As social studies teacher education programs workwithin an atmosphere ofeducational reform, questions remain regarding what actually occurs “inside” these programs. Does the “institutional context” of each university influence the preparation of social studies teachers? To address this question, the author conducted a qualitative multisite case study in which three secondary social studies teacher education programs, each fulfilling the same state requirements, were investigated. The findings describe haw the context of each university greatly influenced the teacher education program in which a secondary social studies preservice teacher matriculated and some of the components which helped create these differing contexts. Factors such as program size, clarity of mission, and overall program cohesion all helped to create programs which, although when seen from a distance appeared to be very similar, proved to be quite unique and distinct when viewed from within.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerS (1991). The education of social studies teachers. In JShaver (Ed.), Handbook of research of social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210-220). New York: Macmillan.
2.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1987). Teacher education policy in the states: Fifty-state survey of legislative and administrative actions, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
3.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1988). RATE II teaching teachers: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
4.
BanksJParkerW (1990). Social studies teacher education. In RHouston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 674-686). New York: Macmillan.
5.
BarnesH(1987). The conceptual bases for thematic teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher38(4), 13-17.
6.
BogdanRBiklenS (1992). Qualitative research for education, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
ClarkDL(1984). Better teachers for the year 2000: A proposal for the structural reform of teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan. 66(2). 116-120.
8.
CliffordGGuthrieJ (1988). Ed school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
DaleyNF(1986). Private liberal arts colleges and teacher preparation. In ECGalambos (Ed.), Improving Teacher Education, (pp. 83-90) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
DavisBMButtafusoD (1994). A case for the small liberal arts colleges and the preparation of teachers. Journal ofTeacher Education.45(3). 229-235.
11.
DeweyJ(1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
12.
DucharmeEDucharmeM (1996). In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 1030-1046). New York: Macmillan.
13.
DucharmeEKluenderM (1990). The RATE study: The faculty. Journal of Teacher Education.41(4). 45-49.
14.
EarleyPMSchneiderEJ (1996). Federal policy and teacher education. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 306-319). New York: Macmillan.
15.
EngleJ(1989) Preserving quality: Teacher training from a liberal arts perspective. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(6), 475-477.
16.
Feiman-NemserS (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In RHouston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-232). New York: Macmillan.
17.
FetteimanD(1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
18.
FirestoneWHerriottR (1984). Multisite qualitative policy research: Some design and implementation issues. In DFetterman (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation (pp. 63-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
GalambosE (Ed.) (1986). Improving teacher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
GideonseH(1986). The reduction in teacherpreparation institutions: Rationale and routes. In ECGalambos (Ed.), Improving teacher education (pp. 69-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
GlesneCPeshkinA (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
22.
GoodladJI (1990). Teachers forournation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holmes GroupT (1986). Tomorrow’s schools: A report of the Holmes Group, East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
25.
HoweyK(1989). Research about teacher education: Programs of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6). 23-26.
26.
HoweyK(1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 143-170). New York: Macmillan.
27.
HoweyKGardnerW (Eds.) (1983). The education of teachers: A look ahead. New York: Longman.
28.
HoweyKZimpherN (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education: Inquiry into the nature of programs, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29.
KerrDH (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United States. In LSSGShulman (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 126-149). New York: Longman.
30.
KoehlerV(1985). Research in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1). 23-30.
31.
LeeOYargerSJ (1996). Modes of inquiry in research on teacher education. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 14-37). New York: Macmillan.
32.
LincolnYGubaE (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
33.
MersethK(1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722-744). New York: Macmillan.
34.
National Center for Research on Teacher Education (1988). Teacher education and learning to teach: A research agenda. Journal of Teacher Education.39(6). 27-32.
35.
National Council for the Social Studies (1992). Standards for the preparation of social studies teachers. Social Education. 56(5). 271-273.
36.
NutterN(1986). Defining the excellent teacher preparation program. In TLasley (Ed.), Issues in teacher education: Vol. 2. Background papers from the national commission for excellence in teacher education (pp. 119-134). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
37.
PattonM(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.
38.
PopkewitzTBPereyraMA (1993). An eightcounty study of reform practices in teacher education: An outline of the problematic. In Changing patterns of power: Social regulation and teacher education reform (pp. 1-52). Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
RothRA (1996). Standards forcertification,licensure, and accreditation. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 242-278). New York: Macmillan.
40.
SchwartzH(1996). The changing nature of teacher education. In JSikula (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 3-13). New York: Macmillan.
41.
TraversESacksS (1989). Joining teacher education and the liberal arts in the undergraduate curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(6). 470-474.
42.
TysonH(1994). Who will teach the children: Progress and resistance in teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
YinRK (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.) (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44.
ZeichnerKGoreJ (1990). Teacher socialization. In RHouston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.
