May 15, 2011 - representative of the others, it suggests that special education needs to broaden the ..... 59% at Master's II institutions were un- productive (as ...
How Effectively Are We Preparing Teacher Educators in Special Education? The Case of Deaf Education Barbara R. Schirmer American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 153, Number 4, Fall 2008, pp. 411-419 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: 10.1353/aad.0.0056
For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/aad/summary/v153/153.4.schirmer.html
Access Provided by National Chiao Tung University at 05/15/11 5:09PM GMT
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 411
n
e d d r
Ye ar s
O n e
t y ix
160
a n d S
H
u
17167-AAD153.4
HOW EFFECTIVELY ARE WE PREPARING TEACHER EDUCATORS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION? THE CASE OF DEAF EDUCATION
T
H E S T U DY assessed how well the field of teacher education in special education is preparing the next generation of teacher educators to be stewards of the discipline by exploring the particular case of deaf education. Assuming that preparing doctoral graduates who are able to conduct valuable and quality research requires mentoring by faculty who conduct such research, the study examined the scholarly productivity of 127 teacher educators in deaf education at U.S. postsecondary institutions. Results showed that most had published relatively little during the past 6 years, greater than half had published relatively little over the course of their careers, and less than half of their dissertations had been published. If this case study of one special education field is representative of the others, it suggests that special education needs to broaden the dialogue to address not only the shortages but the quality of faculty.
BARBARA R. SCHIRMER
SCHIRMER IS A PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT.
Concern that demand for special education faculty far outpaces the numbers of qualified candidates has been a topic within the ranks of teacher educators for more than a decade. In 2003, a special issue of Teacher Education and Special Education was devoted to reporting the results of a comprehensive study on special education leadership personnel, which showed that current and future demand for special education faculty and other leadership personnel far exceeded the number of doctoral graduates; that the pool of applicants was not robust enough for programs to maintain consistently rigorous admissions standards; that the age of doctoral students was increasing, and
these students were more likely to select a program based on location than on the characteristics of the program and its faculty; and that graduates were increasingly less likely to accept faculty lines (Pion, Smith, & Tyler, 2003; Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2003; Smith, Pion, Tyler, & Gilmore, 2003; Tyler, Smith, & Pion, 2003). Just as research indicates shortages of leadership personnel in special education, it appears that qualified faculty leaders in deaf education are also in short supply. When LaSasso and Wilson (2000) conducted a survey of teacher preparation programs in deaf education, they found that more than 80% had conducted a faculty search 411
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 412
PREPARING TEACHER EDUCATORS within the past 3 years, and 97% indicated that they were not satisfied with the pool of applicants. Among the programs LaSasso and Wilson surveyed, almost half of the faculty were projected to retire in the next decade. Andrews (2003) suggested that the short supply of doctoral-level leaders in deaf education is related to the lack of educational options because so few universities offer doctoral programs in deaf education. Indeed, a parallel situation in the field of blindness and visual impairment led to the establishment in 2004 of the National Center for Leadership in Visual Impairment (2006), which consists of 14 member universities and funnels grant funding from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs for approximately 25 doctoral students to complete their doctoral study at one of the consortium universities. Following this example, Johnson (2008) obtained grant funding to pursue development of a collaborative infrastructure among doctoral programs with faculty involved in the education of deaf and hard of hearing students in order to increase the numbers and quality of doctoral graduates prepared to assume leadership roles. The issue of a leadership shortage is not just a matter of numbers, however. Of equal if not greater importance is how well doctoral education is preparing the next generation of teacher educators in special education to take on the role that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching calls “steward of the discipline” (Golde, 2006, p. 5). According to this idea of stewardship, the purpose of doctoral education is to “educate and prepare those to whom we can entrust the vigor, quality, and integrity of the field. This person is a scholar first and foremost, in the fullest sense of the term—someone who will creatively generate new
knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and responsibly transform those understandings through writing, teaching, and application” (Golde, 2006, p. 5). In regard to the concept of stewardship as it applies to the doctorate in education, Richardson (2006, p. 267) noted that preparing doctoral students in education as stewards of the discipline “will require goal setting, analysis, assessment, and constant vigilance on the part of a Ph.D. faculty if we are to develop Ph.D. graduates who are able both to conduct important, highquality, useful research on educational practice and issues and provide guidance in improving the education enterprise.” The purpose of the present study was to assess how well the field of teacher education in special education is preparing the next generation of teacher educators to be stewards of the discipline, by exploring the particular case of deaf education. Scholarly productivity of teacher educators in deaf education was used as a proxy measure for determining whether the field is preparing doctoral graduates “who are able both to conduct important, high-quality, useful research and who can provide guidance in improving the education enterprise” (Richardson, 2006, p. 267). Concern about research productivity in deaf education is not new. In 1988, the Commission on Education of the Deaf issued a report to the U.S. Congress and the president that included 52 recommendations designed to improve the education of deaf students, one of which was to improve the quality and quantity of research. King (1989) investigated the journal literature and found that a small number of individuals were conducting most of the research in education of the deaf, most of the journal articles were opinion and program description, a rela-
tively small number of articles were reports of research, and most of the research was descriptive in design. In other words, as of the late 1980s there were relatively few active researchers and few published studies that empirically assessed the effectiveness of instructional interventions with deaf students. A colleague and I found a similarly small proportion of the research literature devoted specifically to the literacy of deaf students, with only 20 intervention studies published from the 1970s to 2004 (B. R. Schirmer & McGough, 2005). Luckner (2006) suggested that the reason for the paucity of well-designed studies in literacy research in the field of deaf education is that the majority of professionals with the background, knowledge, and skills to conduct this research work within teacher preparation programs at universities that do not provide the time and resources for extensive research, and that “agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education or private foundations do not support research in the area of deafness and other low-incidence disabilities at the same level that they do research in general education or high-incidence disabilities” (p. 50). Given the current and worsening leadership shortage, the premise that teacher educators in deaf education should be stewards of the discipline, and that to be a steward requires the generation and dissemination of new knowledge, the present study was driven by the question, What is the scholarly productivity of teacher educators in deaf education? Method
Mode of Inquiry and Data Source The mode of inquiry for the present study was a descriptive design using publicly available data about the publications of teacher educators in deaf education.
412
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 413
n
e d d r
O n e
to identify presentations made by these 127 individuals. These were not publications, but given the nature of AERA as arguably the foremost conference for educational research, and that in the field of educational research it is common to present findings at a conference prior to developing a finished manuscript for publication consideration, it was predicted that active researchers in deaf education would present at some point within a 10-year period. This seemed even more likely given that there has been a Special Interest Group on Research on the Education of Deaf Persons at AERA since 1977.
Measures A search of the electronic databases yielded the following measures: 1. Date of dissertation. 2. Number of publications during the most recent 6 years. 3. Number of publications from the date of dissertation through 2006. I counted as publications journal articles, books, book chapters, book reviews, and editorials. This wide net of publication venues allowed for a broad definition of scholarly research. 4. Whether or not the dissertation was published as determined through citation in one of the bibliographic databases. With the expectation that the title of the dissertation would not necessarily match the title of the article, abstracts were reviewed, and it was considered a match when even part of the data from the dissertation was reported in the article. In addition, the 10 most recent years of programs of the annual conference of the AERA were searched to identify the presentations made by these 127
Ye ar s
The first step in the study was to identify the individuals in full-time faculty positions in college and university programs in the United States preparing teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students. The Council on the Education of the Deaf (CED) is a national professional organization that endorses deaf education teacher preparation programs when these programs have undergone and passed a professional evaluation process that demonstrates that they meet professional standards specific to the field of deaf education. CED (2006) maintains a list of all of the teacher preparation programs in deaf education, regardless of endorsement status. By means of this list of college and university programs, full-time faculty in deaf education in the United States were identified through a search of the respective university websites. The second step was to examine the bibliographic databases of ERIC, Education Abstracts, PsychInfo, Dissertation Abstracts, and WorldCat to identify the dissertations and publications of each of these faculty members. Only faculty who had earned doctorates were included (N = 127). Publications were included if published subsequent to receipt of one’s doctorate. It should be noted that the algorithms used by each of these databases is not perfect in identifying every publication, so it might be argued that at best the number of publications identified underreports any given author’s full publication record. Two factors mitigate this potential problem. One is the use of multiple bibliographic databases. The other is that underreporting would occur across all authors, permitting confidence in the comparative data. The third step was to search the 10 most recent years of programs of the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
t y ix
160
a n d S
H
u
17167-AAD153.4
individuals. This yielded a fifth measure: the number of these teacher educators in deaf education who had presented at least once at AERA in the past decade. Analysis and Results Dissertations were earned from 1969 through 2005: 1 in 1969, 39 in the 1970s, 40 in the 1980s, 30 in the 1990s, and 17 from 2000 to 2005. I first examined the publication output during the past 6 years, and thus looked specifically at the 110 individuals who had received their doctorates prior to 2000. I chose a 6-year period because that is the time frame King (1989) had investigated in the late 1980s. As shown in Figure 1, the number of publications ranged from 0 to 19. Most of these faculty had published relatively little during this 6-year period, with 41 having 0 publications, 24 having 1 publication, and 13 having 2 publications. Thus, 71% had 0 to 2 publications. At the other end of the spectrum, a relatively small number of faculty published extensively, with 6, or 5%, having 10 to 19 publications during this same 6-year period. Recognizing that number of publications within a confined number of years can be a misleading statistic because some educational projects take several years to complete, I developed a metric to compare career publications across the range of individuals receiving their doctorates, from the earliest in 1969 to the most recent in 2005, as shown in Figure 2. Of the 127 teacher educators in deaf education, 16 had an average of one or more publication per year. When I included the 6 with a metric of 0.75 to 0.95, the result was still a relatively small number, 22, or 17% of the total, who had published regularly over the course of their academic careers. At the other end of the range, just over half of these faculty had published relatively little,
413
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 414
PREPARING TEACHER EDUCATORS Figure 1
Total Publications, 2000–2005
45 40 35 Number of teacher educators
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
1
2
with metrics between 0.00 and 0.30. Years in the field certainly influence productivity, and it would be expected that those with greater service time would have greater output. Indeed, the pattern among the highly productive individuals indicates somewhat higher productivity for those who obtained their doctorates in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the percentages for those who earned their doctorates from 2000 to 2006 were fairly similar to those of their more senior colleagues, with 47% having metrics between 0.00 and 0.30 at the less productive end of the spectrum and 18% having metrics above 1.00 at the most productive end. Making the assumption that the first piece of research most faculty do is their dissertation, and that it is probably their most scrutinized research from idea to defense, I expected that most, if not all, dissertations would be published. Though the writing of a dis-
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of publications in 6-year period
sertation is almost always done by a novice researcher, the process of having an adviser and committee members is, after all, intended to provide expert guidance throughout the research process, and the final outcome ought to be publishable. Of the 110 doctorates received earlier than 2000, a date I chose to give as much opportunity as possible for publication, 44 (40%) were published. The same proportion holds if the range of years is extended: Three of the 8 dissertations (38%) from 2000 and 2001 had been published. I then examined the list of presenters at AERA during the past decade. Of the 127 teacher educators in deaf education, 24 had presented at AERA during this period. That is, just 19% of these faculty considered AERA as a venue for presenting their research. Of course, there are many organizations from which to select, including
11
13
14
19
those in deaf education (e.g., the Association of College Educators—Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Council of American Instructors of the Deaf, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf), special education (e.g., the Council on Exceptional Children), and cognate areas (e.g., the International Reading Association, the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Association for the Education of Young Children). Some of these conferences referee papers, and some do not. AERA is one of the relatively few conferences in education for which research is the single focus. Furthermore, it may be the only conference at which the research that is presented must be new; that is, the research cannot have been presented previously.
414
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 415
n
e d d r
Ye ar s
O n e
t y ix
160
a n d S
H
u
17167-AAD153.4
Figure 2
Career Publication Average per Year
70
60
Number of teacher educators
50
40
30
20
10
0 0.00–0.30
0.33–0.48
0.50–0.73
0.75–0.95
1.00+
Career publication metric
It would certainly be expected that teacher educators in deaf education would present regularly at a deaf education, special education, or cognate area conference. However, given the status of AERA as an educational research organization and the rigor of the process and criteria by which papers are refereed, presentation at least once within a 10-year period is a reasonable expectation for researchers in deaf education. Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of the present study was to assess how well the field of teacher education in special education is preparing the next generation of teacher educators to be stewards of the discipline, by exploring the particular case of deaf education. Assuming that preparing doctoral graduates “who are able to conduct important,
high-quality, useful research” (Richardson, 2006, p. 267) requires mentoring by faculty who conduct such research, I examined the scholarly productivity of 127 teacher educators in deaf education at colleges and universities in the United States. Results showed that most of these faculty had published relatively little over the past 6 years, more than half had published relatively little over the course of their careers, less than half of their dissertations had been published, and only a low percentage had presented their research even once at AERA during the past decade. If the majority of teacher educators in deaf education are not themselves productive scholars, it seems questionable that the field is well equipped to prepare the next generation of teacher educators to be research scholars. This reality may not, however, be terri-
bly different from that of the broader field of education. Levine (2007) conducted a study on the education of educators in the United States that has resulted in the publication to date of three policy reports on, respectively, educating leaders, educating teachers, and educating researchers. His examination of research preparation programs was guided by the question, “Do current preparation programs have the capacity to equip researchers with the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out research that will strengthen education policy, improve practice, or advance our understanding of how humans develop and learn?” (p. 15). He found that (a) there are excellent education researcher preparation programs, but that these are concentrated in Carnegie-classified doctoral extensive universities; (b) programs
415
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 416
PREPARING TEACHER EDUCATORS are weakened by the state of educational research, which lacks agreement on appropriate methodologies and standards and which is not widely read by researchers, practitioners, and public policymakers; (c) Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs lack distinctive purposes, which often lead to a watering down of research components “to meet the expectations and abilities of practitioners” (p. 42); and (d) programs are characterized by inadequate resources, most seriously “that many of the faculty members advising doctoral students today are not productive scholars and lack the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to mentor students in preparing a substantial piece of research” (p. 55). Using the 2000 Carnegie classifications, Levine (2007) found that 58% of faculty at baccalaureate liberal arts and 59% at Master’s II institutions were unproductive (as measured by no publications during the past 2 years) or less productive (presented a paper only during the past 2 years), and that even at Master’s I institutions, 40% were categorized as unproductive or less productive. Only at doctoral-intensive and doctoral-extensive institutions did he find that the majority of faculty (75% for doctoral extensive and 60% for doctoral intensive) were most productive (i.e., over the past 2 years had completed the four activities of publishing a book, publishing a peer-reviewed article, presenting a conference paper, and obtaining extramural funding), more productive (had completed three of these four activities), or productive (had completed two of four). In other words, he found a positive relationship between type of institution and scholarly productivity of faculty, with faculty productivity increasing within institutions that placed greater emphasis on research and external funding. There seems no surprise to this finding given that research univer-
sities not only place a high priority on research but provide support structures for research endeavors such as reduced teaching load in comparison to baccalaureate and masters institutions, access to graduate assistants, and well-staffed offices of sponsored research. Furthermore, there is likely to be a self-selection process that influences these differences, with individuals most interested in research pursuing faculty positions at research universities and those most interested in teaching pursuing faculty positions at baccalaureate and master’s degree institutions. If Levine’s (2007) correlation holds true among faculty in deaf education programs, the most productive would likely be at research universities. An entirely straightforward comparison cannot be made, however, because between the time that Levine carried out his study and the present, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2005) revised its classification system, and Carnegie makes it clear that the new categories for research universities are not comparable to the previous categories. Instead of the 2000 doctoral research– extensive and research-intensive categories (and the yet previous Research I and II and Doctoral I and II categories, a scheme that was last used in 1994), doctoral institutions in 2005 were placed in the categories of doctoral/research universities, research universities with high research activity, and research universities with very high research activity. (Changes to the other categories in the 2005 classification were less significant, with somewhat finer differentiation of the distribution of undergraduate majors for baccalaureate institutions and master’s institutions being split into three categories based on the number of degrees awarded.) It is important to note that as in the 2000 classification, insti-
tutions that offer the doctorate may be categorized as master’s institutions if the number of doctoral degrees offered each year does not exceed 20. Among the deaf education programs in the present study, 38% are currently at master’s institutions and 50% are at research universities (14% at doctoral/research universities and 36% at research universities with high and very high research activity). Not all of these, of course, offer doctoral programs in education. Of the 59% that do, 21% are at master’s institutions, 24% at doctoral/research universities, and 55% at research universities with high or very high research activity. Levine’s (2007) correlation appears to hold true with this population of faculty, as I found that those faculty at master’s institutions averaged a career publication metric of 0.42, faculty at doctoral/research universities a career publication metric of 0.52, and faculty at research universities with high and very high research activity a career publication metric of 0.71. This institutional comparative data, however, should be viewed with caution because the publication metric is calculated from career-long publications, whereas the type of institution is a snapshot of the institution at which the individual is currently employed, and not the institutions at which the individual worked at each point in his or her academic career. Levine (2007) made several recommendations for strengthening the preparation of researchers in education. If worthy, they would logically make sense in preparing researchers in special education: 1. Reserve the Ph.D. degree for researchers and recapture the original purpose of the Ed.D. as a practitioner degree. 2. Reserve Ph.D. programs in education to doctoral-extensive and
416
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 417
n
e d d r
O n e
Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian (2006) made a recommendation similar to Levine’s (2007) first one. They had studied six disciplines (chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and neuroscience) as part of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate and found that “education alone struggles with whether and how to keep research at the center of the Ph.D.” (p. 27). Results led them to describe the problems of the education doctorate as acute and crippling. To turn the situation around, they suggested that the Ph.D. be restructured into a full-time, research-apprenticeship model that would be distinctive from a practitioner degree, which could be developed by either recrafting the Ed.D. or developing a new “professional practice doctorate.” Given the lack of historical success at making a researcher-practitioner distinction at the doctoral level, I am not optimistic that this is a solution that will gain any traction among institutions. I am furthermore not enthused about attempting to establish different standards for research knowledge and skill among doctoral students depending upon their anticipated career upon earning the degree. It would seem that the field needs stronger expectations for research course work and greater mentoring by expert researchers for all doctoral students in education rather than differential expectations based on being identified as a practitioner rather
than a scholar. This dichotomy between practitioners and scholars may explain in part the historical gap between research and practice in education (addressed by Levine’s [2007] fifth suggestion, to improve the connection among research, policy, and practice), which has certainly been problematic for special education practice. As Heward (2003, p. 188) observed, “Special education has produced a significant, useful, and reliable knowledge base about effective teaching practices. . . . Although a significant gap exists between what is relatively well understand and what is understood poorly or not at all, a more distressing gap may be the one between what research has discovered about effective instruction and what is practiced in many classrooms,” hindering the effectiveness of special education. Levine’s (2007) second suggestion assumes that master’s institutions and some doctoral/research institutions should drop their Ph.D. programs because the correlational data show that the faculty at these institutions are less productive than faculty at research universities with high or very high levels of research activity. My supposition is that such correlational data will not be convincing to individual institutions regarding their own ability to offer high-quality doctoral programs in education. However, this leads logically to Levine’s third and fourth suggestions, which focus on standards for educational research, standards for Ph.D. programs, and quality-control mechanisms within the community of educational researchers. During the past 4 years, five national organizations have developed standards for educational research (AERA, CEC’s Division for Research, Division 16 of the American Psychological Association’s Society for the Study of School Psychology, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the What
Ye ar s
selected doctoral-intensive institutions. 3. Develop strong and well-defined standards for educational research and Ph.D. programs. 4. Establish quality-control mechanisms within the community of educational researchers. 5. Improve the connections among research, policy, and practice.
t y ix
160
a n d S
H
u
17167-AAD153.4
Works Clearinghouse of the Institute of Education Sciences). Colleagues and I found that these five sets of standards varied in addressing key research elements (B. R. Schirmer, Lockman, & T. N. Schirmer, 2007). Most addressed methodology, analysis, and results; few addressed theoretical framework, problem formulation, significance, conclusions, and implications. For such standards to be effective, there will undoubtedly need to be an endorsement among educational researchers, perhaps by consensus of the major professional organizations, of a given set of standards along with evidence that use of the standards improves the quality of published or funded research. Certainly, a set of standards for doctoral programs in education could improve the quality of doctoral education. One example is that of Levine (2007), who argues that Ph.D. programs in education must be explicit in their purpose to prepare researchers. Central to these programs is that curriculum is coherent, apprenticeship is a key component of the doctoral experience, faculty are productive scholars, admissions criteria and graduation standards are high, and resources are adequate. I would add a standard about doctoral committees that is based solely on personal experience. It appears to me that committee members have become increasingly less involved in dissertation mentoring as direction has become almost the sole purview of the dissertation adviser. The adviser’s weaknesses become the candidate’s weaknesses when there is no other committee member engaged in the process to offer regular advice and guidance, which is particularly problematic when weaknesses are in the area of methodology. My suggestion is that committees function as such and that at least one member of every committee be a
417
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 418
PREPARING TEACHER EDUCATORS research methodologist. By this I do not mean a researcher who is expert at the particular methodology he or she typically uses, but rather a researcher who studies and teaches methodology. The field of special education has been understandably and appropriately concerned about the current and worsening shortage of faculty. As important is the quality of faculty. As the present study of teacher educators in deaf education shows, current faculty at institutions with doctoral programs in education are contributing only modestly to the research literature. Assuming that these are the faculty most involved in preparing the next generation of researchers in deaf education, particularly given the efforts of Johnson (2008) to develop a cooperative doctoral education model in deaf education, the implication is the potential for a downward spiral, with increasingly fewer scholars in deaf education being well prepared in their doctoral study to carry out the research needed to advance knowledge and practice. I might further argue that the faculty at baccalaureate and master’s institutions are indirectly involved in doctoral education given that doctoral students likely began their education with these faculty, who must, given the emphasis on evidence-based practice, instill in their students the value of research in informing practice. The results of the present study do not shed light on the reasons underlying the scholarly productivity of teacher educators in deaf education. It is certainly possible that the increased teaching and advising demands in undergraduate programs work against the establishment of a strong line of research inquiry. Given the pattern found by Jones and Ewing (2002), that more programs preparing
teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students were at the undergraduate level in the 1990s compared to programs a decade earlier, it is likely that an increasing number of faculty are and will be working in undergraduate programs. Exacerbating this issue is the reality that most programs employ only one or two full-time faculty members, a tiny cohort of peers with an interest in and training in doing research in deaf education. Other possible challenges include the difficulties in working with a low-incidence population and the reality that federal funding is now aimed at studies employing random-control trial designs requiring relatively large numbers of participants. If the present case study of one special education field is representative of the others, it suggests that special education needs to broaden the dialogue to address not only the shortages but the quality of faculty. Further, this dialogue must involve developing consensus around standards for research and standards for doctoral programs as well as ways to support faculty in being stewards of the discipline. References Andrews, J. F. (2003). Benefits of an Ed.D. program in deaf education: A survey. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 259–266. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www .carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index .asp. Commission on Education of the Deaf. (1988). Toward equality: Education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Council on the Education of the Deaf. (2006). DeafEd teacher preparation programs. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www .deafed.net. Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral
education: Preparing stewards of the discipline (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. Journal of Special Education, 36, 186–205. Johnson, H. A. (2008). Excellence through collaboration: A doctoral preparation planning grant proposal for D/HH education. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http:// wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/ detail.cfm?detail_id=3878135. Jones, T. W., & Ewing, K. M. (2002). An analysis of teacher preparation in deaf education: Programs approved by the Council on Education of the Deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 147, 71–78. King, C. M. (1989). Research productivity in the education of hearing impaired individuals. Journal of Special Education, 23, 279–293. LaSasso, C., & Wilson, A. (2000). Results of two national surveys on leadership personnel needs in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 429–435. Levine, A. (2007). Educating researchers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Luckner, J. L. (2006). Evidence-based practices with students who are deaf. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 49–52. National Center for Leadership in Visual Impairment. (2006). National Center for Leadership in Visual Impairment and NCLVI fellowships. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://www.pco.edu/nclvi.htm. Pion, G. M., Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2003). Career choices of recent doctorates in special education: Their implications for addressing faculty shortages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 182–193. Richardson, V. (2006). Stewards of a field, stewards of an enterprise: The doctorate in education. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline (pp. 251–267). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schirmer, B. R. Lockman, A. S., & Schirmer, T. N. (2007, April). Whether called standards, quality indicators, or criteria: Is the education profession addressing the same elements in defining quality research? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Schirmer, B. R., & McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75, 83–117. Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32.
418
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
11/11/08
1:57 PM
Page 419
n
e d d r
O n e
Smith, D. D., Pion, G. M., Tyler, N. C., & Gilmore, R. (2003). Doctoral programs in special education: The nation’s supplier. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 172–181.
Ye ar s
Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2003). The demand for faculty in special education: A study of searches conducted in 1997–98. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 165–171.
t y ix
160
a n d S
H
u
17167-AAD153.4
Tyler, N. C., Smith, D. D., & Pion, G. M. (2003). Doctoral students in special education: Characteristics and career aspirations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 194–205.
419
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
