Intelligent Dispositions of Teacher Educators

What makes the best teacher educators? That is the question CTAPP set out to answer when we developed the Intelligent Dispositions of the Teacher Educator. 

Teacher educators from CTAPP's partner EPPs engage in our annual Field Supervisor Professional Development to hone their instructional coaching competence.

Defining “Teacher Educators”

Teacher educators encompass all educational professionals involved in the coaching and development of teachers (e.g., course instructors, field supervisors, faculty, cooperating/host/mentor teachers, instructional coaches, curricular leads, principals, etc.). Often, these individuals were strong teachers that advanced in their careers to coach other teachers in order to improve professional practice and student outcomes. But do strong teachers always become the best teacher educators?

From Good to Great

When we talk about teachers, we often cite foundational knowledge and skills that are critical to teacher success in the classroom. Countless rules and rubrics have been made to identify and assess the quality of what teachers know and what they can do. But is there more to the formula? Many argue that there is. 

Mindsets or experiences are often surfaced in an attempt to name the qualities of teachers that are not just good but great. We might say that a good teacher meets the needs of all their students, but a great teacher knows and cares about all their students and their families and leverages the personal experiences of each student in order to improve all students’ outcomes. This example highlights the mindsets or experiences that are unique between the good and the great teacher. That is, the good teacher may focus only on meeting the minimum standard, while the great teacher pushes themself to connect meaningfully with families, to adapt instructional design and delivery to be relevant to their students, and to always keep student outcomes in mind as opposed to engagement that lacks rigor or instructional purpose. 

From Great to the Best

Pushing the example even further, the best teacher might be able to do everything the great teacher does while also incorporating “habits of mind” or ways of thinking that further elevate their teaching practice and student outcomes (Costa & Kallick, 2021). That might look like incorporating classroom management strategies that connect directly to the instructional material; it’s likely that the best teacher would’ve learned those skills through a growth mindset, reflective practice, and meaningful engagement in professional development. 

From Good to Great to the Best Teacher Educators

While the differences between good, great, and the best may seem clear for teachers, such specificity is often not clearly outlined for teacher educators. However, intelligent dispositions offer an avenue to do just that. Sometimes referred to as habits of mind, intelligent dispositions are “a framework of attributes that comprise the myriad of intelligent thinking behaviors characteristic of peak performers, and are indicators for academic, vocational, and relational success” (Campbell, 2006, p. 1; Costa & Kallick, 2008; Dottin, 2010). It is those intelligent dispositions that we have researched, analyzed, and compiled for you to use to coach yourself or your teacher educators to reach to the top for the teachers you coach and the students you reach.

How to Use Teacher Educator Dispositions

1. Develop a baseline of teacher educator dispositions by assessing how true each of the teacher educator dispositional statements is for you or for the teacher educator you’re evaluating. If you’re evaluating teacher educator dispositions for someone you’re coaching, it’s best practice to have them also self-assess, so you can have a calibration coaching conversation.

2. If you’re working to develop your own teacher educator dispositions, attend professional development (PD) that aligns to the teacher disposition(s) you hope to develop, or research strategies for growth in that/those area(s). If you’re coaching others’ teacher educator dispositions, you can help the teacher educator by either providing aligned resources or by directing them to further their own learning via research or PD.

3. Practice using the teacher educator disposition(s) you hope to develop. If you’re coaching others’ teacher educator dispositions, have the teacher educator practice or simulate use of the target teacher educator disposition(s) with you before they practice on their own.

4. Reassess teacher educator dispositions for yourself or for the teacher educator that you’re coaching after the target teacher educator disposition(s) have meaningfully and repeatedly (e.g., at least eight times) been practiced.

5. Repeat steps 1-4.

   
   
   
   

Katy Hokanson is a Manager of Content Development and Programming at CTAPP. She supports high-quality teacher preparation programming at EPPs and is currently pursing her Doctorate of Education in Urban Leadership from John's Hopkins University.

The CTAPP Dispositions Framework

Personal

Character (Sockett, 2006) [Self-knowledge, Integrity]

• Exhibits fairness in their words and actions (NCATE, 2001).

• Prioritizes honesty in all communications (Damon, 2007; NCATE, 2001).

• Models responsibility and diligence (Damon, 2007).

• Translates intention into action (Nelsen, 2015).

• Avoids impulsiveness and explosiveness (Costa & Kallick, 2008; Damon, 2007).

• Has high self-efficacy (Hillman et al., 2006).

• Maintains high expectations (Hillman et al., 2006).

• “Makes judgments with a minimum of personal bias” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• Takes responsible risks (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

  
  

Intellect/Rules (Sockett, 2006) [Wisdom, Consistency, Open-mindedness]

• Persists with flexibility and patience knowing that “teaching expertise can be learned, develops over time, and is not linear” (InTASC, 2013, p.11; Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Thinks about thinking (metacognition)” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Strives for accuracy” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Questions and poses problems” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Applies past knowledge to new situations” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Gathers data through all senses” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Creates, imagines, and innovates” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Remains open to continuous learning” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• Communicates clearly both orally and in writing (Hillman et al., 2006).

• Manages time and resources effectively (Hillman et al., 2006).

• Leverages plasticity to learn from experience and apply learning to future situations (Dewey, 1985; Nelsen, 2015).

• “Symbolizes and interprets personal experiences” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Acts independently to solve problems” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Looks for patterns among cases that appear to be unique” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

Care/Empathy (Bok, 2006; Hillman et al., 2006; Sockett, 2006) [Receptivity, Relatedness, Responsiveness]

• “Listens with empathy and understanding” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Thinks and communicates with clarity and precision” (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• “Responds with wonderment and awe (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

• Maintains sensitivity towards others (Hillman et al., 2006).

• Empathizes with learners given the knowledge that “learning and teaching are complex” (InTASC, 2013, p.11).

• Exhibits care for both the development of the teacher candidate’s pedagogical knowledge and skills and their well-being (Badger, 2012; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2001).

• Takes seriously alternative interpretive frames that grant perspective on behaviors and learning (Nelsen, 2015).

• Recognizes that an individual’s beliefs and ideas about the world impact dispositions (Nelsen, 2015).

• “Understands the feelings of [teacher candidates]” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Encourages and reassures [teacher candidates]” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Maintains rapport with [teacher candidates]” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

Pedagogical

Curricular and Instructional Support (Burns et al., 2020)

• Believes that all students can learn (NCATE, 2001).

• “Is attuned to context, its impact on teacher actions, and subsequently, teacher developmental stages and supports” (InTASC, 2013; Nelsen, 2015).

• Maintains perspective that “it’s about the teaching practice and not about the individual teacher” (InTASC, 2013, p. 12).

• Attunes teacher candidates and teachers to their decision-making as a tool for reflective praxis (Diez, 2007).

• Connects their work to the entirety of the educator preparation program and to the community (Nelsen, 2015).

• Develops and encourages the development of “novel, flexible responses to the particularities of a unique context” (Nelsen, 2015, p. 92).

• “Uses a variety of teaching methods and models” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Re-shapes plans after [P-12 students] have reacted to them” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Reads studies about the cognitive and affective development of children” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

Professional

Collaboration and Community (Burns et al., 2020; Hillman et al., 2006)

• Embraces individual and collaborative reflective practice knowing that “growth can occur through reflection upon experience, feedback, or individual or group professional learning experiences” (InTASC, 2013, p.11; Hillman et al., 2006).

• Recognizes that the mentor/cooperating/host teacher plays an important and critical role in the coaching experience of teacher candidates (Addelman et al., 2024; Gardiner & Weisling, 2024).

• Thinks interdependently (Costa & Kallick, 2008)

  • Evidence: longer school visits, more time spent with mentor/cooperating/host teachers (Beck & Kosnik, 2002)

• Takes accountability to lead the triad of teacher educator, mentor/cooperating/host teacher, and teacher candidate while ensuring power is equally shared among all members (Addelman et al, 2024).

• Engages flexibility and openness in order to foster reciprocal relationships among all contributors of teacher candidate development (Badger, 2012).

• Values the perspectives and experiences of the teacher candidate and P-12 students (Badger, 2012).

• Co-inquires (alongside teacher candidates, as colleagues) about the ways in which background (e.g., personal, professional, and situational) inspires judgment and action (Addelman et al., 2024; Nelsen, 2015).

• “Interprets the views of others” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Establishes reciprocally mutual and cooperative relationships” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Distinguishes between what is meant and what is said; to “read” the meaning of behavior” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

• “Seeks help [...] from others or from the literature when confronted with a problem” (Katz & Raths, 1985).

References

Addelman, R.A., Waugh, E.H., Siebert, C.J., & Thornhill, S.S. (2024). Mentor teacher 

perceptions of effective university supervisors: Prioritizing collaboration and community. The Teacher Educator, 59(3), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2023.2289882 

Badger, J. (2012). Analyzing levels of feedback delivered by cooperating teachers and 

supervisors in a teacher internship: A case study. Georgia Educational Researcher, 9(1), 21-39.  https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2012.090102 

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university 

faculty in preservice practicum supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 

53(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001002

Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students 

learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press.

Burns, R.W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2020). A framework for naming the 

scope and nature of teacher candidate supervision in clinically-based teacher preparation: Tasks, high-leverage practices, and pedagogical routines of practice. The Teacher Educator, 55(2), 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1682091

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2008). Leading and learning with habits of mind: 16 

characteristics for success. ASCD.

Costa, A.L., Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A.G. (2021). Building a culture of efficacy with habits 

of mind: A common framework for dispositional thinking in a school can build confidence and attention density. Educational Leadership, 79(3), 57-62. 

Diez, M.E. (2007). Looking back and moving forward: Three tensions in the teacher 

dispositions discourse. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107308418

Diez, M.E., & Raths, J. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education. Information Age 

Publishing, Inc.

Dottin, E.S. (2010). Dispositions as habits of mind: Making professional conduct more 

intelligent. University Press of America. 

Gardiner, W., & Weisling, N.F. (2024). It’s probably more comfortable for everyone: 

Niceness as a factor in mentor decision making about inside practices. The Teacher Educator, 59(4), 462-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2024.2332688

Hillman, S.J., Rothermel, D., & Scarano, G.H. (2006). The assessment of preservice 

teachers’ dispositions. The Teacher Educator, 41(4), 234-250. 

InTASC. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for 

teachers 1.0. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers.pdf

Katz, L.G., & Raths, J.D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching 

and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(85)90018-6

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional 

standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. http://caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/accreditation-resources/ncate-standards-2008.pdf?la=en

Nelsen, P.J. (2015). Intelligent dispositions: Dewey, habits and inquiry in teacher 

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114535267

Sockett, H. (2006). Character, rules, and relations. In H. Sockett (Ed.), Teacher 

dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of moral standards (pp. 8-25). AACTE.