tOCUMENT RESUME

ED 372 068 SP 035 360

AUTHOR Polen, Deborah A.; And OthersTITLE Implementation of the Second Major Requirement for

Teacher Education Majors.INSTITUTION North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center,

Chapel Hill.SPONS AGENCY North Carolina State Board of Education, Raleigh.PUB DATE Nov 93NOTE 26p,

PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)Tests/Evaluation Insruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Education; College Faculty; *Degree

Requirements; Department Heads; Educational Change;Education Majors; Elementary Secondary Education;Higher Education; Intellectual Disciplines;Preservice Teacher Education; *Program Attitudes;Program Evaluation; Schools of Education; *TeacherEducation Programs; Teaching Methods

IDENTIFIERS *Double Majors; Educational Policy Research Center;Focus Groups Approach; North Carolina; *PedagogicalContent Knowledge; Preservice Teachers; ReformEfforts

ABSTRACTAn exploratory study was conducted in North Carolina

to examine the impact on teacher education programs of improvedacademic preparation for undergraduate teacher education majors. Thisreport describes one such approach--the requirement that in additionto general college and teacher preparation courses, undergraduateeducation students complete a second major or academic concentrationin a basic academic discipline in the arts and sciences. Focus groupinterviews with deans, teacher education program heads, educationfaculty, and arts and science faculty were conducted on each of 15campuses in the University of North Carolina system. In addition,telephone interviews were conducted with students who were affectedby the requirements. The findings paint a portrait of mixed positiveand negative impacts of this policy, and suggest the second majorrequirement exemplifies the debate between those who support strongliberal arts backgrounds and those who support strong skill andmethods training in the preparation of teachers. Appendixes providefocus group questions and a survey of student perceptions regardingthe impact of the second major requirement on teacher educationprograms. (LL)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

OLINA5 POLICY

CH CENTER

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT FOR TEACITER

EDUCATION MAJORS

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

it..4)/Ly

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOno* of Educational AIllefeh end ienprovannont

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Thnl 4:10Cvmril Isr% Win reVoduced IsupC11.114:1 Iron+ tna prson of O.-Dammamorownsting ft

Cr Mao/ dung's nave WWI mead fo mama.*ftaroducla Otfamir

Pont a Owen. or mammas stated a Imo ooafrmmi do not massif/why redittent otbcfalOEM 00411.0m or DoMoy

School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

For further information regarding this report, contact:

Tanya M. Suarez, DirectorNorth Carolina Educational Policy Research Center105A Peabody Hall, CB *3500School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, NC 27599-3500(919) 962-2655

The North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center operates under contract No. 0800000738 with the NorthCarolina State Board of Education. The funding source for the contract is Chapter 2 of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act. The objective of the contract is to better enable the State Board of Education to assist local educationagencies in improving student achievement.

rt

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHER

EDUCATION MAJORS

DEBORAH A. POLEN

NANCY C. GorroviTANYA M. SUAREZ

NOVEMBER, 1993

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHER EDUCATION MAJORS

DEBORAH A. POLEN

NANCY C. GOTTONTI

TANYA M. SUAREZ

North Carolina Educational Policy Research CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Executive Summary

North Carolina's education agenda is currently addressing key issues in teacher preparationreform. One such issue is the academic preparation of teachers. This study examines the impacton teacher education programs across the state of one approach to improving academic prepara-tion, the second major for undergraduate education majors.

The second major is a coherent course of study in a basic academic discipline. It consists of24 to 27 credit hours, 6 of which may include general studies courses. The total hours requiredfor the education degree, including the second major, may not exceed 128 credit hours. Therequirement applies to those education degrees (i.e., elementary education, special education,middle grades education, business education, physical education, industrial arts education, andhealth education) that previously did not include concentrated, in-depth study in an arts andsciences discipline.

Focus group interviews with deans, teacher education program heads, education faculty andarts and sciences faculty were conducted on each of the fifteen campuses in the UNC system. Inaddition, telephone interviews were conducted with students who were affected by the require-ment. Three primary research questions were asked:

1. How has the second major requirement impacted the course of studies in teacher educa-tion programs?

2. How has the second major requirement impacted linkages between schools of educationand the colleges of arts and sciences?

3. How has the second major requirement contributed to the quality of the graduates ofthese programs?

The impacts of the second major on the course of studies in teacher education programs werevaried. For some programs there was little impact. For a number of others, however, there werereductions in the number of courses and course hours in teacher preparation, reductions or theelimination of electives, and limited room to add new courses or topics to the education pro-grarn.

The policy did not seem to significantly affect linkages betv(pen schools of education and thecolleges of arts and sciences. However, it did affect arts and sciences departments by increasingenrollment and thereby taxing the faculty and resources to accommodate second major students.

The third question could not be answered accurately, because of the newness of the policyand influences of other policies on the quality of students (e.g., the 2.5 minimum grade pointaverage for entrance into teacher preparation progxams). However, the majority of students andfaculty reported favorable effects of the second major on students' academic and professionalcareers. They also expressed concern over the effects of limiting core education course work infavor of second major requirements.

Of the principles underlying the teacher reform in North Carolina, three are considered forevidence of the effectiveness of the second major mandate:

Make stronger standards without increasing the length of study. Nearly all students reporteddifficulty in completing the education degree in four years, partly due to the increase in credithour requirements for the second major.

Establish a substantive field of study in arts and sciences. Respondents' attitudes weremixed on this issue. A number of arts and sciences faculty did not consider the credit hourrequirement to comprise a substantive field of study. Other faculty and students believed the artsand science concentration to be personally and professionally rewarding.

Improve and strengthen the education core curriculum. Many education faculty worried thattheir education core had been seriously compromised by cuts in credit hours and course require-ments to accommodate the second major. They expressed concern that their graduates weregoing into the Leld unprepared.

The report concludes by stating that the second major requirement exemplifies the debatebetween those who support strong liberal arts backgrounds and those who support strong skilland methods training in the preparation of teachers. Although education faculty agreed with theidea that a second ,Tnjor would provide valuable experiences to students, they were concernedthat teacher preparation had been jeopardized by a decrease in the amount of pedagogy studentsreceived. Students' n sponses to the second major were also mixed. The positive and negativeeffects observed in thi; study reflect the compromise made in the implementation of the secondmajor policyincreasiv subject knowledge in the arts and sciences, improving educationcourse offerings, and limiting teacher training to four years. There is a need to modify thepolicy to minimized the negative effects that result from the compromise, while maintaining theadvantages the policy provides.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge those who have contributed their expertise and time to thisstudy. First we wish to thank the deans and directors of teacher education programs for organiz-ing the on-site logistics for the focus groups. Second, we are grateful to all the focus groupparticipants at each of the fifteen universities for their willingness to share professional insightsand candid perceptions. In addition, we wish to thank the students and graduates who wereinterviewed, for sharing their experiences with us.

We also wish to thank David L. Clark (School of Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill), Mary E. Wakeford (Staff, Teacher Training Task Force), and Weaver B. Rogers(Executive Director, NC State Board of Education) for reviewing the final draft of the report andproviding valuable commentary.

Policy Center staff members, Holly R. Norton and Kerstin Carlson LeFloch provided out-standing research assistance for this study.

11101111WIMMIMMINIIIIII

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHER EDUCATION MAJORS

DEBORAH A. P OLEN

NANCY C. GOTTOVI

TANYA M. SUAREZ

North Carolina Educational Policy Research CenterUniversity o f North Carolina at Chapel Hill

North Carolina, like other states, has beeninvolved in reforms in the preparation of teachersin conjunction with its reforms of public schooleducation. This report describes one such re-formthe requirement that in addition to theirgeneral college and teacher preparation courses,undergraduate education students preparing tobe teachers complete a "second major" or aca-demic concentration in a basic academic disci-pline in arts and sciences.

HISTORY OF TEE SECOND MAJOR STUDY

In 1985, the North Carolina General Assem-bly mandated the University of North CarolinaBoard of Governors to study "ways to upgradeteacher preparation programs to make the courseof study more rigorous and more effective." inresponse to this mandate, the Board of Governorsestablished the Task Force on the Preparation ofTeachers.

The Task Force studied a variety of proposal sfrom state, regional, and national organizationsfor reform and restructuring of teacher prepara-tion programs. Consequently, the Task Forcegenerated a set of guiding principles which led tothe recommendation of the second major require-ment: (a) stronger standards, not longer periods ofstudy; (b) greater emphasis must be placed in theteacher education curriculum on the arts, sci-

ences, and humanities; and (c) the professionaleducation core curriculum requires improvementand strengthening to assure that all teachers havesound training in child development, in effectivemethods of teaching, and a full understanding ofthe operations of schools (Task Force on TeacherPreparation, 1986).

In its final report, The Education of NorthCarolina's Teachers, the Task Force included39 recommendations that were subsequentlyadopted by both the Board of Governors and theGeneral Assembly.

The second major requirement is the first ofthe 39 recommendations:

That all undergraduate teacher educa-tion students in early childhood educa-tion, elementary education, middle gradeseducation, special education, and all othereducation degree programs also com-plete a second major in one of the basicacademic disciplines or an interdiscipli-nary major. (p. 47)

Specifically, the recommendation requires thefollowing education degree programs to include asecond major in a basic academic discipline:elementary education, special education, middlegrades education, business education, physical

is

education, agricultural education, industrial artseducation, and health education (R. H. Dawson,office communications, May 2, 1988 and February28, 1989).

In 1992, the North Carolina General Assem-bly established a new Teacher Training TaskForce to "review the progress made tn .vard imple-menting the 39 objectives outlined in the originaltask force report... and in particular, to evaluatethe impact of the second major requirement" onteacher education programs (House Bill 1357).

The Task Force asked the North CarolinaEducational Policy Research Center to examine"the second major, its impact on the course ofstudies of education programs, whether or not ithas contributed to the quality o f graduates o f theseprograms, and if it has strengthened linkagesbetween schools of education and other campusprograms" (Teacher Training Task Force, officecommunication, December 9, 1992). Given thischarge, the study was framed by three overarchingquestions:

1. How have the courses of study in teachereducation programs been impacted by thesecond major requirement?

2. How has the second major requirement im-pacted linkages between schools of educationand the colleges of arts and sciences?

3. How has the second major requirement con-tributed to the quality of the graduates oftheseprograms?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The results of a previous study ofNorth Caro-lina state policies on teacher preparation andconversations with deans and department chairsindicated that there was considerable variation inthe impact of the second major requirement onteacher education programs. In order to conducta study of the requirement and its impact, it was

necessary to employ a research strategy that wouldilluminate these variations and explore relevantissues and themes that might not be detected bysurveys or otherhighly structured research meth-ods. It was determined that the descriptive, open-ended research format afforded by multiple focusgroups would provide the best means of accom-plishing this end.

The research staff of the Policy ResearchCenter conducted a two-hour focus group at eachof the fifteen University of North Carolina insti-tutions offering teacher preparation and certifica-tion programs. Deans or education division headsat the schools of education were asked to as-semble a group of representatives having a richknowledge of the second major requirement fromboth the school of education and the college ofarts and sciences. Membership in each focusgroup usually included the dean of the school ofeducation and/or the director of teacher educa-tion, two to three education faculty, two to threearts and sciences faculty, and others deemedappropriate by the dean. (The focus group ques-tions are in Appendix A.)

To prepare for the focus groups, a documentanalysis of the course of studies was conductedfor each of the education programs at the fifteenUNC institutions. During the focus groups, it wasdiscovered that a number ofchanges in the teacherpreparation programs had been made by the uni-versities to better ince' the requirement of thesecond major and to ,:ommodate new policyinitiatives and state competencies.

Additionally, teacher education students and/or recent graduates impacted by the second majorrequirement were surveyed. Deans at ten institu-tions responded to a request to recommend fivestudents for the study. Securing accurate ad-dresses and telephone numbers in order to contactthe graduates proved to be problematic. As aresult, twenty-four individuals were interviewed.(See Appendix B for the student survey.) Of

2

these, fifteen were elementary education majors,two middle school majors, four special educationmajors, and one each whose major was in physicaleducation, industrial education, and agriculturaleducation. Thirteen of those interviewed werecurrently teaching, eight were still in school, onewas looking for a teaching position, one was in anon-related field, and one was working in a child-care center.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT

The following section reports on the criteriagoverning the second major, development of sec-ond major options across campuses, the resultingcourse of studies for education majors acrossuniversities, and a description of the most fre-quently selected second major choices reportedby program areas.

Criteria Governing the Second Major

Once the second major requirement was ap-proved by the Board of Governors, implementa-tion guidelines were developed and the criteriawere sent to universities byUNC General Admin-istration. The criteria governing a second major

were:

The second . najor is a coherent courseofstudy in a basic academic disciplinecomparable to, but not identical with,the course ofstudy for a major in that

The second major requires a mini-mum of 24 credit hours in the disci-

pline. It may exclude some of thecognate requirements ofthediscipline.

Up to six credit hours taken infulfill-ment ofgeneral studies requirementsmay also be counted toward the sec-

ond major.

The total hours required for the edu-cation degree, including the secondmajor, may not exceed 128 credithours. (University ofNorth CarolinaGeneral Administration, memo, April1993)

Second majors can be developed from amongthe following basic academic disciplines: AreStudies, Biological Sciences, Fine and AppliedArts, Foreign Languages, Letters, Mathematics,Physical Sciences, Psychology, Social Sciences,and Interdisciplinary Studies. (See Appendices Cand D.) For a second major to be approved byGmeral Administration, the university must al-ready offer a major in that basic academic disci-pline.

Development of Second Major Options

In the initial phase of implementation, therewas considerable confusion regarding the term"second major," which caused problems in artsand sciences departments, registrars' offices, andschools of education. Registrars and arts andsciences faculty interpreted the term to mean adegree-bearing course ofstudy identical to an artsand sciences major. Therefore arts and scienceschairs rust submitted or recommended a 48-hourto 60-hour program of study for the second major.Clarification was necessary to reduce the hourload to a 24- to 27-hour "coherent course ofstudy" comprised of 100, 200, and 300 levelcourses. Since the secondmajor is not equal to a

true major, universities now internally usetermi-nology that more closely reflects the actual pro-gram course of study. Terms such as "academicconcentration," "second concentration," and"disciplinary focus area" are used to refer tosecond majors.

Second major offerings vary considerablyacross campuses. Universities consistently re-ported wanting to develop additional interdisci-plinary second major offerings for students, but

3

1 0

were prohibited from doing so because there wasnot a pre-existing interdisciplinary majoron theircampus. Majors in some disciplines were offeredat constituent institutions, but some arts and sci-ences faculty chose not to develop a second majorfor education because they did not believe thatstudents could receive an adequate grounding inthe discipline in 24 credit hours. Finally, somesubject areas that had been academic concentra-tions (e.g., health for physical educationmajors)were not available for a second major because thesubject was not an approved arts and sciencesmajor.

Courses of Study for Education Majors

Credit hovir requirements for degrees in edu-cation vary widely between universities andwithineducation degree progams. A student seekinganeducation degree will completecourse work in theeducation major in two basic areas: (a) teachingarea major which includes courses in the chosenteaching area (e.g., elementary, middle, physical,agricultural education, etc.); and (b) professionaleducation studies which are courses in the theoryand practice of teaching (e.g., human growth anddevelopment, education psychology, assessment,research, student teaching). Credit hourrequire-ments for these sub-divisions vary considerablyby university and by education major, howeverfor the most part in North Carolina the hoursrangebetween 30-40 hours for the teaching area major,and 18-30 hours for the professional educationstudies. The average total number ofhours for aneducation major is 51 hours.

The average total number of hours for aneducation major is similar to the average numberofhours arts and sciences majors take within theirdepartments. However, unlike arts and sciencesmajors, education majors add 24-27 additionalcredit hours for their second major.

Second Majors by Specialty Areas

Both faculty and students were asked whatthey perceived to be the mo.n frequentlyselectedsecond majors.' Psychology was the most fre-quently selected second major for elementary,special education, physical education, and busi-ness education majors. Middle grades educationstudents, on the other hand, often selectedsecondmajors in subjects thatwere compatible with middlegrades certification. No clear pattems in selectionof second majors could be determined from theresponses regarding other education majors.

When students were asked why they chose aparticular subject for a second major, most re-spondents stated that their choice was based onpersonal interest. "Numbers have always in-trigued me," or "I've always enjoyed history,"were recurrent responses. The next most fre-quently cited reason was it would help them asteachers, which was often indicated by thosechoosing psycholoLy. Finally, three interviewedmentioned that a second major would help themfind jobs outside of education; andtwo cited lackof choices. Said one student, "Noone subject wasbetter than another, it seemed the best choice ofthe limited ones available." Some respondentscited combinations of these reasons.

Faculty reported some students having diffi-culty aligning a second major with their educationdegree program and career goals. For example,faculty asserted that industrial arts students couldbenefit more directly from a second major in atechnical field in applied sciences (e.g., engineer-ing), which is not offered as a second majoroption. Faculty further stated that some secondmajor options were inappropriate for educationmajors (i.e., an elementary education majorseek-ing a mathematics second major, doing content

`Data describing the second majors selected across the 15 campuses are currently being collected by UNC GeneralAdministration. They are, unfortunately, not available at press time of this report; therefore focus goup and student interviewresponses are reported.

4

1 1

work in advanced algebra and trigonometry at theexpense of more appropriate math courses forteaching young children).

F acuity also reported that students often se-lected second majors based on the facility ofscheduling classes, the level of difficulty of thecourses, or the extelit to which courses could alsocount for six hours of general college credit.Students would have rather selected a secondmajor based on personal interest, or relevance towhat they would be teaching in the future.

IMPACTS OF THE SECOND MAJOR

REQUIREMENT

Focus group participants were eager to discussthe second major requirement and provide infor-mation relevant to its implementation and effects.The findings reported here are based on the fifteenfocus group discussions, and where appropriate,the student telephone interviews.

Impact of the Second Major Requirement onTeacher Education Programs

The most significant finding regarding theimpact ofthe second major requirement on teachereducation programs was the remarkable varietywith which it impacted institutions and specificteacher preparation programs. Institutions dif-fered not only in the teacher education programsthey offered but also in their philosophy regardingthe importance ofpedagogy. This was reflected inthe number and type o f educati on courses requiredof majors and the sophistication with which par-ticular programs had been developed. Some insti-tutions requimd many hours in education courses,while others required relatively few. Some univer-sities had developed nationally renowned pro-grams while others were very local in nature. Thesecond major requirement and its criteria andguidelines, however, treated all institutions and

programs in the same way. Because of thevariation in the field, the impacts of the policywere quite varied.

For some programs at some universities, thesecond maj or requirement made no impact. How-ever, in order to accommodate the additionalcourse work of the second major requirement,most education faculty reported eliminating, col-lapsing, and/or combining courses primarily fromthe teaching area major curriculum. Courses wereoften "collapsed" by reducing credit hours yetkeeping course content the same. In other in-stances, schools of education combined coursesby eliminating some content and substitutingcontent from another course. Universities re-ported reducing 3-hour courses to 2-hour coursesin order to keep education program offeringsintact, but with less in-depth coverage. Addition-ally, as 3- hour courses became 2-hour courses,faculty had to increase the number of cours es thatthey taught in order to retain their full-time status.These kinds of changes were considered to beproblematic and detrimental to the quality of theteacher education programs affected.

Physical, vocational, health, agricultural, andindustrial education programs reported the mostnegative effects. Faculty reported elimination ofimportant skills and methods courses to accom-modate second major course requirements. Forexample, health is a recommended component ofphysical education curricula because physicaleducation teachers are generally expected to teachhealth in the public schools. In the past, physicaleducation majors routinely secured health as anadditional certification endorsement. Yet, in physi-cal education programs, health methods on mostcampuses were either eliminated or reduced (aswere coaching and skills courses) in order toaccommodate the second major requirement.Graduates of these programs no longer have thedual certification sought by school districts andare, therefore, less competitive for teaching posi-tions.

IIIIIIMIN11011111101111111,

5

1

Many middle school faculty reported that thequality of their programs were weakened, and inone case eliminated, by the new requirement.Prior to the requirement, middle grades gaduatescould be certified in two of four subject areas:mathematics, language arts, social studies, or sci-ence. Now, however, faculty report many stu-dents receive certification in only one subjectarea, due to the additional requirement of thesecond major. Faculty assert the second majorcould benefit middle grades graduates if it wereintekziisciplinary. Because a second major is notconsistent with certification requirements, manystudents are staying an additional semester or yearto acquire sufficient course work for a secondsubject certification. Others are leaving middleschool programs for other degees. This was aparticular concern at minority institutions.

Demands on public schools are increasing;North Carolina and other states seek teachers withincreased competencies in multiculturalism, tech-nology, and special education, as well as trainingin counseling, conflict resolution, and family lifeissues. Faculty perceive the second major re-quirement as an impediment to the inclusion ofthese kinds of course offerings in the educationcore curriculum, because there is no longer anyflexibility to add new courses to the program oreven substitute new courses or topics for existingones.

Most universities reported that due to thesecond major, education majors had few or noelectives remaining anywhere in their program ofstudies. Faculty were seriously concerned thatwith the elimination ofelectives, education majorswere the only students on c ampus with no leewayin their program of studies to explore liberal artsdisciplines. Further, the lack of flexibility seri-ously affected students' ability to graduate in fouryears. Several respondents indicated that studentsneeded to declare their education major as enter-ing freshmen, know what they needed, and beable to take courses in the proper sequence in

order to graduate in four years. The schedule wasvery tight and resulted in many students attendingsummer school or an additional semester in orderto complete the program. Working students,those entering education after their freshman year,and transfer students could seldom complete theprogram in four years.

Impact of the Second Major Requirementon Arts and Sciences Programs and Faculty

The development of the second major wasmost often accomplished using existing univer-sity committees. The work of the committees onthe development and implementation of the sec-ond major sometimes resulted in greater interac-tion among departments across campus andschools of education, but did not change funda-mental relationships between the two groups.

The requirement caused noticeably increasedenrollments in psychology, English, and history.Arts and sciences departments enjoyed the addi-tional enrollment and recognition, but often didnot have faculty and resources to accommodatemore and larger course sections. In general, artsand ociences faculty found education studentsindistinguishable from other students, often ac-knowledging that they were as good as, or betterthan, their regular majors.

Arts and sciences departments, at both smalland large institutions, often had technical diffi-culty providing courses that education studentsneeded to fulfill the requirements of their secondmajor. In particular, smaller institutions haddifficulty offering enough classes or schedulingclasses often enough for particular student popu-lations (e.g., evening students). Education stu-dents faced problems scheduling two different,highly sequenced course programs (the educationprogram and the second major program). Institu-tions often had to devise alternative strategies andcourse substitutions to accommodate schedulingdifficulties and course closeouts.

6

In some cases, faculty reported that educationstudents were at a disadvantage in upper levelarts and sciences courses because prerequisites tothose courses had not been required in the secondmajor prescribed program. However, other fac-ulty reported that while the prescribed secondmajor course work did not always list the prereq-uisites, students were required to take these coursesprior to enrolling in arts and sciences courses.This further increased the total number of courseseducation students were required to take.

Impacts of the Second Major Requirementon Teacher Education Students

Full implementation of this requirement didnot begin until the fall of 1989. The class of 1993was the first graduating class affected by thispolicy. With only one graduation year fromwhich to draw data, it is too soon to tell whatimpact the second major requirement has had, orwill have, on the quality of future teachers. Inaddition, other policy initiatives aimed at improv-ing the quality of students entering the teachingprofession were underway concurrent with thesecond major requirement. These included thefollowing requirements for acceptance into teachereducation programs: (a) the 2.5 minimum gradepoint average which began in 1984; and (b) theincrease in the minimum entrance score require-ment of the communication skills and generalknowledge scores on the NTE. These policiesprohibit isolating the second major requirement asthe cause for general changes in teacher quality,however, the data gathered from the student sur-vey and the focus groups provide some prelimi-nary evidence of specific impacts that may beattributed to the second major.

Overall, students interviewed had a favorableopinion of the second major requirement. Seven-teen students/graduates characterized their opin-ion as good; five said they had a bad impression ofthe second major, while two were indifferent.Those who had a good general opinion of the

second major commented frequently that "moreeducation can't hurt you." Other positive re-sponses were: "Concenvated knowledge is im-pnrtant for educators." "My second major helpedbroaden my views and made me more open-minded." Those who were critical of the secondmajor felt there was not enough "relevance" totheir career goals, and that they were "short-changed" on methodology courses that wouldhave been beneficial. Said one graduate, "I thinkit was more a hindrance than helpful."

Of the 13 who are currently teaching, 3 saidthe second major had no effect on their teachingability, and 1 indicated a negative impact: "Itcaused the elimination of some courses that wouldhave been more beneficial or relevant." Ninerespondents believed the second major had apositive impact on their teaching ability. "Mysecond major helped me to better understandchildren's development and behavior." "I couldn'tteach without it," said another. "I only had theequivalent of general education otherwise." Fivefound the second major to be personally, but notprofessionally, beneficial. Others found the sec-ond major both personally and professionallyprofitable: "I am so grateful that someone told meto take a second major."

Faculty considered the relevance and compat-ibility of second majors to teaching to be impor-tant to students and felt some students had diffi-culty finding a compatible second major. Thiswas particulatly true for students in elementary,special, middle grades, physical, and health edu-cation. Many of these students chose psychology,English, and history, but faculty felt other secondmajors would have benefited these majors more.For instance, health education was not approvedas a second major on any campus, yet, withincreasing societal pressures on public schools toprovide current health information to students,health education has increasing relevance andimportance to teacher preparation programs.

7

14

Those students concerned with their market-ability must decide whether to: (a) stay additionalsemesters to get needed courses; (b) transfer out ofeducation and into an arts and sciences disciplineand obtain certification through an alternativeroute; or (c) transfer to a private or out-of-stateuniversity. Often, students having finished alltheir general studies and education core courses,find themselves stng additional semesters solelyto complete the requirement of the second major.Faculty were concerned that such a fmancialburden on students and/or their families was with-out any clear benefit to their long-range teachinggoals.

In contrast, the second major provided usefulcareer options for many graduates. Facultyreported some education students targeted theirsecond major for post-graduate study, or foundthemselves equally marketable in careers outsideof education. These faculty felt a broadenedliberal arts background added to the educationalexperience of these students. Graduates became"subject area specialists" at the schools in whichthey taught and felt this had increased their profes-sionalism.

Finally, a few faculty noted the NTE for middlegrades education assesses knowledge of broadinterdisciplinary subjects causing North Carolinagraduates to be at a disadvantage. As a conse-quence of the single disciplinary nature of thesecond major requirement and its incompatibilitywith the NTE, these faculty are concerned theirgraduates may not score as well.

Additional Findings

In spite of the logistical difficulties, themajority of faculty agreed with the value of abroad liberal arts education for teachers.

Faculty viewed the second major as an at-tempt to provide a solid liberal arts background toeducation majors. For the most part, faculties

from arts and sciences and education supported astrong liberal arts background for education ma -jors, but many questioned the effectiveness of thesecond major requirement in its current form asthe means of accomplishing this end. Some artsand sciences faculty were concerned that the lowcredit hour requirements for the second majorweakened its legitimacy; education faculty wereparticularly concerned that the hours taken awayfrom the education core curriculum, to accommo-date the second major, had seriously compro-mised the professional preparation of their stu-dents. They cited research indicating the need fora broader, multidisciplinary approach to teachingwhile the second major prepares teachers morenarrowly in a single academic discipline.

The intent of the policy is not clear.

Focus group participants found the intent ofthe second major requirement unclear for tworeasons. First, there was confusion in the initialstages ofimplemernation of the policy because ofits name, "second major." This was viewed asbeing synonymous with a degree or with an exist-ing arts and sciences major. This misunderstand-ing was clarified to a degree by UNC GeneralAdministration which suggested the terminology"academic concentration" for the requirement.However, the expression "second major" contin-ues to be used and the confusion regarding itstechnical meaning still can be found.

A second area of confusion is somewhat moreproblematic. The Task Force on the Preparationof Teachers described the intent to have a welleducated teaching force and hoped to achieve thatend through requiring an academic concentrationin the arts and sciences. This infers that the intentof the second major is to improve the quality ofteacher education graduates in the same broadmanner as the policy of requiring a 2.5 GPA toenter a teacher preparation program. However, inpublic discourse the policy is described as one that

8

15

will produce better teachers. Education facultyargue that there needs to be a much strongerlinkage between the second major and teaching.

Faculty thought the policy suggested thateducation is not a legitimate academicmajor.

Education faculty were concerned that therequirement re& :...ted a belief by policy makersthat education was not a rigorous or legitimateacademic discipline and/orlmowledge about teach-ing had little effect on the quality of classroominstruction. They pointed out that education ma-jors, like arts and sciences majors, are required totake two years oftraditional liberal arts courses intheir general college requirements, but then, un-like arts and sciences majors, must pursue both amajor in their chosen field of education and asignificant number ofhours in another discipline.They feel this sends a negative statement to stu-dents about the academic validity of education asa professional discipline. They question why artsand sciences majors have a broad enoue,h liberalarts background to proceed with their m ljor re-quirements when education majors, having com-pleted the same general college requirements,must take additional courses in arts and sciences inorder to receive their baccalaureate degrees.

The mandate did not take into account theunique nature or quality of existing teachereducation programs.

Focus group participants felt that their indi-vidual universities and programs were unique, butthe "top-down" nature of the mandate allowed noroom for individual differences. They believedthe mandate was based on an assumption that alleducation programs were similar in quality andcomposition within schools and across the state,and therefore would be impacted similarly. In-stead, faculty felt some education programs wereimproved while others were seriously weakenedas a result of the second major requirement.

A number of students are moving out ofeducation programs at state colleges anduniversities as a result of this requirement.

Faculty reported some students leaving theireducation degree programs. Some studentschanged their major to arts and sciences, com-pleted their degrees at the state university, andthen sought teacher certification at private institu-tions. Others left the state university and enrolledin a private institution to seek the kind of degreeprogram they could no longer get from the stateinstitution, or to avoid the second major require-ment. In particular this occurred for physicaleducation students, seeking a concentration inhealth, for students in middle school programs,and for students seeking jobs in other states wherethe second major is not required.

Focus GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

Upon the conclusion of each of the focusgroups, members were asked what recommenda-tions they would like to make to the TeacherTraining Task Force regarding the second majorrequirement. The following represent the mostoften cited recommendations from deans, direc-tors of teacher education programs, and facultiesfrom arts and sciences and education.

1. Allow flexibility in developing inter-disci-plinary arts and sciences second majors atinstitutions that do not currently offer them.

Some universities are authorized to offer theinterdisciplinary major but others are not. Schoolsthat do offer such majors argue that the broaderknowledge acquired from an interdisciplinarysecond major is much more germane to whatteachers are required to do in school. The maj orityof universities expressed the importance of de-signing interdisciplinary majors, especially forelementary and middle school programs.

2. Allow universities to develop second ma-jors that are more relevant and attuned tothe education major.

Under the current guidelines, a universitymay only develop a second major from existingmajors in arts and sciences. However, facultywould like the flexibility to create a rigorousprogram of studies in subjects not included in artsand sciences that would be more compatible withsome education majors. For some programs thismight mean developing a second major in a disci-pline for which an arts and sciences major does notexist, or developing a substantive major in an-other discipline outside the College of Arts andSciences such as agriculture, health, sports medi-cine, engineering, etc.

Faculty also suggested linking the secondmajor to additional certification. Educationmajors often questioned the utility of additionalcredits to fulfill a second maj or requirement. The24-credit hour requirement does not fulfill certifi-cation requirements. Additional teacherprepara-tion courses are often required. To gain certifica-tion, students have to take more courses andconsequently spend more time in school.

3. Keep the second major requirement withmodifications .

Many universities were accepting of the sec-ond major requirement, but offered suggestions toenhance its impact. Some faculty felt the secondmajor could be improved by reducing the numberof credit hours. By lowering the 24-27 credit hourrequirement for the second major to 12-15 hours,as in an academic minor, schools of educationcould restore critical skills and method courses,while maintaining the benefits of an additionalacademic discipline. This would also allow schoolsto up-date courses as needed on issues facingeducators, such as technology, multi-cultural edu-cation, technological innovations, conflict resolu-tion, violence and special needs populations.

Universities recommended that additional re-sources (laboratory equipment, faculty, library)and technical assistance be provided to developand implement the second major requirementmore effectively. Some arts and sciences depart-ments found the influx of additional studentsfrom education to be more than they could absorbgiven their resources, and they indicated addi-tional resources would facilitate further imple-mentation.

Only three universities expressed the desirefor the total elimination of the second major re-quirement due to the negative impact it has had onthe quality of their education degree programs.These faculty beieved the requirement had weak-ened the education core curriculum, and that thesecond major was not germane to what teachersare required to do in school. Education majorswould be better served, in their opinion, by greaterbreadth and depth in a contemporary educationcurriculum which equips them to meet the increas-ing demands placed on schools.

4. Keep the four-year education degree pro-gram.

Given the fact that so many education majorswere finding it impossible to complete graduationin a four-year time frame, a few universities sug-gested that perhaps it was time to consider a five-year teacher preparation program to accommo-date a quality teacher preparation program with astrong liberal arts preparation. However, a maj or-ity of the universities were adamant against ex-tending the four-year teacher preparation pro-gram into a five-year program. They wereespecially concerned about the costs to students ofthe additional year of study.

10

1"

SUMMARY

The findings paint a portrait ofmixed positiveand negative impacts of this policy. To under-stand the findings more clearly this section sum-marizes the results in two ways: (a) responses tothe research questions; and (b) the principlesunderlying the second major requirement.

The Research Questions

What has been the impact of the second majorrequirement on the course of studies in teachereducation programs?

There were three major impacts on the courseof studies in teacher education programs. Institu-tions reported: (a) reduction in the number ofcourses and course hours in teacher preparation;(b) reduction and elimination of electives; and (e)limited room to add new courses or topics to theeducation program. The cuts in education courseswere viewed as mildly problematic in some pro-grams and as devastating in others. Many educa-tion faculty, regardless of the cuts they experi-enced, believed some important content forteachers was no longer being offered. Theyworried about their students being adequatelyprepared, about sustaining the quality and reputa-tions of their teacher preparation programs, andabout maintaining their accreditation status.

The introduction of the second major hasreduced the course of study so much that there isalmost no room for exploration or change in aneducation student's four-year program. Planningthe baccalaureate so that a student may graduate inthe regularly allotted eight semesters is very diffi-cult. Most of the institutions participating in thisstudy reported that students were not able tocomplete an undergraduate degee in education infour years without attending summer school, andsome had to attend school a fifth year or longer tocomplete their degree.

How has the second major requirement impactedlinkages between schools of education and thecolleges of arts and sciences?

Implementation of the policy did not seem toconsistently affect pre-existing strong or weakrelationships between education and arts and sci-ences, although anecdotal stories ofnew relation-ships and stormy conflicts were reported. Instead,the policy had strong impacts on the most oftenselected disciplines for second majors. The influxofstudents into classes in arts and sciences causedoverloads, faculty and other resource shortages,and problems forregistrars, advisors, faculty, andstudents. However, for some, the increase was a"blessed burden" as their courses filled to capac-ity and beyond. Further, many arts and sciencesfaculty developed a greater appreciation for edu-cation students because of their academic abilityand motivation.

How has the second major requirement contrib-uted to the quality of the graduates of theseprograms?

It is too soon to determine the effects of thepolicy on graduates. This will be a very difficultquestion to answer at any time because a numberof policies designed to improve the quality ofeducation graduates were implemented at ap-proximately the same time. It will also bedifficult to answer because the intent of thepolicy is vague (i.e., that teachers will be welleducated, Task Force on the Preparation ofreach-ers, 1986) and not directed to a specific outcome.

However, the majority of students reported afavorable impact on their teaching ability andoverall professionalism. Faculty affirmed thesecond major requirement was beneficial to stu-dents, but were concerned that coursework con-straints would result in less qualified graduates.

Possible Outcomes of the Second MajorRequirement

Another way to summarize the outcomes ofthe study is to consider the principles guiding theTask Force on the Preparation of Teachers out-lined in the fmal report (1986, pp. 46-47). Of theprinciples, three are appropriate for considerationofthe effectiveness of the second major mandate:(a) stronger standards without increasing the lengthof study; (b) a substantive field ofstudy in arts andsciences, and (c) an improved and strengthenededucation core curriculum. In addition, otheroutcomes anticipated by the Task Force are in-cluded.

Stronger standards without increasing thelength of study

Nearly all campuses reported that due, in part,to the additional number of credit hours pre-scribed by the new arts and sciences secondconcentrations, students are taking longer to gradu-ate. This is true despite the fact that the number ofcredit hours in the education core have beenreduced. Clearly this principle isnot being upheldacross the state and in many programs. It isperhaps the greatest area of concern because ofthe vigorous attempts by state policy makers toretain a four year teacher education program.

A substantive field of study in arts andsciences

The attitude of arts and sciences facultyregarding the second major requirement wasmixed. Some were supportive, some were am-bivalent, and some viewed the concept so nega-tively that they would not allow a "second major"in their discipline. Many faculty, both in arts andsciences and in education, did not consider 24-27hours in a discipline to be a substantive field ofstudy. Conversely, a number of students andfaculty found the concentration in a single arts andsciences discipline to be both personally andprofessionally rewarding.

An improved and strengthened educationcore curriculum

Many education faculty worried that theireducation core had been seriously compromisedby cuts in credit hours and course content toaccommodate the second major. The coursesdescribed by the original Task Force as mostimportant to teacher education (history and phi-losophy of education, comp ater and technologyapplications, parent counseling and classrnombehaviormanagement, and cultural diversity) wereoften the very courses education faculty first cutbecause of the need to meet basic competencyrequirements. Faculty at many schools of educa-tion feared further cutbacks and were concernedabout their inability to fit new courses designed tomeet emerging needs into their programs.

Other outcomes anticipated by the TaskForce

Other possible outcomes of the second majoranticipated by the Task Force on the Preparationof Teachers (such as increased flexibility of theteacher workforce, increased employment op-tions for graduates, easier routes to certificationfor elementary and secondary students) have oc-curred in some instances but not in others. Ingeneral, physical education and middle gradesstudents were reported to be less competitive inthe marketplace and less flexible as teachers in theworkforce. These students generally had to stayadditional semesters in order to obtain additionalor hal endorsements. If they did not, they lostvaluable certification endorsements that wouldprovide them with more career options. Studentsin other areas described instances ofgreatergradu-ate school and career options, both in and out ofeducation, as a result of the second major.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the second major re-quiremerl in North Carolina illustrates thephilosophical conflict between those who sup-port strong liberal arts backgrounds and thosewho support strong skill and methods trainingin the preservice preparation of teachers.Progress in this area of reform will need toinclude efforts to achieve greater consensusamong key players regarding the preparationof teachers.

The policy itself suggests teachers shouldhave an fit-depth educational experience in anarts and sciences discipline. With the generalcollege requirements, the addition of 24 to 27hours in the degree program of education majorsled, in most instances, to reductions in the amountof pedagogy that students received. Where thishappened, education faculty were almost unani-mous in their opinion that the preparation of theirstudents to be teachers had been jeopardized. Itwas not that education faculty found fault with theinclusion of the second major; indeed, most sup-ported the idea. It was that they believed criticalskills and methods necessary for their graduates tobe successful, marketable teachers were no longerbeing provided.

The differences ofopinion that surfaced in thisstudy suggest there is a need to engage in activitiesthat would narrow the gap in beliefs and practiceamong policy makers and those implementingpolicy. Some ofthe differences could probably beresolved with modest adjustments in the policy totake into account the variation in requirements inspecial subject teaching neas.

The implementation of ihe second majorpolicy with its problems and successesreflects the compromises made in the policy.

The policy sought to increase subject knowl-edge in the arts and sciences, to improve educa-tion course offerings, and to limit the teacherpreservice training to four years. In practice,students did receive more instruction in the artsand sciences, education course offerings werereduced with unknown effects, and a number ofstudents were unable to finish their teacher prepa-ration training in four regular academic calendaryears. Arts and sciences faculty assert that educa-tion students are not actually completing a majorin arts and sciences, and education faculty areconcerned that students are not receiving a com-prehensive education major. The policy is acompromise between traditional teacher prepara-tion at the undergraduate level and several five-year teacher preparation recommendations cur-rently being proposed (Holmes Group, 1986;Carnegie Forum, 1986). The positive and nega-tive effects observed in this study reflect thecompromise. There is a need to modify the policyto minimize the negative effects that result fromthe compromise while, at the same time, maintain-ing the advantages that the policy provides.

AFTERWARD

As described in the methodology section, thiswas an exploratory study Which provided insightsand information from the deans, faculties, andstudents from all ofthe University ofNorth Caro-lina teacher preparation programs. From a policyperspective the results suggest a number of col-laborative efforts to modify the policy and make itmore effective. From a research perspective theresults pose a number of questions that warrantfurther, in-depth study.

REFERE4CFS

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for thetwenty-first century. Washington, DC: Author.

General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 1991 ratified bill. Chapter 971, House Bill 1357.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Task Force on the Preparation ofTeachers. (November 1986). The education ofNorthCarolina'steachers: A report to the 1987 North Carolina General Assembly from the Task Force on thePreparation ofTeachers ofthe Board ofGovernors oftheUniversityofNorth Carolina. ChapelHill,NC: Author.

30 MINUTES5 minutes 1.

5minutes 2.

5 minutes 3.

5 minutes 4.

5 minutes 5.

5 minutes 5.

40 MINUTES

10 minutes 1.

10 minutes 2.

5 minutes 3.

10 minutes 4.

5 minutes 5.

35MINUTES

10 minutes 1.

10 minutes 2.

5 minutes 3.

10 minutes 4.

10MINUTES

10 MINUTES

APPENDIXA

Focus Group QuestionsName ofUniversity/Date

QUESTION A: Describe the second major at your institutionWhat is the second major called at your institution?How does the second major compare to a similar major in arts and sciences?

types ofcourses/course levels?number ofcourses required?prerequisites (waived)?

What kinds of criteria did you use to select the courses for the second major?Describe the process a typical student might go through to select a second major. Who advisesstudents during this process?What have you found to be the most popular second major in the school of education? Why?What have you found to be the most problematic second major? Why?

QUESTION B: What has been the Impact of the second major requirement on the course ofstudies in teacher education programs?What has been the impact of the second major on the education core? (Extensive study in one or moredisciplines for depth in the chosen teaching area.What has been the impact of the second InFrjor on the professional core? (Professional educationstudies which provide the student with ;be generally accepted core ofknowledge in the theory andpractice of teaching.)What has been the impact on the total program requirement?

electivestotal hoursgraduation rate

For Name of University, discuss the impact specifically on (as appropriate):(1) early childhood education(2) middle grades education(3) special education(4) physical education(5) health education(6) busness education(7) marketing education(8) industrial educationDescribe any problems your institution has experienced implementing the second major requirement.

QUESTION C: What Has been the impact of the second major requirement on the relationshipbetween schools of education and arts and sciences?Who was involvcd in planning and developing the second major at your institution (i.e., committee ofselected arts and sciences faculty and education faculty, conunittee of representatives from each artsand sciences department and education department, etc.)What process did arts and sciences and education go through to develop the second major? Howdid you decide what a second major was? How did you decide what courses would comprise thesecond major?Was there an impact of the second major on the arts and sciences program?

student enrollment overloads?revised curriculum?

How has the second major affected the relationship between the School of Education and the Collegeof Arts and Sciences at your institution, if at all?

QUESTION D: Has the second major requirement contributed to the quality of the graduates ofthese programs? If so, How?

QUESTION E: what would you suggest should be done to improve the second major requirement?

15

BEST COPY AVAILABLE2,

APPENDIX B

Survey of Students

Survey of Student Perceptions Regarding the Impact of the Second Major Requirement onTeacher Education Programs

September 1993

StudentNAME:

"Hello, my name is I am calling for the North Carolina Educational PolicyResearch Center which has been commissioned by the Teacher Training Task Force to study the impact of thesecond major requirement on teacher education programs. We are currently gathering input from recent graduatesNorth Carolina teacher education programs concerning the impact addition of the second major requirement on yourpreparation for the teaching profession.

You have been specially recommended by ** dean **, Dean of the School of Education at *University* as asomeone able to provide valuable feedback for this study.

Do you have a few minutes to answer a some questions about your undergraduate experiences in your educationmajor?

IF NO, "When would be a more convenient time for me to call back?"

Date and Time to call back:

IF YES: "First let me get some background information from you:

Background Information

I. The records show that you are a 1993 graduate of *University*. Is that correct?

YES NO

(If NO, provide correct information)

2. What was your major in education?Elementary education Agricultural educationMiddle education Business educationIntermediate education Physical educationSpecial education Industrial educationHealth education Other (specify)

3. What was the academic concentration or second major which you selected? (See attached list)

4. Are you currently teaching?

YESTEACHING?In what content area?:At what grade level?:

NOT TEACHING. Where employed?

Survey Questions

"NEXT! WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITHTHE SECOND MAJOR REQUIREMENT as an education major"

I. Why did you select *SECOND MAJOR* as your second major?

2. What kind of help did arts and sciences faculty provide for you in planning the courses and sequence of courses foryour second major requirement? Please Explain:

3. Did the second major requirement pose any significant hardship in completing graduation requirements in thefour year time frame? NO YES

If YES, Please Explain what you think might have caused those hardships (e.g., scheduling conflicts,meeting pre-requisite requirements, required summer school to graduate on time, etc.)?

4. How do you think the second major has impacted your overall teaching ability?

5. What is your general opinion about the second major requirement?

Good? Bad? Indifferent?

6. Are there any changes that you think could improve the second major program? Please specify.

*********************************************************

Thank you very much for taking time to answer these questions.. The information you have provided will hegiven close attention by the Task Force as it considers ways in which teacher training in North Carolina can beenhanced.

Would you like us to send you the summary of our findings? (If yes, verify address from attached sheet.)

17

Introducing the Center

The North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center wasestablished in 1991 through a contract to the School ofEducation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillfrom the State Board of Education. The mission of the Centeris to strengthen the information base for educational policydecisions in North Carolina to enhance outcomes of schoolingfor children. The Center seeks to accomplish this mission by:

conducting policy research and analyses;

preparing research reports examini -g broadpolicy issues, policy briefs providing conciseinformation about specific issues, and quarterlynewsletters;

disseminating research-based information oneducational policy issues to North Carolinapolicymakers, educators and communityleaders;

providing a forum for the discussion ofeducational policy issues; and,

training future educational leaders in theconduct and use of policy research.

25

'11

School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill