Preparing Education Researchers: Identifying Necessary Competencies for Teachers, Administrators, and Student Affairs Professionals

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.181

Keywords:

education research competencies, professional standards, education program curriculum

Abstract

This descriptive study aimed to answer two research questions: (a) what are the assessment, evaluation, and research (AER) competencies necessary for three educator types (teachers, K-12 administrators, and higher education student affairs professionals); and (b) what are the similarities and differences in competencies by educator type? Current professional standards for each educator type were identified and coded for alignment with AER topics, then reviewed for similarities and differences. Results suggest that teacher competency standards focus heavily on assessment; administrator competencies focus on ethical decision making and continuous improvement; and student affairs professional standards focus on advocacy and supporting institutional mission. These results imply that education preparation programs may need to adjust AER course curriculum and instruction to align with distinct educator needs.

References

Aguado, N. A. (2009). Teaching research methods: Learning by doing. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(2): 251-260.

American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (2015). ACPA and NASPA professional competency areas for student affairs educators. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competencies_FINAL.pdf

American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (2016). ACPA and NASPA professional competencies rubrics. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competency_Rubrics_Full.pdf

American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. https://www.naspa.org/files/dmfile/Student_Personnel_Point_of_View_1937.pdf

American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Student_Personnel_Point_of_View_1949.pdf

Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bowers, A. J. (2017). Quantitative research methods training in education leadership and administration preparation programs as disciplined inquiry for building school improvement capacity. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 12(1), 72-96.

Council of Chief State School Officers (2013, April). Interstate teacher assessment and support consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resources for ongoing teacher development. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers (2020, July). About us. https://ccsso.org/about

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2020, July). History of CAEP. http://www.ncate.org/about/history

Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83-91.

DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2015). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251-272.

Denham, B. (1997). Teaching research methods to undergraduates. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51(4): 54-62.

Earley, M. A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, 19(3), 242-253.

Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 359.

Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6): 709-726.

Hamrick, F. A., & Edwards, M. N. (2017). Assessment in student affairs by John H. Schuh, J. Patrick Biddix, Laura A. Dean, and Jillian Kinzie. Journal of College Student Development, 58(5), 790-792.

Herdlein, R. J. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of graduate preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 51-71.

Hevel, M. S. (2016). Toward a history of student affairs: A synthesis of research, 1996-2015. Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 844-862.

Ho, A. (2017). Advancing educational research and student privacy in the “big data” era. National Academy of Education. https://naeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ho-FINAL.pdf

Jones, G. M. (2014). Pathways: An exploration of factors influencing scholarship among student affairs practitioners [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens, USA). https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/jones_ginny_m_201405_phd.pdf

Lei, S. A. (2010). College research methodology courses: Revisiting general instructional goals and objectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 236-240.

Lewthwaite, S., & Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413-430.

Madalin ́ska-Michalak, J. (2020). Fostering quality education research: The role of the European Educational Research Association as a scientific association. European Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 30-42.

Mullen, C. A. (2000). Linking research and teaching: A study of graduate student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 5-21.

National Academy of Education (2017). Big data in education: Balancing the benefits of educational research and student privacy: Workshop summary. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574440.pdf.

National Council on Measurement in Education. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. ERIC Clearinghouse. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED323186.pdf

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2018a). Preparing for the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) program review: A companion guide. http://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NELP-Companion-Guide.pdf

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2018b). National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) program standards: Building level. http://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NELP-Building-Standards.pdf

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) 2015. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Planning and designing useful evaluations. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 7-35). John Wiley & Sons.

Nguyen, D. J., Mathews, K., Herron, A., Troyer, R., Graman, Z., Goode, W. A., Shultz, A., Tackett, K., & Moss, M. (2019). Learning to become a scholar-practitioner through research experiences. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(4), 365-378.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Phelps-Ward, R., Kenney, J., & Howard, J. L. (2017). Epistemology, pedagogy, and student affairs assessment: A voluminous framework for equity. The Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry, 2(1), 1-21.

Price, L. (2019). The psychology of education review: Open dialogue. Response to Professor Entwistle’s paper entitled “Contributions of educational psychology to understanding student learning: What has been discovered—What more could be done?” Psychology of Education Review, 43(1), 28-33.

Ralston, N. C., Weitzel, B., Waggoner, J., Naegele, Z., & Smith, R. (2016). The partnership pact: Fulfilling school districts’ research needs with university-district partnerships. AILACTE (Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education) Journal, 13(1), 59-75.

Saldaña, J. (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Schroeder, C. C., & Pike, G. R. (2001). The scholarship of application in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 342-355.

Sriram, R. (2011). Engaging research as student affairs professionals. NASPA NetResults: Critical Issues for Student Affairs Practitioners. https://works.bepress.com/rishi_sriram/10/

Sriram, R., & Oster, M. (2012). Reclaiming the "scholar" in scholar-practitioner. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(4), 377-396.

Waple, J. N. (2006). An assessment of skills and competencies for entry-level student affairs work. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 1-18.

Wieting, S. G. (1975). Simulated research experiences for use in teaching research methods. Teaching Sociology, 3(1), 33-59.

Young, D. G., & Janosik, S. M. (2007). Using CAS standards to measure learning outcomes of student affairs preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 341-366.

Downloads

Published

2021-10-19

How to Cite

Cole, A. ., & Smith, R. (2021). Preparing Education Researchers: Identifying Necessary Competencies for Teachers, Administrators, and Student Affairs Professionals. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(4), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.181

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 4 (2021)

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)