Tags: creativity, curriculum, curriculum design
add a comment
With an ever increasing focus upon the need to develop graduates with high level creative, risk-taking, and entrepreneurial skills, it is more important than ever to explore our approaches to the teaching-learning process. Graduate teachers need to be able to design, plan and deliver exciting, engaging and innovative learning opportunities. This article argues that the approach to planning, whether formal or informal, needs to be considered in relation to developing creative learning activities and creative learning environments. We need to start questioning the processes we use to plan the types of learning environments and activities that encourage the development of creativity. This article explores different approaches to planning and asks, ‘are we using the most effective approaches to planning to ensure creative skills are developed?’
Rationalistic, technical curriculum planning has been the dominant model underpinning planning for teaching and learning for a generation or more in England and Wales (Parkay and Hass, 2000) and involves the use of a linear approach to planning, which begins with the specification of objectives and ends with a lesson evaluation. This dominant or ‘rational’ approach to planning is based on Tyler’s (1949) model of curriculum theory and practice, comprising a systematic approach based upon the formulation of behavioural objectives. This approach provides a clear notion of outcome, so that content and method may be organised and the results evaluated. It considers education to be a technical exercise of organising the outcomes or products of learning, whereby objectives are set, a plan drawn up and applied and the outcomes (products) measured. Snape (2013) provides an example of what he defines as ‘quality learning’ through such a technical, sequenced linear pathway, including: the intended learning; teaching episodes; opportunities for tangibly evidenced student work; and criteria for successful achievement.
Several alternative and adapted planning approaches are present in the current literature, which are particularly pertinent to when requiring a more creative, risk-taking approach to teaching and learning, for example in Technology education. The ‘naturalistic’ or ‘organic’ model, based on the work of Stenhouse (1975) and Egan (1992; 1997), was developed from the apparent conflict between the need to carefully specify learning intentions and the dynamic nature of classrooms, and was an attempt to emulate a realistic planning process based on the ‘natural’ interactions in a classroom. Naturalistic planning involves starting with activities and the ideas that flow from them before assigning learning objectives (John, 2006). Although lacking detail in terms of pedagogical requirements and consideration, this model does resonate with Perkins, Tishman, Ritchart, Donis and Andrade’s (2000) notion of ‘learning in the wild’, when learning settings are recognized as ‘messy and complex’ (Carr, 2008: 36). Perkins and Saloman (1992) argue for the need for learners to experience more ‘natural’ learning environments, with teachers’ planning procedures supporting this notion.
Within a creative or problem-solving learning space – for example, in a Technology education context – ‘wicked problems or tasks’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973) can be set. These are described as ‘problems of deciding what is better when the situation is ambiguous at best’ (Marback, 2009: 399), and support the ‘naturalistic’ model, as wicked problems are not solvable. These problems are contingent problems of deciding what to do. They require continual evolution and, as such, are based upon the continual morphing of ideas and idea development, through a problem- solving process (Kimbell, Saxton and Miller, 2000). Such a ‘naturalistic’ model requires teachers to plan and create realistic design scenarios in order for students to learn the authentic nature of design activity, thus allowing students to experience environments where experimentation and exploration are dominant approaches.
The ‘interactional method’ of planning, another alternative to the dominant model, stresses the interactive nature of learning and, therefore, learning objectives (Brady, 1995; Bell and Lofoe,1998). Whilst the ‘interaction’ model specifies the same design elements as the linear objectives model, the ‘interactional method’ planning process can begin with any of the elements. Based on this model, all curriculum elements interact with each other throughout the design/planning process and, therefore, the design of one element will influence and possibly change the design decisions for other elements. For example, method might be specified first, but altered later as a result of an assessment decision. From a practical perspective, this model makes it possible to specify learning objectives after all other elements have been decided (Bell and Lefoe, 1998).
The ‘articulated curriculum’ (Hussey and Smith, 2003: 360) provides a similar approach to the ‘interactional model’, where the respective elements exist in a state of mutual interaction and influence. Alexander (2000) compares this ‘articulated curriculum’ approach to planning to the structure of a musical performance, where the composition is analogous to the lesson plan, and the performance shifts according to interpretation and improvisation. This ‘responsive’ approach to planning requires the teacher to be vigilant of the learning progression within the class and respond accordingly, and is synonymous with the formative assessment principles of ‘feedback’ (Ramaprasad, 1983). Biggs’s (1999) notion of constructive alignment also supports this way of approaching planning for teaching and learning.
To allow students to develop creative, risk-taking, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, we as educators need to provide authentic opportunities for students to develop such skills. By using different approaches to planning, teaching and learning, a greater range of ideas are produced and consequently new and innovative teaching and learning environments are potentially developed. Arguably by generating a creative input into the initial stages of the teaching-learning process, we are more likely to not only produce a creative output, but maintain creativity and innovation throughout the process. I believe it is important for pre-service teachers to have the opportunity to explore different approaches to planning, to develop their own approaches and styles, and to identify planning approaches that support the nature of the subject being taught.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and Pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bell, M., and Lofoe, G. (1998). Curriculum Design for Flexible Delivery- Massaging the Model. In R. Corderoy (ed), Flexibility: The Next Wave. Wollongong, Australia: Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum Development. Australia: Prentice Hall.
Carr, M. (2008). Can assessment unlock and open the doors to resourcefulness and agency? In S. Swaffield (ed.), Unlocking Assessment, 36-54, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in Teaching and Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape Our Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago.
John, P. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38 (4), 483-498.
Hussey, T., and Smith, P. (2003). The Uses of Learning Outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8 (3), 357-368.
Kimbell, R., Saxton, J., and Miller, S. (2000). Distinctive Skills and Implicit Practices. In J. Eggleston (ed.), Teaching and Learning Design and Technology, 116-133. UK: Continuum.
Marback, R. (2009). Embracing Wicked Problems: The Turn to Design in Composition Studies. National Council of Teachers of English, 61 (2).
Parkay, F. W., and Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum Planning. (7th, Ed.) Needham Heights, MA, USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Perkins, D. N., and Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. Oxford, UK. Pergamon Press. [online]. Available at: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Ideas/iot18.htm [Accessed on 31 March, 2013]
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchart, R., Donis, K., and Andrade, A. (2000). ‘Intelligence in the wild: a dispositional view of intellectual traits’. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (3), 269-93.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28, 4-13.
Rittel, H. J., and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
Snape, P. (2013). Quality Learning for Technology Education: An Effective Approach to Target Achievement and Deeper Learning. PATT conference, 137-145. Canterbury: University of Canterbury.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
Tyler, R. (1949). “How Can Learning Experiences be Organised for Effective Instructon?” Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Dr Mary Southall is currently the Curriculum Advisor for the School of Education, having worked in the UK as an independent education consultant for over ten years. Prior to this, she worked as a design and technology teacher in a range of school contexts and was involved in the development of the National Strategies embedded in all secondary schools in England and Wales.
Tags: positive psychology, teacher education, teacher wellbeing
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.
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.
Primary Mathematics: Engaged Teachers = Engaged Students June 29, 2016Posted by Editor21C in Primary Education, Teacher, Adult and Higher Education.
Tags: curriculum, mathematics education
add a comment
“The first job of a teacher is to make the student fall in love with the subject. That doesn’t have to be done by waving your arms and prancing around the classroom; there’s all sorts of ways to go at it, but no matter what, you are a symbol of the subject in the students’ minds” (Teller, 2016).
A few months ago I published a post about the issue of teacher engagement and mathematics. The following is an updated version of that post. The issue of student engagement with mathematics is a constant topic of discussion and concern within and beyond the classroom and the school, yet how much attention is given to the engagement of teachers? I am a firm believer that one of the foundational requirements for engaging our students with mathematics is a teacher who is enthusiastic, knowledgeable, confident, and passionate about mathematics teaching and learning – that is, a teacher who is engaged with mathematics. Research has proven that the biggest influence on student engagement with mathematics is the teacher, and the pedagogical relationships and practices that are developed and implemented in day to day teaching (Attard, 2013).
A regular challenge for me as a pre-service and in-service teacher educator is to re-engage teachers who have ‘switched off’ mathematics, or worse still, never had a passion for teaching mathematics to begin with. Now, more than ever, we need teachers who are highly competent in teaching primary mathematics and numeracy. The release of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TMAG) (2014) report, Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers, included a recommendation that pre-service primary teachers graduate with a subject specialisation prioritising science, mathematics, or a language (Recommendation 18). In the government’s response (Australian Government: Department of Education and Training, 2015), they agree “greater emphasis must be given to core subjects of literacy and numeracy” and will be instructing AITSL to “require universities to make sure that every new primary teacher graduates with a subject specialisation” (p.8). While this is very welcome news, we need to keep in mind that we have a substantial existing teaching workforce, many of whom should consider becoming subject specialists. It is now time for providers of professional development, including tertiary institutions, to provide more opportunities for all teachers, regardless of experience, to improve their knowledge and skills in mathematics teaching and learning, and re-engage with the subject.
So what professional learning can practicing teachers access in order to become ‘specialists’, and what models of professional learning/development are the most effective? Literature on professional learning (PL) describes two common models: the traditional type of activities that involve workshops, seminars and conferences, and reform type activities that incorporate study groups, networking, mentoring and meetings that occur in-situ during the process of classroom instruction or planning time (Lee, 2007). Although it is suggested that the reform types of PL are more likely to make connections to classroom teaching and may be easier to sustain over time, Lee (2007) argues there is a place for traditional PL or a combination of both, which may work well for teachers at various stages in their careers. An integrated approach to PD is supported by the NSW Institute of Teachers (2012).
Many teachers I meet are considering further study but lack the confidence to attempt a Masters degree or PhD. I am currently teaching a new, cutting edge on-line course at Western Sydney University, the Graduate Certificate of Primary Mathematics Education, aimed at producing specialist primary mathematics educators – a graduate certificate is definitely less intimidating than a Masters, and can be used as credit towards a higher degree. The fully online course is available to pre-service and in-service teachers. Graduates of the course develop deep mathematics pedagogical content knowledge, a strong understanding of the importance of research-based enquiry to inform teaching and skills in mentoring and coaching other teachers of mathematics.
In addition to continuing formal studies, I would encourage teachers to join a professional association. In New South Wales, the Mathematical Association of NSW (MANSW) (http://www.mansw.nsw.edu.au) provides many opportunities for the more traditional types of professional learning, casual TeachMeets, as well as networking through the many conferences offered. An additional source of PL provided by professional associations are their journals, which usually offer high quality, research-based teaching ideas. The national association, Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) has a free, high quality resource, Top Drawer Teachers (http://topdrawer.aamt.edu.au), that all teachers have access to, regardless of whether you are a member of the organisation or not. Many more informal avenues for professional learning are also available through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, as well as blogs such as this (engagingmaths.co).
Given that teachers have so much influence on the engagement of students, it makes sense to assume that when teachers themselves are disengaged and lack confidence or the appropriate pedagogical content knowledge for teaching mathematics, the likelihood of students becoming and remaining engaged is significantly decreased, in turn effecting academic achievement. The opportunities that are now emerging for pre-service and in-service teachers to increase their skills and become specialist mathematics teachers is an important and timely development in teacher education and will hopefully result in improved student engagement and academic achievement.
Attard, C. (2013). “If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths”: Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 569-587.
Australian Government: Department of Education and Training (2015). Teacher education ministerial advisory group. Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Australian Government Response.
Lee, H. (2007). Developing an effective professional development model to enhance teachers’ conceptual understanding and pedagogical strategies in mathematics. Journal of Educational Thought, 41(2), 125.
NSW Institute of Teachers. (2012). Continuing professional development policy – supporting the maintenance of accreditation at proficient teacher/professional competence. . Retrieved from file:///Users/Downloads/Continuing%20Professional%20Development%20Policy.pdf.
Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (2014). Action now: Classroom ready Teachers.
Teller. (2016) Teaching: Just like performing magic. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/what-classrooms-can-learn-from-magic/425100/?utm_source=SFTwitter
Dr Catherine Attard is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and a senior researcher in the Centre for Educational Research at Western Sydney University, Australia. This article was first published in May 2016 by Catherine on her own blog site, Engaging Maths.