preparing social work doctoral students for teaching

4 downloads 7016 Views 902KB Size Report
FOR TEACHING: REPORT OF A SURVEY. DEBORAH P .... field does not necessarily make someone an effective ... for research, teaching, and service. In 1992 ...
PREPARING SOCIAL WORK DOCTORAL STUDENTS FOR TEACHING: REPORT OF A SURVEY DEBORAH P VALENTINE, SHERRY EDWARDS, DEBRA COHACAN, MARIE HUFF, ANGELA PEREIRA, AND PAMELA WILSON

The results of a national survey of 5 / social work doctoral program directors indicate that, although the majority of doctoral programs include preparation for teaching as a program objective, they offer limited formal course work and few opportunities for supervised teaching experiences. The authors discuss the results of this survey and make recommendations for better preparing social work doctoral students for their roles as teachers.

d°ctoral to

do

both

L ew,s&

Altbach, *? introduced Primarily a resear/h

> 1993'

ed

**"* States as

4; Jenson, Fras er

s,s on m faculty to give

. Lewis

""'' h Promotion,

the

19 92). C o n s , s n i t h IhT & A"" Preparation of soci, ! , n°"°"' de n'sft.rre 5 earrh k (1°Ctora' th e focus en 16"" 'Progra,ns for the pl° .T'0"^' rtedfour ted three reported y 10 of the ,vork docactives on indteachwork deindicated or revise lucation/ lartments.

oral procum. Five idd a re10 others o add an onded lo concerns r doctoral onses fell omprised its to gain le formal (e.g., getteaching j u n c t facand guest ssociating nentors). this catbased on ion that "opporsufficient ,dents for example, ent indite process > teach is rough exvities." , category iddresscd and peda-

gogical concerns about preparing doctoral students for teaching. Responses in this category suggested that the conflict continues between preparing for the art and science of teaching and preparing doctoral students for their roles as researchers and scholars. Comments included: " [Teacher] training is not the primary mission of a social work doctoral program" and "This role should be assumed by experts outside of the field of social work." Directors who supported the need to formally prepare doctoral students to teach suggested that content should include general educational pedagogy, philosophy of higher education, learning theories, and curriculum development. Limitations of the research should be considered as they relate to these results, A weakness of the research is that the views of the respondents are not necessarily held by the programs' other faculty. The person in the director's position at the time of the survey may not have represented the program's philosophy on preparing doctoral students for teaching. In general, however, directors are the individuals most likely to understand and influence the direction of doctoral programs. Discussion and Recommendations In an editorial entitled "The Expansion of Doctoral Education," Frederic Reamer (1991) identifies the focus on "training-for-teaching and other pedagogical issues" as a major controversy in social work education. The results of this study indicate that, although most doctoral programs in social work include preparation for leaching as one of the program objectives, only about a third require education courses, and less than half offer interdepartmental education courses. These results are tempered somewhat by small percentages of respondents who indicated plans to add or supple-

279

ment educational course work and practica in their social work doctoral curriculum. Clearly, however, doctoral program directors have mixed feelings about preparing doctoral students for teaching. Comments made by several doctoral program directors suggest that, although they believed preparing students to be teachers is important, they found it less important than preparing students to be researchers or social service leaders. The results reflect the perspective that preparing educators is not viewed as the primary mission of social work doctoral programs, and that if a choice must be made between preparing researchers or educators, doctoral programs prefer the former. Respondents' intent to add education courses or leaching practica, however, may suggest a growing interest in teacher preparation. Doctoral program directors may also tend to view theoretical knowledge about teaching as less important than time spent actually teaching. Ziolkowski (1990) argues against this position, maintaining that "many graduate students, especially in the humanities and social sciences, have too much, not too little, teaching experience by the time they receive their degrees—an unvaried, unsupervised, and poorly remunerated experience" (p. 181). An alternative explanation for the ambivalence regarding teacher preparation may be that some faculty believe that effective teaching results from extensive knowledge about social work and competence as a social work researcher or practitioner, rather than from knowledge in educational theory or teaching skills. Future research should explore these beliefs and attitudes and rank doctoral program objectives in order of importance to doctoral faculty members. Future research should also explore whether doctoral students feel adequately prepared for teaching and whether they are, in fact, effective educators. In addition,

280

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

research exploring ways that doctoral students can best acquire knowledge and skills to be more effective teachers would contribute to our understanding of this process. The renewed commitment by colleges and universities to provide students with high-quality education means that higher education must define effective teaching and identify ways to attain it. It is imperative that social work education be a part of this discourse. It is in our best interests as social work educators to place value on preparing doctoral students to be the best possible teachers. Fraser (1994) acknowledges "the centrality of knowledge transmission in practice, education, and research," suggesting that social work find ways to infuse teaching with scholarship and "systematically identify and reward effective teachers" (p. 263). Ideally, recipients of social work doctorates should be scholars who possess substantive knowledge, advanced methodological expertise, and competence in pedagogical methodology, teaching techniques, and classroom evaluation. Preparing excellent teachers will have system-wide benefits. If doctoral students perform teaching responsibilities with increased competence and confidence, they will likely benefit in tenure and promotion reviews; their undergraduate and graduate students will benefit from their teaching skills; and schools of social work will benefit from their increased expertise in social work curriculum and higher education issues. In addition, it will address the common goal of colleges and universities to improve classroom teaching. Finally, as McKeachie (1994, p. 8) asserts: "Teaching skillfully may be less time consuming than teaching badly. Teaching well is more fun than teaching poorly. Thus, some investment of time and attention to developingskill in teaching is more likely to have substantial payoff in self-satisfaction and effectiveness."

There are many creative ways that social work doctoral programs can better prepare students for teaching. First, tapping expertise in other parts of the university can enrich the experience of both social work doctoral students and faculty. Given the recent attention to interdisciplinary efforts, social work educators might find collaborators in departments of h i g h e r education who are well informed in educational methods, educational theory, and teaching skills. Building opportunities for social work doctoral students to take either required or elective courses in other departments (or in centers for teaching excellence) could be explored. Faculty mentors or programs themselves could also encourage doctoral students to conduct classroom research as part of a teaching practicum. One model requires doctoral students to develop a research proposal and use either a quantitative or qualitative method to assess teaching effectiveness. The use of cooperative learning strategies and feminist pedagogy that have been found to be effective in secondary schools and undergraduate classrooms, for example, have only recently been evaluated with graduate social work students (Cramer, 1995). Other resources are also available. Angelo and Cross (1993) published a handbook on classroom assessment techniques that provides excellent examples of exercises and evaluation opportunities that can be adapted for the social work classroom. AnthonyGrasha (1996) has written aguide for enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles that has potential for classroom research. Encouraging doctoral students to evaluate their teaching effectiveness models the importance of "practice" (in this case teaching) research and makes a significant contribution to our body of knowledge about effective strategies for teaching social work; it also provides doctoral students with additional research experience.

PREPARING DOCTORAL STUDENTS FOR TEACHING

Programs might also involve doctoral students in the educational process of curriculum revision and course development. Rather than allowing graduate teaching assistants to flounder in their first teaching experiences, faculty mentors can be assigned to provide the guidance, supervision, and advice that is needed throughout the process. It is time for social work doctoral programs to engage in serious discussions on whether social work doctoral students need additional preparation for teaching, how best to provide this preparation without sacrificing their scholarly education, what components of a doctoral education are influential in producing competent instructors, and what means should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these components. REFERENCES Abbott, A. A. (1985). Research productivity patterns of social work doctorates. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 21(3), 11-17. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baker, D. R., & Wilson, M. K. (1992). An evaluation of the scholarly productivity of doctoral graduates. Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 204-213. Boice, R. (1991). Quick starters: Faculty who succeed. In M. Thean & J. Franklin (Eds.), Effective practices for improving teaching (pp. 111121). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1990). Publication productivity: From frequency distribution to scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 76(1), 37-44. Brazziel, W. F. (1991). Thinking about college teaching. Latham, NY: Hudson-Mohawk Association. Brookfield.S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. (1990). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cramer, E. P. (1995). Feminist pedagogy and teaching social work practice with groups: A case study. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,

281

DeNeef, A. (1993). Right here now: Where faculty development begins. Liberal Education, 30(2), 252-266. Fraser, M. W. (1994). Scholarship and research in social work: Emerging challenges-Touma/o/ Social Work Education, 30, 252-266. Glazer.J. S. (1993) .A teaching doctorate: The doctor of arts degree, then and now. New York: American Association for Higher Education. Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance. Green, R. G., Hutchison, E. D., & Sar, B. K. (1992). Evaluating scholarly performance: The productivity of graduates of social work doctoral programs. Social Service Review, 66(3) 441-466. Gullett, M. M. (1982). The art and craft ofteaching. Cambridge, MA: Alpine. Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. (1992). Guidelines for quality in social work doctoral programs. (Available from GA0E, University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.) Harris, D. (1986). Evaluating and accessing for learning. New York: Nichols. Holland, T., Austin, D. M., Allen-Meares, P., & Garvin, C. (1991). An octennium of doctorates: Trends in characteristics of doctoral students in social work and other fields during 1981-1988. Arete, 76(1), 1-11. Jenson, J. M., Fraser, M. W., & Lewis, R. E. (1991). Research training in social work doctoral programs. Arete, 16(1), 23-38. Kerr, D. H. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United States. Teachers College Record, 84(3), 525-552. Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf. Lanning, W. (1990). An educator/practitioner model for counselor education doctoral programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 30(2) ,63-169. Lewis,L.S.,&AItbach,P.G. (1992).Thenewcivil rights law and doctoral education. Academe, 75(3), 12-14. Magner, D. K. (1996, Sept. 13). Faculty survey highlights driftfrom Western canon. Chronicle of Higher Education, A12-A15. McKeachie, W. (1994). Teaching tips (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C, Heath. Mennen,F.E.,&Perlmutter,L.( 1991). Encouraging teaching excellence: Aiding the transition from practitioner to professor. Arete, 76(2), 34-38. Merrill, G. (1992). The PhD upholding the sciences. Academe, 78(5), 23-25.

282

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Nickerson.R. (1987). Why teach thinking? InJ. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 27-37). New York: Freeman. Patchner, M. (1982). A decade of social work doctoral graduates: Their characteristics and educational progress. Journal of Education for Social Work, 18(2), 35-41. Peifer, A. (1979). A foundation study: The first seventy-five years of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Annual Report (1978-1979). New York: Carnegie Foundation.

Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Reamer, F. G. (1991). The expansion of doctoral education. Journal of Social Work Education 27 229-230. Rosen, A. (1981). Toward a function-related organization of doctoral education. Journalof Social Work Education, 17(2), 69-75. Russell, I. (1971) .Motivation. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. Schachter, H. L. (1991). Teaching versus research: A 1910 perspective. College Teaching 39(2) ,85-86. Ziolkowski.T. (1990). The PhD squid. The American Scholar, 59(2), 177-195.

Accepted 6/97. Address correspondence to: Deborah P. Valentine, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.

PhD PROGRAM in SOCIAL WORK PREPARE FOR TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND LEADERSHIP ROLES IN:

DOCTORAL PROGRAM

• ADVANCED PRACTICE • SOCIAL POLICY, PLANNING AND POLICY ANALYSIS • SOCIAL POLICY, PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CHOOSE AMONG AN EXTENSIVE RANGE OF SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE AND FIELD OH PRACTICE OPTIONS. A wide range of financial support is provided for qualified candidates. Applications for Fall 1999 are due by February 1st, 1999 For further information contact: Professor Brenda G. McGowan, Chair, Doctoral Program

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK Doctoral Program Admissions 622 West 1 1 3th Street, New York, NY 1 OO25 212-854-5156 fax: 212-854-5891