The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education

bs_bs_banner Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2012 The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education LYNN FENDLER Educational psychology is a curricular requirement for most teacher preparation programs in the world. Knowledge of educational psychology is assessed on examinations for teacher licensure in most jurisdictions, and understanding of psychology is assumed to be indispensible for effective teaching at all levels. Traditional university-based teacher-certification pathways have recently come under attack from various socio-political sectors, and the curriculum for teacher preparation is among the most contested issues. This article examines the lure of psychology for teacher education. Philosophical analysis is required in any serious discussion of education and psychology and their relationships (Norwich, 2000, p. 205). Why is psychology a requirement for teacher certification? To address this question, I analyse research from the two relevant disciplines: Teacher Education and Educational Psychology. According to educational psychologists John Houtz and Carol Lewis, psychologists themselves have had long-standing debates about what ought to be the proper role for psychology with respect to teacher education (see also Alexander, 1996; Andre and Hegland, 1990; Chase, 1998; Clinefelter, 1979; Hilgard, 1996). Houtz and Lewis (1994) tell us that ‘Both William James . . . and John Dewey . . . suggested by their writings that educational psychology was a “middleman” between theory and practice . . . James considered psychology to be a science but education an art’ (p. 3). Houtz and Lewis concur with Dewey’s hope that psychology might serve to make educational theory more easily understandable for teachers. These debates about the role of psychology in teacher education continue today in Educational Psychology journals (Hoy, 2000); however, there is less debate among teacher educators, who seem to take it for granted that prospective teachers will study psychology (Hill, 2000). One way to frame this article would have been to focus historically on the question of how educational psychology originally came to be seen as a necessary part of teacher education beginning in the 1890s.1 However, that is not my primary focus. Rather, I am more interested in various hypotheses that might explain why educational psychology continues today, more than © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 333 a century later, as a requirement in the teacher education curriculum, regardless of the origins of the practice. To develop this study, I examine four plausible hypotheses that might be offered to explain why psychology has continued to be a requirement for teacher certification: Efficacy: Educational psychology is a requirement in teacher education because the study of psychology improves teaching (regardless of how one might define improvement). Professionalization: Educational psychology is included in teacher education because an affiliation with this social-scientific discipline helps to raise the professional status of teaching and teacher education. Policy/Management: Educational psychology remains in the curriculum of teacher education because the language of psychology gives teacher educators a voice in educational policy making; psychology discourses take the messy world of teaching and organize those unruly practices to make them appear rational and manageable. Habit: Educational psychology continues to be included in the curriculum of teacher education out of habit. Each of these hypotheses calls for a different investigative approach. In order to examine the efficacy claim, I made a survey of recent publications and synthesized the findings of educational research reports addressing the relationship of educational psychology to the quality of teaching. Second, to investigate the professionalization perspective, I drew on histories of psychology and histories of teacher education as well as professionalization theories in order to assess the historical role educational psychology has played in professionalization. Third, in order to examine the policy/management explanation, I took a genealogical approach to the relationship of psychology and teacher education as disciplines in the epistemological context of modern social sciences. Finally, to consider the role and function of habit, I turned to John Dewey’s (1921) philosophy in Human Nature and Conduct. EFFICACY Does knowledge of psychology improve teaching? Quite simply, there seems to be no research that substantiates—one way or another—the impact of psychology courses in teacher education. Wilson and Floden (2003) asked precisely that question: ‘To what extent do knowledge of pedagogical theory, learning theory, or child development contribute significantly to a teacher’s effectiveness?’ (p. 14). Based on their analyses of all available empirical research reports, Wilson and Floden affirmed that, ‘the research on the impact of pedagogical knowledge or preparation was spotty and inconclusive’ (p. 16). Even since 2003 there appears to be no research evidence that addresses the question of whether educational psychology has had any effect on teachers or the quality of teaching (see also Allen, 2003; Patrick, et al., 2011; Wilson, Floden and Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 334 L. Fendler It is only fair to note that there appears to be no conclusive scientific research of any sort that substantiates the effect of any courses in the teacher education curriculum on the quality of teaching. And this nonrelationship holds true regardless of what you hold as the criteria of effect. According to Mary Kennedy2 (who has done extensive meta-analyses of the research literature on teacher education), there is some fairly weak evidence suggesting that subject-specific pedagogy courses may bolster the confidence of beginning teachers (see also Kennedy, 1999). But even that finding is not robust, and no other parts of the curriculum are supported by research that examines the effect of any courses in the curriculum of teacher education. Both teacher educators and educational psychologists seem to be aware of this problem; however, the problem has been addressed only recently by educational psychologists: But does our involvement in teacher education make a difference in terms of how graduating teachers teach? Are teachers more effective for having taken our courses? Presumably we believe so, but how do we know? And how do we convince others who may be skeptical about the role of educational psychology in teacher education? (Patrick et al., 2011, p. 71, italics in original). In another approach to the question of relevance, educational psychologists Peterson, Clark and Dickson (1990) appealed to William James and the Report of the Holmes Group to argue that psychology ought to be used as the theoretical foundation for the design of the teacher education curriculum: . . . we sense a growing awareness among educational psychologists of the need to reexamine their own discipline. Such a reexamination needs to focus not only on the learning and teaching of educational psychology but also on understanding how educational psychology as a course of study influences the knowledge of candidates in teacher preparation (Peterson, Clark and Dickson, 1990, online version). In other words, Peterson, Clark, and Dickson argued that the relationship between education and psychology should be rethought. They argued that educational psychology should no longer be considered in terms of a required course for prospective teachers to study, but rather the principles and learning theories derived from psychology should form the intellectual and practical basis for the design of the entire teacher education curriculum. In these authors’ views, teacher education curricula should be designed according to principles of constructivist learning theories that represent the most up-to-date research advances in educational psychology. One assumption reflected in this argument is that science can solve educational problems, and that curriculum design is a scientific enterprise that is somehow immune to political, economic, or cultural influences. © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 335 From its inception, educational psychology has made attempts to adjust the boundaries and focus of the discipline in order to become more relevant to teachers and teacher educators (see, e.g., Anderson et al., 1995; Norwich, 2000; Patrick et al. 2011; Poulou, 2005; Travers, 1966). As educational psychologists have endeavoured to make their discipline more relevant for education, they have emphasized primarily the contributions of psychology in the areas of special education and diagnostic instruments (such as IQ tests, aptitude tests, and personality tests for self-esteem, self-efficacy, and motivation), which are traditional domains of psychology. Illustrative of how educational psychologists have been striving to make their field more relevant, there is now an AERA Special Interest Group called ‘Teaching Educational Psychology,’ and also a journal and a wiki by the same name. These materials provide resources for teaching educational psychology courses in ways that are relevant for teacher education. In these materials, the efficacy of educational psychology for the teacher education curriculum is never questioned. The resources do not attempt to defend the value of educational psychology as a knowledge domain for teachers, and the efficacy of psychology for teacher education is assumed without evidence. Reports from teacher education concur with those from educational psychology. Regarding research on the question of efficacy, the most recent Handbook of Research on Teacher Education puts it most succinctly: Clearly, what is still missing from the literature and the field is empirical work that seeks to better understand the role of psychology in teacher education. While there is an evolving literature on teacher emotion, the literature that brings in the psychological development of the self to bear on the effectiveness of teacher education programs is in its infancy (Rogers and Scott, 2008, p. 752). In any case, at this time the inclusion of psychology in the curriculum of teacher education—either as a foundational discipline or as a pedagogical theory for curriculum design—is not warranted on the basis of efficacy. Researchers in both teacher education and educational psychology seem to acknowledge this lack of evidence; however the absence of evidence does not appear as a vexing issue for either field. PROFESSIONALIZATION The role of psychology in the professionalization of teacher education is complicated because there are at least two separate constituencies within teacher education to consider. In order to address the question of the role of psychology in the professionalization of teaching, we have to look from two sides: the academic/university perspective (Barone et al., 1996), and the school/teacher perspective (Noddings, 2003). Professionalization is not the same across those two contexts, and in each context psychology plays a different role vis-à-vis professionalization. © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 336 L. Fendler University departments of teacher education have traditionally considered psychology to be a social science that enhances the academic standing of departments of education in the university. Professionalization (especially in the United States) is advanced through the production of research that looks like empirical science (as opposed research that looks like arts or humanities). University departments gain professional status based largely on their research productivity, and research on teaching and teacher education was aligned from the beginning with psychology (Kimball, 2009). The history of this relationship can be illustrated with two events in the early 1960s that served to establish the role of psychology as an assumed element for the professionalization of teaching. Both events are connected with the work of Nathaniel Lees Gage (1917– 2008), president of AERA from 1963 to 1964 and one of the most eminent educational psychologists in US history. First, Gage was appointed by AERA to be the editor of the very first Handbook of Research on Teaching (1963). Being a psychologist, Gage invited other psychologists as contributors to this volume, and the Handbook was shaped according to the epistemological commitments and research conventions of educational psychology. This first edition of the Handbook of Research on Teaching was comprised almost exclusively of studies in educational psychology. In fact (by AERA appointments) the first four editions of the handbook were edited by educational psychologists: 1. 2. 3. 4. 1963: Nathaniel Gage (educational psychology); 1973: Robert M. W. Travers (educational psychology); 1986: Merlin Wittrock (educational psychology); 2001: Virginia Richardson (educational psychology). The Handbook of Research on Teaching is published as an authoritative volume by the largest professional organization for educational research in the world, and that volume frames research on teaching in terms of psychology.3 The tradition of appointing educational psychologists as editors of the handbook was sustained for 40 years. However, the forthcoming (2014) volume will change that tradition because, for the first time, the Handbook will be edited by two educational policy researchers who are not psychologists; both editors are affiliated with a non-university-based corporation, Educational Testing Services. As an isolated event, this shift in editorial expertise would probably not amount to much; however, combined with other factors, there may be some indication that psychology is fading in prominence as an essential element in the professionalization of teacher education. The second historical event that reinforced the role of psychology in teacher education was when Gage established the Stanford Center for Research and Development of Teaching, the first centre of its kind, in 1965. With such an enthusiastic advocate as Gage at the helm of both the Handbook and the Center, educational psychology was constituted as the foundation for professionalization of teaching and teacher education. For researchers in departments of teacher education seeking to advance their © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 337 professional status through publications, the research traditions of psychology served as the primary venue for funding and publishing opportunities for most of the 20th century. Within this professionalization context, university-based programs of teacher education reaped some benefit in status through affiliations with psychology as an empirical research enterprise. However, there are two recent historical developments (in addition to the change in the Handbook editorship) that suggest psychology may be in decline as the primary venue for professionalization in education: 1) the invention of the Learning Sciences, and 2) political initiatives that deemphasize the importance of university coursework in teacher education. Learning Sciences In a pattern that is typical across most disciplinary fields, educational psychology suffers from relatively low status within the discipline of Psychology itself. Perhaps in response to the low status, or perhaps as part of entrepreneurial trends in educational research, there is now a disciplinary spin-off field that calls itself ‘Learning Sciences.’ The International Society of the Learning Sciences was incorporated in September of 2002, and defines itself as: . . . a professional society dedicated to the interdisciplinary empirical investigation of learning as it exists in real-world settings and how learning may be facilitated both with and without technology. . . . The society is widely interdisciplinary and includes members from cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, anthropology, sociology, information sciences, neurosciences, education, design studies, instructional design, and other fields (http://www. isls.org/index.html). It appears that the Learning Sciences have been established in order to promote and professionalize the kinds of scholarly projects that previously belonged within the domain of educational psychology. In addition, the Learning Sciences are identified explicitly as an applied field whose research agenda is focused on empirical approaches to the measurement of efficacy in school settings. The focus on applied research makes Learning Sciences an appealing disciplinary affiliation for education and other professional schools. Since the Learning Sciences have been established as a separate field of study (and as a disciplinary department in some universities4), this institutionalization may in the future serve to generate research reports about the efficacy of expertise in psychology for improving the quality of teaching. At the same time, with the invention of this newly institutionalized domain of research, Learning Sciences-type studies may be taking over from psychology as the high-status disciplinary affiliation for purposes of professionalization. Since research in the Learning Sciences may turn out to be indistinguishable from research in educational psychology, the change in the label may make no substantive difference to © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 338 L. Fendler any intellectual or professional relationships with education. In any case, it is still too early to assess the impact or attraction of the Learning Sciences on teaching and teacher education. Political Trends With recent shifts in the US political context, psychology may soon hold less value for the professionalization of teacher education. Current critics of US teacher preparation (which are growing in influence) have been arguing that teacher preparation should take the form of ‘residency models’ that resemble training programs in medical schools. In this model, universities provide preparation in subject matter (mathematics, history, etc.), and then teacher candidates complete their pedagogical training through residency placements in schools (see, e.g., Duncan, 2010).5 In general, current critics are pushing for teacher preparation to be moved away from universities and into the local schools where the training6 can be designed and supervised by non-university (sometimes private, for-profit, or religious) credentialing entities. It would seem that current trends in favour of residency models and privatization of teacher education may be serving to diminish the value of educational psychology as a vehicle for raising the professional status of teacher education in the university. It is plausible that educational psychology has played a role in bolstering the professional standing for programs of teacher education in universities. However, psychology seems to have had the opposite effect on teachers. In contrast to the professional advantages of psychology for teacher educators, the professional standing for classroom teachers is not improved, and may even be diminished, through affiliations with psychology. From the perspective of teachers, professional development should rest on the refinement of practical skills and expertise in craft, not on scientific knowledge and research publications. Among teachers (see, e.g., Bryant, 2009; Grady et al., 2008; Helterbran, 2008; Houston, 2008), psychology is not mentioned as a factor in professionalism, and the discourses of teacher professionalization do not make references to psychology. In fact, the need for a scientific knowledge base is implicitly and explicitly rejected by teachers. Teacher professional organizations tend to prioritize practical skills in the definition of professionalism, and so most aspects of traditional teacher education curriculum are regarded as irrelevant by teachers, except for purposes of credentialing (see, e.g., AFT, 2007; Bryant, 2009; Helterbran, 2008; Servage, 2009). From the teacher’s point of view, professionalism consists of the following: • Demonstrating responsible work habits (showing up on time in proper dress and civil demeanour); • Pursuing further credentials; • Working cooperatively with other teachers; • Practicing reflective teaching; • Maintaining a certain amount of autonomy or self-determination. As far as teachers are concerned, psychologists are not teachers and therefore cannot be considered as experts on teaching. The professional status of © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 339 teachers cannot benefit from association with people who are not experts on teaching. Therefore, from the perspective of teachers, an affiliation with psychology does not advance their professional standing, and may even lower it by deflecting attention away from teachers’ expertise and granting expert status to a group of professionals who are not teachers. Along similar lines, Null (2011) has argued that the absorption of normal schools into universities was an anti-professionalizing move in the history of teaching. Null’s argument is that teaching lost its unique status as a profession when normal schools became absorbed by larger universities whose interests rarely align in support of teaching and professional schools. Null’s argument about the institutionalization of teacher preparation parallels the argument about how psychology functions to professionalize teacher education but to de-professionalize teachers (see also Labaree, 1992). In sum, it is plausible that psychology remains as a requirement in the curriculum of teacher education because psychology has helped to raise the professional status of university-based teacher education. It is also plausible that the Learning Sciences may be taking over from psychology as the discipline that serves to advance the professional status of the field. On that basis, professionalization can be considered to be one explanation for the continued presence of psychology in the TE curriculum. However, at the same time, it is important to note that the professionalization of teacher education through affiliation with psychology (and/or Learning Sciences) may be occurring at the expense of the professionalization of teachers. POLICY AND MANAGEMENT In the past decade there has been increased emphasis on using ‘evidencebased’ findings from empirical research to justify educational policies and practices. Public policy explicitly favours empirical research methods,7 and to that extent, psychology is valued as a source for scientific evidence to establish and justify educational policies. Research in educational psychology conforms more closely (than other kinds of research in education) to those scientific criteria for research. Of all the types of research that are produced in education, it is educational psychology research that has been most rhetorically useful for policy makers. Therefore, it is reasonable to surmise that psychology persists as a research domain in teacher education because teacher educators would like to have a voice in educational policy making, and policy-making entities find the language of psychology effective for justifying educational-policy reform to voters. From the perspective of educational psychology Poulou (2005) explained the value of research in educational psychology as being the most appropriate approach in this climate of ‘evidence-based’ policy: Educational psychology is an evidence-based profession, and it must be concerned with research in education. It is proposed that the research that will be most valued in society in the future is that which educational psychologists are almost uniquely qualified to carry out (p. 557). © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 340 L. Fendler Educational policy and educational psychology enjoy a mutually supportive relationship in which ‘evidence-based’ research is accepted as the standard for good research and good policy. This climate pertains even though policy makers are notorious for cherry picking research findings to suit their respective ideological stances. Moreover, educational policy— like curriculum—is always a product of political compromise and ideological negotiation. It is widely accepted that scientific evidence is likely to take a backseat in the political and ideological arguments that are mobilized in order to support any particular direction for educational reform policies. Nevertheless, policy-making entities often make rhetorical use of strategically selected scientific research findings when they attempt to justify particular educational policies. Teacher educators seem to be aware of this problem. The kind of research that is useful for teacher education is acknowledged to be not useful for policy makers. As Cochran-Smith (2004) wrote in her editorial introduction for the (US) Journal of Teacher Education: Although these [small scale] studies can be extremely valuable for theory-building and also for the enhancement of practice, they have little or no value when teacher education is conceptualized as a broad-scale policy problem because they are not intended to establish causal relationships and because generalizations about the broad parameters of teacher preparation are impossible to draw from them (2004, p. 112). Cochran-Smith went on to argue that the kind of research required for informing policy is different from the kind of research that is required to help teachers, or to raise the professional standing of teacher education, or to improve teaching. In her view, teacher education research contributes to the professional status of teacher education, and in that vein conducts research that speaks to teacher educators, but not to policy makers (see also Darling-Hammond, 2010). At the same time, there are other ways of looking at the relationship between educational psychology and educational policy. From the perspective of teacher educators and educational policy researchers, for example, Floden and Meniketti (2005) characterized the presence of psychology in teacher education as a product of intuition: The absence of strong empirical support for arts and sciences and foundations (especially psychological foundations) seems unlikely to lead policymakers to relax these requirements. The intuitive sense that teachers should know their subject and understand how people learn is powerful, perhaps as powerful as the sense that doctors should know anatomy and how medicines work (Floden and Meniketti, 2005, p. 299). These statements about educational policy help to explain the lure of psychology in educational research endeavours. Psychology serves to © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 341 frame educational problems in ways that seem amenable to rational management. When educational problems are believed to be researchable in terms of psychology, then those problems appear to be resolvable by means of policies that are based on scientific research findings. This way of looking at things is an example of broader historical tendencies of modern rationalization and institutionalization. When policy makers want to believe (or want voters to believe) in the possibility of improvement and in the capacity of administrative entities to solve social problems, then rhetorical appeals to psychology are more effective than appeals to ethnography, genealogy, curriculum theory, deconstruction, history or philosophy as sources of evidence and justification in public debate. In that way, the persistence of educational psychology in public policy realms is understandable. The discourse of educational psychology is one component of a modern rational worldview that encompasses a belief in progress and the amelioration of social problems through evidence-based policies. From the point of view of modern political rationality and the rhetorical effectiveness of scientific language, it is possible to explain the continued lure of psychology as a component in educational research projects. However, even granting the overarching influence of modern political rationality driving educational research, the predominance of psychology in educational research does not help to explain the continued presence of psychology in the curriculum of teacher preparation. In other words, if we acknowledge the value of psychological discourses for the articulation and justification of educational policy, then we can understand why educational psychology would be included as a requirement for graduate curricula in Educational Administration and/or Educational Policy. We can even understand why the study of educational psychology might be included as curricular requirement for all doctoral programs in education. However, in the absence of any evidence of the value of psychology for improving teaching, the role of psychology in policy-making does not provide sufficient warrant for its inclusion in the curriculum of teacher education. Again, as with professionalization, educational psychology seems to serve administrative and managerial entities by providing a particular kind of language for justifying policy initiatives, but this function of psychology operates without any apparent intellectual, practical, or professional benefits for teachers or classrooms. HABIT Dewey’s (1921) Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology provided a generative launching point for my thinking about the role psychology plays in teacher education. After re-reading this book, my analysis took an unexpected turn. In order to trace that change of direction, I begin this section with a summary and interpretation of Dewey’s conceptualization of habit. In Human Nature and Conduct Dewey was himself wrestling with the definition, focus, and scope of psychology. Specifically, the argument of © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 342 L. Fendler this book distinguishes ‘orthodox psychology,’ which is concerned with ‘separate and individual minds,’ from ‘social psychology,’ which is concerned with the relationship of individual minds to the environment. For Dewey, social psychology serves as a happy medium between psychology (which is too individualistic) and sociology (which is too collectivistic). Instead, Dewey favours a social psychology in which we can understand human action as being always in relation to an environment, especially to other people. A second major focus of Dewey’s book is the argument that habits are not necessarily bad things. In Dewey’s conceptualization, habits can have positive moral value. Dewey emphasizes that there are good habits as well as bad habits, ‘For what makes a habit bad is enslavement to old ruts’ (loc. 596). For Dewey, to separate thought from habit is to separate mind from body, a division that Dewey explicitly rejects. By way of explanation, Dewey drew an analogy between habit and art saying that all good artists must have habits like automatic skills, and that habits are necessary but insufficient for making art. Like art, good habits should consist of automatic behaviours combined with thoughtful intelligence. In the first part of the book, Dewey argued that habits are not individual or ‘private possessions’ of a person. According to Dewey, habits can be considered as analogous to physiological functions or mathematical functions, and as such, habits occur in the relationship between the organism and the environment: ‘The social environment acts through native impulses and speech and moral habitudes manifest themselves’ (Dewey, 2007/1922, loc. 147). As an illustration of the social context of morality, Dewey cited the example of demographic categories: we make judgments based on social classifications. Dewey’s way of framing the concept of habit is useful as a way of thinking about the role of psychology in teacher preparation because Dewey’s conceptualization pushes us to think relationally and to consider the question of psychology in the broader social context of teacher preparation. For Dewey, habits can be virtuous or vicious. Virtuous habits are those that facilitate progress: ‘We can retain and transmit our own heritage only by constant remaking of our environment’ (loc. 208). In Dewey’s conceptualization, habit-versus-intelligence is a false dichotomy: ‘the real opposition is not between reason and habit but between routine, unintelligent habit, and intelligent habit or art’ (loc. 683). Dewey argued that habits are the stuff of character: ‘Character is the interpenetration of habits’ (loc. 356). ‘Character is the name given to the working interaction of habits’ (loc. 377). It is clear that one of Dewey’s major objectives in this book was to argue that habits are not necessarily bad things, and that the establishment of good habits is a worthy goal for education. With respect to the fourth hypothesis, then, it is possible to affirm that psychology persists in the curriculum of teacher education because of habit; however (at least as long as we are using Dewey’s conceptualization of habit) we do not know if it is a good habit or a bad habit. The continued presence of psychology in teacher education may or may not be justified by various instrumental and political rationalities (such as efficacy, profession© 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 343 alization, and policy making), and any one of those rationalities could (hypothetically) be based on good pragmatic intelligence, or bad thoughtless routine. However—and this is where my analysis took an unanticipated turn— there is a concept (other than habit) in Human Nature and Conduct that provides another plausible hypothesis for why psychology remains in the curriculum of teacher education: the belief in magic. In Human Nature and Conduct, Dewey expressed his abhorrence for all belief in magic. For Dewey, belief in magic is expressed in human conduct when we persist in doing something even when we have never been presented with any evidence that our actions will produce the effects we want. Dewey argued that belief in magic is a waste of human intelligence. Bemoaning the fact that magical thinking still pervades in political undertakings, Dewey wrote, ‘We think that by feeling strongly enough about something, by wishing hard enough, we can get a desirable result, such as virtuous execution of a good resolve, or peace among nations, or good will in industry,’ (loc. 250). In order to illustrate the belief in magic as it shapes human conduct, Dewey gives the example of trying to teach someone to adopt a better posture. He explained that telling a child to stand up straight, and then wishing very earnestly for better posture to happen, is an example of primitive magical thinking. For Dewey, this is a problem because magical thinking gets in the way of ‘intelligently controlled habit’ (loc. 261). In Dewey’s view, belief in magic is a false psychology because it separates mind from body. Dewey preferred to think of ‘psychical’ mechanisms as similar to bodily mechanisms, which exist in an interdependent relation with one another. Frankly, I find Dewey’s argument here rather hard to follow,8 but what he seems to be saying is that when we imagine the body and mind to be interdependent, then we realize that we must provide educational support not only for the mind, but we must also provide support in the environment to educate the body. In other words, if we expect children to change their posture as a result of our having instructed them to stand up straight, then our expectation is based on belief in magic; it is not reasonable or intelligent to expect that we can overcome bad habits by earnest talking and fervent wishing. In contrast, if we create a social environment in which the child is sufficiently motivated to stand up straight, and we provide this environment repeatedly over an extended period of time, then our expectation is based on intelligence. Dewey’s good habits can be developed by repeated practice in an ‘intelligently controlled’ environment. According to Dewey’s formulations of intelligence in Human Nature and Conduct, it is possible to explain the presence of psychology as a good habit in teacher education from two different points of view. First, from the perspective of political rationality, psychology serves the political aim of advancing the professional status of teacher educators; therefore it is reasonable to include educational psychology in teacher education programs. Second, from the perspective of educational policy making, psychology serves the purpose of giving colleges of education a voice in educational © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 344 L. Fendler policy making; therefore it is reasonable to include educational psychology in colleges of education. Both of these scenarios are reasonable explanations for the lure of psychology, given those stated aims and respective value systems. However, for the most part, those are not the arguments that have been advanced by educational psychologists. Instead, most educational psychologists have been appealing to the efficacy explanation; psychologists argue that psychological knowledge helps to improve teaching. This scenario fits Dewey’s definition of a bad habit. As an example of this argument, here is a (long) passage from a paper delivered by two educational psychologists at the 2007 conference of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: Arguably, the central business of the classroom is learning. Precisely what is entailed in learning, motivation, and development, and how such processes play out in the context of the culture of the classroom, should be a core component of teacher preparation. We wish to make it clear, however, that we are not suggesting that we turn teacher candidates into students of learning in the formal, scientific sense. The study of learning from this perspective is the purview of theoretical, experimental and educational psychologists. Nevertheless, a relatively deep grasp of current conceptions of learning, cognition, motivation, etc. is, we believe, essential if we are to expect teachers to be able to diagnose and assess learning needs, and to plan and deliver appropriate remedies. The question is how to produce a level of expertise that will allow teachers to manifest the skills such deep applications require? [sic] The focus on diagnostic skill, in the context of case analysis, and tutoring situations, is, we think, the best hope for achieving such a level of skill, and this focus addresses all three of the relevant perspectives. It would result in changes in the professional teaching standards. It would provide a rich data source. Finally, as mentioned, it would lead to more effective practice in the classroom (Lindner and Ternasky, 2007). Lindner and Ternasky’s paper exemplifies the kind of argument advanced by most educational researchers when they advocate for educational psychology in teacher preparation. There are two main points I want to highlight with respect to this excerpt. First, the passage does not appeal to any scientific research findings or build a persuasive case that demonstrates the value or contributions of educational psychology for teachers. Rather, the passage asserts the value of psychology without evidence, and without so much as an anecdote to serve as an illustration. This way of thinking is an example of Dewey’s idea of belief in magic. Second, Lindner and Ternasky (like Peterson, Clark and Dickson, 1990) assert that education would be improved if teachers would just apply the scientific findings of research in psychology in the proper way. This is a rationalistic argument that assumes (without evidence or argument) that educational reform occurs as a product of scientific progress and not as the product of historical (socio, economic, © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 345 cultural, and political) contingencies, which—given overwhelming historical precedent—is also an example of belief in magic. Most, but not all literature from educational psychology advances arguments that resemble the one by Lindner and Ternasky. One exception to this line of argument is offered by Norwich (2000), an educational psychologist who has provided us with the most extensive (book length) examination of the relationship between education and psychology (see also Gallagher, 2003). Norwich argued that the epistemological basis for psychology, which is explanatory and interpretive, is different from—and maybe incompatible with—the epistemological basis for education, which is practical and applied. Throughout the book, Norwich’s treatise does not attempt to reconcile or finesse the incompatibilities between education and psychology. Rather, his analysis sustains the dichotomy, calls it a dilemma, and leverages the incompatibility into a productive tension: There is an inescapable ideological impurity in education, which arises from these connections and tensions between multiple values. . . . Such connectedness is in the nature of this and other human fields. It is better confronted and dealt with than responded to in the false purism of either a technological, inclusive or a romantic individualist conception of education (Norwich, 2000, p. 201; italics in original). At first glance, Norwich’s (2000) Education and Psychology in Interaction articulates an argument that appears similar to Gage’s (1978) The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. On the surface of it, both books characterize education as a complicated combination of art and science. However, at another level, Gage’s account can be seen as a one-sided promotional pitch for psychology, and in that way it is utterly different from the multi-faceted analysis in Norwich’s book. In my reading, Gage’s use of the term ‘art’ in the title of his book performs a kind of window dressing or rhetorical appeal to educators who are not psychologists (of whom Gage targeted particularly Elliot Eisner). Gage framed the argument in this book to make educational psychology seem like the reasonable middle ground between two ideological extremes. He constructed this framework by setting up a dichotomy between two caricatures, or straw-man characterizations of art and science: We can conceive of a continuum with votaries of a humanistic art of teaching at one end. This art rejects the offerings and findings of those who seek to apply scientific method to the improvement of teaching. At the other end are believers in the replacement of teachers by technology, in the form of teaching machines, computer-assisted instruction, multimedia packages, and the like. Our present concern with the scientific basis of the art of classroom teaching belongs near the middle of this range (Gage, 1978, p. 14; italics in original). After this introduction, the remainder of Gage’s book goes on to provide examples that show how the discipline of educational psychology is indis© 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 346 L. Fendler pensable in the preparation of teachers, just as the disciplines of anatomy and physiology are indispensable in the preparation of medical doctors. Gage’s argument includes anecdotes and summaries of cherry-picked research findings that illustrate the ways educational psychology has been successful in advancing our understanding of how people learn. Gage’s book concludes with a flattering appeal to teachers that pits teachers against teacher educators: The applications [of educational psychology] will be more warmly welcomed because teachers will have a much greater say in determining the substance, method, and organization of the education. The voice of teachers on these matters will be more enlightened because they will have understood and shared in developing, through collaboration with research workers, the scientific basis for the objectives and methods of teacher education programs (Gage, 1978, p. 94).9 Unlike Gage’s (1978) book, Norwich’s (2000) argument sustains a measured tone and careful approach to characterizing the relationship between art and science in teaching. In the end, Norwich advances a nuanced position that makes good on the promise of the term ‘uncertainty’ in his book title: Whatever contribution psychology makes to education is also one of many contributions from allied fields. Its links with education provide it with a constant reminder of its place amongst the network of connected social sciences relevant to education (Norwich, 2000, p. 203). It is either self-evident or ironic that Gage’s enthusiastic promotion of a scientific basis for teaching turns out to be an example of belief in magic, an unscientific (even anti-scientific) advocacy approach to educational research, in contrast to Norwich’s more humanistic essay that takes into account a wide range of incommensurable evidence without imposing on that evidence a template of ideological purity. WRAPPING UP: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION In this final section I try to tie together the investigations across the four hypotheses. In sum, the findings are these: Efficacy • There appears to be no evidence that the study of educational psychology has had any measurable effect on teachers or the quality of teaching. • There appears to be no evidence establishing a relationship between any elements in the teacher education curriculum on the quality of teaching. © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 347 Professionalization • Psychology has helped to advance the professional status of teacher education as a university department or academic discipline, but it has simultaneously diminished the professional status of teachers. • There are some indications that educational psychology’s academic clout may be fading. Policy and Management • Policy makers make rhetorical use of scientific research findings to support their respective political agendas, so the language of psychological research is more useful for justifying policies than the languages of philosophy or history. • Educational policy is shaped more by politics than by science, so scientific research serves rhetorical purposes more than substantive support. Habit • Educational psychology identifies itself as an evidence-based science, and most educational psychologists claim that knowledge of psychology helps to improve the quality of teaching. • Since there is no scientific evidence that psychology improves teaching, the argument for efficacy is based on a belief in magic. When educational psychologists argue for the relevance of psychology in teacher education, they tend to do so by claiming that educational psychology helps to improve teaching and the teaching profession. The major claim is that educational psychologists are scientists whose interests lie in education and learning. Educational psychologists typically differentiate their own expertise from that of other sub-fields in education by saying that, unlike teacher education (for example), educational psychology is science driven and evidence based. However, we have found that that claim is itself not science driven or evidence based. Since we have no evidence to suggest that psychology helps people become better teachers, it is possible to conclude that the arguments put forward by educational psychologists are based primarily on belief in magic, the fervent wish that the study of psychology might help teachers to understand how children learn, and thereby enable them to teach more effectively. As Patrick et al. (2011) write: . . . how confident are educational psychologists that teacher graduates really are better teachers than they would have been as a result of having taken and passed their courses? It is our premise that this is so, however, as we noted already, this assumption must be empirically investigated rather than taken on faith (p. 81). From Dewey’s perspective, belief in magic is ‘false psychology,’ and so the arguments advocating psychology as a requirement in the curriculum of teacher education enact a performative contradiction. © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 348 L. Fendler But what about the implications for the curriculum of teacher education? We might consider the first three hypotheses as encompassing a range of reasonable goals for teacher education: to improve the quality of teaching, to advance the professionalism of the field, and to have a voice in the shaping of educational policy. At the conclusion of this study, it seems that the inclusion of psychology in the curriculum of teacher education has had spotty results. Specifically, in order to succeed in accomplishing the first goal (efficacy), teacher educators might acknowledge that neither research nor political opinion supports the continuation of the current curriculum of teacher education, so reform is warranted. If teacher education were to be reformed in alignment with the trends favouring residency models, such a reform would be more closely related to the expertise of teacher educators than to the expertise of psychologists, and therefore it would be a direction of reform that could also serve the second goal, professionalization. I acknowledge that the professional status of teacher education is unlikely to be elevated anytime in the near future; but in any case, the research traditions that appear in the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, (which has always been edited by teacher educators) seem to be more in line with a professionalization agenda for teachers than were previous affiliations with psychology (which may be in decline, anyway). Psychology does not seem to offer teacher educators any reasonable potential for fulfilling either the first or the second goal. With respect to the third goal (policy making), if teacher educators want to have more influence, it would be (ironically?) more rational for teacher education to abandon the pretence (magical thinking?) that policy is shaped in accordance with scientific research findings, and acknowledge realistically that policymaking is a political activity. If teacher educators want teachers to have more of a voice in policy making, then teachers need the kinds of skills that lobbyists have. The curriculum of teacher education, then, should include courses in mass communication, political advocacy, legal language, fund raising, and governance processes. In order to fulfil commitments to evidence-based reform, the scientific thing to do next would be to conduct a naturalistic experiment. Teacher educators would agree that teacher education has three goals: efficacy, professionalism, and influencing policy. Given those goals and based on current research findings, we could select at random several institutions as a treatment group that would reform teacher education curricula by replacing courses in psychology with courses in political activism and communication arts. Then teacher educators would conduct rigorous, comparative, longitudinal scientific research studies that examine whether a curriculum emphasizing proficiency in communication arts is more effective than one emphasizing psychology for helping people to become better teachers, advance the professional status of teaching and teacher education, and enable educators to articulate arguments that policy makers find useful and compelling. Since both policy and curriculum are shaped by political winds more than by scientific research findings, it is likely that any future research of this sort will be just as inconclusive as previous research. At the same © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 349 time, this approach to research on the curriculum for teacher education would provide teacher educators with a fundable research agenda for the foreseeable future. Correspondence: Lynn Fendler, Department of Teacher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, 362 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034, USA. Email: [email protected] NOTES 1. The first edition of the Teacher’s Handbook of Psychology had already appeared in the United States in1886, and The Herbartian Psychology Applied to Education was published in the United Kingdom in 1897. 2. Personal communication, January 2010. 3. The Handbook of Research on Teacher Education has a different history of editorship. All three editions were edited by teacher educators, not educational psychologists: 1990: W. Robert Houston (Martin Haberman and John Sikula, associate editors); 1996: John Sikula; 2008: Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Sharon Feiman-Nemser, John McIntyre, Kelly Demers. 4. Universities offering graduate degrees in Learning Sciences include University of Nottingham, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech. 5. Arne Duncan is the United States Secretary of Education (2012). 6. Teacher educators in the United States generally object to the use of the word ‘training’ when it refers to teacher preparation. Ostensibly as part of the move toward professionalization, US teacher educators (unlike educational researchers in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia) publicly insist on the use of the term ‘teacher education’ rather than ‘teacher training.’ 7. It is not yet clear what specific culture of research will be favoured by the Obama administration. There are some early indications that the field of educational research may be more open and pragmatic than it was in the last Bush regime. 8. My confusion is this. If, as Dewey asserts, body and mind are inter-connected, then it seems to me we should be able to teach the body through the mind, and vice versa. However, that doesn’t seem to be what Dewey is arguing here. His argument instead is that since body and mind are not separate, we must teach both the mind and the body. We teach the mind by engaging the mind in reflection on experiences; we teach the body by engaging the body in physical exercises. In any case, I don’t think the specifics of this argument are relevant to the overall point I’m trying to make in this section. 9. It was tempting in this paragraph to cite a different quotation from the same page of Gage’s book: ‘Just as the physician occasionally tells a tobacco addict that smoking is preferable to gaining twenty pounds, so the teacher may cut down the academic learning time of the occasional pupil who needs to learn to work under pressure.’ But that seemed unsporting. REFERENCES Alexander, P. A. (1996) The Past, Present, and Future of Knowledge Research: A Reexamination of the Role of Knowledge in Learning and Instruction, Educational Psychologist, 31, pp. 89–92. Allen, M. B. (2003) Eight Questions On Teacher Preparation: What Does The Research Say? (Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States). American Federation of Teachers (2007) Strengthening our Profession, American Teacher, 92.1, p. 8. © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 350 L. Fendler Anderson, L. M., Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Clark, C. M., Marx, R. W. and Peterson, P. (1995) Educational Psychology For Teachers: Reforming our Courses, Rethinking our Roles, Educational Psychologist, 30, pp. 143–157. Andre, T. and Hegland, S. (1990) Educational Psychology and the Reform of Teacher Education, Educational Psychology Review, 2.3, pp. 237–253. Barone, T., Berliner, D. C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U. and Mcgowan, T. M. (1996) A Future of Teacher Education: Developing a Strong Sense of Professionalism, in: J. Sikula (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd edn. (New York, Macmillan), pp. 1108–1149. Bryant, J. A. (2009) B.S.: Reclaiming the Language of Education, The Clearing House, 82.4, pp. 161–164. Chase, C. I. (1998) A Chat Room—Educational Psychologists but No Curriculum Methodologists? Educational Psychology Review, 10, pp. 239–248. Clinefelter, D. L. (1979) Educational Psychology’s Identity Crisis, Journal of Teacher Education, 30, pp. 22–25. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004) Ask a Different Question, Get a Different Answer: The Research Base for Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, 55.2, pp. 111–115. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) Teacher Education and the American Future, Journal of Teacher Education, 61.1–2, pp. 35–47. Dewey, J. (2007/1921) Human Nature and Conduct (Kindle edition). Duncan, A. (2010) Teacher Preparation: Reforming the Uncertain Profession, Education Digest, 75.5, pp. 13–22. Floden, R. and Meniketti, M. (2005) Research on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts And Sciences and in the Foundations of Education, in: M. Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner, (eds) Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (New York, Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 261–308. Gage, N. L. (1963) Handbook of Research on Teaching: A Project of the American Educational Research Association, a department of the National Education Association (Chicago, IL, Rand McNally & Co.). Gage, N. L. (1978) The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching (New York, Teachers College Press). Gallagher, S. (2003) Educational Psychology: Disrupting the Dominant Discourse (New York, Peter Lang). Grady, M. P., Helbling, K. C. and Lubeck, D. R. (2008) Teacher Professionalism Since ‘A Nation at Risk’, Phi Delta Kappan, 89.8, pp. 603–607. Helterbran, V. (2008) Professionalism: Teachers Taking the Reins, The Clearinghouse, 81.3, pp. 123–127. Hilgard, E. R. (1996) History of Educational Psychology, in: R. C. Calfee and D. Berliner (eds) Handbook of Educational Psychology (New York, Macmillan), pp. 990–1004. Hill, L. (2000) What Does it Take to Change Minds? Intellectual Development of Preservice Teachers, Journal of Teacher Education, 51.1, pp. 50–62. Houston, W. R. (2008) Defining Professionalism Does not Make it So, Action in Teacher Education, 30.1, pp. 21–25. Houtz, J. C. and Lewis, C. D. (1994) The Professional Practice of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychology Review, 6.1, pp. 1–23. Hoy, A. W. (2000) Educational Psychology in Teacher Education, Educational Psychologist, 35.4, pp. 257–270. International Society of the Learning Sciences [ISLS] About ISLS. Online at: http://www.isls.org/ index.html Kennedy, M. M. (1999) The Problem of Evidence in Teacher Education, in: R. A. Roth (ed.) The Role of the University in the Preparation of Teachers (Bristol, PA, Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis), pp. 87–107. Kimball, B. A. (2009) The Inception of Modern Professional Education: C.C. Langdell, 1826–1906 (Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press). Labaree, D. F. (1992) Power, Knowledge, and the Rationalization of Teaching: A Genealogy of the Movement to Professionalize Teaching, Harvard Educational Review, 62.2, pp. 123–154. Lindner, R. W. and Ternasky, P. L. (2007) On the Role of Educational Psychology In Teacher Preparation and Professionalization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain The Magic of Psychology in Teacher Education 351 Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Hilton, New York. Online at: http:// www.allacademic.com/meta/p142550_index.html (accessed 24 May 2009). Noddings, N. (2003) Is Teaching a Practice? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37.2, pp. 241–251. Norwich, B. (2000) Education and Psychology in Interaction: Working with Uncertainty in Interconnected Fields (London, Routledge). Null, J. W. (2011) Curriculum: From Theory to Practice (Blue Ridge Summit, PA, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.). Patrick, H. Anderman, L. H., Bruening, P. S. and Duffin, L. C. (2011) The Role of Educational Psychology in Teacher Education: Three Challenges for Educational Psychologists, Educational Psychologist, 46.2, pp. 71–83. Peterson, P. L., Clark, C. M. and Dickson, W. P. (1990) Educational Psychology as a ‘Foundation’ in Teacher Education: Reforming an Old Notion, Teachers College Record, 91.3, pp. 322–346. Poulou, M. (2005) Educational Psychology within Teacher Education, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11.6, pp. 555–574. Rogers, C. R. and Scott, K. H. (2008) The Development of the Personal Self and Professional Identity in Learning to Teach, in: M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser and D. J. McIntyre (eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts (New York, Routledge), pp. 732–755. Servage, L. (2009) Who is the ‘Professional’ in a Professional Learning Community? An Exploration of Teacher Professionalism in Collaborative Professional Development Settings, Canadian Journal of Education, 32.1, pp. 149–171. Travers, R. M. W. (1966) How Research has Changed American schools: A History from 1940 to the Present (New York, John Wiley). Wilson, S. and Floden, R. E. (2003) Creating Effective Teachers: Concise Answers for Hard Questions: An addendum to the Report ‘Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations’ (Washington, DC, AACTE Publications, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy). Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E. and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001) Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations. A Research Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in Collaboration with Michigan State University (Washington, DC, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy). © 2012 The Author Journal compilation © 2012 Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain