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?

Relevance
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?