1

Disposition Development for Secondary Education Candidates

The purpose of this article was to overview the development of the use of dispositions in the preparation of secondary education candidates; discuss the value of using dispositions; and present the results of a pilot study whereby a disposition assessment process was instituted at a regional university in the preparation of secondary education candidates. With a growing emphasis in both K-12 higher education on candidate dispositions, often labeled soft skills by the mainstream media, this process was deemed timely by the faculty at the host institution in this study.

As seen in previous studies (e.g., Shiveley & Misco, 2010), the discussion of a definition for appropriate teacher candidate dispositions has presented itself as a problem. Numerous entities in the authors’ university discussed what dispositions were desired, and how an appropriate assessment might be devised to assess those dispositions. This particular initiative was designed both to develop and assess a dispositions’ instrument developed by the faculty of the College of Education in the host university.

Literature Review

Wasicsko (2002) found disposition literature dating back to the 1960’s (Combs, Soper, Goodling, Benton, Dickman, & Usher, 1969). This literature tended to discuss philosophically the value of dispositions for teacher candidates and employed teachers along with a continued refining of the definition of dispositions. While dispositions are a focus of many national organizations such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), preparation programs have just now begun to formally emphasize dispositions. Ironically, it is agreed by many teacher educators that dispositions are key to the success of their candidates (Rike & Sharp, 2008). Because of the difficulty of attempting to develop a discreet listing of dispositions, it is difficult to define them. Maylone (2002) countered by concluding that rather than benefitting teacher education, we might be stripping it of diversity if we focus on dispositions.

Perhaps dispositions are environmentally and geographically sensitive, thereby varying based on location and situation (Bertram & Pascal, 2002). If this is the case, then expectations of professional behaviors and clearly defined clinical experiences are crucial to support the dispositions the unit has decided upon.

More contemporary literature has begun to focus on the relationship between teacher dispositions and student learning. Notar, Riley, Taylor, Thornburg, and Cargill (2009) documented this positive relationship between teacher dispositions and student learning.

Dispositions have been referred to as intuitive tendencies, inclinations, character, and temperament displayed over time (Whisett, Roberson, Julian, Beckham, 2007). The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2009) described dispositions as teacher behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities that affect student learning as well as the teacher’s professional growth. NCATE further noted that dispositions should be consistent with the value of fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Almerico, Johnston, Henriott, and Shapiro (2011) conducted a study to validate the most important dispositions as defined by a sample of students, cooperating teachers, principals, university supervisors, and professors. The results were the establishment of 10 broad-based dispositional characteristics deemed to be the most important. Candidates would be expected to:

§  demonstrate a positive and enthusiastic attitude;

§  demonstrate effective oral communication skills;

§  demonstrate effective written communication skills;

§  exhibits an appreciation and value for diversity;

§  candidate is prepared to learn;

§  collaborate effectively with peers;

§  candidate is a self-regulated learner;

§  exhibits the emotional intelligence to promote goals;

§  reflect on one’s own learning; and

§  exhibit respect for peers.

Damon (2007) called dispositions a “deep-seated component of personality going back to the origins of our temperaments...” (p. 367). If this definition is accurate, can teacher training influence dispositions or are they a personal matter, belonging to the private self?

Assessment

NCATE (2009) has demonstrated the value of dispositions by mandating incorporation of them into teacher candidate assessment. As indicated by Wayda and Lund (2005), dispositions can assist the candidate teachers in understanding what will be expected of them. Nixon, Dam, and Packard (2010) found that when principals used dispositions to assist in hiring, typical personnel problems could be avoided. They also supported the idea that dispositions are related to teacher effectiveness. This blends with contemporary thought that the most important component to student learning is an effective teacher.

Nixon, Dam, and Packard (2010) summarized that knowledge and skills are not enough; teachers must have the disposition to act. Perhaps this disposition to act is the catalyst that elevates a well-prepared teacher to exemplary status. Therefore, dispositions are just as important to assess as the other two legs of the education “stool,” knowledge and skills. However, that is easier said than done. Researchers agree that dispositions are very difficult to assess (Erickson, Hyndman, & Wirtz, 2005; Ginsberg & Whaley, 2003; Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000). Additionally, dispositions are even more difficult to assess and enforce.

Shiveley and Misco (2010) have identified a four-step process in developing an assessment of dispositions

§  Step 1 – clearly define and agree upon what is meant by dispositions;

§  Step 2 – determine how this definition can be operationalized;

§  Step 3 – determine the types of assessments needed to evaluate the degree of

competence and growth in those dispositions determined to be important;

§  Step 4 – collect and analyze data on these assessments and use this data to revise the program’s focus, teaching, modeling, and assessment of dispositions. (p. 10)

Shiveley and Misco (2010) also emphasize that it is critical to have strong communication and support for assessment of this kind. Consistent with the approach of Shiveley and Misco, this particular study followed a similar protocol with the intention of developing an effective assessment instrument and process. This article describes the implementation of the protocol, the results of the initial pilot study, and the subsequent changes implemented by a regional university associated with the dispositions of teacher candidates.

Methods

The faculty associated with teacher candidate preparation began to collectively discuss the need to assist students with the development of disposition skills. This was the result of faculty observation of candidate dispositional behaviors both in class and in field experiences; accreditation expectations; and the comments from K-12 partners. The faculty studied the concept of dispositions and developed a one-page disposition instrument designed to be both formative and evaluative. This was a collaborative effort among education faculty across disciplines. The process resulted in a pilot instrument used in the fall of 2011. Subsequent to the pilot implementation, a revised disposition instrument was developed and administered to candidates in the spring of 2012 in field experience classes. The instrument was the product of an effort by the K-12 teacher education faculties to develop an instrument general enough for all candidates. This process would lend itself to more diverse and consistent assessment opportunity in the area of dispositions.

Instrument.

In the initial development of a disposition instrument, individual faculty and committees representing the various departments and programs of the university where field placements occur (e.g., elementary education, physical education, secondary education, special education) collaborated. The original “Professional Dispositions and Behaviors Rubric” included 10 assessed candidate behaviors under five more general candidate dispositions, as indicated in Table 2. A four-point rating scale (unacceptable, developing, proficient, exemplary) for each candidate behavior was established and appropriate descriptors were specified for each rating. Beginning with the spring 2012 semester, the instrument was once again revised and used in the undergraduate methods class during the candidates’ junior year field experience and then again in the student teaching semester at the end of their undergraduate study. At the end of the candidate’s course of study, inside the internship, once again the disposition rubric was implemented and completed in the field collaboratively by cooperating teachers and university supervisors. This allowed for both a formative and evaluative administration of the disposition instrument.

Demographics

This study was done in a regional university, with a population of 12,000 students, in the southeastern United States. The subject cohort had 41 students enrolled in secondary education student teaching. Students were placed in both rural and suburban schools for student teaching. The host schools ranged from a student population of 400 to 2000 students. The Asian and Hispanic population in the host schools was less than one percent. All of the cooperating teachers were Anglo-American females. Forty-eight percent of the student bodies in the cooperating schools were people of color, with some schools being as high as 75 percent people of color, primarily African-American. Of the 41 student candidates in this particular study, 14 were female and 27 were male. There were two African-American males in the study. The rest of the students were Anglo-American.

Results

Data were obtained from the “Professional Dispositions and Behaviors Rubric” used during the spring 2012 semester. Initially, only students and cooperating teachers used the tool as an evaluative instrument, although the assessment was not factored into the student’s grade.

After removing individual identifiers, the researchers aggregated the dispositional data for each candidate behavior. Table 1 was developed to provide frequency data of dispositional ratings for teacher candidates included in the initial data collection phase.

As seen in Table 1, the majority of the supervisors and cooperating teachers rated the students in the upper half of the anticipated population. The developers of the instrument expected the overall ratings to be in the mid-range of “Developing” and “Proficient” range, with the top rating, “Exemplary,” reserved for truly outstanding candidates. This was not the case as the majority of candidates were rated “Exemplary.”

Discussion

The authors of this article feel that teacher candidates are in a constant state of development and that disposition reflection is of value and that dispositional behaviors can be learned and reinforced. Dispositions appear to have evolved over the recent years from a candidate focus to a focus on how dispositions, or these personal attributes, impact student learning. However, the data of this study support a more inflated, static view of assessment. This was evident as the majority of interns were rated at the highest end of the development continuum during and at the end of their course of academic study. This violates the commonly held belief that teachers are in a constant state of development and instructional maturation. The data implied that candidates were not maturing along the continuum of the rubric. Otherwise, the majority would not have scored “Exemplary” on the disposition assessment. This phenomenon was viewed as both common and problematic.

There has been much debate as to the value of dispositions and how much influence dispositions should have on teacher candidate preparation and screening. Are they really developmental? Or, are these processes just a continuation of a grade inflated higher education system? The consensus, however, is that the teacher is the key in the learning process and that dispositions are key in this task (Rike & Sharp, 2008, Notar et al., 2009).

In this particular study, the items on the rubric appeared to be difficult and appeared to be appropriate based on related literature (Shiveley & Misco, 2010). One difficulty is that the supervisors only saw the candidates 2 to 3 times in the early semesters, and only 5 to 6 times during student teaching (i.e., internship). The teacher who sees the candidates on a daily basis is in a better position to complete the disposition rubric fairly. Therefore, more accurate developmental disposition processes might be led by the cooperating teacher, not the university supervisor. If this is implemented, additional training for cooperating teachers is important so that they understand the expectations for candidates to show growth. Therefore, the candidate rating of “Exemplary” should be given sparingly. Otherwise, the instrument may not be a tool of growth. On the optimistic side, one could make the assumption that the majority of the candidates do, indeed, display positive dispositions early on in their experiences and continue to do so. Perhaps seeing it as a tool for growth is our fallacy. Instead, it simply reports data, which can be disaggregated, and reflected upon, when assessment analysis is done each year. If one item, or more, is revealed as lower, then we have reason to examine our preparation of interns and make appropriate changes to curriculum or approaches to teaching. Perhaps disposition assessment should be a screening tool as contrasted to a formative or evaluative tool.

In the future, it might be beneficial for the faculty who teach underclassmen to review the instrument with their students. A study could be done comparing candidates who studied dispositions rubrics early in their course of study and those who simply had it thrust upon them when they went into a school for the last semester of student teaching.

One might think that the university supervisors would assign lower scores, as they understand the need to show growth, but they really do not see the candidates enough to be fair assessors. To be more accurate, perhaps they need the input from the cooperating teachers or even dispositional assessments. More training is needed for the cooperating teachers, stressing the concept of growth over different experiences in the schools.

Dispositions are difficult to define (Bertram & Pascal, 2002), yet many agree that they are a key element to the growth and preparation of teacher candidates (Rike & Sharp, 2008, Notar et al., 2009). Damon (2007) implied that individuals develop dispositions over their lifetimes. Given the data collected, our students would support his opinion. It might be assumed, then, that they are starting with a disposition skill set that merely needs recognition. This is doubtful.

References

Almerico, G., Johnston, P., Henriott, D., & Shapiro, M. (2011). Dispositions assessment

in teacher education: Developing an assessment instrument for the college classroom and the field. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11830.pdf

Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2002). What counts in early learning. In O. N. Saracho &

B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood curriculum (pp. 241-256). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.