1  |  P a g e    

Conceptual  Framework  Literature  Review  

Our  Conception  of  Teaching    The  practices  of  teaching,  counseling,  institutional  leadership,  and  the  other  service  professions  in  the  College  of  Education  are  complex.  Each  of  them  has  been  referred  to  as  an  “impossible  practice”  (Cohen,  1988).  These  practices  are  “impossible”  for  three  reasons.  First,  the  definition  of  success  is  always  changing.  New  insights,  political  winds,  and  other  things  contribute  to  new  ideas  about  the  desired  outcomes  of  these  professions.  Second,  the  success  of  these  professions  is  predicated  on  the  performance  of  its  clients’  recognition  that  there  is  room  for  improvement.  Third,  human  improvement  is  regularly  difficult  and  always  requires  mental  and  emotional  energy  and  effort.  Practicing  each  of  these  professions  involves  dealing  with  their  uncertainties  and,  to  paraphrase  Cohen,  to  “practice  adventurously;”  that  is,  to  create  an  individual  conception  of  good  practice  through  reason  and  reflection  and  act  upon  that  conception  of  good  practice  in  our  daily  work.  The  development  of  adventurous  practice  can  only  be  accomplished  through  a  thorough  recognition  and  understanding  of  the  complexity  of  a  practice,  and  the  ability  and  willingness  to  make  difficult  decisions  and  act  upon  them  for  principled  reasons.  Although  we  use  teaching  as  the  primary  lens  for  focusing  thoughts  in  the  framework  below,  we  believe  the  triadic  relationship  between  provider,  client,  and  goal  exists  for  each  of  the  helping  professions  and  that  the  same  relationships  guide  practice  across  education-­‐related  professions.    In  the  Aims  of  Education,  Alfred  North  Whitehead  wrote,  “What  you  teach,  teach  thoroughly.”  (Whitehead,  1929).  This  short  sentence  guides  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  teacher  education  program  at  Winona  State  University.  We  use  this  statement  to  guide  the  creation  and  assessment  of  teacher  education  programs  and  to  guide  faculty  in  the  course  of  their  own  teaching.  We  take  teaching  seriously,  model  our  dedication  for  our  students,  and  expect  them  to  develop  and  demonstrate  traits  and  dispositions  associated  with  quality—thorough  and  adventurous—teaching.  But  what  do  we  mean  by  teaching  something  thoroughly?  Hawkins  (Hawkins,  1974)  suggested  teaching  can  be  described  as  a  triadic  relationship  between  teachers,  students,  and  content.  Historically,  those  three  things  have  been  studied  individually.  The  power  of  this  model,  however,  lies  in  the  interactions  among  these  elements,  not  the  elements  themselves  (Lampert,  2001;  Darling-­‐Hammond  &  Bransford,  2005;  Cochran-­‐Smith  &  Zeichner,  2005).  Figure  1  shows  a  modified  version  of  a  model  presented  by  Lampert  (2001)  in  which  she  presents  the  relationship  between  the  three  elements  of  classroom  instruction.    Teachers’  interaction  with  and  understanding  of  content,  their  interaction  with  and  understanding  of  students,  and  students’  interaction  with  and  understanding  of  content,  as  well  as  their  understanding  of  instructional  and  assessment  methods,  all  contribute  to  a  thorough  understanding  of  teaching.  And  when  teachers  can  bring  them  together  in  a  coherent,  thorough  understanding  of  teaching,  they  can  forge  a  practice  of  teaching  that  fully  reflects  its  complexity.  To  help  us  present  our  conceptual    

2  |  P a g e    

framework  we  have  labeled  these  relationships  the  intellectual,  psychological,  social-­‐moral,  and  pedagogical  dimensions  of  teaching.    

Figure  1    

     When  we  speak  of  teaching  thoroughly  at  Winona  State,  we  speak  of  our  mission  to  help  students  in  our  professional  education  programs  understand  the  influence  of  each  dimension  upon  learning  and  teaching,  from  the  perspective  of  both  their  current  learning  process  and  their  future  practice.  Having  labeled  theses  dimensions  separately  however,  we  strive  to  be  continually  mindful  that  they  are  characterized  by  interaction  much  more  so  than  by  separation.  For  we  also  hold  that  the  practice  of  teaching  and  learning  is  by  its  very  nature  dynamic.  Much  like  the  legendary  butterfly  that  flaps  its  wings  in  South  America  and  creates  a  hurricane  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  a  change  in  one  dimension  will  almost  always  affect  other  dimensions  within  a  specific  context  as  well  as  influence  long  term  conceptions  of  teaching  practice.  

INTELLECTUAL  DIMENSIONS  OF  TEACHING  

Teaching  academic  content  is  a  critical  primary  responsibility  of  classroom  teachers.  Teachers  must  have  their  own  relationship  with  the  content  they  teach.  Teachers  must  understand  not  only  what  they  teach  but  also  how  those  ideas  are  connected  to  other  ideas  both  within  the  discipline  and  to  other  disciplines.  But  a  teacher’s  understanding  of  content  differs  from  that  of  a  disciplinary  expert.  Shulman  (1986)  suggested  that  in  addition  to  traditional  academic  knowledge,  teachers  must  have  a  special  knowledge  he  referred  to  as  “pedagogical  content  knowledge  (PCK).”  PCK  is  an  amalgam  of  knowledge  

3  |  P a g e    

including  a  thorough  knowledge  of  disciplinary  knowledge  as  described  above,  how  people  come  to  know  that  knowledge  (including  the  critical  barriers  they  face  in  their  attempts  to  learn),  how  that  knowledge  will  be  accepted  in  the  students’  lives  outside  of  school,  and  other  things  that  influence  how  and  what  students  learn  in  and  out  of  school.  We  turn  to  these  topics  in  the  following  sections.    Traditional  Academic  Content.  Academic  disciplines  have  two  structures—substantive  and  syntactic—that  describe  the  knowledge  constructed  in  the  discipline.  The  substantive  structure  includes  the  record  of  knowledge  of  a  discipline.  This  knowledge  is  the  agreed  upon  results  of  inquiry  that  have  stood  the  test  of  other  researchers  and  scholars  in  an  academic  discipline.  The  substantive  structure  of  a  discipline  constantly  changes  as  new  knowledge  is  constructed  that  answers  new  questions  or  provides  a  better  explanation  than  previous  knowledge.  Teachers  must  remain  abreast  of  these  changes  and  modify  what  they  teach  to  reflect  the  changes  in  their  disciplines.  The  syntactic  structure  deals  with  questions  such  as  what  constitutes  legitimate  knowledge,  and  includes  the  rules  for  creating,  refuting,  and  accepting  new  knowledge  in  the  discipline—in  essence  what  scholars  in  a  particular  field  do  in  their  academic  work.    Traditionally,  PreK-­‐12  teachers  have  focused  on  the  substance  of  disciplines  in  their  classrooms,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  the  syntax  of  academic  disciplines.  The  traditional  curriculum,  developed  by  the  “Committee  of  Ten”  which  had  been  convened  by  the  National  Education  Association  in  1892  at  Harvard,  has  focused  on  students  replicating  the  substance  of  academic  disciplines.  The  results  of  this  committee  have  shaped  the  curriculum  in  our  schools  for  decades.    Recent  calls  for  reform,  however,  have  called  for  changes  in  what  we  teach.  These  calls  place  greater  emphasis  on  creative  and  critical  thinking  in  the  disciplines.  This  conception  of  content  in  our  schools  is  closer  to  what  Dewey  called  a  “progressive”  curriculum;  that  is,  a  curriculum  that  places  more  emphasis  on  useable  knowledge  connected  to  students’  lives.  Dewey  was  adamant,  however,  that  students  come  to  understand  conventional  academic  knowledge,  not  merely  develop  a  means  of  navigating  their  immediate  surroundings.  Although  he  argued  that  teachers  should  begin  with  students’  current  conceptions  of  the  content  being  taught,  the  ultimate  goal  was  their  understanding  of  traditional  academic  knowledge  (Dewey,  1902).  To  facilitate  their  students’  meaningful  understanding  of  content,  teachers  need  to  know  the  content  in  a  way  different  from  disciplinary  experts.  Dewey  described  it  this  way:    Every  subject  thus  has  two  aspects:  one  for  the  scientist  as  scientist;  the  other  for  the  teacher  as  a  teacher.  These  two  aspects  are  in  no  sense  opposed  or  conflicting.  But  neither  are  they  identical.  For  the  scientist,  the  subject-­‐matter  represents  simply  a  given  body  of  truth  to  be  employed  in  locating  new  problems,  instituting  new  researches,  and  carrying  them  through  to  a  verified  outcome.  To  him  the  subject-­‐matter  of  the  science  is  self-­‐contained.  (Dewey,  1902/2001,  p.  117)  To  Dewey,  the  scientist’s  knowledge  represents  a  territorial  map  of  an  academic  discipline  that  shows  the  logical  organization  of  knowledge.  The  map  is  the  result  of  the  scientists’  journey  through  the  discipline—their  experience.  The  final  map,  he  inferred,  is  no  substitute  for  the  experience  as  the  experience  is  where  disciplinary  experts  make  their  initial  connections  among  ideas.    

4  |  P a g e    

The  teacher’s  job  is  to  guide  students  through  the  territory  using  the  map  so  that  they  may  experience  the  discipline  for  themselves;  that  is,  teachers  must  psychologize  the  discipline  for  their  students.  To  accomplish  that,  teachers  need  to  know  the  discipline  in  a  different  way.  Dewey  described  that  kind  of  knowing  in  this  way:    The  problem  of  the  teacher  is  a  different  one.  .  .  what  concerns  him,  as  teacher,  is  the  ways  in  which  the  subject  may  become  part  of  experience;  what  there  is  in  the  child’s  present  that  is  usable  with  reference  to  it;  how  such  elements  are  to  be  used  in  interpreting  the  child’s  needs  and  doings,  and  determine  the  medium  in  which  the  child  should  be  placed  in  order  that  his  growth  may  be  properly  directed.  He  is  concerned,  not  with  subject-­‐matter  as  such,  but  with  the  subject-­‐matter  as  a  related  factor  in  a  total  and  growing  experience  (Dewey,  1902/2001  p.  117).    For  Dewey,  then,  the  logical  organization  shown  in  the  map  is  the  destination  for  all  students,  but  the  path  they  take  to  get  there  may  vary  depending  on  their  “present”—the  students’  current  way  of  thinking  and  knowing  about  the  topic  being  taught.  The  knowledge  necessary  to  guide  students  through  this  territory  (Shulman’s  pedagogical  content  knowledge)  includes  an  understanding  of  the  “critical  barriers”  (Hawkins,  1974)  that  can  hinder  students’  learning.  Over  time,  teachers  develop  an  understanding  of  how  children  learn  the  content.    Teachers  must  understand  that  there  are  many  aspects  to  the  content  they  will  teach,  that  they  will  emphasize  different  aspects  at  different  times  in  their  teaching.  Various  taxonomies  have  been  developed  to  define  the  various  aspects  of  the  content  taught  in  schools  (Steiner,  1907;  Bloom,  1956).  They  must  understand  that  the  content  will  change  over  time  and  that  there  are  different  perspectives  on  what  content  should  be  taught  in  our  schools.  Understanding  the  genesis  of  the  traditional  school  curriculum  and  the  influences  that  have  modified  our  views  of  academic  content  allow  students  to  come  to  an  individual  understanding  of  the  content  they  teach.    But  when  we  teach,  we  don’t  merely  teach  content,  we  teach  the  content  to  a  specific  group  of  students  at  a  specific  time  and  place.  Teachers  must  understand  how  their  students  come  to  learn  the  content  they  are  exposed  to  in  class.  

PSYCHOLOGICAL  DIMENSIONS  OF  TEACHING  

The  relationship  between  students  and  content—the  psychological  dimensions  of  teaching  We  are  continually  learning  more  about  human  learning  and  cognition.  As  new  theories  replace  old,  they  must  adequately  explain  what  came  before  and  add  explanatory  power.  Although  our  understanding  of  learning  has  changed  over  time,  many  ideas  from  previously  widely-­‐held  learning  theories  remain  important  in  contemporary  explanations  of  learning.  Contemporary  learning  theory  makes  two  important  distinctions.  First  it  distinguishes  between  lower  and  higher  psychological  processes  (Vygotsky,  1978).  Second,  it  distinguishes  between  the  individual  and  social  aspects  of  learning.  

5  |  P a g e    

Higher  and  lower  psychological  processes.  Lower  psychological  processes  are  those  common  across  all  animal  species  and  usually  require  an  immediate  reaction  (Vygotsky,  1978).  Higher  psychological  processes  are  unique  to  humans,  involve  reason,  and  are  mediated  through  culturally  accepted  signs  and  symbols.  Both  lower  and  higher  psychological  processes  are  important  to  classroom  instruction.  Many  important  aspects  of  schooling  (i.e.,  completing  homework  on  time,  compliance  with  school  rules,  etc.)  can  benefit  from  what  we  know  about  lower  psychological  processes  and  behavioral  change.  Behavioral  theories  of  learning  have  helped  us  understand  how  human  behavior  is  shaped.  Behavioral  ideas  of  stimulus-­‐response  and  reinforcement  schedules  are  still  useful  for  developing  aspects  of  classroom  behavior  that  would  be  considered  lower  psychological  processes.    Most  of  what  occurs  in  schools,  however,  should  be  considered  higher  psychological  processes;  that  is,  how  we  reason.  The  shift  to  studying  higher  psychological  processes  occurred  during  the  cognitive  revolution  of  the  1950s  when  psychologists  shifted  their  attention  away  from  behavior  to  how  we  process  and  store  information.  Models  based  on  the  “computer  metaphor  of  mind”  generated  an  understanding  of  human  cognition  that  demonstrates  how  we  acquire  new  information,  organize  our  thoughts,  and  retrieve  and  deploy  knowledge  in  new  situations.  These  constructs  still  inform  our  understanding  of  human  cognition.  But,  they  also  lead  us  to  the  second  distinction  made  in  contemporary  learning  theories—the  individual  versus  social  aspects  of  learning.    Behavioral  and  cognitive  science/information  processing  theories  of  learning  have  defined  learning  as  an  individual  process.  In  the  case  of  behaviorism,  learning  is  defined  as  a  lasting  behavior  change  often  accomplished  through  external  shaping.  In  information  processing  theories,  learning  is  defined  as  connecting  ideas  in  one’s  mind.  In  both  theories,  someone  other  than  the  learner  determines  what  is  learned,  while  the  processes  involved  in  learning  leave  little  room  for  agency.  Neither  theory  does  much  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  ideas  people  construct.  While  maintaining  some  aspects  of  behavioral  and  information  processing  theories,  contemporary  theories  of  learning  hold  that  learning  is  both  an  individual  and  a  social  activity.  Although  much  of  learning  is  accomplished  by  individuals,  learning  is  situated  in  socially  defined  settings  and  practices  and  is  accomplished  with  the  assistance  of  others.  Contemporary  theories  place  an  importance  upon  understanding  both  the  individual  and  social  aspects  of  learning.    Dewey  (1938/1991)  posited  that  all  human  activity  is  connected  to  the  things  we  have  already  done;  they  are  part  of  an  experienced  world.  All  of  our  reactions,  our  contemplations,  our  actions  are  informed  by  where  we  have  been  and  by  whom  we  have  encountered.  Individuals  do  construct  their  own  understanding  of  the  world  through  their  experiences,  but  they  interpret  their  experiences  with  the  assistance  of  more  knowledgeable  members  of  their  society  or  culture.    Vygotsky  (1978)  argued  that  learning  occurs  first  between  people—on  a  social  or  interpsychological  plane—and  second  within  the  learner—on  a  private  or  intrapsychological  plane.  Thus  learning,  according  to  Vygotsky,  occurs  in  the  “zone  of  proximal  development”  (ZPD)  which  is  defined  by  a  person’s  ability  to  solve  problems  independently  on  one  border  and  the  person's  ability  to  solve  problems  with  the  help  of  a  'more  knowledgeable  other'.  The  ZPD,  rather  than  being  a  trait  of  the  

6  |  P a g e    

individual  learner,  is  constructed  in  the  interaction  between  learners  and  the  more  knowledgeable  other  (MKO)  who  is  assisting  the  learner  at  that  time.  The  more  knowledgeable  the  MKO  and  the  more  willing  /  able  the  learner  is  to  work  with  the  MKO  the  greater  the  likelihood  of  learning  within  the  ZPD  at  a  specific  time.    Through  their  interactions  with  more  knowledgeable  people,  new  members  of  a  society  grow  into  the  intellectual  life  of  those  around  them.  What  counts  as  culturally  important  knowledge  is  passed  on  in  socially  defined  practices  and  the  cultural  norms  and  interactions  with  experienced  members  in  a  community.  We  turn  next  to  the  sociocultural  influences  on  people  and  their  learning.  

Socio-­‐cultural-­‐ethical  dimensions  of  teaching:  Relationship  between  teacher  and  students      Teaching  something  thoroughly  requires  understanding  not  only  the  disciplinary  content  knowledge,  but  also  understanding  and  mediating  the  learning  of  such  knowledge  within  the  context  of  specific  teacher  student  relationships.  In  response  to  rapidly  changing  demographics  in  classrooms,  teaching  and  learning  must  be  responsive  to  diverse  children,  families  and  their  communities.  Relationships  formed  between  teachers  and  students  must  be  based  in  understanding  of  students’  lives  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  classroom:  their  neighborhoods,  the  language  spoken  in  their  homes,  attributes  of  their  families  and  the  cultural  groups  with  whom  they  identify.  The  preparation  of  candidates  needs  to  include  helping  them  understanding  the  depth  and  types  of  relationships  developed  between  schools  and  communities/homes  and  schools/parents  and  teachers/teachers  and  students  as  well  as  understanding  the  ethical  constructs  involved  in  teacher  decision-­‐making.  Our  framework  for  this  involves  thinking  about  content  and  method  symbiotically  intertwining  one  with  the  other,  forming  a  base  from  which  candidates  learn  and  study  first-­‐hand  the  socio-­‐cultural  issues  of  race,  class,  gender  and  sexuality  that  impact  the  relationships  formed  inside  and  outside  of  classrooms.    This  foundation  is  formed  first  through  ongoing  study,  discussion  and  reflection  by  the  faculty  and  cooperating  teachers  who  work  with  the  candidates.  Establishing  a  common  vision  for  the  program  creates  the  base  to  support  intentionally  designed  intellectual  and  practical  experiences  for  pre-­‐service  teachers.  Without  buy-­‐in  and  coordination  from  all  people  and  programs  supporting  teacher  education,  the  best  hope  is  a  fragmented  experience  allowing  for  the  little  growth  beyond  what  students  already  know  and  replication  of  systems  and  classrooms  that  proclaim  socio-­‐cultural  understanding,  but  do  little  to  change  the  marginalization  or  gaps  that  occur  in  current  educational  settings.  We  use  a  three-­‐part  practicing  knowledge  model  that  includes  carefully  designed  classroom  experiences,  school-­‐based  components  and  community-­‐based  experiences  that  lead  to  the  possibility  of  student  teaching  in  diverse  settings  (Sleeter  2008).  This  framework  for  the  socio-­‐cultural  dimension  of  teaching  comes  from  emerging  work  supporting  community-­‐based  learning  as  an  important,  often  missing  component  in  teacher  preparation  programs  (Sleeter,  2008;  Villegas  &  Lucas  2002).  By  involving  candidates  in  classroom  and  community  activities  that  impact  student  lives,  candidates  begin  understanding  the  culture  and  lives  of  children  and  their  families.  This  three-­‐part  construction  works  to  integrate  content  and  support  the  study  of  the  identified  dimensions  of  our  program.  Those  dimensions  have  been  filtered  from  our  own  beliefs  and  work  of  current  scholars  studying  multicultural  education  and  diversity  issues  

7  |  P a g e    

(Banks  et  al.,  2005;  Cochran-­‐Smith,  2005;  Darling-­‐Hammond  &  Bransford,  2005;  Jordan-­‐Irvine,  2003;  Ladson-­‐Billings,  1999,  2004;  Sleeter,  2008;  Villegas,  2008;  Villegas  &  Lucas,  2002).  These  dimensions  are:    •  Candidate  selection—Disposition  to  responsible  change  •  Understanding  multiple  perspectives—developing  “socio-­‐cultural  consciousness”  •  Appreciation  of  diversity—recognizing  assets  •  Developing  global  and  community  based  understandings  of  student’s  lives    We  will  discuss  each  of  these  ideas  and  their  contribution  to  the  framing  of  the  socio-­‐cultural  dimension  of  teaching  as  well  as  their  interface  with  our  “practicing  knowledge”  model.    Dimensions  of  socio-­‐cultural  understanding:  Candidate  Selection:  It’s  all  about  attitude.  Increasingly  involved  in  program  admittance  is  consideration  of  the  traits  that  students  bring  with  them  to  the  teacher  education  program.  Their  willingness  to  work  with  all  children  regardless  of  race,  socio-­‐economic  class,  gender,  and  ability  becomes  an  important  benchmark  of  their  openness  to  ideas  that  will  be  presented  during  their  program  at  WSU.  Believing  that  all  children  have  the  capacity  and  right  to  learn  is  an  ever-­‐growing  signifier  of  their  abilities  to  form  relationships  and  work  with  children  who  may  differ  from  themselves.  This  is  an  especially  important  trait  at  our  predominantly  white,  rural  and  Midwestern  University  where  students  often  come  from  homogeneous  backgrounds  with  little  experience  with  students  other  than  those  who  are  similar  to  themselves.  We  realize  however,  that  those  once  homogenous  communities  have  a  changing  population  that  is  quickly  becoming  more  heterogeneous.  This  diversity  will  form  the  classrooms  in  which  our  candidates  teach  and  work.  Candidates’  openness  to  examining  continuing  changes  to  our  schools  and  communities  will  be  crucial  to  their  success  as  teachers.    Understanding  multiple  perspectives:  Developing  “socio-­‐cultural  consciousness.”  Through  the  program's  course  offerings,  special  events,  and  carefully  designed  field  experiences  leading  to  student  teaching,  the  program  helps  develop  a  “socio-­‐cultural  consciousness”  or  an  individual  understanding  that  attitudes,  behaviors  and  being  are  deeply  influenced  by  such  factors  as  race,  ethnicity,  social  class,  gender  and  sexuality.  This  is  needed  to  help  teachers  respect  all  learners  and  their  experiences  to  begin  identifying  the  attributes  and  perspectives  that  all  students  bring  with  them  from  their  family  settings  and  backgrounds  (Darling-­‐Hammond  &  Bransford,  2005;  Villegas  &  Lucas,  2002),  and  to  mediate  learning  through  such  socio-­‐cultural  awareness.  In  order  to  fully  understand  and  gain  socio-­‐cultural  consciousness  pre-­‐service  teachers  must  look  both  through  an  individual  lens  at  their  own  identities  as  well  as  understand  the  complex  connections  between  schools  and  society.    Initially  students  must  encounter  opportunities  to  examine  their  own  socio-­‐cultural  identities.  While  students  may  enter  the  program  with  a  strong  sense  of  who  they  are  and  where  they  come  from,  they  must  be  prompted  to  inquire  about  the  different  experiences  and  beliefs  that  have  shaped  their  beliefs.  They  do  this  by  examining  the  various  social  and  cultural  groups  to  which  they  belong.  Saying  that  they  are  “American”  doesn’t  look  far  or  deep  enough.  Rather  they  are  offered  opportunities  to  explore  the  events  of  their  personal  and  family  histories  that  have  impacted  their  worldview.  Guiding  this  discovery  

8  |  P a g e    

are  explorations  of  social  location,  gender  issues,  and  geographical  location.  Through  this  process  candidates  reflect  upon  specified  aspects  of  themselves  and  engage  in  conversations  with  others,  as  they  begin  unraveling  the  understandings  they  have  grown  up  with  and  see  that  these  are  not  universal  experiences  shared  by  everyone.  At  this  point  they  begin  discussing  how  culture  has  shaped  their  views  and  what  this  might  mean  in  relation  to  students.  As  Bernstein  said,  “If  the  culture  of  the  teacher  is  to  become  part  of  the  consciousness  of  the  child,  then  the  culture  of  the  child  must  first  be  in  the  consciousness  of  the  teacher”  (cited  in  (Darling-­‐Hammond  &  Bransford,  2005).    Once  an  understanding  of  personal  socio-­‐cultural  consciousness  is  initiated  a  more  complex  understanding  of  multicultural  perspectives  begins  as  relations  between  schools  and  society  are  explored.  Pulling  apart  stratified  societal  layers  along  race  and  class  lines  opens  opportunities  to  explore  questions  of  status  and  its  relation  to  easily  visible  and  hidden  power  differentials  in  public  structures.  Where  one  is  located  in  this  construction  deeply  affect  one’s  experience  in  the  world.  Bringing  in  issues  of  social  mobility,  meritocracy,  and  inequality  invoke  questions  in  relation  to  historical  and  institutional  perspectives  of  education.  Candidates  have  opportunities  to  consider  and  question  the  degree  to  which  schools  have  offered  equal  opportunities  for  everyone,  allowing  individual  success  for  their  merits  or  talents  (Bowles  &  Gintis,  1976).  They  further  develop  their  socio-­‐cultural  consciousness  by  probing  whether  reform  issues  like  tracking  or  desegregation  have  succeeded  in  changing  or  perpetuating  institutionally  biased  practices.  The  seemingly  simple  relations  between  teachers  and  students  are  made  much  more  complex  by  larger  external  forces  (politics,  policies,  reforms)  that  have  an  impact  on  the  context  of  practice.  Gaining  socio-­‐cultural  competence  requires  examining  both  formal  and  informal  systems  of  schools  and  making  difficult  realizations  that  existing  school  structures,  thought  to  represent  possibilities  for  advancement,  often  reproduce  the  very  inequalities  that  they  claim  to  solve.  In  order  to  work  within  and  advocate  change  candidates  must  understand  how  these  structures  work  and  be  lead  through  the  ethics  of  decision  making  for  such  complex  problems.    Using  the  practicing  knowledge  model  allows  students  throughout  their  program  to  wrestle  with  these  complex  questions  first  through  guided  classroom  readings  and  discussions  as  they  unravel  their  own  identities  and  later  as  they  tackle  the  even  more  complex  questions  about  the  role  of  societal  and  institutional  structure.  Opportunities  to  observe  various  school  structures  first  hand  as  well  as  participate  in  understanding  community  components  that  influence  school  decision  making  (such  as  school  board  meetings,  community  economic  base  and  state  legislative  process)  all  become  supportive  experiences  in  helping  students  begin  developing  their  socio-­‐cultural  awareness.    Appreciation  of  diversity:  Recognizing  assets.  Thinking  about  the  terms  used  within  discussions  of  multicultural  education  offer  a  perspective  of  the  progression  of  the  field’s  thinking  about  culturally  and  linguistically  diverse  learners  (AACTE,  2002)  and  helps  think  about  its  position  within  teacher  education  at  WSU.  The  terms  are:  

•  Acculturation—process  of  learning  about  and  living  in  another/second  culture.  •  Assimilation—individuals  who  are  expected  to  relinquish  their  own  cultural  (and  sometimes          language)  identity.  •  Adaptation—individuals  who  maintain  their  own  cultural  heritage  (and  frequently  language)  as    

9  |  P a g e    

     they  learn  another.  •  One-­‐way  accommodation—when  students  are  viewed  as  culturally  deprived  or  genetically          inferior  to  those  who  are  successful  •  Mutual  accommodation—when  teachers  and  schools  recognize  and  build  upon  the  resources            and  assets  that  students  bring  to  the  school.  

 Historically  the  terminology  of  multicultural  education  has  moved  from  discussions  of  assimilation  in  the  last  decades  to  views  of  mutual  accommodation  or  pluralism.  Advocates  of  pluralism  do  not  believe  in  the  separation  of  one  group  from  another,  but  rather  encourage  the  preservation  of  linguistic  and  cultural  differences  through  respectful  interaction  and  communication  that  help  one  another  understand  differences  (Villegas,  2008).  As  interactions  are  encouraged  new  understandings  are  constructed  locally  which  can  be  used  in  forming  relationships  between  students  and  teachers.  This  idea  is  further  explained  by  Carl  Grant  and  Aubree  Potter  (Grant  &  Potter,  (in  press).    

 Constructive  pluralism  is  a  form  of  “pluralism”  which  pays  particular  attention  to  “minority  and  marginalized  groups”  in  a  society  in  that  it  seeks,  acts  and  needs  their  active  participation.  It  is  “constructive”  because  it  is  created,  or  built,  through  the  participation  of  groups  with  one  another.  It  goes  beyond  the  awareness  and  acceptance  of  diversity,  contending  that  “diversity”  is  not  authentic  (structured)  engagement  among  group  of  people,  and  that  it  is  not  pluralism.  Constructive  pluralism  requires  that  groups  strive  to  see  each  other  through  the  perspectives  of  the  particular  group.  The  development  of  a  democratic  community  is  not  about  minority  groups  being  assimilated  into  mainstream  culture,  completing  adopting  mainstream  values  and  only  using  mainstream  language.  

 This  view  moves  educational  discussions  away  from  looking  at  deficit  ways  of  viewing  students  from  poverty  and  marginalized  racial  groups.  Rather,  the  central  focus  shifts  to  the  recognition  of  assets  existing  within  households  and  communities.  Physical  resources  such  as  books  and  newspapers,  family  practices,  behavioral  patterns,  and  values  all  become  important  assets  when  teaching  children  and  forming  dialogic  relationships  with  families.  This  view  requires  teachers  to  begin  moving  beyond  strictly  knowing  their  students  within  the  contexts  of  classrooms  and  encourages  them  to  begin  understanding  the  lived  experiences  of  children’s  lives  as  a  way  to  better  understand  their  in-­‐school  behavior  and  as  a  way  to  incorporate  the  “funds  of  knowledge”  possessed  by  their  families  (Gonzáles,  Moll,  &  Amanti,  2005.  This  approach  better  prepares  teachers  to  meet  children  where  they  are  at  and  increases  their  motivation  to  learn  (Ladson-­‐Billings,  1994)    While  there  are  social,  cultural  and  political  differences  recognized  between  groups  in  society,  the  responsibility  of  teachers  is  to  facilitate  relationships  with  students  that  provide  access  to  ways  that  allow  them  to  operate  within  the  mainstream  of  society.  This  is  an  important  connecting  point  for  the  other  dimensions  of  teaching  talked  about  in  this  conceptual  framework  and  will  be  more  thoroughly  discussed  in  the  last  section.  The  complexity  of  providing  instrumental  knowledge  and  skills  for  students  is  found  in  teaching  teachers  to  build  from  what  students  know,  rather  than  thinking  they  must  replace  what  students  bring  with  them  to  school  (Lucas,  Villegas,  &  Freedson-­‐Gonzalez,  2008).  Finding  ways  to  impart  knowledge  without  privileging  or  devaluing  personal/cultural  belief  systems  is  essential  to  

10  |  P a g e    

appreciating  diversity  and  forming  relationships  which  encourage  each  child’s  success.    Being  able  to  talk  openly  and  frequently  about  issues  of  race,  class,  gender  and  sexuality  is  an  important  part  of  the  teacher  education  process  as  candidates  learn  to  identify  and  appreciate  hidden  issues  not  always  identifiable  as  racist  or  sexist  ways  of  thinking.  Racism  in  education  is  not  usually  openly  expressed,  but  rather  Ladson-­‐Billings  cites  a  definition  used  by  Wellman  that  better  describes  the  type  of  racism  “usually  experienced  by  students  from  teachers,”  that  is  “culturally  sanctioned  beliefs  which,  regardless  of  the  intentions  involved,  defend  the  advantages  whites  have  because  of  the  subordinated  positions  of  racial  minorities.”  (cited  in  Ladson-­‐Billings,  1999).  To  fully  comprehend  these  invisible  undiagnosed  barriers  that  prevent  forming  relationships  with  students,  many  opportunities  that  allow  questioning  the  ideas  that  have  often  stereotyped  behaviors  of  ethnic  and  minority  groups  must  exist.  Ideas  that  are  believed  to  be  “normal”  are  presented  so  that  pre-­‐service  teachers  can  deconstruct  these  notions  finding  a  wide  rather  than  narrow  continuum  of  characteristics  that  describe  and  are  practiced  by  different  groups  of  people.  This  construction  of  “normal”  makes  it  difficult  to  essentialize  and  attribute  specific  traits  to  any  one  group.  Through  this  practice  pre-­‐service  teachers  begin  understanding  the  wide  variations  that  exist  within  any  ethnic  category  and  avoid  the  development  of  the  “tourist  approach”  to  multicultural  education  and  stereotyped  understandings  that  guide  relationship  formation  between  teachers  and  students  (Gonzales-­‐Mena,  2008).    One  of  the  greatest  challenges  for  WSU  is  offering  experiences  that  offer  opportunities  to  observe  and  interact  first-­‐hand  with  differences  beyond  the  borders  of  campus  and  community  settings.  For  students  who  have  grown  up  in  urban  centers,  Winona  and  its  rural  surroundings  offers  some  decidedly  different  opportunities.  On  the  other  hand,  for  those  who  have  come  from  small  or  rural  communities  the  setting  is  familiar.  The  challenge  is  extending  the  experience  for  all  students  so  that  they  begin  exploring  and  understanding  the  global  community,  which  is  increasingly  becoming  part  of  every  community.    Developing  global  and  community  based  understandings  of  student’s  lives.  Connecting  with  and  understanding  peoples  who  share  different  backgrounds  has  increasingly  become  a  mantra  in  teacher  education  and  increasingly  encouraged  through  interactions  outside  of  the  classroom  (Gonzáles,  2001;  Ladson-­‐Billings,  1999;  Sleeter,  2008;  Villegas  &  Lucas,  2007;  Zeichner,  2003).  The  formation  of  these  relationships  between  teachers  and  students  cannot  be  left  to  chance  or  taken  for  granted.  Teacher  candidates  need  practice  in  thinking  about  how  students’  learning  experiences  from  their  outside-­‐the-­‐classroom  worlds  connect  to  bits  of  knowledge  being  taught  inside  the  classroom.  Students  need  help  in  connecting  the  relevance  of  classroom  knowledge  to  their  lives  and  the  world  outside  of  the  classroom.  This  requires  detailed  understanding  of  children  and  their  families  and  the  formation  of  relationships  with  both.  Using  the  practicing  knowledge  model,  careful  course  planning  and  diverse  field/clinical  experiences  candidates  are  lead  to  greater  understanding  of  both  the  complexity  and  method  of  forming  respectful  rapport  between  teachers  and  their  students.  

 As  candidates  begin  wrestling  with  the  complexity  of  relationships,  many  of  the  thoughts  expressed  in  earlier  sections  of  this  socio-­‐cultural  dimension  form  the  framework  for  this  process—their  overall  dispositional  understanding  of  students;  developing  a  socio-­‐cultural  consciousness,  and  appreciating  

11  |  P a g e    

diversity.  The  method  becomes  a  carefully  constructed  process  that  is  consciously  nurtured  throughout  their  program  by  developing  ways  of  observing  and  participating  in  diverse  cultural  settings.  In  following  the  practicing  knowledge  model  these  experiences  lead  students  to  both  classroom  and  community-­‐based  settings.  Believing  that  students  must  first  understand  the  communities  from  which  their  students  come  and  develop  an  ability  to  read  the  contextual  layers  of  a  particular  setting  or  organization,  leads  to  knowing  that  forms  an  environment  for  their  classroom  practice.  This  provides  a  setting  for  candidates  to  begin  blending  historic  and  current  literature  with  the  human  aspects  of  practice.  

 Beyond  gaining  the  contextual  understanding  of  practice,  candidates  begin  to  see  and  understand  the  mixture  of  external  forces  that  greatly  shape  all  efforts  within  schools.  External  forces  such  as  policies,  politics,  and  public  opinion  work  shaping  the  larger  contexts  of  educational  practices  that  are  often  invisible  to  teacher  candidates,  but  have  great  affect  on  the  relationships  that  are  formed.  From  the  time  students  enter  WSU  they  are  encouraged  to  participate  in  service  learning  opportunities  within  local  and  global  communities.  These  often  random  experiences,  offer  students  a  look  at  the  people  and  structures  that  exist  within  communities.  As  students  enter  the  teacher  education  program  these  community  and  global  experiences  become  more  purposefully  focused  on  children’s  lives  as  candidates  work  in  community-­‐based  activity  and  tutoring  programs  that  offer  opportunities  to  observe  children  interacting  with  peers,  families,  and  other  adults  in  a  variety  of  settings.  Additionally,  candidates  are  encouraged  to  travel  to  urban,  regional  and  international  settings  that  offer  more  concrete  experiences  with  racial,  ethnic  and  socio-­‐cultural  diversity  than  is  available  in  southeastern  Minnesota.  By  looking  beyond  comfortable  borders  students  are  encouraged  to  question  their  own  understandings  of  race,  class,  gender,  and  sexuality  issues.  By  broadening  and  deepening  existing  understandings  single  ideas  begin  forming  continuums  which  move  beyond  ideas  constructed  around  stereotypes.  As  they  begin  understanding  the  fluidity  with  which  people  and  ideas  do  and  do  not  move  within  established  socio-­‐cultural  norms  they  can  begin  examining  how  people  and  understandings  become  hybrid  based  on  multiple  influences  and  existing  discourses.  Teacher  education  students  recognize  that  this  continual  bumping  of  ideas  and  identities  construct  understandings  that  can  (mis)inform  local  practices  and  greatly  influence  relationships  inside  and  outside  of  educational  institutions.  

 It  is  believed  that  these  community  and  globally  based  understandings  travel  with  teachers  into  classrooms  as  they  begin  working  with  children  and  encourage  teachers  to  begin  opening  their  classroom  doors  to  the  larger  world  outside.  It  is  this  reciprocal  connection  with  the  world  that  begins  preparing  students  for  careers,  citizenry,  and  life-­‐long  learning.  Culturing  these  complex  educational  dispositions  is  increasingly  made  possible  by  the  intentionality  of  the  relationships  that  are  formed  between  teachers  and  students.  As  presented  in  this  section,  the  socio-­‐cultural  dimension  of  teaching  becomes  increasingly  complex  as  the  context  of  our  communities  and  world  is  changing  and  issues  of  social  justice  are  identified  as  pivotal  to  our  understanding  of  relationships  between  teachers  and  students.    Being  constantly  mindful  of  this  in  practice  and  decision-­‐making  becomes  a  hallmark  of  professionally  respected  teachers.  This  will  be  more  thoroughly  addressed  in  the  final  section  of  the  framework.  Next  

12  |  P a g e    

we  will  discuss  pedagogical  practices  of  teaching  as  they  interlock  with  each  of  the  previously  discussed  dimensions.  

PEDAGOGICAL  DIMENSIONS  OF  TEACHING  

As  previously  noted,  the  power  of  the  model  described  in  Figure  1  lies  in  the  interactions  among  the  model’s  four  elements.  The  ensuing  discussions  of  the  psychological,  social-­‐moral,  and  intellectual  dimensions  of  teaching  intertwine  to  provide  a  basis  for  the  pedagogical  dimensions.  None  may  be  successfully  separated  from  the  other.  Repeatedly  observed  in  each  of  those  sections  are  the  words  construct,  connect,  context,  and  reflect.  Just  as  the  dimensions  may  not  be  extricated  one  from  the  other,  each  of  these  entwines  to  represent  a  critical  facet  of  relevant  pedagogy  for  teaching  the  children  of  the  21st  century.  No  element  is  viewed  in  isolation.    Pedagogical  dimensions  of  teaching  include  “the  special  understandings  and  abilities  that  skilled  teachers  use  in  their  efforts  to  help  students  understand  complex  ideas”  (SciMathMN,  1998,  p.  3).  Expanding  on  the  earlier  discussion  of  Shulman  and  pedagogical  content  knowledge  (PCK),  this  PCK  must  integrate  deep  understanding  and  knowledge  of  the  subject  matter  with  informed,  research-­‐based  knowledge  about  successful  teaching,  or  pedagogy  (SciMathMN,  1998,  p.  3).  Not  only  do  preservice  teachers  need  to  be  knowledgeable  about  content  in  their  area(s)  and  appropriate  pedagogical  methodology,  but  they  must  understand  the  current  research  about  how  children  learn  to  be  effective  teachers  in  the  21st  century.      However,  possessing  an  understanding  of  the  theoretical  framework  and  current  research-­‐based  ideas  about  how  children  learn  presents  challenges  for  today’s  preservice  teachers.  No  longer  is  it  acceptable  to  teach  only  by  lecture,  for  pure  rote  memorization  of  subject  matter  to  be  regurgitated  at  some  future  point  or  by  using  a  few  fancy  activities.  This  presents  challenges  because  the  latter  likely  describes  the  way  our  preservice  teachers  were  educated.  Once  misconceptions  about  teaching  have  been  incorporated  into  one’s  thinking,  they  prove  difficult  to  eradicate.  Irrelevant  lessons  or  frivolous  exercises  decrease  students’  ability  to  integrate  new  knowledge.  As  Morrone  and  Tarr  (2005)  note,  student  learning  is  better  served  by  using  the  research-­‐based  theories  about  learning  rather  than  a  mere  “bag  of  tricks”  (p.  7).  Students  must  be  actively  engaged  in  their  learning,  and  we  must  link  current  learning  theory  to  practice  (Mueller  &  Skamp,  2003).      Piaget  (Morrone  &  Tarr,  2005)  and  Vygotsky  (Morrone  &  Tarr,  2005;  SciMathMN,  1998;  Vygotsky,  1978)  are  often  associated  with  a  constructivist  approach  to  learning.  The  constructivist  approach  moved  the  concept  of  learning  from  the  “blank  slates  to  be  filled”  or  behaviorist  thinking  to  the  idea  that  the  student  learns  by  his  or  her  own  construction  of  knowledge.  Pedagogy  changed  from  a  strict  and  constant  direct  instruction  approach  to  one  of  active  engagement  (Beswick,  2006;  Hart,  2002;  Lowery,  2002;  Mewborn  &  Stinson;  NCTM,  2000).  One  may  not  merely  fill  a  child’s  head  with  information  and  expect  it  to  be  understood  and  transferred  to  new  learning  situations.  Children  must  construct  their  own  knowledge  through  action  and  reflection.  “New  understandings  are  both  personally  and  socially  constructed  or  negotiated.  Our  social  and  cultural  interactions  influence  the  way  we  make  sense  of  the  

13  |  P a g e    

natural  world.  While  we  can  explain  things  to  others,  we  cannot  understand  it  for  them”  (SciMathMN,  1998,  p.  7).  Time  becomes  a  factor  as  the  construction  of  new  knowledge  requires  “sufficient  experiences  in  a  variety  of  contexts”  (SciMathMN,  1998,  p.  ).  Time  ensures  the  opportunity  for  engagement  and  reflection.        Vygotsky’s  (1978)  social  constructivist  learning  theory  states  that  children  learn  through  social  encounters  and  collaboration.  The  context  of  their  lessons  helps  actively  engage  them  in  their  learning.  When  students  work  with  teachers  and  others  to  share  ideas  and  meanings;  students  develop  their  own  conclusions.  They  learn  within  the  social  framework.  The  students  further  refine,  construct,  and  reconstruct  their  thoughts  and  ideas.  “Students  must  have  opportunities  to  explicitly  share  their  ideas  with  other  students,  reflect  on  similarities  and  differences  between  these  ideas,  and  revise  their  ideas  and  solutions  as  necessary”  (SciMathMN,  1995,  p.    ?).  Learning  needs  to  be  active  and  engaging.    While  writing  lesson  plans  and  units  are  essential  components  of  preservice  teacher  preparation,  these  are  merely  the  conduits  requisite  to  deliver  well-­‐designed  and  meaningful  lessons  that  foster  deep  conceptual  understanding.  Planning  allows  candidates  and  teachers  to  begin  construction  of  their  own  knowledge  through  active  engagement  in  establishing  learning  experiences  for  their  students.  Today’s  teachers  must  consider  not  only  content  but  the  relevance  of  the  learning  experiences  within  the  student’s  own  cultural  context.  PCK  further  “incorporates  understanding  of  content,  curriculum,  learning,  and  teaching  so  that  teachers  can  make  effective  decisions  about  learning  outcomes,  curriculum  materials,  teaching  strategies,  and  assessment  tasks”  (SciMathMN,  1998,  p.  3).  Informed  decision  making  becomes  essential  in  today’s  pedagogical  considerations.  Teachers  must  take  into  account  students’  prior  knowledge,  as  well.  Assessment,  whether  formal  or  informal,  helps  inform  and  drive  all  academic  decisions.      Appropriate  formal  and  informal  assessment  becomes  a  critical  practice  that  focus  on  the  effectiveness  of  instruction,  which  is  aligned  with  the  curriculum  and  the  actual  instruction  taking  place  in  the  classroom.  Assessment  needs  to  “mirror  real-­‐life  skills  and  knowledge,  represent  instructional  practice,  document  what  students  know  and  can  do,  and  provide  feedback  about  the  quality  of  curriculum,  instruction,  and  achievement”  (SciMathMN,  1997,  p.  10).  Learning  to  create  meaningful  tasks  for  both  instruction  and  assessment  (Borich  &  Tombari,  2004)  allow  will  allow  the  preservice  teacher  through  thoughtful  reflection  and  analysis  to  recognize  and  understand  pupil  learning.  In  order  to  maximize  our  goal  of  pupil  learning  (Stiggins,  2001),  we  must  foster  the  candidate’s  comfort  and  success  with  using  multiple,  relevant  assessments.  One  important  understanding  must  be  that  not  only  do  assessments  assess  pupil  learning,  but  they  also  assess  the  teacher’s  effectiveness  at  delivering  curriculum.  By  doing  a  good  job  of  assessing  students,  our  preservice  teachers  can,  in  turn,  do  a  better  job  of  teaching  (Popham,  2005)  all  students.      Today’s  scholars  understand  the  importance  of  a  culturally  responsive  pedagogy,  which  can  lead  to  a  culturally  relevant  pedagogy  as  defined  by  Ladson-­‐Billings  (1995).  For  instance,  Ladson-­‐Billings  cites  a  number  of  examples  of  student  success  because  teachers  took  the  time  to  incorporate  “aspects  of  students’  cultural  backgrounds  into  their  …instruction”  (p.  466).  Lipka,  Hogan,  Webster,  Yanez,  Adams,  

14  |  P a g e    

Clark,  and  et  al.,  (2005)  describe  the  success  of  a  program  that  incorporates  language,  inquiry,  and  cultural  connections  to  create  successful  learning  conditions  and  student  achievement.  Teaching  and  learning  in  context  (Taylor,  2000)  is  important  for  today’s  learners,  particularly  those  of  diverse  race,  ethnicity,  language,  or  social  class  (Ladson-­‐Billings,  1995).  Also,  youths  have  “valuable  experiences  and  knowledge  from  their  home  and  culture  that  could  play  important  roles  for  connecting  their  lives  to  school  content  knowledge”  (Nam,  2010,  p.  2).  Nam  (2010)  encourages  teachers  to  “Use  more  relevant  topics  and  knowledge  from  the  students’  everyday  life  experience  or  cultural  context”  (p.  2).  Teachers  must  help  students  to  construct  and  forge  conceptual  conceptions  (Cardash  &  Wallace,  2001)  and  engage  students  through  inquiry  (Wang  &  Lin,  2005)  in  a  collaborative  environment.  Making  essential  connections  between  students’  lives  and  learning  should  form  the  foundation  of  teaching  in  today’s  classrooms.      Lortie  (1975)  noted  that  students  enter  education  programs  with  strong  preconceptions  stemming  from  students’  beliefs  that  they  know  and  understand  teaching  because  they  have  spent  more  than  13,000  hours  in  classrooms  by  the  time  they  enter  college.  However,  preservice  teachers  have  only  observed  teaching  from  a  participant  perspective  that  is  more  imaginary  than  real  (Lortie,  1975).  One  missing  component  from  the  preservice  teacher  perspective  is  their  ability  to  reflect  on  the  actual  practice  of  teaching  as  they  enter  the  education  program.  Kagan  (1992)  notes  that  preservice  teachers  maintain  their  beliefs  about  what  constitutes  successful  teaching,  and  that  “McLaughlin  (1991)  found  little  evidence  of  preservice  teachers’  reflection”  (Kagan,  1992,  p.  140).  Preservice  teachers  need  to  be  explicitly  taught  how  to  become  reflective  learners  and  practitioners  (Morgan,  1999)  along  with  content,  pedagogy,  and  immersion  in  clinical  experiences.  Claus  (1999)  recommends  that  preservice  teachers  be  taught  to  develop  perspectives  and  skills  fundamental  to  broad  critical  reflection.  Lewis  (2000)  further  describes  reflection  as  part  of  a  system  of  continuous  improvement.  Continuous  improvement  requires  the  candidate  and  teacher  to  reflect  on  instruction  and  data  from  a  multitude  of  formal  and  informal  assessments  to  generate  appropriate  student  learning  activities.  Having  a  guided  opportunity  to  reflect  on  practice  with  mentors  and  professors  has  been  shown  to  be  highly  effective  (Youngs,2007).  Yopp  and  Guillaume  (1999)  promote  reflection  on  teaching  and  learning  as  a  means  of  blending  theory  and  pedagogy  that  enables  the  preservice  engage  in  thoughtful  discussion  based  on  observation  and  practice  as  a  further  means  of  integrating  their  experiences  into  the  reality  of  teaching.      Reflection    Nationally,  and  even  internationally,  departments,  schools,  and  colleges  of  education  speak  of  reflective  teaching  as  a  major  component  of  their  respective  philosophies.    We,  at  Winona  State  University,  also  include  this  as  a  major  element  in  our  teacher  preparation  programs.    It  is  most  important  to  know  how  reflective  teaching  has  been  defined,  how  to  describe  it,  and  what  it  looks  like.      

Defining  Reflective  Teaching  

Discussions  of  reflective  teaching  typically  begin  with  the  iconic  educator  John  Dewey  who  in  1933  considered  reflectivity  as  a  core  necessity  in  effective  teaching  (in  Canning,  1991).    He  considered  

15  |  P a g e    

reflection  as  behaviors  that  entail  the  active,  determined,  and  thorough  consideration  of  beliefs  and/or  practices  in  light  of  the  grounds  that  support  them  and  further  implications  to  which  they  might  lead.    In  other  words,  teachers  have  certain  philosophical  viewpoints  regarding  teaching  and  learning  that  might  be  reinforced  or  negated  according  to  the  results  observed  after  instructional  engagement.    

The  editor  of  the  British  journal  Teaching  English  provide  the  following  illumination:  “Reflective  teaching  means  looking  at  what  you  do  in  the  classroom,  thinking  about  why  you  do  it,  and  thinking  about  if  it  works  -­‐  a  process  of  self-­‐observation  and  self-­‐evaluation.  By  collecting  information  about  what  goes  on  in  our  classroom,  and  by  analyzing  and  evaluating  this  information,  we  identify  and  explore  our  own  practices  and  underlying  beliefs.  This  may  then  lead  to  changes  and  improvements  in  our  teaching”  (Tice,  2011).  

Farrell  (1995)  defines  reflective  teaching  very  succinctly.    “Reflection  in  teaching  refers  to  teachers  subjecting  their  beliefs  and  practices  of  teaching  to  a  critical  analysis”  (p.  94).    The  reader  should  now  be  seeing  commonalities  among  these  definitions.    One  last  definition  will  be  provided.  

Taggart  and  Wilson  (2005)  wrote,  “Reflective  thinking  is  the  process  of  making  informed  and  logical  decisions  on  educational  matters,  then  assessing  the  consequences  of  those  decisions”  (p.1).  

Describing  Reflective  Teaching  

Reflective  teaching  is  a  process  that  involves  some  basic  principles.  Bartlett  (1990)  suggested  ten  such  principles  describing  necessities  for  teachers  engaging  in  reflective  teaching  practices.  

1.  The  issue  upon  which  the  teacher  reflects  must  occur  in  the  social  context  where  teaching  occurs.      

  2.  The  teacher  must  be  interested  in  the  problem  to  be  resolved.      

3.  The  issue  must  be  owned  by  the  teacher  -­‐  that  is,  derived  from  his  or  her  own  practice.      

4.  Reflection  on  the  issue  involves  problem  solving  from  the  teaching  situation  in  which  the  teacher  is  located.      

5.  Ownership  of  the  identified  issue  and  its  solution  is  vested  in  the  teacher.      

  6.  Systematic  procedures  are  necessary.      

7.  Information  (observations)  about  the  issues  must  be  derived  from  the  teacher's  experience  of  teaching.      

  8.  The  teacher's  ideas  need  to  be  tested  through  the  practice  of  teaching.      

9.  Ideas  about  teaching,  once  tested  through  practice,  must  lead  to  some  course  of  action.  There  is  a  tension  between  idea  and  action  which  is  reflexive;  once  it  is  tested  the  action  rebounds  back  on  the  idea  which  informed  it.      

16  |  P a g e    

10.  Hence,  reflective  action  may  be  transformed  into  new  understandings  and  refined  practice  in  teaching.  (p.  207-­‐8)  

Richards  (1990)  describes  the  parameters  of  how  reflective  teaching  as  a  three-­‐part  process:  

  Stage  1  The  event  itself  

 The  starting  point  is  an  actual  teaching  episode,  such  as  a  lesson  or  other  instructional  event.  While  the  focus  of  critical  reflection  is  usually  the  teacher’s  own  teaching,  self-­‐reflection  can  also  be  stimulated  by  observation  of  another  person’s  teaching.    

    Stage  2    Recollection  of  the  event    

The  next  stage  in  reflective  examination  of  an  experience  is  an  account  of  what  happened,  without  explanation  or  evaluation.  Several  different  procedures  are  available  during  the  recollection  phase,  including  written  descriptions  of  an  event,  a  video  or  audio  recording  of  an  event,  or  the  use  of  check  lists  or  coding  systems  to  capture  details  of  the  event.    

    Stage  3  Review  and  response  to  the  event  

 Following  a  focus  on  objective  description  of  the  event,  the  participant  returns  to  the  event  and  reviews  it.  The  event  is  now  processed  at  a  deeper  level,  and  questions  are  asked  about  the  experience.

What  It  Looks  Like  

There  are  some  very  practical  activities  that  teachers  can  do  to  become  more  reflective  teachers.    Here  is  a  list  of  some  of  the  practices  that  should  lead  to  more  reflective  teaching.  

• Peer  Observations.    Peer  observations  would  involve  teachers  observing  and  being  observed.    This  typically  involves  a  pre-­‐teaching  session  where  teachers  discuss  the  objectives,  materials,  the  approach(es)/techniques  to  be  used,  and  how  the  lesson  would  be  evaluated.    After  the  initial  session,  the  in-­‐class  observation  is  conducted.    As  soon  as  possible,  the  teachers  meet  to  discuss  the  positives  and  limitations  of  the  lesson.    

• Journal  Writing.    This  is  a  practice  requiring  significant  self-­‐analysis.    It  also  provides  a  more  permanent  record  of  reflectivity.    Powell  (1985)  and  Bailey  (1990)  have  discussed  the  goals  of  journal  writing  as  it  applies  to  reflective  teaching:  

1.  To  provide  a  record  of  the  significant  learning  experiences  that  have  taken  place;    

2.  To  help  the  participant  come  into  touch  and  keep  in  touch  with  the  self-­‐development  process  that  is  taking  place  for  them;    

3.  To  provide  the  participants  with  an  opportunity  to  express,  in  a  personal  and  dynamic  way,  their  self-­‐development;    

    4.  To  foster  a  creative  interaction:    

17  |  P a g e    

      *  between  the  participant  and  the  self-­‐development  process  that  is  taking  place;  

 *  between  the  participant  and  other  participants  who  are  also  in  the  process  of  self-­‐development;    

 *between  the  participant  and  the  facilitator  whose  role  it  is  to  foster.  

• Recording  Lessons.    Video  recording  lessons  allows  the  teacher  to  view  his  or  her  lesson  and  critique  the  efficacy  of  his  or  her  teaching,  the  effectiveness  of  materials  used,  his  or  her  clarity  in  lesson  delivery,  and  student  reactions  to  the  lesson.  

 

What  Do  I  Do  With  Reflective  Data?  

  Tice  (2011),  the  editor  of  Teaching  English,  suggests  four  follow-­‐up  activities  for  teachers  engaged  in  reflective  teaching  strategies.    Although  the  journal  is  intended  for  teachers  of  the  English  communication  arts,  they  are  applicable  to  most  reflective  teaching  situations.    They  are  as  follows:  

Think                      You  may  have  noticed  patterns  occurring  in  your  teaching  through  your  observation.  

You  may  also  have  noticed  things  that  you  were  previously  unaware  of.  You  may  have  been  surprised  by  some  of  your  students'  feedback.  You  may  already  have  ideas  for  changes  to  implement.  

  Talk                      Just  by  talking  about  what  you  have  discovered  -­‐  to  a  supportive  colleague  or  even  a  

friend  -­‐  you  may  be  able  to  come  up  with  some  ideas  for  how  to  do  things  differently.  If  you  have  colleagues  who  also  wish  to  develop  their  teaching  using  reflection  as  a  tool,  you  can  meet  to  discuss  issues.  Discussion  can  be  based  around  scenarios  from  your  own  classes.  Using  a  list  of  statements  about  teaching  beliefs  (for  example,  pairwork  is  a  valuable  activity  in  the  language  class  or  lexis  is  more  important  than  grammar)  you  can  discuss  which  ones  you  agree  or  disagree  with,  and  which  ones  are  reflected  in  your  own  teaching  giving  evidence  from  your  self-­‐observation.  

  Read                      You  may  decide  that  you  need  to  find  out  more  about  a  certain  area.  There  are  plenty  of  

websites  for  teachers  of  English  now  where  you  can  find  useful  teaching  ideas,  or  more  academic  articles.  There  are  also  magazines  for  teachers  where  you  can  find  articles  on  a  wide  range  of  topics.  Or  if  you  have  access  to  a  library  or  bookshop,  there  are  plenty  of  books  for  English  language  teachers.  

 

18  |  P a g e    

Pose  questions  to  websites  or  magazines  to  get  ideas  from  other      teachers.    If        you  have  a  local  teachers'  association  or  other  opportunities  for  in-­‐service  training,  ask  for  a  session  on  an  area  that  interests  you.  

Conclusions  

                             Reflective  teaching  is  an  approach  to  personal  teaching  growth  through    

thoughtful  analysis  of  personal  beliefs  about  teaching,  learning,  and  patterns  of  practice.    A  reflective  teacher  is  one  who  believes  that  teaching  growth  can  be  enhanced  through  a  variety  of  honest  self  and/or  cooperative  analysis  of  teaching  practices  and  resulting  degree  of  effectiveness.    A  reflective  teacher  is  an  honest  one  whose  main  interest  is  to  optimize  instructional  efficacy  in  their  lessons  enhancing  the  likelihood  of    learning  occurring  in  his  or  her  classroom.  

TASK:  Write  a  succinct  description  of  your  understanding  of  what  reflective  teaching  is.  

References  

Bailey,  K.M.  (1990).    The  use  of  diary  studies  in  teacher  education  programmes.      In  J.C.  Richards  &  D.                        Nunan  (Eds.)    Second  Language  Teacher  Education.  New  York:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Bartlett,  L.  (1990).    Teacher  development  through  reflective  teaching.    In  J.C.  Richards  &  D.  Nunan  (Eds.)    Second  Language  Teacher  Education.    New  York:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Canning,  C.  (1991).  What  teachers  say  about  reflection.    Educational  Leadership,  48(6),  18-­‐21.  

Farrell,  T.S.C.  (1995).    Second  language  teaching:  Where  are  we  and  where  are  we  going—an  interview  with  Jack  Richards.    Language  Teaching:  The  Korea  TESOL  Journal,  3(3),  94-­‐95.  

Powell,  J.P.  (1985).    Autobiographical  learning.    In  D.  Boud,  R.  Keogh,  &  D.Walker  (Eds.)  Reflection:  Turning  Experience  into  Learning.    New  York:  Kogan  Page.  

Richards,  Jack  C.  (1990).  The  teacher  as  self-­‐observer.    In  Jack  C.  Richards  (Ed.),  The  Language  Teaching       Matrix.    New  York:  Cambridge  University  Press  (pp.  118-­‐  143.  

Taggart,  G.  L.,  &  Wilson,  A.  P.  (2005).  Promoting  reflective  thinking  in  teachers:  50  action  strategies  (2nd  ed.).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Corwin  Press.  

 

Tice,  J.    (2011).    Reflective  teaching:    Exploring  our  own  classroom  practice.    Retrieved  November  27,  2011,  from  Teaching  English:  http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/reflective-­‐teaching-­‐exploring-­‐our-­‐own-­‐classroom-­‐practice  

 

19  |  P a g e    

   

20  |  P a g e    

References

Beswick, K. (2006). Changes in preservice teachers' attitudes and beliefs: The net impact of two

mathematics education units and intervening experiences. School Science and

Mathematics 106, 36-47.

Borich, G. D., & Tombari, M. L. (2004). Educational assessment for the elementary and middle

school classroom, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Cardash, C. A., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of sciences classes survey: What

undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational

Psychology 93(1), 199-210.

Claus, J. (1999). You can't avoid the politics: Lessons for teacher education from a case study of

teacher-initiated tracking reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1), 15.

Hart, L. (2002). PSTs' beliefs and practice after participating in an integrated

content/methods course. School Science and Mathematics 102, 4-14.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of

Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Lewis, A. C. (2000). High-quality teachers for all Americans. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (5), 339-

340.

Lipka, J., Hogan, M. P., Webster, J. P., Yanez, E., Adams, B., Clark, S., & et al. (2005). Math in

a Cultural Context: Two Case Studies of a Successful Culturally Based Math Project.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly 36(4), 367-385.

21  |  P a g e    

Lowery, N. V. (2002). Construction of teacher knowledge in context: Preparing elementary

teachers to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics 102, 68-

83.

Mewborn, D. S., & Stinson, D. W. (2007). Learning to teach as assisted performance. Teachers

College Record 9, 1457-1487.

Morgan, B. M. (1999). Portfolios in a preservice teacher field-based program: Evolution of a

rubric for performance assessment. Education, 119 (3), 416-426. Morrone, A. S., & Tarr, T. A. (2005). Theoretical eclecticism in the college classroom.

Innovative Higher Education, 30(1), 7-21.

Mueller, A. & Skamp, K. (2003). Teacher candidates talk: Listen to the unsteady beat of learning

to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 428-440.

Nam, Y. (2010, October 7). Urban youths’ experience of teaching science. Paper presentation.

North Central Region of the Association of Science Teacher Educators. Minneapolis,

MN.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for the teaching

of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

SciMathMN. (1997). Chapter 2 in SciMathMN K-12 Mathematics Framework, St. Paul: Science

Museum of Minnesota. Popham, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know, 4th ed. Boston:

Pearson. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River: Merrill,

Prentice Hall.

22  |  P a g e    

Taylor, P. M. (2000). When are we ever going to use this? Lessons from a mathematics methods

course. School Science and Mathematics 100, 252-255.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative Studies on U.S. and Chinese Mathematics Learning and

the Implications for Standards-Based Mathematics Teaching Reform. Educational Researcher 34(5), 3-13.

Yopp, H. K., & Guillaume, A. M. (1999, Winter). Preparing preservice teachers for

collaboration. Teacher Education Quarterly 26(1), 5-19.

Youngs, P. (2007 April). District induction policy and new teachers' experiences: An  

examination of local policy implementation in Connecticut. Teachers College Record  

109(4), 797-836.