Friday, October 26, 2012

Productive pedagogy framework

Gore, J.M., Griffiths, T. & Ladwig, J.G. (2004). Towards better teaching: productive pedagogy as a framework for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 375–387.

Productive pedagogy (PP) has four dimensions:
  1. Intellectual quality
  2. Relevance
  3. Supportive classroom environment
  4. Recognition of difference
More broadly, PP principles challenge conventional understandings about what is important and what should be emphasised in teacher education programs. It suggests a re-thinking ofwhat is offered and what is valued. In particular, the principles of PP require teacher educators to address:
1. The overemphasis on classroom environments and processes rather than on substance and purposes.
2. The relationships between foundational studies, curriculum studies and field experiences which are currently insuffficiently connected.
3. The purpose and structure of field experiences which centre too often on practising teaching techniques with relatively little concern for what is being taught and the quality of learning produced.
4. The focus on student management relative to student learning, which mistakenly assumes that management should be addressed first and separately.
5. The emphasis on syllabus content and constraints of the formal curriculum relative to identifying central concepts and producing depth of understanding.

Productive pedagogy dimensions, items and key questions addressed

Intellectual quality
Higher order thinking: Are higher order thinking and critical analysis occurring?
Deep knowledge: Does the lesson cover operational fields in any depth, detail or level ofspecificity?
Deep understanding: Do the work and response ofthe students provide evidence ofunderstand ing ofconcepts or ideas?
Substantive conversation: Does classroom talk break out ofthe initiate/respond/evaluate pattern and lead to sustained dialogue between students, and between teachers and students?
Knowledge problematic: Are students critiquing and second-guessing texts, ideas and knowledge?
Metalanguage: Are aspects oflanguage, grammar, and technical vocabulary being foregrounded?

Knowledge integration: Does the lesson range across diverse fields, disciplines and paradigms?
Background knowledge: Is there an attempt to connect with students’ background knowledge?
Connectedness to the world: Do lessons and the assigned work have any resemblance or connection to real life contexts?
Problem based curriculum: Is there a focus on identifying and solving intellectual and/or real-world problems?

Supportive classroom environment
Student control: Do students have any say in the pace, direction or outcome ofthe lesson?
Social support: Is the classroom a socially supportive, positive environment?
Engagement: Are students engaged and on-task?
Explicit criteria: Are criteria for student performance made explicit?
Self-regulation: Is the direction of student behaviour implicit and self-regulatory or explicit?

Recognition of difference
Cultural knowledges: Are diverse cultural knowledges brought into play?
Inclusivity: Are deliberate attempts made to increase the participation of all students of different backgrounds?
Narrative: Is the teaching principally narrative, or is it expository?
Group identity: Does teaching build a sense of community and identity?
Citizenship: Are attempts made to foster active citizenship?

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Case analysis framework - McNergney, Herbert & Ford (1994)

Sudzina, M. (1999). Case study applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content areas. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sudzina (1999), p. 16-17:

Case analysis framework
1. Identifying the facts and issues in a case
2. Identifying the perspectives and values
3. Identifying the professional knowledge
4. Formulating action
5. Considering the consequences of actions

Cooperation and Competition in Case-Based Teacher Education
Robert F. McNergney, Joanne M. Herbert, and Rudolph E. Ford
Journal of Teacher Education, November 1994; vol. 45, 5: pp. 339-345.

We characterize reflection, or professional thinking, in terms of five steps: perceiving problems and opportunities, recognizing values that drive actions, applying knowledge, taking action, and examining consequences (McNergney & Medley, 1984; McNergney, Herbert, & Ford, 1993). Conceptually, the five steps are sequential. An instructor encourages the development of this kind of reflection via cases by drawing attention to:

• facts and issues in a case;
• perspectives of the actors (e.g., teacher, students, parents, principal) or the values underlying actions individuals take in the case;
• professional knowledge born of practice, theory, and research relevant to problems in the case;
• projected teaching actions; and
• likely consequences of projected actions.

Instructors trigger considerations of these factors in students by asking questions and offering their own observations.

In practice, the steps are not necessarily conceptually discrete, and they frequently do not proceed in linear fashion. For example, knowledge considerations may influence identification of issues; discussion may move back and forth between these steps. And consequences or desired end results might overshadow all other considerations and serve as springboards to discussion of other factors. While an instructor can recognize a path from one end of the reflective process to the other, she or he might not be able to trace a clean, straight line from beginning to end. We encourage teachers to reflect on events in a case as they might think about events in real life, but to do so with attention to the five factors.

McNergney, R. F., Herbert, J. M., and Ford, R. E. (1994). Cooperation and Competition in Case-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 339-345.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Policies That Support Professional Development

Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 642-645

The vision of practice that underlies the nation's reform agenda requires most teachers to rethink their own practice, to construct new classroom roles and expectations about student outcomes, and to teach in ways they have never taught before - and probably never experienced as students (Nelson & Hammerman, 1995).

Reformers of all stripes press for an agenda of fundamental change in the ways teachers teach and students learn. They envision schools in which students learn to think creatively and deeply, in which teachers' ongoing learning forms the core of professional activities, and in which students and teachers alike value knowing why and how to learn.(FN34)

These visions and expectations for practice assume fundamental changes in education policies in order to enable teachers to make the challenging and sometimes painful changes required of them. Yet these necessary shifts in policy have only begun.

Nelson, B.S. & Hammerman, J.M. (1996). Reconceptualizing teaching : moving toward the creation of intellectual communities of students, teachers, and teacher educators. In Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Ida Oberman (eds.), Teacher learning: new policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press

FN34: Nelson and Hammerman, op. cit.; Beverly Falk, "Teaching the Way Children Learn," in McLaughlin and Oberman, op. cit.; and Martin G. Brooks and Jacqueline Grennon Brooks, "Constructivism and School Reform," in McLaughlin and Oberman, op. cit.