This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Murray, F. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Disposition: A Superfluous Construct in Teacher Education

University of Delaware

Unlike the literature on some dispositions, like field dependence—independence, in psychology, the dispositions cited in the teacher education literature (e.g., INTASC) have almost no explanatory value and very little meaning at the present time. This conclusion stems from an analysis of the cited teacher dispositions in terms of Underwood's levels of meaning in the behavioral sciences and shows that these dispositional constructs are little more than labels for particular behaviors. Although the construct, disposition, in teacher education may be superfluous at the present time, it is not entirely useless as it may provide a guiding hypothesis for further investigations.

Key Words: teacher education • disposition • levels of meaning • explanation

References

• Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: "Having" and "doing" in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.[CrossRef]
• Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
• Carus, P. (Ed.). (1949). Kant's Prolegomena (Religion of Sciences Library No. 53). La Salle, IL: The Open Court.
• Gagne R. (1970). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Hines, L.M. (2007). Return of the thought police. Education Next, 2, 59-65.
• Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensure and development. A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
• Katz, L.G., & Raths, J.D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 301-307.[CrossRef]
• O'Gorman, F. (Ed.). (2004). Victorian poetry: An annotated anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Raths, J.D. (2007). Experiences with dispositions in teacher education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark.
• Reese, H., & Overton, W. (1970). Models and theories of development. In L. Goulet & P. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 115-145). New York: Academic Press.
• Underwood, B. (1957). Psychological research. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 5, 381-387 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0022487107307950


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. Osguthorpe On the Reasons We Want Teachers of Good Disposition and Moral Character Journal of Teacher Education, September 1, 2008; 59(4): 288 - 299. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Murray, F. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?