Tags: education and training, educational leadership, teacher education
add a comment
from Dr Tina Lim
As we think, contemplate and discuss course redesign for 21st century teaching and learning, it is important that we look inward, look around as well as look back, even as we look ahead.
Firstly, at the very start of the journey, we should ask ourselves what our core beliefs about teaching and learning are. Crucial questions to be answered are:
- What do we value?
- What do we believe about how people learn?
- What do we need to do to improve our practice so that it more truly reflects our values and beliefs? (Atkin, 1996).
According to Atkin, our core values and beliefs will drive our practices (or at least they should). Following from the question of “what are the core values and beliefs?” comes the question of “how in principle do you respond?” and then the question of “what practice is congruent with the principle and its underlying belief?”
For example, if we say we believe that meaningful learning occurs when students are allowed to confront real problems, make choices, and find solutions, then what we ought to do is to design learning environments which allow students to engage in authentic problem-solving experiences, nothing less (even if it means doing what we haven’t done before or don’t usually do, a.k.a. going outside our comfort zone – and yes, spell that as ploughing in more time and effort in redesigning our units, and possibly also when implementing it for the first time).
Meanwhile, looking back and looking around means that we utilise research findings and/or best practices to inform our next practice. It could be derived from our own past successful experience as an educator or learner, or from what we read or learn from others’ experiences or research through attending conferences and seminars. Going through available online research findings and reports of best practices is a good way to obtain invaluable input on specific needs and interests.
Revisiting time-tested and research-informed principles of good teaching and learning would put us in good stead. One such example is the set of seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education laid out by Chickering and Gamson (1987) namely:
(1) Encourage contacts between students and faculty;
(2) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students;
(3) Use active learning techniques;
(4) Give prompt feedback;
(5) Emphasize time on task;
(6) Communicate high expectations; and
(7) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.
While the principles were written specifically for undergraduate education 25 years ago, it should still hold for current undergraduate education, and to a great extent, for postgraduate contexts as well.
Then, there are the five fundamental principles of instruction developed Merrill (2002), which have been shown to promote learning:
(1) Task-oriented – Centre instruction on real-world problem solving;
(2) Activation – Activate learners’ existing knowledge as a foundation for new knowledge;
(3) Demonstration – Demonstrate new knowledge to learner in the context of real-world tasks or problems;
(4) Application – Engage learners in real-world tasks/problems and give feedback on and appropriate guidance throughout the process; and
(5) Integration – Encourage students to integrate new knowledge into their life through reflection, discussion, debate and/or presentation of new knowledge.
And of course, there are many others in the literature. The main point is that as we embark on any course redesign, taking note of well-founded fundamental principles and embedding them in our next practices would surely be deemed a good step toward engaging students better.
Last but not least, even as it is now a common expectation that student teachers to do self-reflections through inquiry, it is timely that we too do the same. What is the phrase commonly used? Ah yes, “walk the talk”. This is particularly important considering that we need to be able to show our student teachers that we do what we say and say what we do. We too, need to look back on our own practices as we consider the next step forward. Exemplary teaching-learning design, delivery, and assessment which are continually improved upon would speak volumes to our future teachers about the importance of self-reflection for self-improvement.
References: Atkin, J. (1996). From values and beliefs about learning to principles and practice. Retrieved from http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/files/links/ValuesBeliefs.pdf Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Retrieved from https://scholar.vt.edu/access/content/user/adevans/Public/DVDPortfolio/Samples/samples/training/track_d/Introduction/Best%20Practices/Article%20-%207%20Principles%20of%20Good%20Practice%20in%20Undergrad%20Ed.pdf Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50 (3), pp. 43-59. Retrieved from: https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/aect2002/firstprinciplesbymerrill.pdf
Educational Policy on the Run: Teacher Effectiveness, University Cut-offs, Class Size and Educational Research March 24, 2013Posted by christinefjohnston in Directions in Education, Education Policy and Politics, Teacher and Adult Education.
add a comment
The NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister of Education Adrian Piccoli apparently want higher cut-offs for entry into university, and may be restricting the number of newly accredited teachers through the NSW Institute of Teachers (Sun-Herald, 3 March 2013, p1, p.5).
At least some universities feel that the proposals are too restrictive, and most universities would be concerned with potential loss of enrolments.
I would like to propose a compromise that would satisfy both sides of this debate. Universities can introduce a 3-year Bachelor of Arts in Education (BA-Ed) as well as a 4- or 5-year degree (Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Teaching, Master of Teaching, etc.) The BA-Ed could have a lower cut-off than Bed-type courses and include more generic coursework, but importantly would not include the practicum component (where students do practice teaching in schools) and would not qualify students to teach in NSW. Separate cut-offs could be established for the two degrees. This proposal has many advantages:
- A generic course in education, the 3-year BAEd, is very good training for many jobs other than classroom teaching and already many students who qualify to be teachers do not pursue this option. Indeed, this might make the BAEd MORE attractive to some students who do not want to be classroom teachers and result in increased enrolments overall.
- Higher cut-offs for the BEd-type courses could be increased, in line with government recommendations. However, performance in the alternative BAEd course could be used as an additional criterion into the BEd. Indeed, performance in a BAEd course at the end of two or three years of study would undoubtedly be a better criterion into a BEd course than high school performance. Because the main difference between the BAEd and BEd is the practicum, this alternative entry would not substantially increase the time to complete a BEd. This alternative entry would mean that potentially good teachers who did not perform well on the HSC would not be locked out of classroom teaching.
- Finland is consistently one of the highest scoring countries on international comparisons such as those conducted by the OECD. Indeed, they do have very high cut-offs for entry into teacher education programs. However, this is the result of supply and demand because the teaching profession is so highly valued in Finland – as much or more so than other professions that have much higher cut-offs in Australia due to high demand. Interestingly this is due, at least in part, to the esteem accorded to the teaching profession in Finland even though teacher salaries are not particularly high. This is in marked contrast to perceptions of ‘teacher bashing’ in Australia that undermines teacher morale and discourages the best students from pursuing a career in teaching.
- The full economic cost of the practicum is the most expensive component of the teacher training programs, but arguably the most important for students who want to be classroom teachers. With tighter budgets there is the temptation for universities and schools to under-fund this critical component of the BEd. My proposal would allow universities and schools to actually fund the practicum more appropriately and still reduce the cost of the practicum; BAEd students would not take the practicum. Indeed, there is need to ensure that classroom teachers who take on the demanding role of supervising pre-service teachers have adequate training, recognition, and reward for undertaking this task.
- A more radical alternative being instituted in some countries (and some other professions in Australia) would be to move the entire teaching profession to graduate entry only. This would mean that entry into Graduate Schools of Education would be based on success in an undergraduate degree rather than ATAR scores, and would have the added benefit of raising the status of the teaching profession in the eyes of the public, politicians, and students who want to become teachers. I note that my proposals presented here are not unique, and some universities already offer alternatives that have some (or even all) of the flexibility and advantages of my proposal.
A serious limitation in proposals offered by the government, the NSW Institute of Teaching, the NSW Teachers Federation, and myself is that there is almost no solid, ‘gold standard’ research to back up any of the proposals.
- There is little evidence to support the supposition that high school students scoring 80 on the Australian Tertiary University Rank (ATR) will make better teachers than those scoring 70 or even 60.
- There is not even good evidence the teachers with better/higher qualifications or more teaching experience, are better teachers (Hanushek &Rivkin, 2010; McBer, 2000).
- ‘Gold standard’ research shows that smaller class sizes are more effective. However, the differences are small, particularly for class sizes greater than 18 and for high school classes; might not generalise across student/school demographic variables (see Blatchford, et al., 2002); and might not be cost-effective relative to other policy reforms (Yeh, 2009).
- Differences between countries on OECD rankings based on standardized test scores might be useful, but there is no easy way to say what causes these differences; picking out isolated characteristics (e.g., large class sizes in high-scoring Asian countries where there are fewer classroom management issues) is naïve and counter-productive.
- Even evidence that ‘good’ schools make a difference is weak. For example, the UK has perhaps the longest history and best data for measuring school effectiveness in relation to test scores based on a national curriculum, and translating these into league tables. Although there are huge differences between schools in unadjusted test scores, these are primarily due to pre-existing differences. With increasingly sophisticated value-added models, the percentage of variance in student test scores attributable to the schools is a paltry 5%, and is likely to fall further with more appropriate control for socioeconomic status and measurement error (see Marsh, et al., 2011; also see Baker et al for related problems on the use of test scores to evaluate teachers).
- Most research into effective schools and teachers has focused on test scores, but some of the most important criteria are self-beliefs, motivation, engagement, self-regulation, and aspirations (Marsh, 2007) – areas in which good schools and teachers are likely to have a larger effect than on standardised test scores.
If any of the proponents of sweeping policy changes – or even the status quo — for teaching standards and schools are serious about improving education, then policy needs to be informed by good research. New policies should be tested in carefully designed pilot studies to test their effectiveness, before being introduced across the system. Can you imagine the public outcry that would result if sweeping new medical procedures were introduced without first being shown to be effective by solid research evidence? Why do not educational policy makers feel the same imperative to provide research evidence for new initiatives?
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J. and Shepard, L. A. (2010), Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, EPI Briefing Paper no. 278, Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute (http://epi.3cdn.net/b9667271ee6c154195_ t9m6iij8k.pdf).
Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, C. & Browne, W (2002): A Study of Class Size Effects in English School Reception Year Classes, British Educational Research Journal, 28:2, 169-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920120122130
Buddin, R. & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66, 103-115. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119009000291)
Hanushek, E. A. &Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about Using Value- Added Measures of Teacher Quality. American Economic Revew, 100, 267-7l.
Harris, D. N. (2009), ‘Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives’, Education Finance and Policy, vol. 4, pp. 319–50.
Marsh, H. W. (2007).Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W, Nagengast, B., Fletcher, J. & Televantou, I. (2011). Assessing educational effectiveness: policy implications from diverse areas of research. Fiscal Studies, 32, 279–295
McBer, H. (2000). Research into Teacher Effectiveness. UK Department for Education and Employment.
Rockoff, Jonah E. 2004. “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.” American Economic Review, 94(2): 247-252.
Yeh, S. S. (2009) Class size reduction or rapid formative assessment?: A comparison of cost-effectiveness, Educational Research Review, 4, 7-15. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X08000389)