student Achievement Windsor, Berkshire: National 

Foundation for tUlucalional Research in England and 

Wales. 1971; Soar. R. S. Follow-through Classroom Proc 

ess iMeasurement and Pupil Growth (1970-71): Final 

Report. Gainesville: College of FMucaiion. L'niversity of 

Florida. 1973; Solomon. D.. and A. J. Kendall. Final 

Report Individual Characteristics and Children's Performance in Varied Educational Settings. Chicago: Six-ncer 

Foundation Project. 1976; Stallings, J., and D. 

Kaskowii/. Follow-through Classroom Observation 

Eiiiluatwn 1972-7i Menio Park. California: Stanford 

Researth Institute. 1974; Medley. Donald M. Teacher 

Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Re-view of 

Process Product Research Washington. D. C : The 

-Arneriian AssiuLition of Colleges lor Teacher FUlilcalion. 

.August 1977. 

98 

V 
10. Duiikiii, M., and II, lliddic I'hi' Study of Teachinn New 

York: lliilt. Riiirliari, and WiiisKm, l!»71, p 'JH'I; 

Br()|ihy, Jcrr K,, and Carolyn M. Kvrrl.'ion, I.earniriK from 

Teaihinp A Developmental Penpective Hoston: Allyn 

and Bacon, Inc , 1976, Kishrr, C. W., 1). C, Berliner, N. 

N Filby, R, Marliavr, I.. S Calit-n, M. M. Disliaw, and j 

K, .Moore. Tearhin/f and Learning in the Elementary 

School: A Summary of the Beginning Teacher Ei<aluatton 

Study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educa 

tional Research and neveiopment, BTF.S Report VII I, 

September 1978. 

11 Abraham, E. C , M. A. Nelson, and W, W. Reynolds, Jr. 

DtscusUon Strategies and Student Cognitive Sktils A 

paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association, New York, I97I; 

Diinkin, M,, and B. Biddle, The Study of Teaching. New 

York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston, 1974, pp. 210, 335.: 

Brophy, Jere E,, and Carolyn M. Evcrtson. Learning from 

Teaching: A Developmental Perspective. Boston: Allyn 

and Bacon, Inc., 1976, p. 146; Soar. R. S. An Integrative 

Approach to Classroom Learning Philadelphia: College 

of Education, Temple University, 1966. 

12 Brophy, Jere E., and Carolyn M. Evertson. Learning from 

Teaching: A Developmental Perspective Boston: Allyn 

and Bacon, Inc., 1976. 

13. Kounin. Jacob. Discipline and Group Management in 

Classrooms. New York: Hoit. Rinehart, and Winston. 

1970. 

14. Kounin. Jacob. Discipline and Group Management in 

Classrooms New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 

1970. 

15 Thompson, M., W. Brassell, S. Persons, K. 'Tucker, and 

M. Rollins. "Contingency Management in the Schools: 

Mow Often and How Well Does It Work?" American Educational Research Journal, 1974, pp. 19-28: Brophy, J , J. 

Colosimo, and 'T. Carter. "Applying a Contingency Management System to All Students in Each Classroom in an 

Entire Elementary School." Research Report Austin, 

Ti'xas: The Research and Development Center for Teacher 

Education. The University of Texas at Austin. 1974: 

Rollins. H.: B. McCondless. M. Thompson, and W. 

Brassell. "Project Success Environment: An Extended Ap 

[)li(.ition ol Contingrncv .Management in Inner-C'ity 

Schools." fournal of Educational Psycnolitgy, 66. 197-1. 

pp 167 178; Dunkin. .M.. and B. Biddle. The Study of 

Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston, 

1974. p. 169; Duke. Daniel I., (ed.) Classroom Manage 

ment: The 7Hth Yearbook of the National Society for the 

Study of Education Chicago: The University of Chicago 

Prevs. 1979 

16. Walsh. William M. (ed.) Counseling Children and Ado 

h'scentr An Anthology of Contemfmrary Techniques 

Berkeley, California: MtCuichen Publishing CJirp,, 1975, 

pp, 375 397, 

17. Ilawes. Richard M, "Reality Therapy: An Approach to 

Encourage Individual and Social Responsibility in the 

Elementary School." In Walsh, William M, (ed.) Coun 

seling Children and Adolescents: An Anthology of Con 

temporary Techniques Berkeley, California: McCutchan 

Publishing Corp,, 1975, pp. 390-397. 

18. Peitrofesa, John J., Alan Hofiman, Howard H. Splete, 

Diana V. Pinto. Counseling: Theory, Research and Prac 

tice Chicago: Kand McNally College Publishing Com 

pany, 1978, pp. 108-205. 

19 Page. Ellis Batten. "Teacher Comnienis and Siudeiil Per 

lormancc: A Seventy-Four Classroom Experiment in 

S( hool Motiv.iiion." fournal of Educational Psychology, 

49, August 1958, pp. 173-181. 

20. McDill. Edward L., Mary S. McDill, and J. Timothy 

Sprehe. Strategies for Success in Contemporary Education: An Appraisal of Evaluation Research Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins Press, 1969; Rosenberg, Leon A. Achievement Motivation in Young Children: / An Evaluation of 

a Community Intervention Program. II The Role of the 

Quality of Adult Behavior Mimeographed Progress 

Report, 1973: White, Sheldon H. "The National Impact 

Study of Head Start, ' in Disadvantaged Child, Volume J. 

Compensatory Education A National Debate, Ilellmuth, 

Jerome (ed.) New York: Brunner Maiel, 1970; Glaser. 

Kurt. Learning Difficulties. Springfield. Illinois: Charles 

C Thomas Publisher, 1974, p. 25. 

21. Melton, Arthur W. (ed.). Categories of Human Learning. 

New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 243 285. 

22. Ruediger, William C. Teaching Procedures Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin, 1932, p. 55f. 

23. Morrison, Henry C. Practice of Teaching m the Second 

ary School. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1926, p. 

81. 

24. Ihid.. p 170. 

25. Peterson. Penelope I... antl Herbert J. Walbert. Research 

on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications 

Berkeley: .McCutchan Publishing Corporation. 1979. p. 

38, 

26. Kilpatrick, William H, Foundations of Method New 

York: .Vlacmillan Company. 1926. pp. 203 205. 

27. Peterson. Penelope L.. and HerbertJ. Walberg. Op. cit. 

p. 48. 

28 Horwitz. R. A "Psychological Effects of the Open Class 

Tnim\." Reiiew of Educational Research Vol 49. No, 1. 

1979. pp. 71 85. 

lufj 99 
Chapter 11 

A Profile of Specific Knowledge For 

Pedagogical Training 

Wc distinguished generic from specific knowledge in the preceding chapter, pointing out that 

teaching skills uniquely related to a particular instructional subject arc said to be content-specific 

and its verbal counterpart to be content-specific 

knowledge. 

Research on content-specific problems of 

teaching was among the early research developments along with studies of the relation of achievement to such contextual variables as class size, 

grouping, child interest, intelligence, and grade 

placement. Teaching behavior per se, although of 

sporadic interest, did not come into its own as an 

object of research until the early 1950's. Even then 

the problems of criteria, research design, and controversy over the relation of psychology to teaching 

dogged researchers almost until the 1970's. But 

since then marked progress has been made toward 

unraveling the generic variables of teaching 

behavior and their relation to the variables of 

achievement, attitudes, and conduct. 

Although little progress was made in the study of 

generic variables prior to the 1950's, clinical knowledge of instruction in reading, arithmetic, grammar, and foreign language had become extensive 

by that time and has continued to accumulate. 

Research in the teaching of science, social sciences, 

music, art, and literature is far less impressive. It is 

worthy of note, however, that the body of clinical 

knowledge applicable to the elementary curriculum 

exceeds by far that actually used in training as opposed to verbal courses. It must be admitted, however, that the amount of research on the teaching of 

subjects at advanced levels is comparatively small. 

Schema for Ordering Specific Knowledge 

To classify content-specific knowledge the program dimensions to which the knowledge is relevant 

must first be identified. One dimension is the If-vel 

of schooling such as preschool, primary, intermediate, and secondary. This dimension roughly 

represents the developmental gradient of students 

as well as their levels of knowledge. Specific instructional behavior differs somewhat from level to level, 

a fact recognized for centuries and now supported 

by research findings. 

Another dimension is the subject matter of instruction. That the character of teaching differs in 

some important respects from one subject to 

another has been a constant theme of research and 

pedagogical education for most of this century. 

The third dimension is the domains of training 

set forth in the preceding chapter. It is a mistake to 

consider the training of pedagogical personnel in 

these domains apart from clinical knowledge appropriate to them, for the knowledge tells us what 

skills to develop. For example, the knowledge used 

to decide the diagnostic skills to be taught is quite 

different from that used to decide the skills of instruction. If we know that manuscript writing 

(printing) is more effective than handwriting in 

teaching young children to write, we know thereby 

that teachers should acquire skill in manuscript 

writing and in identifying the difficulties children 

have as they try to form letters and words. The 

clinical knowledge required for skill development 

varies from one domain to another and in some 

cases from subject to subject and from level to level 

of schooling. 

These three dimensions are represented in the 

diagram on the next page. 

To fill in the cells from the research literature 

would require a team of individuals working 

throughout a considerable period of time. Even the 

task of giving examples of knowledge for each cell is 

too overwhelming to be undertaken under our 

restraints of time and resources. However, we can 

give a few illustrations of such items of knowledge 

to emphasize what must be done to develop an effective program of pedagogical training. The 

107 101 
Diagram 6. Matter Schema for Specific Clinical 

Knowledge by Subject, School Levels, and 

Training Domalni 

Vi)calii)n;il-lnduslrjal I'.diicalioi 

Secondary School 

Intermediate School 

Primary School 

Preschool 

Home Hconomics 

Foreign Language 

Social Science 

Natural Science 

Mathematics 

Language Arts 

following items are examples of the language arts 

cells for each domain and school level, except for 

levels where knowledge is not readily available and 

where the domains primarily include generic 

knowledge. 

Diagnosis: 

A. Preschool 

a) If a child is having reading problems, the 

teacher should determine if he or she is 

confused about what it means to "read," 

that is, (1) understanding the communication purpose of written language, (2) conceptualizing the symbolic function of 

writing, (3) understanding the concepts of 

decoding and encoding, (4) learning the 

linguistic concepts, and (5) developing the 

corresponding technical termitiology for 

such abstract units of language. 

The state of cognitive confusion about the 

purpose and nature of reading has a cumulative effect as the child advances to 

higher grades.' 

Diagnosis: 

B. Primary 

a) If a child is having difficulty in making 

certain letters in manuscript writing, 

observe the child to see which of the basic 

strokes is not being properly performed.' 

Diagnosis: 

C. Intermediate. 

a) If teachers want to assess the sight vocabulary problems of pupils, they should use 

words that are similar in their spelling 

patterns so children must look at the 

whole word rather than just its initial or 

final letter for identification.' 

102 10 s 
b) If teachers force children to create a 

sentence that is a logical or meaningful 

continuation of one they have read, it indicates understanding of the given 

sentence.* 

Planning: 

Research in this domain is just now getting 

underway. The knowledge generated by research 

is likely to be generic instead of content specific. 

Management 

A. Preschool. 

a) Instruction. 

If teachers require students to describe an 

object they request to use, language 

development is facilitated.' 

b) Students. 

Research on this aspect of management 

has resulted in considerable knowledge 

about the control of students, but the 

knowledge appears to be generic although 

it resulted from studies of the performance of elementary teachers. 

Management: 

B. Primary. 

a) Instruction. 

If the teacher of reading frequently provides for structured learning achievement 

among low SES students will increase." 

If second-grade teachers follow a pattern 

of instruction which allows them to be accessible to pupils, work in small groups, 

and use a variety of materials, then 

students make higher gains on achievement.' 

If a student is having sight vocabulary 

problems in reading, teachers can facilitate word recognition by teaching children to focus on spelling patterns.' 

If teachers select words that have high 

associative connections, such as butter — 

bread; wet —rain; dog—bark. . . the student's skill in recognition of words in context improves.' 

b) Students. 

See generic knowledge. 

Management: 

C. Intermediate. 

a) Instruction. 

If teachers provide reading materials that 

are image evoking and easily visualized 

and not beyond the children's experiential 

background, comprehension improves. 

(Films, field trips, concrete objects, group 

activities, and pictures can prepare children for comprehension.)'" 

If teachers change the format of reading 

materials or their mode of presentation, 

reading comprehension is facilitated. For 

example, the use of phrase grouping of 

sentences helps the comprehension of 

poorer readers ... . "The cat ran under 

the table." "The cat ran . . . under the 

table." " 

b) Students. 

See generic knowledge. 

c) Resources. 

If teachers select reading stories with good 

structure, student comprehension improves. 

(Structure includes characteristics of such 

story features as setting, theme, plot, and 

resolution.)" 

Management. 

D. Secondary. 

a) Instruction. 

If teachers provide sufficient definitions, 

details, and examples of concepts in social 

studies, reading comprehension i.-nproves." 

b) Students. 

See generic knowledge. 

c) Environment. 

If teachers of adolescents with reading 

problems show acceptance and positive attitudes, disabled readers are less anxious 

and function at their best.'* 

d) Materials. 

When teachers select textbooks and supplementary materials, the readability and 

range of levels of materials should be considered to determine the demands of the 

readers' tasks, whether comprehension will 

be enhanced or diminished." 

, 

Itn} 

103 
e) Resources. 

If teachers provide for counseling to improve the self-concept of adolescents along 

with reading instruction, there is significantly greater improvement in reading 

achievement." 

Communication. 

This domain contains only generic knowledge. 

Evaluation. 

This domain contains generic knowledge, 

although test items are typically content specific. 

When clinical pedagogical knowledge is assembled 

and assorted into the various cells of the schema, it 

may turn out that most content-specific knowledge 

pertains to diagnosis and instruction and very little 

to observation, planning, management, evaluation, 

and communication. Were this to be the case, it 

would have fundamental implications for program 

development. Work in the teaching of particular 

disciplines would then deal almost entirely with 

diagnosis and specific skills of instruction; that is, 

with how to identify obstacles to learning inherent 

in the content as well as those arising from what the 

student brings to the learning task, such as prior 

learnings, capacity, psychological and physical disfunctions; and also with how to help students with 

problems thus identified. This would entail study of 

the subject matter of instruction from quite a different standpoint. Treated in detail would be its 

hierarchical structure, where it exists; its logical 

forms; the logic and psychologfy of the elements of 

knowledge most difficult to learn; and modes of 

identifying learning difficulties in the spot. 

The other domains of training —observation, 

planning, management, evaluation, and communication—would consist of generic knowledge, and 

these could be treated in that part of the program 

specially designed to teach the skills implied by 

generic principles. 

Of course, all of this borders on speculation, for 

we cannot know how to organize a program of 

pedagogical training until we have assembled and 

classified the knowledge accumulated from 

research, craft experience, and counseling. Nevertheless, speculation of this sort at once presents the 

negative effects of the disarray of the knowledge 

base of pedagogy. 

Summary 

Attention should be called again to the distinction between generic 

and specific knowledge. The teacher must organize and control the 

classroom group as well as manage the general operations of instruction. The knowledge pertaining directly to these responsibilities is 

generic and the teacher behaviors that follow from such knowledge are 

generic ••kills. At the same time the teacher must teach the knowledge 

and ski..3 comprising the curriculum. Some of the tasks of teaching are 

uniquely related to curriculum content, and the knowledge pertaining 

to these tasks and the skills they require are content-specific. 

Admittedly, this distinction can be overdrawn, but, if used with 

caution, it can be a guide to separating the generic knowledge and skills 

that are now duplicated in special methods courses from the contentspecific materials. This would not only eliminate much duplication but 

also enable the special courses to concentrate upon the pedagogical 

knowledge and skills peculiar to the particular subject matter. 

104 11 a 
Chapter 11 

Because of limited resources and time we have 

found it necessary to rely heavily upon textbooks on 

the teaching of particular subjects. For no reason 

other than accessiblity to the authors, the following 

were used to direct us to references in which the 

various items are treated: Hallahan, Daniel P., and 

Kauffman, James M. Introduction to Learning Disabilities: A Psycho-Behavioral Approach. Englewood CHffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1976; Tinker, 

Miles A., and McCullough, Constance M. Teaching Elementary Reading, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: 

Prentice-Hall, 1975; Rupley, William H., and Blair, 

Timothy R. Reading Diagnosis and Remediation: 

A Primer for Classroom and Clinic. Chicago: Rand 

McNally. 1979; Roe, Betty D., Stoodt, Barbara D., 

and Burns, Paul C. Reading Instruction in the 

Secondary School. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1978. 

1. Scrafica. F. C andj. E. Suigcl. "Styles of Categorization 

and Reading Disability."youma/ of Reading Behavior, 2. 

1970. pp. 105115; Vernon, M. D. Reading and Its Dtfficultiei. London: Cambridge University Press. 1971; 

Downing, John. "Children's Concepts in Learning to 

Read." Educational Research, 12. 1970, pp. 106-112; 

Downing. John, "Children's Developing Concept of 

Spoken and Written Language," Journal of Reading 

Behaviors, 4. 1972. pp. 119 : Downing. John. "Some 

Curious Paradoxes in Reading Research." Reading, 8. 

1974. pp. 210 . 

2. Anderson, D. W. "Teaching Handwriting." What 

Research Says to the Teacher, No. 4. Washington. D, C : 

National Education Association. 1968. 

3. Samuels, S, Jay. "Letter Name Knowledge vs. LetterSound Knowledge as Factors in Reading Acquisition." 

Reading Teacher, 24. 1971, pp. 604-608; Samuels. S.Jay, 

"Modes of Word Recognition," In Theoretical Models 

and Process of Reading, second edition, edited by Harry 

Singer and Robert Ruddell, pp. 270-282. Newark. Delaware: International Reading Association, 1976. 

4. Bobrow, S. A., and G. H. Bower, "Comprehension and 

Recall of Sentences." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1969, pp, 455-461: Anderson, Richard C , 

Sheila R, Goldberg, and Janet L, Hidde, "Meaningful 

Processing of Sentences. " Journal of Educational Psychology, 62. 1971, pp, 395-S99; Anderson. C . et al. 

"Thematic Prompting in Paired-Associate Learning." 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 62. 1971. pp. 

315-321 , 

5. Hart. B. M.. and T. R. Risley, "Establishing Use of 

Descriptive Adjectives in the Spontaneous Speech of Disadvantaged Preschool Children," Journal of Applied 

Behavior Analysis, 1, 1968. pp. 109 120. 

6. Medley, Donald M, Teacher Competence and Teacher 

Effectiveness: A Review of Process-Product Research. 

Washington, D. C : American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education. August 1977. Soar, Robert S. FollowThrough Classroom Process Measurement and Pupil 

Growth (1970-71), Final Report. Gainesville, Fl.: College 

of Education, University of Florida, 1973, 

7, McDonald. Frederick I. Beginning Teacher Evaluation 

Study, Phase II Summary, Princeton, N, J,: Educational 

Testing Service, 1976, p. 21. 

8, Gibson, E., J. Farber. and S, Shcpala, Test of a Learning 

Set Procedure for the Abstraction of Spelling Patterns. 

Project Literacy Report No. 8. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell 

University, 1967, pp, 21-31. 

9, Samuels, S, Jay. "Modes of Word Recognition." In 

Theoretical Models and Process of Reading, Second Edition, edited by Harry Singer and Robert Ruddell. pp. 

270-282. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. 1976. 

10. Anderson. Richard C . and Raymond W. Kulhavy, 

"Learning Concepts from Definitioiu." American Educational Research Journal, 9, (Summer 1972), pp, 385-390; 

Levin. Joel R. "When is a Picture Worth a Thousand 

Words?" In Issues in Imagery and Learning: Four Papers. 

Madison. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1972, 

11. Cromer, W, "The Difference Model: A New Explanation 

for Some Reading Difficulties," youma/ of Educational 

Psychology, 61, 1970, pp, 471-483; Levin, Joel R, "Comprehending What We Read: An Outsider Looks In," In 

Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, second edition, edited by Harry Singer and Robert Ruddell, pp. 

320-330. Newark. Delaware: International Reading As.sociation. 1976. 

12. Guthrie. John T. "Story Comprehension." The Reading 

Teacher, 30, February 1977, pp. 574-577: Goodman, 

Kenneth S. "Miscues: Windows on the Reading Process." 

In Miscues Analysis: Application to Reading Instruction, 

edited by Kenneth Goodman, pp. 3-14. Urbana. Illinois: 

National Council of Teachers of English, 1973; Anderson. Richard C. "How to Construct Achievement Tests to 

Assess Compreheiuion," Review of Educational Research, 

42. Spring 1972. pp. 145170. 

13. Lee. John R.. and Lee F. Anderson, "New Approaches to 

the Material for a Sequential Curriculum on American 

Society for Grades Five to Twelve." Vols. 1-2. Evanston, 

Illinois: Social Studies Curriculum, Northwestern University. 1970; Ratcliffe, Robert H. "A Critical Analysis of the 

Treatment Given Representative Social Science Ideas in 

Leading Eleventh-Grade American Textbooks." Evanston. Illinois: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University. 1966. 

14. Hake, James M, "Covert Motivations of Good and Poor 

Readers," Reading Teacher 22, May 1969. pp. 731-738. 

15. Karlin. Robert. "What Does Educational Research 

Reveal about Reading and the High School Student?" 

The English Journal, 58. March 1969, pp, 368-395, 

16. Lawrence. Denis. "An Experimental Investigation into 

the Effects of Counseling Retarded Readers,"' in New 

Horizons in Reading Newark, N. J,: International 

Reading Association, 1976, pp, 434-441, 

m 105 
PART THREE 

How To Get Ther e 

What changes are basic to improvement of pedagogical 

education? 

Do we move forward by changing individuals or by 

changing objective circumstances? 

What changes in objective conditions now favor improvements in pedagogical education? 

When are behavioral techniques of change likely to be effective? 

What can a college faculty do? 

The need for a coalition to effect new policies and programs of pedagogical education. 

1 ' '-> 

106 
Chapter 12 

Memo On the Problem of Getting There 

In the preceding chapters we have presented 

what a professional school of pedagogy would look 

like, if in fact it existed; and we have given the outlines of knowledge for a program of pedagogical 

training and indicated how that knowledge can 

function in the training program. The remaining 

task is to suggest how such a school of pedagogy can 

be instituted. 

There are two general ways of displacing one set 

of ideas, practices, and institutional structures by 

another. The first aims to make personal and institutional changes by changing individuals: the second by changing external circumstances. These can 

be grouped as follows: 

1. Methods of changing institutions by changing 

individuals 

1.1. Conversion 

1.2. Rational procedures and techniques 

1.3. Behavior technologies 

2. Methods of changing institutions by changing 

external circumstances 

2.1. Governmental action 

2.2. Circumstantial coercion 

Institutional Change Via 

Individual Change 

The underlying supposition of these methods is 

that changes in ideas, practices, and institutions 

can be induced by changing individuals per se. 

When enough individuals have been transformed, 

changes in practices and institutions can result. 

This view is rooted in the notion of social atomism, 

each individual being considered as a social atom 

and society as a collection of such atoms with social 

change occurring when a sufficient number move 

in the same direction. The good institution, and indeed the good society, is created by progressively 

developing good individuals, however defined. 

The first, and most ancient of these methods, is 

religious conversion. Some unusual experience, 

associated with a source of power outside of and 

beyond the comprehension of the individual, induces a change in the individual's attitudes, beliefs, 

and hopes. Such experience may occur in the loneliness of a wilderness, in the heart of a desert, in the 

pews of a church, or on the crowded streets of a city. 

Regardless of the location, the individual is somehow transformed by a profound experience to a new 

orientation and a new way of life. 

The power of conversion is not to be lightly dismissed as a mode of change. Witness the current 

rash of religious cults. Also, one has only to consider the rise of Christianity in ancient times, its 

spread throughout the world, its persistence over 

two thousand years, and its profound effect upon 

all social institutions to recognize the fundamental 

significance of conversion. It has been said that 

Christianity rode into the ancient world on the back 

of a downtrodden social class. This can hardly be 

denied, but without the phenomenon of conversion 

it would have gained neither enough followers nor 

enough support among the upper classes to have 

survived. 

Another mode of change stems from the doctrine 

of the rational individual, the belief that people 

order their life by reason, that they can be persuaded to change their ideas, commitments and 

ways of behaving by argument and fact. This is the 

heart of the parliamentary system, which assumes 

that individuals will listen to reason and be persuaded by the power of logic and information. 

While the actions of a parliament often rest upon 

compromise —you scratch my back and I'll scratch 

yours —still the persuasiveness of logic and information is held to be the dominant force. 

This is perhaps the reason why political participation is deemed to be educative and why so much 

emphasis has been placed upon skills of thinking as 

well as knowledge in educational programs. It is no 

accident that in those nations where the parliamentary mentality has dominated, the schools have been 

most vehement in insisting upon intellectual discipline of the young. 

113 107 
It is easy to see from this approach that changes 

in institutions are to be induced by the persuasive 

influence of logic and fact; that indeed the whole 

society can be improved if the educational system 

disciplines its students in the art of reasoning and in 

the procedures of gathering, organizing, and assessing information. 

A third mode of change is derived from behavioral sciences. Building on the concepts and principles of psychology, sociology, and clinical procedures and techniques for changing individuals, a 

number of schemata have been devised for changing institutions. We shall briefly indicate some of 

the main features of three of these schemata. 

The first is the social-influence schema which 

stresses the role of an agent or leader who is aware 

of the innovation,' The leader is likely to be a principal or someone in the administrative echelons 

whose role is legitimate. This leader induces others, 

department heads, and finally teachers, to become 

aware of the innovation and interested in it. As 

heads of departments and teachers become interested, they then look for evidence for and against 

the innovation. From the evidence, often testimony 

of those who have tried it, they decide either to try 

the innovation or to reject it. If they try it and it is 

successful, the tendency is to adopt it for further 

use. In this case, the innovation is introduced and 

its importance sustained by the influence of legitimized individuals until the evidence for and against 

the innovation can be examined, and the innovation tried out, should that be the decision after examining the evidence. 

The second schema is the linkage approach.' 

The central feature of this schema is the linkage 

between sources of knowledge and the potential 

users of the knowledge. To do this requires interorganization and cooperation among institutions as 

well as institutional levels. For example, an elementary or high school may designate someone who is to 

serve as a mediator between the faculty of the 

school and an external individual who connects the 

school to the source of information. If the school is 

experiencing difficulties, the faculty and its 

mediator study the school situation and define the 

problem. The problem is then passed on to the 

linker who reviews it and, when it is in final form, 

conveys it to the source of information. The source 

of information is some individual or group who is 

aware of the research pertaining to the problem. 

The relevant research is digested and the appro108 

priate information sent back through the same 

channel to the linker and thence to the school itself. 

The faculty of the school then uses the research information to work out a solution or to introduce 

such innovations as seem appropriate. 

The linkage approach must necessarily reduce 

the friction of .social interaction not only within the 

faculty itself but also between the various levels of 

the linkage system. It will con.sequently make use of 

various training devices to develop the personnel in 

skills of both social interaction and problem identification and definition. 

A third schema emphasizes the concerns of individuals who are to be involved in the implementation of the innovation.' In this approach, a clear 

conception of the innovation is deemed to be one of 

the most important elements in the process of 

change. What is loosely referred to as innovation 

very often contains a number of changes, each of 

which is in itself an innovation. The failure to 

recognize this fact very often leads to overloading a 

school with changes to be made in a given time 

frame. 

This approach plays up the importance of the 

concerns of individuals having to do with information about the innovation, how the change will affect them, how the use of their time will be 

changed, how their work will relate to that of 

others, and the effect of the change upon children. 

Attention to these concerns will require, among 

other things, techniques of identifying them, 

sources of information, human relations skills, and 

the ability to sense the situation as perceived by different individuals. 

This mode of change also emphasizes levels of 

use, ranging all the way from no use at all to the 

point at which users are comfortable with the new 

practice and are able to reflect upon it in search of 

ways to improve it. This schema calls for a systematic plan whereby those who are trying to use the 

new set of practices are given appropriate assistance 

at every level of use. Without such assistance innovations are likely to abort. 

These schemata have as their end-inview 

changes in institutional practices and arrangements 

to be achieved by changing individuals. These 

modes may be, and quite often are. effective instruments of change within a particular institution. 

But where there are overlapping or interrelated 

systems such that what one institution does is 

dependent upon the policies and actions of other 

institutions, they are of secondary importance. 

ill 
Colleges of pedagogy arc characteri/.ed today by 

overlapping systems. These colleges typically arc in 

a university system, meshed with colleges of liberal 

arts and sciences and other colleges at the undergraduate level and with the graduate school at advanced levels. Then, unlike other colleges in the 

university, they arc meshed with State departments 

of education and the public schools. Overarching 

this total complex are State legislatures which today 

are increasingly taking over the functions of the 

boards of higher education and local educational 

authorities, laying down policies, curriculums, and 

increasingly a.ssuming the responsibility for financing the schools as well as the universities. State 

educational agencies, too, are under legislative influence, functioning primarily as instruments to 

carry out the will of the legislature. Add to all this 

the increasing role of the Federal Government in 

education, and one begins to see how many bases 

must be touched in order to make any significant 

change in schools of pedagogy. 

Changes in External Circumstances 

Unlike the preceding schemata, the ones now to 

be considered are not concerned, at least not directly, with the problem of transforming the attitudes, 

ideas, and practices of individuals. Rather they aim 

to change directly the institutional structures within 

which individual activities arc carried on. The collectivity is their target, not individuals. The basic 

supposition of these schemata is that if the circumstances under which people behave change, their 

behavior will change and new ideas and attitudes 

will thereby be induced. Consequently, the object of 

change is the circumstances affecting a collectivity, 

be it a total society or a specific group. 

The most obvious schema of this genus is political 

revolt. This is not the place to discuss the anatomy 

of revolution. Suffice it to say that old institutions 

are swept away and new relationships established 

not only among individuals but also between individuals and all the new social, economic, and 

political arrangements. The dynamics of change 

are the military and police force under the direction of an ideology and a determined leadership. 

After a revolution, the educational system undergoes extensive reconstruction - changes in the 

beliefs and practices of personnel, in aims and objectives, and in content of instruction as well as in 

the political control of the system. 

While revolution is a drastic form of change, and 

one certainly not appropriate for the problems of 

pedagogical schools, consideration of it calls attention to the significance of the conception of democracy as institutionalized revolution. Not only does 

a democratic government respond to the needs of a 

people, free to express and to insist upon the importance of their needs, but it also changes institutions 

by legislation and court decisions backed up ultimately by the military and police force. 

It is often said that beliefs and attitudes cannot 

be legislated. In a sense that is true, but in another 

sense it is false. It is true that personal dispositions 

are not directly changed by either legislative acts or 

judicial decisions. But these acts and decisions do 

change the surroundings in which people move, 

and these new conditions require new forms of 

behavior that ultimately change personal dispositions. 

The strength of this approach is illustrated by the 

Supreme Court decision to desegregate the public 

schools. Intercultural education had been carried 

on in the schools for two decades and agitation for 

equal rights and equal educational opportunity had 

been a going concern for at least a generation 

before the 1954 decision of the U.S Supreme Court 

in the Brown-Topeka case. Yet little progress had 

been made toward equalizing opportunities for 

education before the Supreme Court decision mandated changes in objective circumstances. After 

that changes followed more rapidly, although not 

without resistance. As new rules and new conditions 

emerged and were sustained and expanded into 

community after community, ideas, attitudes, and 

behavior of individuals increasingly changed to accommodate the new conditions. Legislation for equal 

employment opporunity has had similar effects. 

There can be little doubt that changes wrought in 

the public schools by State and Federal legislation 

and court decisions have had, and continue to 

have, far greater effects than all the dynamic 

schemata derived from behavioral sciences. 

However, not all of these changes have been 

desirable, and the adverse conditions affecting 

pedagogical schools have remained untouched. Yet 

we continue to ignore the problem of how to inform 

State legislators about pedagogical education, how 

to present to them a clear and vivid picture of what 

it should be and what is required if pedagogical 

schools are to become effective institutions. When 

we do speak, we typically speak in divided voices 

115 ( 

109 
and out of our beliefs and convictions rather than 

our knowledge. It is not surprising that legislators 

often give the opinions of lay persons as much 

weight as those of professionals. 

Circumstances rather than governmental action 

sometimes change pedagogical schools. Common 

knowledge tells us that whatever occurs in one part 

of .society affects other parts. A ca.se in point is the 

severe decline in birth rate. It is influencing society 

in general and schools in particular, producing a 

chain reaction in pedagogical institutions. The immediate effect is the reduction in the number of 

students who seek to become teachers. This loss of 

students threatens the tenure of faculty members 

and in consequence .schools of pedagogy turn to inservice programs to sustain their faculties. As a 

result of all this, a large number of profes.sors who 

heretofore conducted all of their work in campus 

classrooms are now working in the schools, an outcome of circumstantial coercion. 

While there can be school improvements 

resulting from these efforts to help teachers, the 

major payoff from inservice is more likely to be a 

change in the beliefs and attitudes of professors of 

pedagogy with respect to what professional education should be about. The blind forces of history 

sometimes induce personal as well as institutional 

changes that have long been impervious to our best 

laid plans and strategies. 

These observations have been made as an illustration of the effect that a change in circumstances can have on beliefs and skills. Reduction in 

the number of undergraduate pedagogical students 

and the resultant movement of college faculties into 

the schools can lay ti e groundwork for the clinical 

program required by a genuine professional school 

of pedagogy. What is needed, as suggested later, is 

leadership by college administrators, building upon 

the experience and opportunities provided by the 

educative impact of in.service activities. 

Pro and Con of the Modes of Change 

individuals is likely to he persistent and destructive 

of the outward social changes. This conflict sometimes leads to the use of force by tho.se who oppose 

the changes and retaliation by those who brought it 

about. This is a .source of violence according to 

some theories of objective change. 

The individual approach is not altogether satisfactory either. Since it depends upon changes in 

persons rather than circumstances, there is always a 

question of how many individuals must be thus 

transformed before changes in institutional arrangements can be made. According to one view, a 

majority must be transformed, or, at least, a 

number sufficient to threaten the entrenched ideas 

and practices to the point that compromises can be 

made in the interest of a new state of affairs. In any 

event, the course of change is long and tedious and 

is easily reversed when those whose views and ideas 

have been transformed are again in their old surroundings 

it IS apparent from this analysis that any change 

in institutional structures as well as in personal adjustments is likely to be effective only if both individual and collective methods are used. There is 

an apparent contradiction here in the suggestion 

that both approaches be followed at once. The collective method is not likely to be used unless some 

individuals are first committed to it, and the individual method is likely to fail unless supported institutionally. The problem is insoluble at an 

abstract level, but at the level of practice these approaches can be made to work harmoniously in the 

production of institutional and individual changes. 

In fact, even in a wholesale political revolution, a 

program of propanganda and education is carried 

along side by side with coerced changes in institutions themselves. The same thing is true in smallscale changes such as those decreed by courts or by 

legislation. In the long run, coerced changes which 

are not accompanied by transformation of individuals ultimately lose their momentum and suffer reversal. 

The disadvantage of the external method of 

transformation lies in the fact that it changes objective circumstances without immediately inducing 

modifications in the orientation and behavior of individuals. The disposition of individuals, not being 

immediately transformed, are thus in conflict with 

the new state of affairs. As a result, the resistance of 

110 

Factors to Be Changed 

Turning now to the question of how to induce 

and sustain changes necessary to inaugurate a genuine program of professional preparation of school 

personnel, it should be borne in mind that what we 

sav is offered as an approximation to what is possi1 ] f > 
ble in practical circumstances. There are many 

detailed problems which can not be foreseen apart 

from actual conditions. There are special problems 

of individuals which must be dealt with as though 

they were isolated even though they may be embedded in a set of interrelationships. There are 

general policies that apply to the broad institutional context and which at best can only be modified to approximate the particular needs of the professional school. The way in which a university is 

organized, the fmancial policies, and the pecking 

order of various departments and schools all of 

these and many others will affect the efforts to 

change a school of pedagogy. 

Any attempt to change the present academically 

oriented program into a clinical program is more 

likely to be successful if changes in objective circumstances and the corresponding personal adjustments compatible with the new circuTistances are 

identified. 

Among the external circumstances to be realized 

ai;e the following:* 

1. The State support of pedagogical schools 

should be based on program needs rather 

than on the number of full-time students. 

2. State recognition and financial support of the 

public schools as a training laboratory. 

3. Accreditation system that makes a clinical 

program at a postbaccalaureate level a 

necessary condition. 

4. A statewide system of rigorous examinations 

on clinical and academic knowledge and on 

the subject matter of instruction. 

5. The pedagogical program, except programs 

leading to the Doctor of Philosophy degree, 

must be insulated from the influence of the 

graduate school or from graduate requirements for degrees in universities where no 

graduate school exists. 

Among the internal changes to be made are the 

following: 

1. Command of clinical knowledge and skills 

and the ability to train prospective teachers in 

these. 

2. Relationships with the public schools and 

their faculties must be improved. 

3. Changes in beliefs about pedagogical education. 

External Circumstances and How to 

Achieve Them 

It hardly need be said that program financing is 

an indispensable condition for the development of 

effective pedagogical schools. Without it a clinical 

program is impossible, for clinical work accompanying courses in academic pedagogy requires at 

most a ratio of 10 students per instructor. Furthermore, clinical instructors in the public school classrooms ^must be members of the college faculty and 

paid at the same rate as their college peers. All of 

this will add to the cost of pedagogical education, 

making it impossible to carry on clinical work without a new formula for financial support. 

Moreover, the number of schools offering programs in pedagogical education must be radically 

reduced. Many of them have neither the resources 

nor the staff to meet the requirements of existing 

programs let alone an effective clinical program. In 

some of them, work in pedagogy is offered to attract students to maintain the institution. By moving pedagogy to the postbaccalaureate level, work 

in pedagogy in strictly undergraduate schools will 

be eliminated. But this should not reduce their enrrollments, for these schools can still provide the preprofessional programs for admission to pedagogical 

schools. 

Nevertheless, many schools which do not now 

provide master's work will try to do so if pedagogy is 

made an advanced study. To preclude this is to 

establish an accrediting policy that makes a 

thoroughgoing clinical progfram essential for accreditation. In addition, there must be a statewide 

examination system comparable to that provided 

for professions such as accounting, medicine, and 

law. The examination should be grounded in 

clinical and academic knowledge and in the subject 

matter of instruction. 

Finally, schools of pedagogy must be freed of the 

entanglements of graduate requirements. While 

these requirements are more stringent at the doctoral than at the master's level, they must be cut 

away at all levels except for the research degree. 

Pedagogical competence is neither developed nor 

manifested in meeting graduate requirements. 

The foregoing conditions cannot be brought 

about by the procedures and techniques derived 

from behavioral sciences. They are too limited in 

117 111 
scope, and lean too heavily on changes in in 

dividuals, to affect the political forces that shape 

the external circumstances now constraining pedagogical schools. Neither can these conditions he instituted by colleges of pedagogy. These colleges are 

competitive with respect to enrollments and 

prestige and are unlikely to agree on either objectives or strategics. In addition, they lack, indivi 

dually or collectively, the political leverage for 

shaping legislative opinion and action. 

How then can the conditions set forth above be 

realized? There are at least two approaches. The 

first, at a State level, entails the formation of a 

council of prestigious citizens to study and make 

recommendations to the State legislature. The 

council should consist of leaders of various professions, bankers, housewives, business executives, 

labor leaders, minority leaders, and perhaps others. 

It would be charged with the task of working out a 

plan for a professional school of pedagogy at the 

university level. The plan would cover such questions as autonomy of the school, fmancial formulas, 

and the role of public schools and of the State 

department of education. The council should be 

adequately staffed, and its recommendations 

should be expressed not only in common discourse 

but also in model laws for legislative consideration. 

How to legitimize the council is a fundamental 

question. Should it be created and financed by the 

State government? Should it be an independent 

body financed by a philanthropic foundation? Of 

course, the merits of these alternatives should be explored. But the prior question is how either one is to 

be initiated and by whom. All this boils down to the 

question of leadership. Without it nothing will happen and pedagogical schools will continue to be 

shaped increasingly by State departments of education acting as the agent of the State legislature. 

An alternative, and perhaps the only alternative, 

is for two or more pedagogical deans to take the initiative and set an example for deans of pedagogy in 

States throughout the Nation. They must have 

thorough command of an extensive scenario of 

what a professional school of pedagogy can and 

should do and what is needed to do it. If they are 

not clear about the direction and shape of the 

goals, there is little likelihood that they can excite 

anyone to follow their lead. They must take the 

message to civic clubs, labor unions, women's 

organizations, minority organizations, and in fact 

to all organized groups that have a stake in educa112 

tion. Out of such a cain|)aign to awaken the public, 

a council of citizens can emerge either as an inde 

pendent or a governmental group, as experience of 

the campaign indicates. 

If efforts to change external conditions at the 

State level were augmented by similar work of a national council, the chances of success would be 

greatly increased. Leadership for the creation of 

such a council rests with the leadership of the 

American A.ssociation of Colleges for Teacher 

Education. Its institutional membership and its 

Bicentennial Report on the education of the profession make it an ideal agency to advance the cause 

of pedagogical institutions. Were this organization 

to commit itself to the task of creating a council to 

study the status and needs of pedagogi' \\ .schools 

and to securing foundation funds to >. (port it, 

thereby making the council an independr • body, a 

group of nationally prominent citizens could be induced to serve. There is widespread public concern 

about the schools, but few citizens of national 

stature have ever given a thought to the pedagogical institutions that produce teachers. The 

Bicentennial Report lies fallow, ignored by the 

media, by State legislatures, and even by the 

schools of pedagogy. A national council that builds 

on this Report and establishes communication with 

the Education Commission of the States could go a 

long way toward rebuilding pedagogical education 

in our time. 

Partial Agenda for a College 

What can a college do by itself? The answer 

depends upon the leadership of the college and the 

• quality of its faculty. In many institutions practically nothing can or will be done. In some cases, the 

college has neither the re rces nor the leadership 

to move off dead center. In others the commitment 

to graduate study is so thoroughly entrenched that 

to change to a clinical orientation is simply out of 

the question. Fortunately there are some schools 

with enough resources and faculty flexibility to respond to leadership committed to a clinical program. 

These schools can do a number of things: they 

can develop a clinical orientation and commitment, they can establish some of the components of 

a clinical complex for the training of personnel, 

and they can build a common point of view about 

1! S 
the < li.irai ter and purposes ol a professional school. 

It is to these tasks that the procedures and techni(|ues for modifying individual outlooks and behaviors are most appro[)riaie. It is here that faculty 

workshops, seminars, and departmental meetings 

for consideration of issues can be most effective. 

Policies of promotion in rank and pay can be 

shaped to reward those who are effective in clinical 

work no less than those who are successful as 

research workers. In many institutions this change 

has already been made but without defining the 

sort of evidence required for sound judgments 

about the effectiveness of instructors in clinical 

work. There is reason to believe that a large proportion of the faculty of most institutions is teaching 

clinical courses such as special methods, student 

teaching, and educational psychology with little, if 

any. knowledge about research on teaching and 

teacher effectiveitess. Many faculty members, 

especially those in educational psychology and 

other "foundation" courses, eschew research and 

are more interested in hearing about its methodological flaws than in utilizing its findings in the 

training of school personnel. They unwittingly 

assume that personal experience and abstract formulations about teaching by so-called theorists are 

superior to the imperfect knowledge gained from 

research, and continue to think that research 

should produce empirical propositions for which 

there aie no exceptions and no exclusions. 

A policy on rank and pay must reward those who 

are familiar with research on teaching and other 

aspects of pedagogy related to teaching. In addition, it must require that those who are familiar 

with research also show evidence that they use it as 

they train prospective teachers and that they require their trainees to master the knowledge at both 

verbal and behavioral levels. 

Some will ask what evidence can be adduced to 

justify judgments about a faculty member's use of 

research. This is a question that will need to be 

given considerable attention, but it seems reasonable to suppose that faculty members can submit 

their syllabi, examination questions and sample 

answers, and other means used to assess their 

students as evidence that they are acquainted with 

the relevant research and use it. It cannot be too 

strongly urged that a college faculty that plays 

down the quality of research in pedagogy and 

refuses or fails to use research in the training of 

school personnel is undermining its own legitimacy. 

In many instances the relationships between the 

public schools and the schools of pedagogy are at a 

low ebb, especially with respect to participation of 

the schools in the training of prospective teachers. 

Attention was called to this fact in Chapter 3. Fortunately, the relationship has seldom deteriorated 

to the point that restoration of cooperation is impossible. But if the relationship is to be put on a 

sound footing, the school of pedagogy must take the 

initiative and provide for public school teachers 

and administrators iv. oarticipate in the shaping of 

policies and programs of training, particularly 

those components in which the schools are to participate. Although schools of pedagogy are 

restricted in their ability to compensate teachers for 

their work, the college can nevertheless allow college credit in addition to paltry stipends. The faculty can also work with clinical teachers as they jointly 

learn how to train prospective teachers and to 

evaluate their growth. Surely a faculty with strong 

leadership can go a long way, even with their 

destitute resources, toward creating a clinical complex involving local school authorities, teachers, 

and the public. 

IVJ 113 
Summation 

If, as pedagogical educators, wc can get over our 

hangup with graduate study; if we can end our love 

affair with ideologies and put them in proper 

perspective; if wc can think of teaching as a noble 

profession and exalt teachers and the schools rather 

than treat them as objects of wholesale criticism; if 

we can provide practitioners with workable procedures, techniques, and materials rather than with 

grandiose formulas for the correction of all educational ills; if we can end our preoccupation with 

how we are perceived in the academic community 

and turn our attention to how we perceive 

ourselves; if we can shed our masochistic attitudes 

and think positively about the schools, their personnel, and what a proper and adequate program of 

education for such personnel should be; if we can 

respect our own sources of empirical knowledge; if 

we can muster our courage to take the plight of 

pedagogical schools to the public with a firm conviction of what we must have to provide high quality personnel —yes, if we can do these things, there 

is hope that genuine professional schools of pedagogy can become a reality. 

Chapter 12 

1. Carlson, R. O. Adoption of Educational Innoi'ations 

Crnter for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration. University of Oregon. Eugene. 1965. 

2. Havelock. R. G. Planning for Innovation throuf^h Dis 

iemination and Utilization of Knowledge Center for Re 

search on Uiili/ation of Scientific Knowledge. Ann Arbor. 

.Michigan. 1971 

3. Hall. Gene E. The Study of Individual Teacher and Pro 

fessor Concerns abt)ui Innovations," yotirrza/ of Teacher 

Education Vol. XXVII. No. 1. pp. 22 2.S. 1976; Hall, 

Gene, and others. "Levels of Use of the Innovation: A 

Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption."youma/ 

»/ Teacher Education. Vol. XXVI. No. 1. pp. 52 56. 

1975. 

See Phi Delta Kappan, October 1980, For discussion of 

these circumstances. 

114 

120 
Nam

e Index 

Abraham. K.C., 99 

Allen, D.W., 88 

Anderson, C, 105 

Anderson, O.W., 105 

Anderson, L.I'., 105 

Anderson, R.C., 105 

Axtellc, (;., 78 

B 

Hagley, W.C, 36 

Bcckerman, T., 68, 98 

Bclgard, M., 98 

Bellack, A.A., 98 

Bcnne, K.D., 78 

Berelson, B., 68, 78 

Berkow, R., 5 7 

Berliner, D.C., 47, 68, 

88,98,99 

Bezdek, W.K., 98 

Biddle, B., 98, 99 

Birnbaum, M., 78 

Blair, T.R., 105 

Bloom, B.S., 98 

Blyler, D.M., 30 

Bobrow, S.A., 105 

Borg, J.,97 

Borg, W.R.,88,97,98 

Bower, G.H., 105 

Boyan, N.J., 88 

Brassell, W., 99 

Brink, W.G., 30 

Brophy,J.E.,98,99 

Budoff, M., 98 

Burns, P.C., 105 

Cahen, L.S., 98,99 

Caiiver, A., 8 

Carlson, R.O., 114 

Carter, T., 99 

Charters, W.W., 8 

Clemmens, R.L., 97 

Cohen, M.R., 68 

Coleman, J.S., 90 

Colosimo, J., 99 

Colvin, R.W., 98 

Conant.J.B., 8 

Cooley, W., 98 

Cooper, J.M., 88 

Copeland, W.D., 88 

Corrigan, D.C., 8 

Cottrell, I).P., 88 

Crile, G.W., 18 

Cromer, W., 105 

D 

Darwin, C, 70 

Davis, A., 98 

Dempsey, N., 50, 57 

Denemark,G.W.,8 

Dewey, J., 66, 70, 73, 

75, 78,96 

Dishaw, M.M., 98, 99 

Downing, J., 105 

Doyle, P.H., 98 

Doyle, W., 50, 57, 88 

Duffy.J., 8, 57 

Duke, D.L.,99 

Dunkin, M., 98, 99 

E 

Edwards, R., 12 

Elliot, C.W., 37 

Engel, G.L., 7S 

Evenden, E.S., 8 

Evcrtson, CM., 98, 99 

F 

Farber.J., 105 

Fenstermacher, G.D., 

quoted, 52-53; 57 

Filby, N.N., 98, 99 

Fisher, C.W., 98, 99 

Fisher. G., 97 

Flexner, A., 2 

Fortune, J.C, 88 

Fox, S., 88 

Friebel, A., 88 

Gage, N.L., 50; quoted, 

51:57,88,9 8 

Gartner, A., 15 

Gibson, E., 105 

Glaser, K.,97,98,9 9 

Glass, G., 50 

Gliessman, D., 88 

Goldberg, S.R., 105 

Good, T., 68, 98 

Goodman, K.S., 105 

Gordon, I.J., 98 

Gottlieb, J., 98 

Gump, P., 98 

Guthrie, J.T., 105 

M 

Hake,J.M., 105 

Hall, G.E.,8, 114 

Hallahan, D.P., 105 

Mallgrcn, B., 97 

Halsted, W.J., 18 

Hart, B.M., 105 

Ilavelock, R.G., 114 

Ilawes, R.M., 99 

Heath, R.W., 50,57 

Hellmuth,J.,99 

Hcrbart,J.F.,95,96 

Hess, R., 98 

HiddcJ.L., 105 

HiJler,J.H.,97 

Hoffman, A., 99 

Howsam, R.B., 8 

Huber,J.,88 

Hudgins, B.B., 97 

Hull, C, 11 

Jackson. P.W., 68 

Jones, H.L., 8 

Joyce, B., 88 

K 

Kaess, W., 97 

Kagan,J.. 98 

Kallenbach.W., 88 

Kaplan, L., 30 

Karlin, R.. 105 

Kaskowitz. D., 98 

Kauffman.J.M., 105 

Keen. W., 18 

Kelley, M.L., 88 

Kendall, A.J., 98 

Kilpatrick, W.H..96, 

99 

Kleucker.J.C, 88 

Kounin.J.. 98, 99 

Kulhavy, R.W., 105 

LaDue, D., 88 

Land, M.L.,88 

Langer, P., 88 

Lawrence, D., 105 

i-2\ 115 
Lee.J.R.

, 105 

Lcinhardt, G., 98 

Levin.J.R. 105 

Lindscy.M., 88 

M 

Malthus. T.R., 71 

Mannheim, K.. 78 

Marliavc, R., 98, 99 

McCollum, R.. 88 

McCondless, B., 99 

McCullough,C.M.. 105 

McDill, E.L., 99 

McDill, M.S.. 99 

McDonald. K.I., 88. 

105 

Mead. G.H..81.88 

Medley, D.M.. quoted. 

5 1; 57; quoted, 83; 88, 

98.99 

Melton. A., 99 

Meredith, G,, 88 

Metcalf, L.E., 68 

Monroe, W.S., 15,49, 

57 

Moore, G.E., 73, 78 

Moore,J.E..98,99 

Morris, M., 88 

Morrison, H.C.. 74. 78. 

96.99 

Moss. H.A.,98 

N 

Nagel. E.. 68 

Nash. R.J., 8 

Nelson, M.A.. 99 

Nielson, M.A., 50, 57 

O 

Orlosky,D.E..97 

Osier, W., 56 

R 

Ratcliffe, R.H., 105 

Raup, R.B., 78 

Ream, M.A., 8 

Rentel,V.M.,88 

Reynolds, W.W.. Jr., 99 

Rice,J.M.,49.55 

Risley,T.R., 105 

Roe, B.D , 105 

Rollins, H., 99 

Rosenberg, L., 98 

Rosenshine. B., 68, 98 

Rosner, B., 8 

Ruddell, R., 105 

Ruediger, W.C.. 99 

Riigg. E.U., 8 

Rupley,W.H.. 105 

Rylc, G.,88 

Samuels. S.J., 105 

Schaloclt, D., 47 

Sell, R.G., 88 

Serafica. F.C., 105 

Shavelson. R.. 50. 57.98 

Shepala. S., 105 

Sigel,J.E., 105 

Singer, H., 105 

Skinner, B.F.. 72, 80 

Smith. A.. 64 

Smith. B.O.. 8.47, 78, 

97 

Smith, L.R., 88 

Soar, R.S.,98, 105 

Solomon, D.. 98 

Splete, H.H.,99 

Sprehe,J.T..99 

Stallings,J.A.,98 

Steiner, G.A., 68, 78 

Stephcns,J.M..50, 57 

SUles, L.S.,.30 

Stone, D.R., 88 

Stoodt. B.D.. 105, 

Sumner. W.G., 23 

Tucker, K., 99 

Tykocincr, I.T.. 32-33, 

38 

U 

Urmson.J.O., 68 

V 

Vernon. M.D., 105 

W 

Walberg, H.J.. 68, 88, 99 

Wallen, N.E., 98 

Walsh, W.M.. 99 

Ward. B.E., 88 

Washburn, C., 6, 82 

Weil, M., 88 

Westbury, I.D., 98 

White, S.H., 99 

Wilson, J., 88 

Wilson, John, 68, 78 

Z 

Zaffiro, E.M.. 98 

Zidonis, F., 88 

Ziller.T..95 

Page. F B.. 99 

Pangborn, J.M.. 15 

Perry. F.L.. 88 

Persons. S.. 99 

Peterson. P.L.. 68. 88.99 

Pietrofesa.J.J..99 

Pinto. D.V.. 99 

Pugh. R.C.. 88 

116 

Thompson. M.. 99 

Thorndike, E.L.. 72.80, 

90 

Tinker. M.A., 105 

Tolman, E.G., 72 

Torrance, E.P., 98 

i O ', 

- •- -^ A ^ 
Subject Index 

Academic pedagogical knowledge, definition of, 64; 

distinguished from clinical, 64-65; sources of, 65; 

utility of, 75-77 

Academic pedagogical studies, justified as theoretical, 70; types of. 69-70 

Academic preparation of teachers, criticism of, 

31-32; elective courses in, 37; functions of knowledge in, 33; in teaching field, 34-37; complementary studies in, 32-37 

Admission, contingent on training facilities, 39; 

need for ritual in, 39-40; purpose of policy in, 40; 

to doctoral programs, 20; to pedagogical school, 

19,39-40 

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Bicentennial Commission on Education for 

the Profession of Teaching, 3, 12, 112;reporton 

teacher education, 2-3 

American Council on Education, report of Commission on Teacher Education, 1 

Ball State University, 2 

Brown-Topeka case, as example of external 

approach to educational change, 109 

Change, College of Education, agenda of, 112-113; 

different methods, advantages of, 110; external 

methods of, 109-110; institutional factors, in need 

of, 110-111; rational method of, 107; technological 

modes of, 108-109 

Clinical complex, definition of, 24; governance of, 

24 

Clinical facilities, community as laboratory, 23; 

criticisms of, 22; early types of, 22; for doctoral 

programs, 21; role of public schools in, 21-22; 

training laboratory, 24 

Clinical instruction, categories of, 83-85; teachers 

for, 27-28; curriculum and methods courses, proposal for, 42-44; in basic courses, 40-42; knowledge as source of objectives in, 83; pre-induction 

period, 28-29; role of college faculty in, 22; role 

of teachers in, 22 

Clinical knowledge, academic knowledge, distinguished from, 64-65; definition of, 64; forms of, 

90-94; skills, distinguished from, 66; uses of, 65-67 

Colleges of education, approaches to changes in, 

110-113; as non-professional, 11-12; compared to 

early medical schools, 17-18; criticisms of, 11; 

development of, 12-14; graduate schools, influence 

on, 13-14; restraining influences on, 17 

Commonwealth Teacher Training Study, 1 

Communication, as category of training, 85 

Community, as laboratory, 23; nature of, 23-24 

Competency-based movement, 3-4 

Conant report on teacher education, 1-2, 4 

Concepts, as expressed by definitions, 60-61; 

explication o^'as theory, 73-74; pedagogical 

instruction, lack of referents in, 61 

Decisions, nature of, 76; types of, 76 

Diagnosis, as area of training, 84 

Doctoral programs, proposed changes in, 45-46 

Education Commission of the States, 112 

Elementary Teacher Education Models Project, 3 

Evaluation, as training category, 85; in doctoral 

program, 46; of trainees, 44 

Factual knowledge, 64 

Follow-up of graduates, 20, 45 

General Education, criticism of, 31-32 

Generic knowledge, conditional form of, 93-94; 

content specific, distinguished from, 90-91, 104; 

definitional form of, 91-93; defective forms of, 

94-95 

Ideology, as theory, 72-73; criticisms of, 72; 

definition of, 72; usefulness of, 73 

Illinois Normal Univeisity, 12 

Johns Hopkins University, 13, 18, 56 

Laboratory work, accompanied by seminar, 44; 

credit hours in, 40; in campus courses, 40-44; in 

training laboratory, 44-45 

123 117 
Management, as category of training,"85 Schema, for pedagogical education, 19 

National Education Association, report of National 

Commission on Teacher Education and Professional 

Standards, 2 

National Institute of Education, 4 

National Society for the Study of Education, Yearbook on teacher education, 3 

Normal Schools, development into colleges, 13; 

professional character of, 12-13 

Pedagogical education, admission to, 19;basic 

program, focus of, 40; clinical work in, 44-45; compared to early medical education, 17; doctoral programs in, proposed, 20; inservice, emphasis on 

criticized, 5; outline of basic program, 40-45; program development, steps in, 89-90; restraints upon, 

3-4, 13-14; schema for, 19-20 

Pedagogical knowledge, academic and clinical, 

64-65; causal, 51-52; compared to early medical 

knowledge, 17; criticisms of, 50-55; contentspecific, 101-104; definitional, 59-61; empirical 

principles in, 61-62; factual, 64; forms of, 59; 

generic, 90-94; generic, distinguished from specific, 

90-91; nostrums and fictions as substitutes for, 

55-56; rules, uses of questioned, 55; sources of, 

49-50; single variable, uses of, 55 

Planning, as domain of training, 85 

Policy, as a set of rules, 76; relation to academic 

pedagogical knowledge, 75-77 

Prepedagogicai curriculum, 37 

Preprofessional education, complementary component, 32-34; electives in, 37; elements of, 19; elementary teachers, program in, 36; secondary 

teachers, program in, 34-35 

Principles, as approximations, 62; definition of, 61; 

prescriptions, different from, 61; prescriptive potentional of, 62; uses of definitions in, 61-62 

Professional schoo'". characteristics of, 11 

Professional wisdom, 49-50; 55 

Research knowledge, use of by pedagogical faculties, 54; by practitioners, 53-54 

118 

Skill, definition of, 66; distinguished from knowledge, 94; development of observation, 84 

Specific knowledge, definition of, 90-91; dimensions of, 101-102; examples of, 102-104 

Stanford University, 11, 86 

Teacher Corps, 5-year cycle, 4; developer of preinduction period, 28; emphasis on community as 

a laboratory, 23-24 

Teachers, academic preparation of, 31-32; as problem 

solvers, 7; as researchers, 20 

Teaching, as natural form of behavior, 79-80; as 

showing, 79; direct, 96; didactic and heuristic forms 

of, 82; elements of, 80-82; evolution of, 80; 

Herbart's pattern of, 95; heuristics, its knowledge 

base, 96-97; heuristics, Kilpatrick's pattern of, 96; 

Morrison's pattern of didactic, 95 

Theory, as descriptive principles, 74; as explanation, 

70-72; as explication of concepts, 73-74; as ideology, 72-73; as intervening variables, 72; as prescriptive principles, 74; meanings of, 70; probable 

meaning of in pedagogy, 74-75 

Training, based on research, 86; domains of, 83-85; 

materials of, 86-87; objectives of derived from 

knowledge, 83; uses of technology in, 86-87 

Training laboratory, definition of, 24; induction 

of trainee, 44-45; governance of, 24; staffing of, 

26-28 

Tulane University, 11 

United States Office of Education, National Survey, 

1.2 

University of Chicago, 11 

University of Georgia, 188; medical college 

announcement, 17 

University of Texas, 12 

University of Wisconsin, 12 

Value knowledge, as concepts, 63; nature of, 62-64 

121 

• U. S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE l^no 319-!)89/6611