Volume 101(2), February 2001 Norman G. Lederman Margaret L. Niess EDITORIAL An Attempt to Anchor Our Moving Targets In the December issue of School Science and Mathematics, we attempted to elaborate upon the problem of teacher evaluation. When discussions of evaluation are pursued, the issue of teacher education is almost sure to follow close behind. That is, if it hasn’t preceded the discussion of evaluation. Often this discussion manifests itself in terms of “friendly” debates among colleagues across campus about the relative values of generic and subject-specific pedagogy. Does this sound familiar? Indeed, the responses we received from readers related to the December editorial have convinced us that a more in-depth discussion of the history of research on teaching would be helpful to members of the School Science and Mathematics Association, especially when they have the “pleasure” of engaging in such debates. Of related interest, included in this issue is a bibliography by Lederman of the empirical and theoretical literature on subject-specific pedagogy. Such a listing does not exist elsewhere. And, in the Research Into Practice section, Niess has published a specific example of a science and mathematics subject-specific teacher preparation program highlighting a theme of technology. The history of the knowledge base for effective teaching can be conveniently divided into six phases of empirical research extending back to the 1920s. The first phase assumed “effectiveness” to be a consequence of personality traits or characteristics of the teacher, the second phase focused on teaching methods, the third related teacher behaviors to student learning, the fourth focused on the mastering of a repertoire of competencies, and the fifth focused on teachers’ abilities to use competencies appropriately (i.e., professional decision-making). The sixth phase, which characterizes the current wisdom, has focused on the importance of the interaction of a set of knowledge domains that results in clearly delineated subject-specific instructional knowledge and skills. Presage Variables The earliest research on effective teaching set out to describe the characteristics differentiating more effective teachers from less effective teachers. The currently common techniques for the measurement of mental abilities, personality traits, attitudes, and similar factors were unavailable in the early 1900s, so researchers simply asked students to describe effective teachers they had known. The results were various lists of traits attributed to teachers regarded as effective. Some of the most common characteristics included “makes greater demands of students,” “has more teaching skill,” “has more knowl- edge of subject matter,” and “has better discipline.” This approach to establishing the knowledge domain for effective teaching eventually moved from using the feedback of students to using the opinions of experts on teaching. During the 1920s, the top six attributes of an effective teacher were considered to be good judgment, self-control, considerateness, enthusiasm, magnetism, and adaptability. By 1930, the list of common attributes had been revised to include cooperation (helpfulness, loyalty), personal magnetism, personal appearance, breadth and intensity, considerateness, and leadership. It is important to note that all of these lists characterized teachers perceived as effective. In no instance was any evidence gathered to document that teachers possessing the listed characteristics were actually more effective in helping students achieve educational goals. Consequently, there was a call for more sound research from which a knowledge base for teacher education programs could be derived.