1. Mark Hirschkorn & Alan Sears mhirschk@unb.ca & asears@unb.ca
From Gatekeeper to Guide The Admission Process As a Facilitator of Double Disruption
Mark Hirschkorn & Alan Sears
&

2. Central Premises
Current admissions processes are overly focused on ‘gatekeeping’
This is inadequate for several reasons
Candidate selection is not a precise science
The pool of candidates is shrinking
It ignores other potential uses for the information collected
Admissions processes offer the possibility to collect rich information on candidates cognitive frames
That information can be used to foster a “double disruption”: a disruption of candidates frames and elements of their teacher education programs

3. A range of teacher education admissions processes in Canada
Minimalist < > Maximalist
1. Written Application Package Including:
- University Transcripts
- Sample Essay and/or Statement of Intent
- Letters of Reference
1. Written Application Package
2. Performance Assessments such as:
- Interviews
- Sample Lessons
- Individual or Group Activities
Assessment Centres
2. Performance Assessments
3. Standardized Tests such as:
- PRAXIS Series common in the U.S.
3. Standardized Tests
4. Pre-Admission, Experiential Course Containing:
- Practicum
- Exposure to Educational Pedagogy, Thinkers and Theories
- Concluding Interview with Recommendations for Admissions

4. Gatekeeping: The Prime Directive
Not everyone can or should be a teacher.
Choose candidates that on the basis of their character, their experience, and their potential are most likely to thrive within teacher education programs, to be exemplary in their discipline, to meet the certification requirements, and to be successful as teachers.
Russell (2009) states that TEP’s do not have as much influence on prospective teachers as we would like, thus, we had better select people that already possess many of the capacities we want in teachers.

5. Gatekeeping: The Limits
Disputes about the desired qualities and inadequate measures for determining them
Assessing a limited and insufficient range of qualities
Processes that telegraph the ‘right’ responses
Limited pool of candidates
Inconsistent with constructivist teaching as it ignores the obligation of programs to adapt to candidates
However, even in their admissions process, the emphasis is on more tangible elements such as level of comfort working with children and peers, or technical aspects of lesson delivery such as organization of material, pacing, and voice modulation. Candidates are sometimes asked about their conceptions of teachers and teaching but this evidence seems to be treated anecdotally and not analyzed systematically for what it might reveal about the cognitive schema of applicants.

6. Admission Procedures: The Possibilities
“Our contention is that information about the cognitive frames of teacher education applicants, particularly as they relate to teaching and learning generally as well as to the disciplines or areas they wish to teach, has the potential to provide important information both for selecting appropriate candidates (a gatekeeping function) as well as for tailoring programs to best meet their needs as learners (a pedagogical function).”

7. Admission Procedures: The Prompts
Select one or two of these and briefly explain (300 words or less) what you
learned from
the experience(s)
about the
processes of
teaching and
learning.

8. Admission Procedures: The Prompts
Reflecting on your post-secondary education, select one or two areas of study and on a separate page briefly describe (300 words or less) how particular courses and/or the program as a whole contributed to your development as an educator. For example, you might explore insights on the nature of knowledge gained from the study of particular disciplines (math, science, history, art, psychology etc.). In short, how has your post-secondary education to date prepared you for teaching?

9. Admission Procedures: The Prompts
Prompt 1 designed to get at conceptions of teaching and learning.
Prompt 2 designed to get at conceptions of knowledge.
Prompts are deliberately ill structured – opened ended – so as not to lead responses.

10. Disruption 1
Share this information with the instructors so that they can prepare for the preconceptions of their students and build in course experiences that challenges these preconceptions.

11. Disruption 2
Patterns in this information can also be used as an empirical basis for program change.
Program adaptability, as Falkenberg describes it, “is the idea that the program is designed to be responsive to the qualities
that teacher candidates bring with them” (Falkenberg, 2010)

12. Disruptive Possibilities
Individualized practicum placement decisions are made on the basis of each person’ learning profile as determined during the admissions process. For example, students who perceive teaching as only knowledge dissemination might benefit from being placed in an alternative placement, or for a period of time as a resource teacher where their assumptions and expertise might be built upon and challenged.

13. Disruptive Possibilities
Additional PD opportunities or even additional certifications offered on the basis of student affinity as well as perceived gaps in their prior learning – areas determined both during admissions and by working with the students throughout the year. For example, aboriginal education, international education, IT specializations, second language, etc.

14. Disruptive Possibilities
Using recurring patterns evident in the data derived during admissions and through student feedback to plan and implement long-term program structure change. For example, courses on assessment might be built into a program if it is identified as an endemic weakness of students entering the program year after year.

15. Discussion Questions
In light of the issues already discussed, how do we improve the responsiveness of teacher education programs to the information they might gather during the admissions process?
Can teacher education programs be modified and differentiated to meet the needs of its students on an annual intake basis? Is that what K-12 schools do?
We ask classroom teachers to be inclusive and to modify/differentiate their instruction for the learners in their classes, and they have no ability to control who is admitted into their classes like education programs do. Shouldn’t it be even easier to enact constructivist principles at the post-secondary level where we collect information from the students even before they enter our programs and screen them on the basis of that information?
What could universities learn from K-12 schools who are seemingly much better at inclusion and differentiating their instruction than post-secondary institutions? Can university education programs borrow some of the structural features that K-12 schools use to support their teachers being inclusive teachers?

16. This presentation is drawn from the chapter:
Mark Hirschkorn and Alan Sears. "More Than Gatekeeping: The Pedagogical Potential of Admissions Procedures for Teacher Education." In Change and Progress in Canadian Teacher Education: Research on Recent Innovations in Teacher Preparation in Canada, edited by Lynn Thomas and Mark Hirschkorn, : Canadian Association for Teacher Education, 2015.