Teacher Educators' Perceptions About Teacher Dispositions

(1)

The Florida State University

DigiNole Commons

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

11-8-2011

Teacher Educators' Perceptions About Teacher

Dispositions

Volkan Varol

The Florida State University

Follow this and additional works at:http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact

lib-ir@fsu.edu.

Recommended Citation

Varol, Volkan, "Teacher Educators' Perceptions About Teacher Dispositions" (2011). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 5245.

(2)

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT TEACHER DISPOSITIONS

By

VOLKAN VAROL

A Dissertation submitted to the School of Teacher Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2011

(3)

Volkan Varol defended this dissertation on August 31, 2011.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Ithel Jones Professor Directing Sande Milton University Representative Diana Rice Committee Member Thomas Ratliffe Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest thanks and appreciation to Dr. Ithel Jones for persevering with me as my advisor throughout the time it took me to complete this research and write the dissertation. Despite his demanding schedule, Dr. Jones was constantly available to answer questions and lend support. I am also grateful to my doctoral committee members Dr. Sande Milton, Dr. Diana Rice, and Dr. Thomas Ratliffe for their

professional encouragement, stimulating suggestions and feedback. Their guidance and wisdom made it possible for me to complete my degree.

I would also like to thank the teacher educators for participating in my study and for their dedication toward improving children’s education. I wish these special people the best in their professional and personal lives.

I am very thankful to my sponsor, the Turkish Ministry of Education, for providing long term financial support for me to pursue a graduate degree in the United States. In addition, I express my gratitude to Dr. Ahmet Bulut, Dr. Bunyamin Karabulut, Ibrahim Arslan, Irfan Akcay, and Cengiz Kokturk for their support and encouragement.

I am very thankful to my friends Mesut Erdogan, Dr. Faruk Ekmekci, Dr. Dogan Yuksel, Dr. Yavuz Saka, Nuh Dag, Zeki Akdemir, and Dr. Simon Andrew for their encouragement.

I am sincerely and heartily grateful to my parents, Fatma and Serafettin Varol, my sister and my nephews Efe and Ege for being there when I needed them. With their presence and love, they have always encouraged me to overcome difficulties throughout my education. Without their prayers and support, I would not have been where I am now.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my

(6)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 NCATE Accredited Universities in Florida ... 37

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Age ... 47

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Academic Rank ... 48

Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Teaching Experience... 49

Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Program Area ... 50

Table 6 Frequency Distribution of Participants by University ... 51

Table 7 Factor Loadings and Communalities for Dispositions ... 53

Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for the Three Factors on the Innate Subscale ... 54

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for the Three Composite Scores in all Subscales ... 55

Table 10 Frequency Distributions of each Disposition on the Innate Subscale ... 56

Table 11 Frequency Distributions of each Disposition on the Teachable Subscale ... 58

Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations of each Disposition on the Innate Subscale 60 Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of each Disposition on the Teachable Subscale ... 61

Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations for each Composite Score ... 62

Table 15 Paired Samples t test for each Composite Score within Innate and Teachable Subscales ... 63

Table 16 Paired Samples test for each Composite Score between Innate and Teachable Subscales ... 63

Table 17 Frequency Distributions of each Disposition in Importance Subscale ... 65

Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations for each Disposition on the Importance Subscale ... 67

(9)

Table 20 Paired Samples t test for each Composite Score on the Importance Subscale

... 68

Table 21 Frequency Distribution for the Taught Subscale... 70

Table 22 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Planning and Class Time Teaching Dispositions ... 71

Table 23 Frequency Distribution of Participants by How often they teach or discuss dispositions with their students ... 71

Table 24 Means and Standard Deviations for the Taught Subscale ... 72

Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations for each Composite Score ... 73

Table 26 Paired Samples t test for each Composite Scores on the Taught Subscale .. 73

Table 27 Paired Samples t test for each Composite Score between Subscales ... 74

Table 28 Frequency Distribution for the Methods Subscale ... 75

Table 29 Teacher Educators’ ratings of each Integration Method ... 75

Table 30 Factor Loadings and Communalities for Methods ... 76

Table 31 Qualitative Themes for Methods ... 77

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Academic rank of participants ... 48

Figure 2: Teaching experience of participants in K-12 and College ... 49

Figure 3: Means of each disposition in all four subscales ... 79

Figure 4: Means of each composite score in four subscales ... 80

(11)

ABSTRACT

The NCATE requirements introduced in 2004 presented a new challenge for teacher educators in that they had to define, develop, and assess teacher dispositions in their programs in systematic ways (Dottin, 2009; Schussler, Bercaw, & Stooksberry, 2008). Extant research suggested that as an initial step to overcome this challenge, it was important to define and understand what exactly is meant by “disposition” (Notar, Riley, & Taylor, 2009; Shiveley & Misco, 2010; Thomas, 2010). In order to reach an agreeable and clear definition of teacher dispositions, it is important to understand teacher educators’ perceptions about teacher dispositions (Freeman, 2007; Notar, Riley, & Taylor, 2009). The following research questions guided this study: 1) What are the perceptions of teacher educators about teacher dispositions in terms of the extent to which selected dispositions are innate or teachable? 2) What are perceptions of teacher educators about teacher dispositions in terms of the extent to which selected

dispositions are important to being a teacher? 3) To what extent do teacher educators report that they are teaching dispositions in their classes? 4) What are the perceptions of teacher educators about the effectiveness of integration methods of teacher

dispositions into the coursework and conceptual framework?

The study involved 118 teacher educators employed in the eleven NCATE accredited teacher education institutions in the State of Florida during the spring semester of 2011. The data were gathered using an online survey. In the survey the teacher educators indicated their perceptions about 42 dispositions. In addition, teacher educators rated the effectiveness of 7 integration methods. Using exploratory factor analysis, three main structures or factors were extracted from the data. Using the factor loadings composite scores were calculated for each of the subscales. A series of paired

t tests revealed statistically significant differences in teacher educators’ perceptions

(12)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Teacher educators, researchers, and policymakers consistently maintain that teacher quality is the main factor that influences student achievement in K-12 public schools (e.g., Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ferguson, 1998; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999; Rockoff, 2004; Sanders & Horn, 1998). Up until 2002, teacher effectiveness and teacher quality were typically described in terms of teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and attributes (Freeman, 2007). Recently, however, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) reviewed its accrediting standards for teacher education programs and in doing so adopted new standards. In developing the new standards NCATE used the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) as a way to enhance the quality of teacher education (Freeman, 2007). These new standards defined effective teachers as those who possess content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and positive dispositions. Up until this point, dispositions had not featured prominently in the literature on teacher education.

When NCATE adopted the INTASC standards in 2002, it defined dispositions as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward

students, families, colleagues, and communities, and affect student learning, motivation, and development, as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Since the 2007 revision of their standards, NCATE prefers to refer to dispositions as “professional dispositions”. Thus, NCATE (2007) now defines professional dispositions as

“professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and

communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development” (NCATE, 2007). This definition is consistent with the teacher education literature where dispositions are typically defined as a tendency to exhibit frequently, consciously, and voluntarily a pattern of behavior that is directed to a broad goal (Da Ros-Voseles & Moss, 2007). In other words, dispositions are viewed as behaviors based on a

(13)

meaning-making system that results in attitudes, values and beliefs (Eberly, Rand, & O’Connor, 2007).

During the past six years, teacher dispositions have gained significant attention in the field of teacher education (Dottin, 2009; Freeman, 2007). Freeman (2007), for example, notes that many “meetings of departmental, divisional and college faculties in teacher education institutions across the country as each faculty has attempted to delineate what it understands by the term disposition” (p.4). This surge of interest in teacher dispositions is driven largely by the fact that NCATE requires teacher education programs to document the dispositions of their teacher education candidates.

Under the auspices of NCATE, teacher education programs are expected to ensure that their teacher education candidates possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions by the time they graduate. To ensure that this happens, teacher preparation institutions are required to systematically track their teacher candidates’ content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and dispositional development and assessment (Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; NCATE, 2002). Specifically, NCATE requires teacher education programs to use performance-based evidence to demonstrate that pre-service teachers have developed the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are associated with increases in student achievement in K-12 schools (Diez, 2007; Dottin, 2009; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Ignico & Gammon, 2009; NCATE, 2002).

Typically, teacher educators are experienced in defining, implementing, and assessing knowledge and skills in their teacher preparation programs (Diez, 2007; Dottin, 2009; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007). Arguably, however, the new emphasis on teacher dispositions presented somewhat of a challenge to teacher

educators. Although the term “disposition” is not new in the educational literature (Diez, 2007; Freeman, 2007; Raths, 2007; Shiveley and Misco, 2010), teacher educators are less familiar with how to define, develop, and assess dispositions (Dottin, 2009;

Flowers, 2006). Despite the fact that NCATE provided a definition of dispositions, teacher educators seem to be struggling with definitional and philosophical aspects of dispositions (Dottin, 2009). One possible reason for this is that the requirement

(14)

requirements (Diez, 2007; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Freeman, 2007). Consequently, teacher educators could have lacked ownership of the definition and assessment of teacher dispositions in their teacher education programs.

The current study examined the opinions and perceptions of teacher educators concerning the definition, importance, and implementation of teacher dispositions in teacher education programs. In this chapter the problem addressed is described and explained in the form of a statement of the problem. Then, the theoretical framework and rationale guiding the study are discussed, along with an overview of the purpose and significance of the study. This is followed by the research questions. Then, finally, definitions of key terms that were used in this study are provided.

Statement of the Problem

Extant research suggests that teacher education programs throughout the

country have struggled with how to infuse, teach, and assess dispositions in systematic ways (Shiveley & Misco, 2010). Yet, teacher educators are expected to define, develop and assess the dispositions of their teacher education candidates. Whereas in the past, teacher educators had relied on informal methods of teaching and assessing

dispositions (Shiveley & Misco, 2010), under the NCATE requirements they were challenged to adopt more formal approaches. However, with the exception of a few scholars, researchers and teacher educators have not explored effective ways to develop teacher candidates’ dispositions in teacher preparation programs (Schussler, Bercaw, & Stooksberry, 2008). There is a need therefore to understand systematic ways to infuse, teach, and assess dispositions in teacher education programs. A

recommendation in the literature (Schussler, Bercaw, & Stooksberry, 2008), however, is that a first step prior to any discussion regarding the development and assessment of dispositions should be to define precisely what they are. One consequence of the lack of a clear definition of dispositions by researchers was that some teacher educators debated whether or not dispositions should be assessed. According to Diez (2007) the development of a clear or precise definition of dispositions depends on whether

(15)

Similarly, as an initial approach, it is important to understand how teacher

educators perceive the development and implementation of dispositions in their teacher education courses. It is evident in the literature that the perceptions of teacher

educators and researchers have shaped the definition of teacher dispositions (Notar, Riley, & Taylor, 2009). Specifically, as echoed by Freeman (2007), perceptions towards the nature of dispositions, (such as whether they are innate qualities or not, voluntary or automatic) have significant implications for how assessments are designed and how nurturing and development as well as elimination of dispositions proceeds. Moreover, many scholars agree that in order to fulfill the requirements of NCATE, defining and understanding what is meant by “disposition” should be a first step (Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Notar, Riley, & Taylor, 2009; Richardson & Onwuegbuzie, 2003;

Shiveley & Misco, 2010; Thomas, 2010). Similarly, it is equally important to understand teacher educators’ perceptions about the nature of pre-service teachers’ dispositions. When describing the nature of teacher dispositions, there are two frames of theory in the literature.

Theoretical Framework / Rationale

NCATE adopted INTASC standards in 2002, and in doing so held teacher education programs responsible for defining desired teacher dispositions, developing these dispositions through their programs, and assessing their teacher candidates’ dispositions. Since that time, it is claimed that teacher education programs across the nation have been struggling with measuring and assessing dispositions (Shiveley & Misco, 2010). Along with these responsibilities, teacher educators also have to consider and address a variety of policy related issues. For example, according to NCATE, teacher educators and teacher education programs are expected to ensure that they prepare highly qualified teachers for our nation’s K-12 schools. In response to the high standards set by NCATE, teacher education programs limit those whom they graduate to only those students who are considered truly fit to teach (Combs & Soper, 1963). The legal implications of this emphasis on higher standards have been evident in recent years. For example, Borko et al. (2007) report the case of a teacher candidate dismissed from a teacher education program because he advocated using corporal

(16)

punishment in an assignment paper. This led to a court case with the Court of Appeals ruling that this decision violated the student’s due process rights. With this court rule the student was reinstated into the teacher education program.

Despite the difficulties in implementing expected practices that are consistent with high standards, teacher education programs have a duty and responsibility to provide public schools with highly qualified teachers. For this reason, it is consistently argued that teacher educators should consider pre-service teachers’ dispositions. Public schools, through its teachers, should ensure that children receive a quality education in a safe environment. However, teachers’ knowledge and skills are not enough to reach this goal. Indeed, teacher educators are in agreement that if teachers have the desired dispositions, then they can provide a quality education for all students (Dottin, 2009). Thus, the claim that measuring and assessing teacher candidates’ dispositions are necessary in order to filter out teachers who do not demonstrate desired dispositions (Combs & Soper, 1963) could have some validity. The challenge, therefore, is to measure and assess teacher candidates’ dispositions in ways that do not violate their rights.

One way for teacher educators to address this issue is to find ways to develop dispositions and assessment tools that are valid and reliable. Considering its nature, however, the term “dispositions” is a vague term. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it is suggested that before discussing any other aspects, such as assessing and

developing dispositions, there should be agreed upon definition of dispositions

(Schussler, Bercaw, & Stooksberry, 2008; Singh & Stoloff, 2007). Yet, the perceptions of teacher educators towards the nature of dispositions can have an effect on how they define what is meant by “disposition”.

Johnson and Reiman (2007) state that the lack of a clear definition of disposition is caused by the lack of a theoretical framework. Although development and

assessment of teacher candidates’ dispositions is new to teacher educators, there are two different views regarding teacher dispositions: the perceptual approach and the constructivist developmental approach (Diez, 2007). These two approaches ground their theories to the approaches that describe human intelligence. In the related

(17)

Similarly, two approaches to define and describe teacher dispositions see dispositions as “entity” and “incremental”.

The conceptual framework for this study consists of two theoretical perspectives of dispositions: perceptual approach and constructivist-developmental perspective. The perceptual approach sees dispositions in an entity way, as stable traits, whereas a constructivist perspective views dispositions in an incremental way, as developing over time, affected by experience and environment (Diez, 2007). These theoretical

perspectives not only define dispositions differently but also use different assessment techniques of teacher dispositions. In addition, the perceptual approach and

constructivist developmental approach have different applications of teacher

dispositions in teacher education programs. These two theoretical areas provided the foundation for this study in understanding the perceptions of teacher educators towards the nature of pre-service teacher dispositions, and the extent to which teacher

educators perceive the importance of each disposition.

The perceptual approach was first considered in Combs and Snygg’s (1959) perceptual psychology. Combs and Snygg (1959) identified perceptions as core attitudes, values, and belief systems. In addition, according to Combs and Snygg, individuals understand their environment and relate to it by their perceptions.

Consequently, individuals’ perceptions shape their responses to their environment and their behavior. Moreover, Combs and Snygg (1959) stated that “when perceptions are vague and unclear, behavior is also unclear (p.360).” In order to make an individual’s perceptions clear, Combs and Snygg suggested that individuals should investigate and understand their own perceptions by: “a) information obtained from self, b) inferences from observed behavior of others, c) use of projective techniques, and d) protocols of therapy” (p.452).

Similar to Combs and Snygg’s (1959) understanding of teacher dispositions, supporters of a perceptual approach define dispositions as personal perceptions (Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004; Singh & Stoloff, 2007; Wasicsko 2007). Promoters of this approach describe dispositions as stable traits. Moreover,

perceptions/dispositions are formed over a lifetime and are resistant to change

(18)

Ryle reveals that dispositions are stable, innate qualities and are resistant to change. Consequently, this approach suggests that teacher candidates’ dispositions associated with effective teachers should be taken into account in the candidate admission and selection process.

A foremost scholar advocating this approach, Wasicsko (2007), argues that dispositions reside inside the individual and are not available for direct measurement. Wasicsko borrows this view from Ryle’s (1949) definition of dispositions. As cited by Ritchhart (2001), Ryle sees dispositions in the following terms: “to possess a

dispositional property is not to be in a particular state, or to undergo a particular change; it is to be bound or liable to be in a particular state, or undergo a particular change, when a particular condition is realized” (p.43). The relation between Wasicsko’s

definition and Ryle’s understanding of dispositions is more evident in Ryle’s highly cited example of glass. Ryle explains the nature of dispositions using the example of a glass. He states that the fragile nature of glass is not evident until the glass is struck.

Moreover, the brittleness of glass cannot be changed.

As in this example, Wasicsko (2007) believed that putting teacher candidates into assessment scenarios will help teacher candidates and teacher educators to

understand and realize teacher candidates’ own dispositions. The understanding of this approach is that helping teacher candidates to realize their potential dispositions is what teacher educators can do. Similar to Ryle’s glass, teacher candidates’ dispositions cannot be changed. To help teacher candidates realize which and what level

dispositions associated with effective teaching they possess, the foremost promoter of this approach Wasicsko developed the perceptual rating scale (Schulte, Edick,

Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004; Singh & Stoloff, 2007; Wasicsko 2007). Furthermore Wasicsko (2007) suggests that, the perceptual rating scale should be used in the process of admission of teacher candidates to the teacher education programs through self-assessment at the beginning of the program to see if they are a good fit or match for the teaching profession.

The other theoretical approach is the constructivist-developmental perspective. This approach can be traced back to Dewey’s (1922) definition of “Habits of Mind”. Dewey suggests that dispositions must be understood as "readiness to act overtly in a

(19)

specific fashion whenever opportunity is presented (p.41).” Followers of Dewey, the authors Tishman, Perkins, and Jay (1995) define dispositions as: “inclinations and habits of mind that benefit productive thinking (p. 37).” Dispositions have been viewed as individuals’ tendencies to put their capabilities into action (Perkins et al. 1993). This view suggests that the dispositions are active and exist in the capabilities of individuals (Billet, 2008). Moreover, Oja and Reiman (2007) state that Rieman and Johnson (2003) defined dispositions as “attributed characteristics of a teacher that represent a trend of a teacher’s judgments and actions in ill-structured contexts (situations in which there is more than one way to solve a dilemma; even experts disagree on which way is best)” (p. 92).

This theoretical approach suggests that dispositions can be learnt in the same way as new knowledge and skills. It follows that dispositions can be further understood using the assumptions associated with cognitive development, namely that: a) meaning is constructed, b) development occurs as humans interact with the environment, and c) development occurs through complex stages, not stage by stage (Johnson & Reiman, 2007; Oja & Reiman, 2007; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998).

Oja and Reiman (2007), drawing on the constructivist-developmental

perspective, maintain that dispositions are best understood within the context of our understanding. The development and existence of dispositions rely on the maturity of the teacher candidates. When the maturity of the individual grows, that individual gains more complex dispositions. Moreover, Oja and Reiman (2007) point out that

development of dispositions occurs with the optimal interaction of individual and environment. In other words, when candidates interact with a supporting and

challenging social environment, their dispositions become more complex, integrated, and principled over time (Oja & Reiman, 2007). Similarly, Dottin (2009) suggests that teacher candidates’ dispositions can be developed in classrooms where dispositions are taught directly by interacting with teacher candidates and providing regular feedback.

This second theoretical approach views dispositions as dynamic property of the mind that shapes human behaviors and differ based on tasks, development of the human, and the environment. This approach sees dispositions as learnable qualities like knowledge and skills. Based on this theoretical approach, when teacher candidates

(20)

are in an appropriate environment, dispositions associated with effective teachers can be developed. The study by Diez (2006) showed that students formulate values, learn to express the links between what they believe and how they act. Such an ability-based approach was practiced at Alverno College where teacher candidates developed

appropriate dispositions through their teacher education program (Diez, 2007). In summary, there are two theoretical perspectives guiding this study: the perceptual approach, and the constructivist-developmental approach. Both

perspectives perceive the nature of dispositions differently. The perceptual approach sees dispositions as innate qualities which are difficult to change, whereas the

constructivist-developmental approach relates dispositions with knowledge and skills, and like these, dispositions can be learnt.

Purpose of the Study

This study investigated the opinions and perceptions of teacher educators concerning the definition, importance, and implementation of teacher dispositions in teacher education programs. Specifically, the study identified the perceptions of teacher educators towards the extent to which dispositions can be taught in their courses. In other words, the study sought the opinion of teacher educators as to whether the desirable dispositions are teachable, or whether they are innate. Furthermore, the study examined teacher educators’ opinions concerning the

importance of each disposition for being or becoming a teacher. Additionally, this study explored the opinions of teacher educators towards the integration and implementation methods of teacher dispositions into coursework and conceptual framework.

Significance of the Study

There are several studies that have addressed the assessment and teaching of pre-service teachers’ dispositions. However, few, if any studies have examined teacher educators’ understanding of dispositions, and whether they consider specific

dispositions to be innate or teachable. Similarly, the extent to which teacher educators consider dispositions to be important has not been studied. This study provides a different perspective on the problem of defining teacher candidates’ dispositions.

(21)

selecting, implementing, and assessing them (Diez, 2007; Shiveley & Misco, 2010). This study contributes to the literature by reporting the perceptions of teacher educators towards the nature of dispositions, and which dispositions teacher educators perceive as important. The findings should help teacher educators and researchers come to an agreement on a more precise operational definition of dispositions.

The result of this study also highlights the perceptions of teacher educators toward the effectiveness of different methods that can be used to integrate dispositions into coursework and into a conceptual framework for teacher education programs. In addition, another benefit of this study is that the findings further enhance our

understanding of how dispositions can be integrated into courses. In turn, these

findings could help teacher educators and researchers improve their teacher education programs.

Research Questions The study was guided by the following questions:

1. What are the perceptions of teacher educators about teacher dispositions in terms of the extent to which selected dispositions are innate or teachable?

2. What are perceptions of teacher educators about teacher dispositions in terms of the extent to which selected dispositions are important to being a teacher?

3. To what extent do teacher educators report that they are teaching dispositions in their classes?

4. What are the perceptions of teacher educators about the effectiveness of integration methods of teacher dispositions into the coursework and conceptual

framework?

Definition of Terms

Dispositions: Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development (NCATE, 2007, p. 1).

Candidates: Individuals admitted to, or enrolled in, programs for the initial or advanced preparation of teachers, teachers continuing their professional development,

(22)

or other school professionals. Candidates are distinguished from students in P–12 schools (NCATE, 2008, p.85).

Institutions: Schools, colleges, or departments of education in a university, or non-university providers (NCATE, 2008, p.87).

Pre-service Teacher: One who has declared an education major but has not yet completed training to be a teacher. Typically complete a period observing teachers at different levels and then an internship or student teaching experience working alongside mentor or master teacher before licensed as professional educators (Education.com, Inc, 2010).

Professional Education Faculty: Those individuals employed by a college or university, including graduate teaching assistants, who teach one or more courses in education, provide services to candidates (e.g., advising), supervise clinical

experiences, or administer some portion of the unit (NCATE, 2008, p.90).

Program: A planned sequence of courses and experiences for the purpose of preparing teachers and other school professionals to work in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade settings. Programs may lead to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, both, or neither (NCATE, 2008, p.90).

Teacher Educators: Those educators, who provide formal instruction, conduct research in order to better educate prospective and practicing teachers. Teacher educators provide the professional education component of pre-service programs and the staff development component of in-service programs (The Teacher Educator, 2007, p. 3).

(23)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter discusses the literature as related to the purpose and objectives of the study. The content is organized around several key elements concerning the

dispositions of teacher candidates, including: a) philosophical and psychological history and definition of dispositions, b) educational history and definition of dispositions, c) dispositions as teacher quality, d) a review of recent research on dispositions, e) a perceptual approach, and f) a constructivist-developmental approach. Since this study examines educational dispositions, this literature review analyzes the origins of

dispositions, definitions in different approaches, as well as the history of dispositions in the teacher education.

Historical Perspective

Teacher educators, researchers, and policy makers have always focused on how to increase student achievement in public schools. Relevant research studies show that teacher quality is the most influential factor on student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ferguson, 1998; Fuller, Carpenter & Fuller, 2008). Before NCATE changed the outline of teacher quality in 2002, teacher effectiveness and quality was described in terms of teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and attributes in both literature and policy (Freeman, 2007). In 2002, NCATE not only replaced

“attributes” with “dispositions”, but also held teacher preparation programs responsible for developing and assessing the dispositions of teacher candidates.

Although this requirement for developing and assessing dispositions is new to teacher educators, the concept of dispositions is not new in the educational literature. Almost a century ago, in order to describe desirable teacher’s personal attributes or dispositions, John Dewey (1922) used the term “habits of mind” and describes dispositions as habitual (cf Freeman, 2007; Melin & Walker, 2009).

This early use of disposition as habit was very popular until Donald Arnstine (1967) explicitly distinguished habit and disposition (cf. Freeman, 2007). Freeman

(24)

describes Arnstine’s view of habit as a behavior engaged indiscriminately and disposition as a behavior that varies according to different circumstances. Freeman (2007) also notes that Arnstine’s work was the first extensive discussion of dispositions in education. However, Arnstine’s suggestions concerning the importance of

dispositions in teaching had little impact on teacher education at that time.

Up until the 1990s, teacher education programs primarily focused on knowledge, skills, and attitudes to prepare teacher candidates for the classroom (Freeman, 2007; Thornton, 2006). Pottinger (2009) states that “A Nation at Risk” report, in 1983, criticized teacher educators for focusing too much on knowledge and skills, and not enough on the caring and personal qualities of teachers. Diez (2007) sought to explain the reason for this criticism by noting that in-service teachers were not able to use their knowledge and skills in the classroom to be effective teachers. Following this report and criticism, in 1985, Katz and Raths emphasized the importance of dispositions in teaching by claiming that dispositions are as necessary as content knowledge and teaching skills (Diez, 2007; Freeman, 2007; Peterson, 2007). In turn, Katz and Raths (1985) suggested replacing attitude with disposition when describing teacher quality.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

In 1986, three years after the publication of “A Nation at Risk”, another report was published that recommended establishing a National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) by the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (Pottinger, 2009). In 1989, the NBPTS issued their first policy statement entitled, “What Teachers Should Know and be Able to Do” (NBPTS, 2002). The NBPTS focused not only on knowledge or proficiencies that teachers should know, but also what teachers should do relating to their treatment of students, management of students’ learning, and interaction with peers and the field of education. This initial policy outlined the following five core propositions identifying effective teachers.

1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.

2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to diverse learners.

(25)

4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.

5. Teachers are members of learning communities. (NBPTS, 2002, pp. 3-5).

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium

Following the implementation of the NBPTS’ policy propositions, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) began to work on a new framework for teacher education. In 1992, INTASC developed standards describing effective teachers. This new theoretical framework outlined not just what teachers should know, but also what they should be able to do in order to become effective teachers, using 10 key principles. These 10 INTASC principles are concerned with content pedagogy, student development, diverse learners, multiple instructional strategies, motivation and management, communication and technology, planning, assessment, reflective practice (professional development), and school and community involvement (INTASC, 1992). Each principle is organized into three categories:

knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Edick et. al, 2007; Richardson & Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The ten INTASC principles and related dispositions for each principle are as follows:

Principle #1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

a. The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of facts but is complex and ever-evolving. S/he seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and

understandings in the field.

b. The teacher appreciates multiple perspectives and conveys to learners how knowledge is developed from the vantage point of the knower.

c. The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline(s) s/he teaches and sees connections to everyday life.

d. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children's learning of the discipline.

(26)

Principle #2: The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal

development.

a. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them develop self-confidence and competence.

b. The teacher is disposed to use students' strengths as a basis for growth, and their errors as an opportunity for learning.

Principle #3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

a. The teacher believes that all children can learn at high levels and persists in helping all children achieve success.

b. The teacher appreciates and values human diversity, shows respect for students' varied talents and perspectives, and is committed to the pursuit of "individually configured excellence."

c. The teacher respects students as individuals with differing personal and family backgrounds and various skills, talents, and interests.

d. The teacher is sensitive to community and cultural norms.

e. The teacher makes students feel valued for their potential as people, and helps them learn to value each other.

Principle #4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional

strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

a. The teacher values the development of students' critical thinking, independent problem solving, and performance capabilities.

b. The teacher values flexibility and reciprocity in the teaching process as necessary for adapting instruction to student responses, ideas, and needs.

Principle #5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

(27)

a. The teacher takes responsibility for establishing a positive climate in the classroom and participates in maintaining such a climate in the school as whole.

b. The teacher understands how participation supports commitment, and is committed to the expression and use of democratic values in the classroom.

c. The teacher values the role of students in promoting each other's learning and recognizes the importance of peer relationships in establishing a climate of learning.

d. The teacher recognizes the value of intrinsic motivation to students' life-long growth and learning.

e. The teacher is committed to the continuous development of individual students' abilities and considers how different motivational strategies are likely to encourage this development for each student.

Principle #6: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

a. The teacher recognizes the power of language for fostering self-expression, identity development, and learning.

b. The teacher values many ways in which people seek to communicate and encourages many modes of communication in the classroom.

c. The teacher is a thoughtful and responsive listener.

d. The teacher appreciates the cultural dimensions of communication, responds appropriately, and seeks to foster culturally sensitive communication by and among all students in the class.

Principle #7: The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

a. The teacher values both long term and short term planning.

b. The teacher believes that plans must always be open to adjustment and revision based on student needs and changing circumstances.

(28)

Principle #8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical

development of the learner.

a. The teacher values ongoing assessment as essential to the instructional process and recognizes that many different assessment strategies, accurately and systematically used, are necessary for monitoring and promoting student learning.

b. The teacher is committed to using assessment to identify student strengths and promote student growth rather than to deny students access to learning

opportunities.

Principle #9: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.

a. The teacher values critical thinking and self-directed learning as habits of mind.

b. The teacher is committed to reflection, assessment, and learning as an ongoing process.

c. The teacher is willing to give and receive help.

d. The teacher is committed to seeking out, developing, and continually refining practices that address the individual needs of students.

e. The teacher recognizes his/her professional responsibility for engaging in and supporting appropriate professional practices for self and colleagues.

Principle #10: The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being.

a. The teacher values and appreciates the importance of all aspects of a child's experience.

b. The teacher is concerned about all aspects of a child's wellbeing (cognitive, emotional, social, and physical), and is alert to signs of difficulties.

c. The teacher is willing to consult with other adults regarding the education and well-being of his/her students.

(29)

d. The teacher respects the privacy of students and confidentiality of information.

e. The teacher is willing to work with other professionals to improve the overall learning environment for students.

These INTASC principles grew out of the initial work of NBPTS and represent the most comprehensive list of disposition (Baldwin, 2007; Pottinger, 2009). This list of professional, curriculum, and student-centered principles define the knowledge, dispositions, and performances expected of effective teachers.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Following the release of these INTASC Standards in 1992, a major shift occurred in 2002 when the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) included dispositions as part of its standards. Two out of six NCATE standards for getting accreditation from NCATE concern the implementation, development, and assessment of dispositions into teacher education programs (Hilman et, al., 2006). These standards are: a) candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and b) diversity. With these new standards, teacher education programs are required to implement these dispositions into their programs, develop teacher candidates’ dispositions, and assess these dispositions as a requirement of accreditation by NCATE.

However, NCATE did not clarify the desired dispositions. The only two

professional dispositions that NCATE clarifies and expects institutions to assess are fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Based on their mission and conceptual framework, teacher education programs can identify, define, and operationalize additional professional dispositions. In order to do these, teacher education programs established disposition committees. These committees defined what is meant by the term “disposition”, identified additional dispositions based on their program philosophy, and they decided on appropriate assessment methods. Thus, there are multiple definitions of dispositions in the educational literature (Diez, 2007; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Melin & Walker, 2009; Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004). Based on these definitions, the usage of dispositions in teacher

(30)

Dispositions in Teacher Education Programs Dispositions as Teacher Quality

Following the on-going national emphasis on increasing student achievement, teacher quality has become the top priority of teacher preparation institutions, teacher educators, researchers, and policymakers. Recent research studies in the field of education suggest that teacher quality has a large impact on student learning

(Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Rockoff, 2004). The correlation between teacher quality and student achievement is stronger than many other factors such as curriculum, class size, funding, family and community involvement, and student’s socio economic status (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ferguson, 1998; Fuller, Carpenter & Fuller, 2008; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Sanders & Horn, 1998; Stronge & Tucker, 2000).

In their research, Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (1999) have demonstrated that teacher quality is the most important educational factor predicting student achievement. In 2001, Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain found that 7% of the total variance in test score gains can be attributed to differences in teachers. They also found that higher teacher quality impacted student learning, as evidenced by higher test scores in math and science. In their later study, Rivkin et al. (2005) conducted a longitudinal study in the state of Texas. Researchers studied three cohorts of students as they moved from grade 3 to grade 7. The results on over 500,000 students in over 3,000 schools revealed that there was a positive relationship between teacher quality and student achievement (Rivkin et al., 2005).

In a similar study, Sanders and Rivers (1996) show that students who are assigned to several ineffective teachers in a row have significantly lower achievement than those who are assigned to several highly effective teachers in sequence. In their later longitudinal study, Rivers and Sanders (2002) were able to measure the

cumulative effect of teachers on students while separating ethnic, socioeconomic and parental influences. They found that a cohort of fifth grade students who had highly ineffective teachers in grades three through five are more likely to score less than if they had highly effective teachers for the same grades (Rivers & Sanders, 2002).

(31)

In their attempts to define and identify indicators of teacher quality or effectiveness, researchers have consistently focused on content knowledge and pedagogical skills (Brophy and Good, 1986; Shulman, 1986). More recent research revealed that student achievement significantly depends on what teachers know and can do (Darling-Hammond, 2000). In a more recent study that analyzed the factors that affect student achievement, Rice and Brent (2003) investigated the relation between the teacher characteristics with teacher effectiveness, and stated that many teacher

characteristics have an impact on teacher effectiveness. Accordingly, Rice and Brent (2003) concluded that these characteristics have a significant effect on student

achievement.

Other research on this subject also revealed that teachers’ personal

characteristics are as important as content knowledge and pedagogical skills. These teacher’s personal characteristics have been identified by researchers as: teachers’ oral and written communication skills (Hunt, Simonds, & Cooper, 2002), ability to collaborate (Small, 2002), high expectations from students (Hillman, et al. 2006), and effectively manage time and other resources (Asselin, 2004). Similarly, Anderson (2004) defines an effective teacher as one who possesses content knowledge and pedagogical skills, and is able to use these appropriately in order to convey knowledge to students. Teacher quality, therefore, is defined in the literature as the interaction between teacher’s content knowledge and the pedagogical skills. However, Dottin (2009) in quoting from Teacher Preparation (2007, para 6) states that having content knowledge and pedagogical skills are not sufficient by themselves to convey neither the knowledge to student nor the inclination to do so.

A similar concept was outlined by Bulger, Mohr and Walls (2002) who noted that while a teacher may possess sufficient content knowledge and pedagogical skills, he or she will not necessarily be able to convey the knowledge to students. In order to

effectively convey the relevant knowledge to students, teachers should be able to “do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons with the right people” (Coulter et al., 2007 para. 15). Dottin (2009) emphasizes the importance of dispositions when

conveying knowledge to students. For Dottin, dispositions are not only what educator’s can do, but also what they are likely to do. Moreover, Dottin (2009) states that having

(32)

the content knowledge and skills are not enough to effectively educate children, but having appropriate dispositions for teaching are also necessary to be an effective teacher. Indeed, throughout the literature, it is believed that teacher dispositions are as critical for teacher quality and effectiveness as teachers’ content knowledge and

pedagogical skills (Wasicsko, 2007).

Dispositions as NCATE Requirements

During the past six years teacher educators and others have increasingly recognized the critical importance of dispositions (Dottin, 2009; Freeman, 2007). Freeman (2007), for example, notes that, “this change has resulted in countless meetings of departmental, divisional and college faculties in teacher education institutions across the country as each faculty has attempted to delineate what it understands by the term “disposition” (p.4).” This surge of interest in teacher dispositions is driven largely by the fact that NCATE requires teacher education programs to document the dispositions of their teacher education candidates.

NCATE, however, did not clearly identify the desired dispositions. The only two professional dispositions that NCATE clarifies and expects institutions to assess are “fairness” and “the belief that all students can learn”. Effectively, NCATE gave teacher education programs the freedom to identify, define, and operationalize additional

professional dispositions based on their program’s mission and conceptual framework. Therefore, on the basis of their conceptual framework, every teacher education program creates dispositional checklists. Although these lists are based on INTASC’s principles and NCATE’s definition, the number and varieties of dispositions on these lists differ. In addition, each program’s understanding of what is meant by the term “disposition” is different from each other. Thus, there are multiple definitions of dispositions and many disposition lists in the educational literature (Diez, 2007; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Melin & Walker, 2009; Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004).

Throughout the literature there are numerous lists of dispositions identified by individual researchers or disposition committees established by teacher education programs. These lists have been created by reviewing previous research studies or as a result of on-going studies. In the literature, for example, Combs (1999) identified five

(33)

dispositions of effective teachers. Based on Combs’ perceptual psychology theory that was connected to his research in 1959, there are five (5) human perception categories: (1) Perceptions about self, (2) Perceptions about other people, (3) Perceptions about subject field, (4) Perceptions about the purpose of education and process of education, and (5) General frame of reference perceptions. For each of these categories, Combs identified dispositions as: empathy, positive view of others, positive view of self,

authenticity, and meaningful purpose and vision (Usher, 2002). The detailed descriptions of these categories are as follows:

1. Perceptions about self: viewing self as valued, having self-efficacy

2. Perceptions about other people: viewing others as to be able, dependable, worthy, friendly, enhancing and well intentioned,

3. Perceptions about subject field: being enthusiastic about content subject, engaging research-based instructional strategies, seeking out growth opportunities and being updated,

4. Perceptions about the purpose of education and process of education: believing that all students can learn,

5. General frame of reference perceptions: being optimistic and empathetic Singh and Stoloff (2007) also identified five dispositions as follows: caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice. Borko et, al. (2007) also list these dispositions in their editorial review. They also note that these are desired dispositions in teacher education programs, in addition to NCATE’s fairness and the belief that all students can learn.

In their literature review, Hillman, Rothermel, and Scarano (2006) identified several dispositions that are important for being a professional and effective teacher. Their findings from this review revealed that many scholars in the field of education highlighted the importance of dispositions such as self-efficacy, high expectations, an ethic of caring, sensitivity toward others, and reflective capability as critical components of being an effective teacher. In addition to these dispositions, several scholars like Hunt, Simond and Cooper (2002) and Luna, Solsken, and Kuntz (2000) maintain that oral and written communication skills are an important part of being an effective teacher. Hilman et,al. (2006), on the other hand, stated that ability to collaborate (Small, 2002;

(34)

Xu, 2003), higher order thinking skills (Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998; Parsons & Brown, 2002; Spalding & Wilson, 2002), effectively managing time and other resources (Asselin, 2004; Kohlmeier & O’Brien, 2004), and notion of professionalism (Chant, Heafner, & Bennett, 2004) have also been identified in the literature as important dispositions for teachers to develop.

In 2006, Flowers identified fifteen desired dispositions that teachers should possess. In reviewing the literature she identified the most important INTASC dispositions that pre-service teachers should demonstrate. Her list contains the dispositions of timeliness, attendance, appearance and dress, poise/attitude, initiative, confidentiality, organization, flexibility, language, classroom management, effectiveness, sensitive to diversity, cooperation, responsive to feedback, and rapport.

In a similar review of the literature, Notar and Riley (2009) identified the following important teacher dispositions: enthusiasm, sensitivity, responsibility, commitment, professionalism, skilful preparation, a sense of respect for others, communication, appropriate dress, and deportment and demeanor. With their review of the literature, Notar and Riley (2009) identified a list of desired dispositions for their teacher education program including: attendance/punctuality, timeliness, appearance, poise, attitude, initiative, responsiveness to feedback, rapport. More recently, Shiveley and Misco (2010), in their literature review suggest the following list of dispositions as desired dispositions in teacher education programs.

1. Professionalism, positive attitude, and a strong work ethic; 2. Open-mindedness, flexibility, and a caring attitude;

3. Ability to listen, appreciation of diversity, and a sense of fairness; 4. A belief that all students can learn;

5. Reflection, ability to positively use constructive feedback, and empathy; 6. Prudence, temperance, and an interest in the common or public good; 7. Self control, active participation, life-long learning, a sense of efficacy, wholeheartedness, tolerance of ambiguity, and collaboration; and

8. Willingness to compromise, patience, and a tendency to consider both short and long term effects (p. 11).

(35)

Some other researchers identified dispositions and categorized them based on their qualifications, and classified them under different headings (Shiveley & Misco, 2010). Sockett (2006) categorized dispositions in terms of whether they are

representing character (e.g., integrity, courage), intellect (e.g., consistency, fairness), and caring (e.g., receptivity, building trust). In a similar way, Misco and Shiveley (2007) classified dispositions as personal virtues (e.g., caring, respectful, honest), educational virtues (e.g., sensitivity for difference, ability for reflection and critical thinking), and social transformation (e.g., creating equity, commitments to democratic values).

Another researcher, Thomas (2010), identified 10 dispositions for teacher education program at the University of West Georgia. These dispositions are listed as what teacher candidates should be able to do in the teaching profession. Similar to the general outline of the previous lists of dispositions, this list contains the descriptors of dispositions as decision makers, leaders, life long learners, adaptive, collaborative, culturally sensitive, empathetic, knowledgeable, proactive, and reflective.

Another teacher education unit at the Florida State University, identified

seventeen dispositions that pre-service teacher should demonstrate. These seventeen dispositions are character, caring, personal and social competence, approachable, patient, sense of humor, belief that all students can learn, commitment to teaching, role model, open mindedness/ accepting of others, cooperative nature, use of teaching methodology/ progressive teaching, awareness of organizational hierarchy, acceptance of feedback, communication, organization, and flexibility (the detailed descriptions of these dispositions are in the appendixes).

Similar to these lists of dispositions, there are numerous lists in the literature and in the conceptual framework of teacher education programs. This variety of dispositions in the literature and conceptual frameworks of teacher education programs seem to be the result of different understanding of what is meant by “dispositions” (Diez, 2007; Freeman, 2007; Notar & Riley, 2009; Shiveley & Misco, 2010).

Understanding Dispositions

Typically, teacher educators are experienced in defining, implementing, and assessing knowledge and skills in their teacher preparation program (Diez, 2007; Dottin,

(36)

2009; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007). Arguably, however, the new emphasis on teacher dispositions presented somewhat of a challenge to teacher educators.

Although, the term “disposition” is not new in the educational literature (Diez, 2007; Freeman, 2007; Raths, 2007; Shiveley and Misco, 2010), teacher educators are less familiar with how to define, develop, and assess dispositions (Dottin, 2009; Flowers, 2006). Despite the fact that NCATE provided a definition of dispositions, teacher educators seem to be struggling with definitional and philosophical aspects of dispositions (Dottin, 2009). One possible reason for this is that the requirement

concerning dispositions was imposed on teacher educators by the NCATE accreditation requirements (Diez, 2007; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Freeman, 2007).

Consequently, teacher educators could have lacked ownership of the definition and assessment of teacher dispositions in their teacher education programs.

Definition of Dispositions

Through out the educational literature, there is no agreed definition of

dispositions. Many scholars stated that there are multiple definition of disposition in the literature (Diez, 2007; Edick, Danielson, & Edwards, 2007; Melin & Walker, 2009;

Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004). Diez (2007) indicates that this is because of the NCATE mandate and measuring teacher candidates’ dispositions without a clear list of dispositions.

Although there are some concerns with NCATE’s definition of the term

disposition as not being clear (Ginsberg & Whaley, 2006), the definition provided by NCATE is a widely used in the educational literature. When adopting the standards of INTASC, NCATE evolved the definition of dispositions and provides this definition in the glossary prepared by NCATE. Starting definition of dispositions by NCATE (2002) is the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth.

Currently, NCATE refers to dispositions as professional dispositions and revised their definition as follows: Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students,

(37)

families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development (NCATE, 2007).

Similar to this NCATE definition, dispositions are defined in the literature as a tendency to exhibit frequently, consciously, and voluntarily a pattern of behavior that is directed to a broad goal (Da Ros-Voseles and Moss, 2007). Another definition of dispositions sees them as behaviors based on a meaning-making system that results in attitudes, values and beliefs (Eberly, Rand, and O’Connor, 2007).

Nature of Dispositions

Throughout the literature, dispositions are defined based on different natures, such as: being volitional or automatic, innate or not a part of a system, stable or incremental, latent or apparent.

In his article, Ritchhart (2001) discussed the nature of dispositions in terms of being volitional, automaticity, latency, intentionality. Ritchhart further noted that philosophers define dispositions as latent and automatic components of human intelligence and, on the other hand, in psychology and education dispositions are defined as volitional properties (Ritchhart, 2001). Ritchhart gives an example of Ryle’s (1949) definition for the philosophical aspect. For Ryle, dispositions are latent

tendencies that can be realized by an observer when a particular condition is realized. Freeman interpreted dispositions as attributions that observers make after witnessing behaviors (Freeman, 2007). Ryle’s example of a glass indicates that glass has a brittle disposition which is an attribution after the glass struck (Ritchhart, 2001). Ritchhart (2001) also stated that psychological and educational definitions of dispositions differ from those of philosophers in terms of the intentionality, and consciousness aspects of dispositions.

Throughout the literature, psychologists and researchers have different ideas of the nature of dispositions in terms of being innate and stable, or apparent, incremental, and teachable (Ritchhard, 2001). Some of these views concerning the nature of

dispositions, and how these views define dispositions are provided below.

In the educational literature, Dewey is referred to as the first to use of the term “disposition” in the literature (Freeman, 2007; Breese & Nawrocki-Chabin, 2007;

(38)

Richardson & Onwuegbuzie, 2003; Ritchhart, 2001). As cited in these studies, Dewey (1922) used the term “habit” and “disposition” to describe motive of act. In Ritchhart’s (2001) study, it is mentioned that Dewey defined dispositions as readiness to act overtly in a fashion whenever opportunity is presented. Beside this, in Breese & Nawrocki-Chabin’s (2007) study, it is stated that “Dewey defined dispositions as habit of thought which are influenced by both the intentionally devised habits and the unconscious reactions to the environment” (p.33). Moreover, Ritchhart (2001) states that for Dewey, dispositions are active and learnable (Ritchhart, 2001).

Another scholar, Arnstine (1967) like Ryle (1949), saw dispositions as ascriptions made by observers. Arnstine defined dispositions as behavior that vary to suit different situations (cf. Freeman, 2007). For Arnstine, dispositional behavior ensures the quality of the act repeatable, but not the action itself.

Like Dewey, Katz defines dispositions as conscious and voluntary control, intentional and oriented without coercion (Katz & Raths, 1985). Although, Katz and Raths (1985) define dispositions in terms of styles, stable habits of mind, traits, and characteristic ways of responding, they distinguished the terms “habit” and “disposition”. Freeman (2007) explains Katz and Raths’ usage of “habits” as referring unintentional acts, and “dispositions” as referring intentional acts.

Perkin, Jay, and Tishman (1993a) see dispositions as the mainspring that puts all this in motion and represent “behavioral tendencies”. In another place, Tishman,

Perkin, and Jay (1995) define dispositions as: “inclinations and habits of mind that benefit productive thinking (p.37)”.

More recent studies, Breese and Nawrocki-Chabin (2007) define dispositions as “manifest through intentional, practices behaviors that can be challenged, developed, and enhanced even as they denote behavioral tendencies that endure over time (p.33).” Oja and Reiman (2007) agree with this statement and note that dispositions are

developable. Moreover, Reiman and Johnson (2003) interpreted dispositions as the attributed characteristics of a teacher that represent dominant and preferred trends in teachers’ interpretations, judgments, and actions in ill-structured professional context (Oja & Reiman, 2007). Unlike Oja and Reiman (2007), Wasicsko sees dispositions as resistant to change (Wasicsko, 2007).