jump to navigation

Think again before you post online those pics of your kids February 13, 2017

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Role of the family.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

By Joanne Orlando

You might think it’s cute to snap a photo of your toddler running around in a playground or having a temper tantrum, and then posting it on social media. But did you ever think it might be a mistake, or even illegal?

The French government earlier this year warned parents to stop posting images of their children on social media networks.

Under France’s rigorous privacy laws, parents could face penalties of up to a year in prison and a fine of €45,000 (A$64,500) if convicted of publicising intimate details of their children without their consent.

This new legality is powerful food for thought for parenting in the Facebook era. As adults, we often express dissatisfaction at the ways young people post their lives online. But if we turn the mirror on ourselves, do we as parents actually have the right to make our family photos public? If so, which ones?

Sharing pictures

Part of the issue is our tendency for over-sharing. A recent study by Nominet, which handles the UK’s .uk domain name registry, found that parents post nearly 200 photos of their under fives online every year.

This means that a child will feature in around 1,000 online photos before their fifth birthday. We’ve even got to the point where if you don’t upload photos of our baby, others question whether you are a committed parent.

This new norm means that many children will have a powerful digital identity created by someone else. This process can be likened to the manufacturing of celebrity identities, where parents can potentially shape the public persona of their child in any way they want: child genius, disobedient, fashionista, fussy eater and so on.

How do you think your own mum or dad might shape your online identity? Do you think it would be an accurate portrayal of who you are?

There is also the issue of Likes and comments on those photos. Without realising it, are we choosing to upload posts about our kids that we hope will get the most audience attention? If so, how is this skewing the identity we are shaping for them?

The web never forgets

We often tell our kids that once something is on the internet it is there forever, and this is a core concern for kids. Research shows that parents often haven’t considered the potential reach and the longevity of the digital information that they’re sharing about their child.

Your child won’t have much control over where that home video of her having an embarrassing first singing lesson ends up or who sees it.

And for this generation of kids, the publicising of their lives can start even before they are born when parents broadcast photos to all their friends and their friends’ friends of the antenatal scan.

Parents’ actions are generally not maliciously intended. In fact, they actually often see they are exposing something personal about their own life in such posts rather than that of their child.

There’s also benefit from such sharing. Posts about your child bed-wetting might help a friend find solutions, or boost their patience for dealing with a similar issue with their own child. Many parents find this community of support important.

Given the relative youth of social media, it’s hard to say exactly how growing up online could affect children’s privacy, safety and security. But social media has also been around long enough now (Facebook is now 14 years old) that it’s important to seriously consider the issue.

It’s time to question how individuals (both children and adults) should manage boundaries around sharing personal information, and how they can control information that is shared about them.

Posting embarrassing photos of others on Facebook without consent is definitely tricky territory, but what constitutes embarrassing is slightly different for everyone, which makes this new issue even more of a minefield.

Get the kids involved

The answer of how to approach this new-found issue might be to listen to what kids have to say about it. Recent research from the University of Michigan asked children and parents to describe the rules they thought families should follow related to technology.

Adults tend to think of these rules around how much time kids spend on screen, but about three times more children than parents thought there should be rules about what parents share and don’t share on social media. Many kids said parents should not post anything about them on online without asking them.

Both children and parents considered positive images, events and news more appropriate to share than negative ones. An image of the child playing on the swings at the park is a lot less likely to resurface than a YouTube video of them having a tantrum because their breakfast is not in their favourite bowl.

If you’re a parent looking for advice or sympathy about a behavioural problem, then a community approach is still very helpful, just don’t post an image and your child’s name as part of the post. This will help to limit the searchability and reach of it.

Asking your children’s consent is also part of the issue and part of the solution. Asking if your child likes the photos of them and whether you can put it up online can be a very quick and respectful conversation. It also sets up a great approach to your kids understanding digital etiquette.

Parents sharing photos of their kids online isn’t only about digital identity. It’s also about our obsession with taking photos of our kids, particularly when they shine (or don’t shine) in their respective activities.

This can make kids feel pressured to perform to help mum and dad get the right snap to share. What the children really want to see is you taking notice of them and acknowledging that they and their actions are important.

 

Dr Joanne Orlando is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at Western Sydney University, Australia. This article was originally published on The Conversation on December 27th, 2016.

Including all children – a student teacher’s reflection September 20, 2016

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Inclusive Education.
Tags: ,
add a comment

By Robert Mccluskey

I am currently studying at Western Sydney University and am in my last year of the Master of Teaching (Birth-12) Program. I have recently completed a professional experience placement in a long day care centre.

During my time at the centre one of the learning foci in my studies was the design and implementation of an inclusion plan for a child with disability. This was a new experience for me, as I hadn’t worked with many children with disabilities before so I was initially quite nervous that it would be beyond my capabilities as a pre-service educator.

Initially, I was concerned that without knowing the specifics of a child’s diagnosis, and the impacts that it may have on their learning and development, it would be difficult to cater for any of the child’s additional needs. So I spoke with the parents and staff, to learn more about the strategies that were currently being implemented and to find out about the long term and short term goals. I also researched the diagnosis in greater depth, in an effort to understand the day-to-day impact that it would have on the child’s learning.

What did I do?

The main focus for the inclusion plan was for the child to initiate in parallel and social play situations. This was done by prompting the children to play in groups, creating situations for partner play through transitions, i.e. each child picks a friend, and a construction project in which the children built and evolved a miniature construction site in the centre’s outdoor play area. It was important when implementing any of the learning opportunities for all of the centre’s staff to be informed beforehand so they could support the inclusion plan’s success.

Benefits for the child?

I found that forming positive social relationships helped generate positive self-esteem in the child. (Dunlap, 2009). I also noted that through these social relationships, the child was also able to further develop important social and language skills. (Flint, Kitson, Lowe, & Shaw, 2014). Children benefit from positive social interactions with peers and educators they respect. The inclusion plan I designed was focused on the parent’s main goal of nurturing and expanding on the child’s social interactions. In developing this plan, I hoped to see a notable benefit to all the children. Throughout my studies I learnt that inclusive practices don’t only benefit children with disabilities, but can positively support the development of all children.

What made the inclusion plan successful?

The inclusion plan’s success was largely due to collaborating with families and the educators, the ongoing dialogue with parents and staff about the child’s progress which allowed for constructive feedback to be provided. Both these elements were critical to the development of the program and its success.

Benefits for me

In working with a child with disability, I was able to understand the importance of being able to implement a range of teaching strategies so as to be able to include all the children in my care. This is a lesson that I will definitely take into my professional future, it is clear to me that stronger inclusive practices are beneficial to all of the children involved.

References:

Dunlap, L. L. (2009). The importance of play. In An introduction to early childhood special education: Birth to age five (pp. 352-387). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.

Flint, A. S., Kitson, L., Lowe, K., & Shaw, K. (2014). Literacy in Australia: Pedagogies for engagement. Milton, Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia.

 

Robert Mccluskey is a final year student in the Master of Teaching (Birth-12) Program offered by the School of Education at Western Sydney University, Australia. His post was initially published on the education blog site, Online Community of Practice, and is reproduced here with his permission.

Teacher stress and wellbeing – How can we build a sustainable workforce? August 8, 2016

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: , ,
3 comments

By Daniela Falecki

Teacher stress is high; in fact teachers exhibit higher levels of stress than any other profession (Stoeber & Rennert, 2008). Whether this be day to day stress related to required tasks, or stress due to institutional stress factors, teachers are struggling (Curry & O’Brien, 2012). As teachers battle exhaustion, so does their ability to cope and remain buoyant in the face of the increasing social and emotional demands placed on them, which directly impacts wellbeing (Parker, Martin, Colmar, & Liem, 2012). How do I know this? Because I too am a teacher.

Supporting teacher wellbeing is crucial because:

“Teachers worn down by their work exhibit reduced work goals, lower responsibility for work outcomes, lower idealism, heightened emotional detachment, work alienation, and self-interest. When teachers become burned out, or worn out, their students’ achievement outcomes are likely to suffer because they are more concerned with their personal survival.” (Richardson, Watt, & Devos, 2013, p. 231).

A study in the UK went one step further to show that teacher wellbeing had a direct impact on students’ SAT scores with a variance of 8%. This means teacher stress and wellbeing has a direct impact on student outcomes (Briner & Dewberry, 2007).

Wellbeing is a broad and complex area that, when discussed in a school arena, is typically centred on meeting student needs. Yet go into any staffroom and the topic of conversation will be centred around how tired, stressed and overwhelmed teachers feel. While burnout is high in experienced teachers, of greater concern is the attrition rate of beginning teachers who leave the profession because of a “lack of congruence between expectations for one’s career and the actual reality of the work” (Curry & O’Brien, 2012, p. 179). The one thing we do know is that in order for students to be well, teachers themselves must also be well (McCallum & Price, 2010). So, what are we doing to support teacher wellbeing? More specifically, what are we doing to better prepare pre-service teachers who are entering the profession?

Thankfully, we are now starting to see interventions that support teacher wellbeing beginning to feature alongside student wellbeing programs (Jones et al., 2013). A major contributor to this could be the rise of evidence based interventions coming from the field of Positive Psychology. Positive Psychology is a field of inquiry concerned with what makes communities and individuals thrive (Waters & White, 2015). Instead of exploring a deficit model of what is not working by asking questions such as ‘what is causing teacher stress?’, it looks at what is working by asking ‘what does teacher wellbeing look and sound like?’

This means sharing with existing and pre-service teachers about the numerous domains of wellbeing and their associated interventions. These may be in the form of Seligman’s 5 pillars known as PERMA (2011),  the 6 domains of psychological wellbeing by Ryff and Keyes, (1995), or the ten items for flourishing by Huppert and So (2001) .  By giving teachers evidence based tools to strengthen their wellbeing, we are not only building well teachers, we are preparing them for how to better teach wellbeing to young people with simple and practical strategies. These interventions can range from reflecting on being our best possible selves, keeping a gratitude journal, performing random acts of kindness, working with growth mindsets, setting and achieving goals, and identifying character strengths.

This does not mean we throw out the good work that is already being done in teacher education; it means we need to review what is working well and plan for ways we can more specifically address these positive interventions. Just as we explicitly teach wellbeing to young people, we must also explicitly plan ways to build a more sustainable workforce.

Bibliography

Briner, R., & Dewberry, C. (2007). Staff well-being is key to school success. London: Worklife Support Ltd/Hamilton House.

Curry, J. R. P., & O’Brien, E. R. P. (2012). Shifting to a Wellness Paradigm in Teacher Education: A Promising Practice for Fostering Teacher Stress Reduction, Burnout Resilience, and Promoting Retention. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 14(3), 178-191.

Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 7(4), 399-420. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-004-0975-0

McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2010). Well teachers, well students. The Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4(1), 19-34.

Parker, P. D., & Martin, A. J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 68-75. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.009

Richardson, P. W., Watt, H. M., & Devos, C. (2013). Types of professional and emotional coping among beginning teachers. Emotion and school: Understanding how the hidden curriculum influences relationships, leadership, teaching, and learning, 229-253.

Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being: Simon and Schuster.

Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, stress, and coping, 21(1), 37-53.

 

Daniela Falecki is a sessional lecturer in the School of Education at Western Sydney University, Australia. She is Founder and Director of Teacher Wellbeing (www.teacher-wellbeing.com.au)

Questioning Learning: Lenses from the Learning Sciences June 8, 2016

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

By LΣARN

If we could equate teaching to learning, how would we account for the gaps in students’ achievements even though the students were taught by the same teacher and learnt in the same environment?  If students could learn deeply by listening quietly to a teacher, would the traditional way of schooling be viable for our digital generation? Few people will deny the need to reconceptualise the notion of learning when digital media is shaping how learning is taking place in the classroom and beyond the confines of its walls. Learning sciences research is offering us lenses to understand the science of learning, knowledge construction, digital media, and principles of effective learning environments and the role of instruction.

What is Learning Sciences?

By learning sciences, we are not referring to how science is learnt. Rather, we are referring to an interdisciplinary field that investigates teaching and learning in various settings using theories and  models from different fields such as cognitive science, educational psychology, instructional science, computer science and literacy studies. We are particularly interested in deep learning which is one of the scholarly inquiries in learning sciences. Like other learning scientists, we are interested in findings ways to understand and design innovative approaches to develop deep learning. By way of introducing learning sciences, we will present brief descriptions of some research areas in this field in the remaining parts of this blog.

What should Educators Know about Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design?

A key research focus in the learning sciences is the design of learning environments that align with human cognitive architecture. Two key components of this architecture are working memory and long-term memory. Working memory can only process 2-4 elements of new information at one time (Cowan, 2001). Long term memory consists of schemas and has no known limitations.

Research on human cognition has generated a range of practical take-home messages for educators:

  1. In general, teachers should employ direct-guided instruction when introducing students to new learning materials. Guided instruction includes the heavy use of worked examples, particularly with well-structured problems, whereas unguided instruction requires students to adopt general problem-solving approaches such as trial and error and means-ends analyses which are heavily taxing on working memory.
  2. When students have developed a sufficient level of knowledge in a learning domain, teachers should not provide guided instruction. High knowledge learners have schemas in long term-memory to guide them when solving problems. However, when presented with external guidance by the teacher, these high knowledge learners are forced to mentally integrate the information provided by the teacher and cross-reference this with their own knowledge. This results in cognitive overload of working memory.
  3. Teachers should avoid situations which result in the redundancy effect. A common example is when a teacher uses a Powerpoint presentation and reads the text, word-for-word, from the slide. Such an approach causes cognitive overload because learners must attend to two streams of data which are conveying the same information.
  4. The spatial presentation of multiple sources of mutually-referring information can also lead to cognitive overload. For example, graphics and associated explanatory text are often placed separately from each other. Learners have to attend to both sources of information, because in isolation, neither source conveys the full information needed for the learner to problem solve. The cognitive resources required by learners to mentally integrate the separate sources of information are highly taxing on working memory. The solution is to physically integrate the two sources, thus reducing the search and match processes required by learners to understand the information presented.

Are Positive Learning Environments All about Developing ‘Feel Good’ Schools?  

In our inquiry about the design of learning environments, we are also keen to examine the association between school environments and student’s wellbeing. Debates in this focus may conjure up outdated notions of teachers minimising scolding of students to preserve their self-esteem or schools saturated with posters reminding students that they are unique. There are educators who are incredulous of new curricula which invite both students and staff in schools to look at their emotional development. They most probably see it as far removed from the core business of schools and only contributing to ‘feel good schools’ which have little impact on important things in life.

Positive Learning Environments (PLE) are places of learning where the whole of person is engaged in an effort to contribute to the overall development of an individual and in turn his or her communities. The ‘positive’ is both an indication of the more traditional sense of pleasantness and safe, but also a mathematical concept of ‘addition’. It involves adding, contributing to an individual’s development. In PLE, knowledge of the factual traditional curricula of schools is intertwined with knowledge and development of the whole of self. This invariably includes an incorporation of affect in the everyday practice of schools. Affect, in this instance refers to not just the experience of feeling or emotion but also the physiological and cognitive (thinking) components of such experience. Although affect and knowledge acquisition have always been part of learning anything by anyone,  it is fair to say that systematically talking about, intervening in and considering affect regulation, quality and development as part of schooling is a relatively new phenomena for schools to take on.

The detrimental impact of aversive affective states (e.g., anxiety) and school environments with components related to high affective dysregulation for students and staff (such as racism, bullying and violence) on learning and wellbeing are now well documented. However, the need for research and development of positive learning environments is not just about the removal of unpleasantness in schools. It is also about the gains which are made when affect regulation and development are also seen as the core business of schools alongside academic development.  This research is exemplified by current efforts looking at social and emotional learning (SEL) in schools. SEL is defined as a process engaged in schools where all members of their communities apply themselves to the development and understanding of emotions with an understanding that “learning emerges in the context of supportive relationships that make learning challenging, engaging and meaningful” (CASEL, n.d.).

The economic and lifetime benefits of social emotional skills and schools’ unique position to develop them have also been acknowledged in a recent OECD report (see OECD, 2015). The report highlights and acknowledges the increases in access to education but recognises that social emotional skills are needed alongside academic/cognitive skills to foster lifetime success. It is through affect regulation (directly or as a mediator of other skills) that greater cooperation, task perseverance, and problem solving can be achieved by communities and individuals. Although current available evidence in relation to social emotional learning is growing and promising, there is still much to be discovered. What are the key skills our teachers need to engage in SEL? Are the effects of SEL universal? How do we best develop social emotional skills? For that matter, which skills do we develop? What are the best pedagogies that engage the whole of the child and how do we assist our school system to evolve from a system whose origins gave little credence to emotion to ones where knowledge and affect are treated as one.

Positive learning environments are more than just ‘feel good’ schools. They are active learning communities engaged in the education of the whole child for their and their communities benefit. They are complex communities with relationships, processes, and pedagogies directed at affect regulation and cognitive development practices. They are truly the 21st century schools.

Why Should We Study Teacher Beliefs?

In our inquiries into designing learning environments, we are not forgetting the importance of understanding teacher development and beliefs. Teachers develop a sophisticated amalgam of knowledge, beliefs, and skills to be effective in the classroom.  In particular, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning can provide useful insights into their practice.  Beliefs are “psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true” (Richardson, 1996, p. 103).  Teachers’ beliefs can be classified into views of the teacher’s role in the classroom, the students’ role in the classroom, how the students learn their subject area best, and how to make the subject matter comprehensible to others (Friedrichsen, van Driel, & Abell, 2011).  These types of beliefs are often derived from prior K-12 school experiences. They are extremely robust and do not change easily (Jones & Carter, 2007).

Often, teachers are asked to implement new pedagogies in their classrooms that align with current reform efforts (e.g. inquiry-based approaches).  Yet, teachers often experience considerable difficulty when implementing new pedagogies as they develop practical knowledge and perceptions of their school contexts. Practical knowledge and perceptions of context are then filtered through core beliefs about teaching and learning which can impact classroom practice.  For example, consider a teacher who has just implemented an inquiry-based approach to instruction.  After implementation, constraints may develop in the form of practical knowledge suggesting that students have considerable difficulty with the task. The teacher may also develop perceptions of his or her school being unsupportive of reform-based strategies.  If the teacher also believes his or her role is to only transmit information to the students, this will likely cause him or her to abandon the strategies.  Conversely, in the face of practical and contextual constraints, if the teacher believes it is his or her role to facilitate guided inquiry experiences so that students have some opportunity to wrestle with the concepts, he or she is likely to make modifications to his or her teaching and attempt the pedagogical strategies again (Sickel & Friedrichsen, 2015).

With the example above, we see that helping teachers elucidate and often confront their existing beliefs about teaching and learning is an important part of the teacher development process.   A teacher with core beliefs that misalign with a teaching approach is a significant barrier to large-scale implementation.  Understanding teacher learning provides important implications for designing teacher education and professional development programs which in turn help teachers enhance their students’ learning outcomes.

How has Digital Media Revolutionised the Way Students Learn?

Increasingly, learning sciences calls for an inquiry into students’ perspectives and the ways in which their literacies are accessed, used and lived in everyday practices, both inside and outside of school (Kim, Tan, & Bielaczyc, 2015). Existing learning sciences research shows an increasing interest in the emerging culture of learning in the virtual spaces. We sum up how students are self-directing themselves online using 5Cs of what they do in this emerging culture of participating online:

  1. Connect
  • Students are staying connected to their peers and interest-based groups to pursue passion-based learning.
  • Often, these students are learning about a specific content or skill from mentors who may not necessarily be adults but have enough experience to share their knowledge with them.
  1. Communicate
  • Students are displaying more ownership of their creative works or digital artefacts Using social media, they communicate their thoughts and “pass on” their works to solicit feedback and appreciation.
  • They create networks to stay connected and communicate with people who share their interests and are keen on what they do.
  1. Collaborate
  • Learning becomes more distributive and social. Nonetheless, with the diverse backgrounds of people whom they interact with online, learning has evolved from simply group learning to collaborative learning where multiple perspectives of a focused issue are exchanged before a shared perspective is established.
  • Conversations no doubt can include playful talks but have become more dialogic to facilitate deeper thinking in online interactions.
  1. Create
  • Digital artefacts provide strong evidence of learning. When students interact with others online, learning has become more participatory. To learn from one another means there must be learning by doing.
  • There are more bodies of research that show students are developing dispositions of experts as they learn by doing and intentionally cultivating thinking skills which classroom teachers are trying to develop in key content areas in the formal learning spaces.
  1. Curate
  • With learning becoming more distributive, collaborative and participatory, students are developing ways of managing their works and feedback online. Curation becomes part and parcel of what they do such as creating tags to organize their online artefacts.
  • Students are looking for ways to exhibit and curate their current and past works using social media using Google Plus, Facebook or using apps to create their own websites.

 

In order to pursue our work in learning sciences, we have formed the LƩARN (Learning Sciences Affect Research Network) HDR cohort group. This is a group uniquely created for HDR students within the School of Education to embark on research related to the field of learning sciences. To build our student’s research capacity, we are conducting a series of workshops and forums in the second half of 2016. You are welcome to contact anyone of us for further information about this group and the research we do. We also welcome any comment and feedback from you regarding our research interests or activities in LEARN.

Researchers in LΣARN

 chwee beng Dr Lee Chwee Beng

chwee.lee@westernsydney.edu.au

 

 

 aron Dr Aaron Sickel

A.Sickel@westernsydney.edu.au

 

 lyndie Dr Lynde Tan

Lynde.Tan@westernsydney.edu.au

 

 jose Dr Jose Hanham

J.Hanham@westernsydney.edu.au;

 roberto Dr Roberto Parada

R.Parada@westernsydney.edu.au;

 

 

References

CASEL. (n.d.).  Collaborative for academic, social and emotional learning. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/social-and-emotional-learning/

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.

Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.

Kim, B., Tan, L. & Bielaczyc, K. (2015), Learner-generated designs in participatory culture: what they are and how they are shaping learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 545 – 555.

OECD.  (2015). Skills for Social Progress: The power of social and emotional skills. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9615011e.pdf?expires=1461906844&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=B24ED59A273470F52724E55D6AA51152

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 102-119). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Sickel, A. J., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2015). Beliefs, practical knowledge, and context: A longitudinal study of a beginning biology teacher’s 5E unit. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 75-87.

 

Changing the Teacher Education Curriculum: A Shift From Knowledge to Practice December 10, 2015

Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: ,
add a comment

from Aaron Sickel

From 2008-2014, I was a teacher educator in the U.S. At the University of Missouri, I had the great fortune to be involved in a large-scale research project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The longitudinal study investigated how pre-service teachers developed specialised knowledge for teaching mathematics and science during their teacher preparation program and throughout the first two years as fully employed teachers.

As a researcher, I collected data that included classroom observations, interviews, and lesson materials. Specifically, I had the interesting experience of observing the same teachers over a three-year timeframe. Throughout the project, the research team collaboratively analysed the data and noted an emerging trend. When we observed beginning teachers in the classroom, many of them struggled to use the reform-based strategies they had learned in the teacher preparation program (e.g. the 5E instructional model – Brown, Friedrichsen, & Abell, 2013; Sickel & Friedrichsen, 2015). Despite having these strategies modelled for them in their coursework, these teachers often had difficulty implementing them in ways that made them feel successful or worked for their students.

In a related episode, I began working as an assistant professor of teacher education at Ohio University in 2012. The movement toward accountability was and remains a strong force for educational stakeholders in that state. K-12 students were subjected to increased testing, teachers were adhering to a new state-wide teacher evaluation system, and initial teacher education programs were expected to meet more rigorous standards developed by a new accreditation organisation.

Another significant reform was the utilisation of a new evaluation tool for pre-service teachers to be employed at the conclusion of their teacher education programs. The teacher performance assessment (commonly referred to as the edTPA), is a performance-based assessment developed by Stanford University faculty to assess pre-service teachers’ readiness for entering the profession. The assessment is being used widely in states across the U.S., and in some cases pre-service teachers must earn a passing score in order to become a licensed teacher.

The edTPA requires pre-service teachers to engage in three basic practices for a small-scale instructional unit taught in a school placement: 1) construct detailed lesson plans; 2) video-record their teaching practice from one of the lessons; and 3) develop assessments and collect examples of graded student work. Reflection on each of these components is embedded throughout. Pre-service teachers are then assessed on these three components with a series of rubrics.

As with any new evaluation tool, the edTPA has its strengths and weaknesses. Regarding its implementation as a requisite for teacher licensure, I have many concerns, but that is for another post. I do believe the basic design and scope of the assessment is appropriate, aligned to a large amount of research on effective teaching, and potentially useful for pre-service teachers’ professional development. Pre-service teachers have to really think through their decisions, considering both their local context and research-based practices.

During my time in Ohio, the edTPA was in a pilot stage, and faculty were given the opportunity to score pre-service teachers’ work from their own programs. My colleagues and I worked in groups and collaborated to assess our pre-service teachers’ edTPAs. While marking could rarely be described as a fun endeavour, I must admit that the experience was incredibly enlightening. Regarding Part 1 of the edTPA, we began reviewing our pre-service teachers’ lesson plans. For the most part, lesson plans were detailed and well-considered. Many pre-service teachers demonstrated the ability to align curricular goals, assessments, and learning activities in meaningful ways, give consideration to the learning demands of activities, and articulate strategies for meeting those demands.

Needless to say, my colleagues and I were quite pleased, both with our pre-service teachers’ performance and with our teacher education program. Next, we moved on to Part 2 – instructional practice. We began watching videos of our pre-service teachers in the classroom. As we reviewed the rubrics’ criteria for instructional practice, which focused on creating a challenging learning environment with higher-order thinking tasks, eliciting and working with students’ ideas, and facilitating opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills, something was immediately apparent. Many of the research-based practices that were referenced in the lesson plan did not seem to be used effectively or at all in the teaching videos. While our pre-service teachers were quite adept at ‘talking the talk,’ many of them struggled with ‘walking the walk.’

I would like to note that my aim with recounting these experiences is not to denigrate the beginning teachers I have observed or taught in teacher preparation programs. To the contrary, I am quite impressed with the ingenuity of beginning teachers I work with, the ideas and enthusiasm they bring to their instruction, and in many cases the success they experience in schools. But my experiences with observing beginning teachers has also made something quite clear. Reading about pedagogy, discussing pedagogy, and even experiencing pedagogy as learners in a university context does not automatically translate to success with implementing pedagogy in a school classroom. That last phase of implementation requires practical knowledge and skill. For example, it is one thing to talk about the importance of differentiated instruction in an essay assignment, and quite another to enact several modifications during lessons based on specific curricular goals and students’ individualised education plans.

A promising approach to teacher education is one in which the central focus shifts from espoused knowledge to teaching practices. There are several researchers attempting to identify ‘core practices’ of teaching, which represent the most important skills for beginning teachers (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009). Core practices embody the enactment of knowledge in the classroom. They should be research-based, have potential to improve student achievement, occur in high frequency, and acknowledge the complexity of teaching (Grossman et al., 2009, p. 277).

One key practice that has been widely supported includes the skill of orchestrating classroom discourse. Lampert et al. (2013) describe how they help beginning elementary teachers engage in the practice of eliciting and responding to students’ ideas due to its significance for improving mathematical understandings. Based upon their NSF-funded research project, Windshcitl and colleagues at the University of Washington identified “planning for engagement with important science ideas,” “eliciting students’ ideas,” “supporting on-going changed in student thinking,” and “pressing for evidence-based explanations ” as key practices for science instruction (Ambitious Science Teaching, 2015). In addition to classroom discussions, Grossman et al. (2009) describe the skill of teaching group work routines to improve cooperative learning environments as a core practice.

Much more work needs to be done to identify the practices that influence learning, and to do that, we must also be transparent on the types of learning we value. It is probably not realistic to strive for one set of practices that works for all grade levels, subject areas, and school contexts (McDonald et al., 2013). For example, one can envision variations of practices based on the subject area, as teaching instrumental music brings about a different set of challenges when compared to teaching geography. Rather, it is important for teacher education programs to identify practices that are necessary for teacher readiness, and consider how approximations of those practices can be scaffolded throughout program components.

Teacher education programs should consider not only practices that focus on instructional strategies (asking higher-order questions), but also practices that are essential for building foundational elements that support students’ success (e.g. developing a classroom community). Beyond the examples listed above, potential practices might include:

  • Responding to challenging student behaviours
  • Developing positive social interactions among students
  • Implementing conceptually-rich tasks aligned to unit and lesson outcomes
  • Flexibly altering tasks while responding to students’ needs
  • Enacting culturally relevant pedagogy during a lesson
  • Drawing upon assessment data to inform and enact future instruction
  • Using rubrics to assess student work in fair and equitable ways

A shift toward teaching practices necessitates a shift in the learning activities and program structure of teacher education programs. Key pedagogical activities include the use of authentic teaching cases, in which pre-service teachers examine examples of student work and use the information to make future instructional plans, analysing video-cases of exemplary teaching, teacher educators modelling core practices followed by targeted reflection, and providing ample time for pre-service teachers to engage in micro-teaching and rehearsal opportunities as part of assessments (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013).

These practices are not new to teacher education, but they could be emphasized to a greater extent and become the foundation for a program’s curriculum. In addition, there is a clear need to work toward a stronger alignment between curricular goals of teacher education classes and school internships, and provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to spend more time in K-12 contexts to develop these practices (Darling-Hammond, 2014). For far too long, teacher education programs have been criticised as fragmented and not able to reconcile the gap between theory (taught at the university) and practice (learned in a school setting) (McDonald et al., 2014).

A shift toward practices does not mean we have to completely exclude learning or assessment activities that focus on teacher knowledge (e.g. writing an essay explaining how educational research supports the design of a lesson). Rather, it means that core practices can serve as an anchor by which we can meaningfully connect knowledge to the work of classroom instruction. Teaching is a complex activity, which requires a sophisticated amalgam of knowledge, skill, reflection, resilience, and emotional intelligence. Under the best circumstances, teaching is hard. The most prepared beginning teacher in the most suitable internship setting will still encounter many challenges.

With a finite number of years and program components, teacher education courses are charged with the responsibility of preparing beginning teachers for full-time employment. It is a daunting task for everyone involved, but I believe more authentic approaches to teacher education, such as shifting our emphasis to practices, has great potential for improving teacher readiness.

References

Ambitious Science Teaching. (2015). Tools for ambitious science teaching. Retrieved from                 http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org.

Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P., & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology           teachers’ PCK. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 133-155.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education.        Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547-561.

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher         education. Teachers & Teaching, 15(2), 273-289.

Lampert, M., Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A., Beasley, H., & Crowe, K. (2013).               Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 226-243.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher        education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia, S., & Windschitl,   M. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500-515.

Sickel, A. J., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2015). Beliefs, practical knowledge, and context: A longitudinal               study of a beginning biology teacher’s 5E unit. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2) 75-87.

A.Sickel Professional Pic-smallDr Aaron Sickel is a lecturer in secondary science curriculum at Western Sydney University, and teaches classes focused on science teaching and educational research in the secondary master’s program. He studies science curriculum, the development of knowledge, beliefs, and practice for teaching science, and the interactions between education policy initiatives and teacher learning. He is interested in using results from this research to inform curriculum development, teacher preparation programs, and professional development initiatives.

%d bloggers like this: