Essential middle -level teacher preparation components in Minnesota teacher preparation programs: Education faculty members' perceptions

The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions of education faculty members in Minnesota teacher preparation institutions regarding the importance and inclusion of essential middle-level components in their preparation of middle-level preservice teachers. Perceptions were examined in eight categories comprised of 37 middle-level components. The categories included an identifiable middle-level program; the nature of early adolescence and the needs of young adolescents; young adolescent development in the school context; the philosophy and organization of middle-level education; middle-level curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment; collaboration; teaching fields and pedagogy; and middle-level field experiences. The study also investigated barriers to implementation and recommendations for increasing implementation of essential middle-level components in teacher preparation programs.;The population for this study consisted of teacher education faculty members who taught middle-level education courses in the 28 Minnesota teacher preparation institutions. A researcher-developed survey instrument, based on the "Teacher Education Curriculum Guidelines" (NMSA, 1996) and recommendations for middle-level teacher education in Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000), was used to collect data.;Responses were received from 43 education faculty members representing 17 education programs. Five-point Likert scales were used to measure respondents' perceptions. Computation of item means indicated that the middle-level component categories were considered to be from somewhat important to very important; however, they were included from only little to some extent in the education programs. A comparison of the means revealed that all middle-level components were considered to be more important than the degree to which they were included in education programs. Subsequent t tests on the difference between these means (p < .05) revealed that the eight categories and 34 out of the 37 category components were not being included in the preparation of middle-level preservice teachers to as great an extent as expected given the importance that faculty members placed on the components. Finally, no barriers investigated in the study were perceived to deter the implementation of essential middle-level components to a great extent, nor did education faculty members identify recommendations that could increase implementation to a great extent. Instead, a combination of barriers and recommendations were identified.