132 K. McLean … building content knowledge from other units that we’ve done … like the linguistics one [unit] where we focused heavily on what is a verb, what is a noun … alliteration, descriptive words. We had to learn it ourselves to … teach it. Having that behind us really helped for this program [learning club]. (Shayna, FG6) Comments such as these indicated that through their experiences in the commu- nity partnership model PSTs were able to make connections between theory and practice and apply “solid content knowledge” (TEMAG 2014, p. 18) to their prac- tice as literacy teachers. This perspective was captured by a PST who described learning about praxis as being a key strength of her participation: The action of actually choosing which text type [for planning] also involved having to go through how you would teach [the text type]. I think putting theory in practice is always a better way to learn … All of the theory … we’ve learnt in literacy, putting it into practice in Digi-tell was really, really helpful because you got to see it [in action]. (FG5, Lara) Getting to know students was described by PSTs as an important influence on the success of the learning club programs. The need to “know students and how they learn” is also represented in Standard 1 of the Australian Professional Standards of teachers (AITSL 2011). PSTs reported changing their planning to improve out- comes after finding out about students’ interests, learning needs, experiences and knowledge. Realising the importance of looking “at the children’s experience, rather than just delivering an exact plan of how we wanted it to be” (Erin, FG6) was described as contributing to confidence to teach literacy because it enabled PSTs to be able to look beyond the expected level of the Australian Curriculum and identify knowledge above or below the expected standard and find ways to build on this. Building rapport with students was also identified as important because it was tied to the communication of clear expectations for students’ learning. This was sum- marised by a PST who described value in “building rapport with students and that [relationship] being an influence on their learning and them [students] not only wanting to learn but having the backing [support] of somebody who wants them to learn as well” (FG2, Hayley). PSTs described the use of appropriate assessment strategies to find out what students know as useful for improving outcomes in the clubs. In particular, a com- munities of practice emphasis on inquiry in the CPM supported PSTs to engage in “team based interpretation” (TEMAG 2014, p. 17) of student data to inform their programs. One PST noted: I really like the way we were assessing, the fact that we were getting together and discuss- ing and recording … I am actually going to try and implement that in my placement [practi- cum]. (FG7, Rory) The collection and use of student data to inform teaching is emphasised in the TEMAG (2014) report and PSTs in this research described using student data to evaluate their own teaching practice. This was particularly the case when PSTs reported using a range of assessment tools and activities to “explore their [students’] knowledge” (FG2, Thelma) and then modifying the learning activities and teaching strategies in their planning to better cater for the learning needs of the students.
7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 133 The development of professional knowledge through moving from tacit to explicit knowledge was noted in PST reflections on praxis. For example, PSTs described the value they associated with learning practical knowledge or knowledge in practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2004) through engaging in professional dis- cussions about catering for the diverse literacy learning needs of children. They placed value on these professional discussions for learning about the importance of flexible approaches to teaching aimed at finding out what children know about lit- eracy concepts, making connections between literacy concepts and children’s expe- riences, and building relationships to support children’s learning. Reflecting on their practice through deconstructing it and using their analysis of the deconstruction to inform what happened in the next session was described as important for their development as literacy teachers: We had to … change our whole plan after the first week, because everything that we planned didn’t really suit the kids [children] that we had, so we had to sort of turn everything on its head and change the way we were going to do it. So that was a bit of a challenge, because we had to change our approach completely. (FG6 Ash) The TEMAG (2014) report highlights the importance of explicit literacy instruc- tion for improving learning outcomes. This was also recognised by PSTs and cap- tured in the following comment by a PST who described his growing confidence to teach literacy using explicit instruction as opposed to relying on general familiarity with the the text type: It [Digi-Tell] made you realise that for a procedure [text type] we take for granted what it is, but it was good to actually have it highlighted to us [through Digi-Tell] that there are specific language features and structures that need to be taught … when you teach some- thing like that [text type] you need to be really explicit about it. (FG3, Shaun) Having access to a repertoire of strategies to draw upon to differentiate instruc- tion was also highlighted through PST participation in the CPM. In preparation to meet Standard 1.5 differentiating teaching to meet the needs of all students (AITSL 2011), PSTs reported confidence and competence to use a variety of strategies for ‘extending and moving forward” (FG7, Hayley) students’ learning. PSTs also reported feeling empowered by the opportunity to differentiate instruction based on students’ learning needs. This was particularly noted when using puppets and arts activities to teach literacy: I think in my head I only saw the puppet show as something you do in your spare time just for a bit of fun … From this [Tell Tales] we actually got quite a lot [of learning] out of it, the students just loved it, but from that it gave me [further] ideas that helped them [students] to get engaged in the learning. (FG6, Brian) In another example a PST described differentiating teaching instruction to meet the learning needs of some reluctant writers. This involved the students drawing story maps. Building on the students’ oral language strengths, the students then told their stories using the story maps as a guide and this then led to writing: You’d say, ‘Tell me the story using your story map’ and they would say it and then the next step would be to write it down and then they created a piece of writing that started with them drawing. (FG6, Kath)
134 K. McLean The role of technologies in the classroom was also captured in PST comments about creating multi-literate learning environments where students’ learning about text types such as narratives, does not have to be presented “in their book … It could be that they write a comic strip … and in other different [digital] forms” (FG2, Thelma). Other PSTs also described confidence and competence to embrace tech- nologies in their practice in ways that encouraged student engagement in literacy learning: I’d always thought when you had students … you have to sit down with a pen and paper and write [teaching literacy] … All of a sudden this whole new world opened up … text does not have to be pen on paper with a pen, it can be on a computer, it can be filmed, it can be photo, it can be all sorts of things … you’re still telling an audience something, you’re just doing it in a different way. (Lara FG5) The model for effective learning (AITSL 2011) provided in the CPM supported PSTs to develop confidence and competence to teach literacy. Using reflective pro- cesses PSTs analysed students’ learning and their own teaching practices, engaged deeply with the content of the Australian Curriculum and investigated and explored evidence-based teaching and learning strategies. Through reflective processes PSTs were encouraged to analyse practice from a learner and teacher perspective (Loughran 2012) and PST confidence and competence to teach literacy was described in terms of noticing important aspects of effective practice that may serve to inform future literacy teaching practice. 7.7.3 Anticipating Their Future Literacy Teacher Practice For the PSTs who participated in the reflective processes embedded in the CPM there was a sense in anticipating their future literacy practice that learning through experience contributes to preparedness to teach in the field. This was evident in PSTs expressions of enthusiasm to meet the challenges of teaching in contemporary literacy primary contexts, through knowing the strengths they bring to the class- room as graduate teachers and through a willingness to embrace innovation in education. Some PSTs described already having applied their learning about praxis to sub- sequent practicum experiences and others noted how sharing their experiences and ideas contributed to being seen by supervising teachers as having welcome expertise: When we go into placement and teach … our teachers go, ‘Oh that’s a great idea, I’ve never thought of doing it that way.’ So it gives them the opportunity to extend their students’ knowledge. (FG4, Kat) In anticipating their future practice PSTs described a connection between good teaching and students’ learning that would inform their future practice: I felt much more confident because I could see what we had done and what I had done with the students actually worked. That made me better able to see that I can teach literacy, and
7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 135 I am good at it, and I’m able to see … the directions that you can go with literacy and how to make it more accessible for the students as well, and more engaging for them. (FG8, Lara) Comments like this one suggested an awareness by PSTs, of what is described in the TEMAG report (2014) as a need for teachers “to analyse and evaluate their impact on learning and adjust their practice to best meet the needs of students” (p. 16). The reflective processes also supported PSTs to develop knowledge of their own strengths and this was seen as important in their future literacy teaching practice. PSTs described developing an awareness of particular teaching strengths including “having a creative side” (FG3, Kat), a willingness to adopt flexible teaching approaches and to try different strategies to achieve outcomes. One PST noted: “I’m more aware of my own strengths, so I’m able to offer them in a school setting and then I’m aware of my weaknesses too … ” (FG1, Clara). Comments such as these highlight an important connection to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011) where it is expected that graduate teachers can identify their individual learning needs (Standard 6.1) and work with other teachers to improve practice (Standard 6.3). PSTs noted a willingness to embrace innovation in education (DET 2013) when describing their future literacy teacher practice. This was evident in PSTs’ refer- ences to trying new approaches such as integrating technologies to create digital texts “to communicate to different audiences” (FG5, Rhonda). Thinking innova- tively about assessment was also captured in comments about “finding different ways to observe and assess, rather than just pen and paper tasks” (FG5, Heather) and presenting students with better opportunities to demonstrate knowledge. Thinking innovatively about practice further seemed to be attributed to the reflec- tive processes embedded in the CPM where PSTs were encouraged to consider application to other primary school contexts. PSTs reported that having the evi- dence of activities and strategies working on a small scale provided them with con- fidence to “be able to do it again” (FG2, Kat). PSTs describes opportunities to build upon these experiences in other teaching contexts and as one PST noted: “at least part of me knows I’ve got some idea about teaching literacy because I’ve success- fully done it before” (FG2, Kat). Comments such as these seemed to also support the notion of becoming an “expert pedagogue” (Loughran 2012) where reflections on praxis would continue into professional careers: We’re not supposed to know everything. This is like our foundation. We’re supposed to continue learning … we are forever researching new content, new teaching styles, so that we’ve got something that we can work with, then we can continue to learn and adapt it and build on it and change our knowledge … (FG2, Kat) PSTs reported an eagerness to take into their future practice the ability to engage with their profession beyond what Hattie (2012) refers to as the right method or script. This is captured in the PST comment below where future “dynamic” practice stems from a deeper understanding of the curriculum:
136 K. McLean I think the program [Tell Tales] … has given me more confidence and competence … it’s added another level. I felt before doing the program [Tell Tales] that I could probably teach literacy quite comfortably, and now … I can teach it [literacy] dynamically, it’s not just going on, ‘this curriculum needs to work’. It’s, ‘this is the curriculum. I can go this far and push the boundaries and do so many more things’. (FG7, Roz) Learning through experience (Loughran 2012) drove the learning model reported in this chapter. It would seem that the opportunities to delve into curriculum and develop understanding of praxis that the CPM provided had an additional benefit. It also supported PSTs to anticipate their future literacy teaching practice in ways that recognised the importance of “having a positive impact on the learning of all stu- dents” (TEMAG 2014, p. xv) 7.8 The Power of Reflective Practice in Preparing Strong Literacy Teachers This chapter reported on PSTs’ perspectives of their engagement in a CPM that used reflective processes to support their learning about literacy teaching in primary classrooms. The findings presented here indicate that the reflective processes in the CPM contributed to enhanced learning and PSTs’ preparedness to teach literacy in the primary school. Enhanced learning was described in relation to Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2004) descriptions of knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice and knowledge of practice. This is significant because it shows that these relation- ships, which are associated with deep approaches to learning (Biggs and Tang 2007) and improved teacher education outcomes (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2004) can be fostered in undergraduate PST education in ways that contribute to preparedness to teach in the field. The power of reflective practice in enabling PSTs to experience these relationships in their journey to becoming an expert literacy teacher was dem- onstrated in the research reported in this chapter. This suggests that there is potential for models similar to the CPM described in this research to be embraced more widely within the education sector. The social aspect of reflective practice that is described by Loughran (2012) and reported in the work of other researchers such as Brandenburg (2008) and Murphy et al. (2013) was also found to be significant in the work reported here. What this research adds to current debates about the preparation of tomorrow’s teachers is the recognition that these collaborative reflective processes enacted in authentic learn- ing contexts, such as after-school learning clubs, have the potential to enhance PSTs’ confidence and competence to teach literacy in diverse primary education contexts. One reason this may be the case for the PSTs involved in the CPM reported here is that the reflective processes, enacted through the delivery of the model, sup- ported PSTs in their awareness of the attributes required to be a teaching profes- sional alongside pedagogical aspects required to be an effective teacher. For example, PSTs described how valuing and using the contributions of all group members contributed to an effective literacy learning club program. When
7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 137 considering how PSTs may be supported to anticipate their future literacy teaching practice it may be important for universities to look more holistically at teacher preparation. Further research that examines the reflective processes informing pro- fessional and pedagogical aspects of preparing PSTs to teach literacy would provide further insights into this relationship. The reflective process described in this research and enacted through co-teaching suggests a need for research to be undertaken with similar CPMs. A striking aspect of the findings reported here is the extent that PSTs were able to identify key aspects of learning through experience in the CPM that may serve to inform their future literacy teaching practice. The use of systematic reflection to build knowledge of praxis through a collaborative problem solving approach similar to that described by Schön (1983) seemed to be significant in the CPM described in this chapter. PSTs spoke confidently about enacting their future practice in ways that suggested a willingness to embrace innovation in diverse primary education contexts and con- tinue their learning journey after university. These would seem to be desirable quali- ties in tomorrow’s literacy teachers who will be teaching in a changing literacy landscape. Further research is required to determine if the deep learning approaches used in this model have transference into the classroom. The findings from the research in the CPM presented in this chapter suggest that the potential exists for reflective practice in PST education to significantly contribute to the preparation of strong literacy teachers. The challenge for universities is to embed reflective pro- cesses enabling reflection on theory, practice and praxis (Murphy et al. 2013) in ways that will assist PSTs to continue to learn through inquiry when they enter the profession. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the support of The Smith Family in the regional Victorian community where these programs are conducted. Digi-Tell and Tell Tales could not operate without the generous support of The Smith Family staff. References ACARA. (2015b). ICSEA: Technical report. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_ resources/ICSEA_2015_technical_report.pdf Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2015a). Australian cur- riculum English. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/rationale Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional- standards-f or-teachers/standards/list Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: Sage Publications. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice. Germany: Springer.
138 K. McLean Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(20), 77–101. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge and university culture. In J. J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 601–649). Dordrecht: Springer. Council of Australian Governments [COAG]. (2014). Schools and education: Reform agenda. Retrieved from https://www.coag.gov.au/schools_and_education#Improving%20Teacher%20 Quality Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit. From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press. Department for Education United Kingdom [DfEUK]. (2011). Teachers’ standards: Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/govern- ment/publications/teachers-standards Department of Education and Training. (2013). Innovation in education. Retrieved from http:// www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/innovatehere.aspx?Redirect=1 Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand [ECANZ]. (2016, February 6). Graduating teacher standards. Retrieved from http://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/graduating-teacher-standards Education Services Australia & AITSL. (2014). Literacy and numeracy standards. Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initial-teacher-education/literacy-and-numeracy-standards.html Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge. Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching all by creating tribes learning communities. Windsor: Centre Source. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Florence: Routledge. Hodgson, J. (2011). Rethinking english in an age of ‘standards-based reforms’: A report form the 2011 IFTE conference. English in Education, 45(3), 254–263. Honan, E. (2012). A whole new literacy: Teachers’ understanding of students’ digital learning at home. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 82–98. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (2011). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 191–206. Keene, E. K., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reading workshop. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Kosnik, C. (2001). The effects of an inquiry oriented teacher education program on a faculty mem- ber: Some critical incidents and my journey. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 2(1), 65–80. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940120035532 Krueger, R. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education. A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands and expectations of self study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. Loughran, J. (2012). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Abingdon: Routledge. Murphy, C., Bianchi, L., McCullagh, J., & Kerr, K. (2013). Scaling up higher order thinking skills and personal capabilities in primary science: Theory-into-policy-into-practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 173–188. Razfar, A., & Gutiérrez, K. (2013). Reconceptualizing early childhood literacy: The sociocultural influence and new directions in digital and hybrid mediation. In J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed., pp. 52–80). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446247518.n4. Reinking, D. (2010). An outward, inward, and school-ward overview of interactive communication technologies across the literacy landscape. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The
7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 139 Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy (pp. 328–341). Oxen: Routledge. Roth, W. M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: A case study of teacher development through co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 771–784. Ryan, J. (2014). Introduction. In M. Jones & J. Ryan (Eds.), Successful teacher education. Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology (pp. 1–7). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple South. Snyder, I. (2008). The literacy wars: Why teaching children to read and write is a battleground in Australia. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Street, B. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG]. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial- advisory-group Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Chapter 8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action Erica Bowers, Barbara Laster, Debra Gurvitz, Tammy Ryan, Jeanne Cobb, and JoAnne Vazzano Abstract The study reported in this chapter grew out of a decade of conversations among reading teacher educators about the use of video in facilitating teacher reflec- tion and instructional improvement in university-based reading clinic courses. The data reported here were gathered from two university sites in the United States. Using a formative experiment methodology, we designed a study to better under- stand the ways in which reflective processes might be mediated by the use of video technology. The study had three phases of inquiry. We worked to develop a common reflection process and supportive protocols for use in our courses. We designed, trialed, and iteratively redesigned video reflection assignments and prompts, and we sought teacher feedback. We also examined teachers’ responses in course assign- ments as they reflected on their own teaching and learning. Our goal was to create a video assignment that would encourage teachers toward deeper, more thoughtful reflection. Our final development exercise was to design a set of criteria, a rubric of sorts that we could use in conjunction with the assignment prompts to help teachers self-reflect and to facilitate peer-to-peer and instructor feedback. While we discuss our experiences with factors that can impact the effective use of video-prompted E. Bowers (*) 141 California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. Laster Towson University, Towson, MD, USA D. Gurvitz Independent Education Consultant, Chicago, IL, USA T. Ryan Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL, USA J. Cobb Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA J. Vazzano Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, IL, USA © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_8
142 E. Bowers et al. reflection, our belief is that others will find our work useful and will be encouraged to use video as a way to foster teachers’ reflective thinking. 8.1 T eacher Reflection and Video Recording Video recording and analysis has long been assumed to be an effective tool for teacher reflection and a powerful driver for changing teachers’ practices. Interest in these two areas is reflected in the literature concerning the features and outcomes of video-assisted reflection in classrooms and teacher education settings. Several researchers have worked to better understand the specifics of how to impact the quality of reflection that teachers engage in through the use of video. For example, Rosean et al. (2008) examined how video use impacted the specificity of teacher reflection and reported strong evidence that video recordings can change the way teachers reflect on their experiences. Their study involved preservice teachers who recorded lessons they taught and composed two reflections. The first was a reflec- tion based on memory. After that, they watched their video lesson and composed a second reflection. Findings indicated that the video-based comments were more specific, while memory-based reflections were more general. And there were differ- ences in focus. Unlike the memory reflections, the video-based reflections were more focused on instruction than on classroom management. Also, video-based reflections were more focused on student learning than on what the teacher was doing. This finding was similar in a study of 37 preservice teachers by Pena and De Leon (Pena and De Leon 2011). Student teachers taught a demonstration lesson, which was video recorded. Immediately after completing the lesson, they were asked to reflect on the demonstration lesson from their memory of it. Two weeks later the preservice teachers watched a video of the same lesson and were then asked to reflect. In this study, while there was no evidence of change in the level of depth of reflection, the types of issues focused upon in reflection differed. The initial (by memory) reflection tended to focus on concerns about student engagement and enjoyment, while the video-prompted reflections were more concerned in determin- ing if the teacher’s explanations of concepts were clear, accurate, and grade-level appropriate. With the video reflection, there was also an increase in attendance to teacher planning, objectives and goals, and instructional strategies, as well as stu- dent retention of the lesson. Santagata and Angelici (2010) studied the impact of a lesson analysis framework on preservice teacher ability to reflect on videos of mathematics teaching. Thirty- four preservice teachers were assigned to one of two groups for an intervention study. The first group (the intervention group) used a lesson analysis framework (LAF) to guide reflection on videos of mathematics lessons. A second group used a teaching rating framework (TRF), to analyze specific elements of instruction. The two frameworks used differed in that the rating scale, TRF, asked the scorer to judge
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 143 the lesson on its parts rather than analyze it as a whole, and the LAF asked the scorer to analyze each lesson while considering the interrelatedness of its components. The TRF group was asked to rate particular sections of a lesson on a pre-designed five- point scale, while the LAF group watched a lesson and was asked to reflect on four points, learning opportunities provided, student learning that could be observed, students’ difficulties, and possible alternative strategies and their potential impact. They found that the LAF group performed significantly better on the posttest com- pared to the TRF group, indicating that more holistic approaches to reflection seem to be more effective than the use of rating scales and checklists with specific or nar- rowly defined prompts. Since reflective practice is often assumed to precipitate changes in instruction, some scholars have focused on the effects of teacher reflection on subsequent teach- ing practice and especially how video reflection might be a tool that can help teachers reflect and improve their practice. In 2003, Jian and Kendall (2003) examined how video technology supported teacher change. Their work identified 20 studies and suggested that researchers and teachers presume an effectiveness for the use of video to aid reflection, but that the effects of its use have not been carefully documented. A more recent review of 63 studies of video use by Tripp and Rich (2012) resulted in the conclusion that reflections, combined with video, were more focused and accu- rate than reflections that teachers undertook without video. They suggested that there were certain conditions that made use of video more effective. For example, video reflections coupled with open-ended written reflections were identified as more effective than those using checklists. Trip and Rich also concluded that guided reflec- tions helped teachers focus on student understanding and thinking. While during those without guided reflections, teachers focused on the technical aspects of teach- ing. Supervisor feedback to teachers engaged in reflection was more effective when video evidence was available, and when it was used it could improve a teacher’s ability to use evidence to support reflective comments. It is useful to note though that only nine studies showed evidence of teachers changing their practices as a result of using video to reflect. This suggests that while video can be useful as a tool for iden- tifying strengths and needs in teaching, it is not a universal driver for change. In another, more specific study, this point is supported. In 2014, Shanahan and Tochelli set out to answer the question of whether pedagogical content knowledge for reading comprehension instruction among elementary classroom teachers could be enhanced by the use of video recording and subsequent collegial discussions (Shanahan and Tochelli 2014). They concluded that while the video served as a professional development tool, in terms of improvements in knowledge, it did not necessarily foster change. The study we report in this chapter is the result of a team collaboration of six reading professors. Data for this study were collected from two universities in two different geographical regions of the United States. It is the research outgrowth of over a decade of professional conversations about instructional practices involving a professional network of reading educators across multiple states. A common inter- est we all shared was in using video recording and transcription as tools to focus teacher reflection in literacy clinics and reading laboratory settings. While all
144 E. Bowers et al. instructors in our group used video recording and analysis of video of lessons, and some used transcription of lessons and written analysis, we all had questions about which methods were most effective for engaging our clinical teachers in reflection and ongoing improvement of practice. We had informal, anecdotal data to support its value, but it appeared that we had no common approach to the reflective process with video, nor did we have much evidence of its effects or benefits. Thus, we designed a study to examine the utility of video for both instructors and students and to help us answer questions about the utility of video reflections to enhance teacher practice. Our inquiry led us to work together on a formative experiment to design and test video reflection tools. 8.2 A Formative Experiment A formative experiment is a flexible research design that allows for an in-depth investigation of research questions in order to refine understandings. When used in educational studies, formative experimental design methodology allows for the exploration of various instructional interventions to better achieve valued teaching and learning goals (Reinking and Bradley 2004, 2008). Unique to this methodology is how researchers can anticipate and then adjust for unexpected factors or dilem- mas. Such obstacles may inhibit or enhance the success in achieving a study’s goals and are discovered during various phases/cycles of data collection and analysis. This was an ideal design for the close examination of video reflection; therefore in this study, we incorporated the following characteristics of a formative experiment as outlined by Reinking and Watkins (2000): 1. Establish pedagogical goals informed by theory. 2. Implement an intervention to achieve pedagogical goals. 3. Collect data to identify factors enhancing or inhibiting effectiveness to reach goals. 4. Modify the intervention based on unanticipated factors. 5. Note changes to the instructional environment. 6. Determine positive and negative unanticipated effects of the pedagogical inquiry. A formative experiment methodology offered us the opportunity to explore our common areas of inquiry while at the same time collaborating to design and test a method or structure for video use that would benefit all researchers and teachers. Our design goal was to develop an analysis/reflection protocol that could be used to enhance teacher reflection and practice. The protocol was developed through phases of data collection and analysis, each phase leading to refinements of the tool until we confirmed the most useful guiding questions that would evoke deep teacher reflection on instructional practice. We also wanted to develop a set of shared criteria for teachers so that they could self-evaluate the quality of their reflections.
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 145 We saw reflection as including description, analysis, and outcomes, and since we were at first unsure about whether this was a shared view, we thought a set of criteria would be helpful. We also considered that the criteria would be useful for guiding peer-to-peer and instructor-teacher reflective conversations. 8.2.1 Research Questions Through this study, we sought to answer two global questions about the use of video reflection as a teacher learning tool. First, we wanted to know if the reading teachers we were working with found video recording and analysis to be a useful tool for their own professional learning and improvement. Secondly, we wanted to design usable observation tools that would help us understand more about the quality of reflection that teachers might undertake in clinical settings. 8.2.2 P articipants and Contexts All study participants were graduate students (teachers) who were enrolled in Master of Education programs with an emphasis in reading education. We refer to these university settings as Site #1 and Site #2 to assure anonymity for participants. At the time this research was conducted, each university site was sponsoring a read- ing clinic. Reading clinics are often established and maintained by universities with reading/literacy education programs to serve dual purposes. First, they provide opportunities for students to engage in supervised clinical experiences at the univer- sity (or nearby school site) while also serving the community by providing much- needed opportunities for students and their families to come to receive expert advice and support for reading difficulties. The two sites chosen also had the most success in uploading video recordings of lessons. The video assignment was not just com- pleted as a research exercise; in both programs the teachers in training completed a video reflection assignment as part of their coursework. The teachers were in the middle or end of their graduate studies, and informed consent for the use of their assignments for research purposes was gained by the researchers. A total of 29 teachers across both sites are represented in these data. Specific examples, however, are drawn from two teachers from each site, who were selected as cases. We selected the four-case study teachers to obtain a balance in responses from more or less expe- rienced teachers. This meant selecting one veteran and one novice teacher from each site. It should be noted that these teachers also represented a variety of teach- ing experiences.
146 E. Bowers et al. 8.2.2.1 S ite #1 The clinical context of Site #1 required the graduate students to provide intervention to one student for 12 weekly hour and a half sessions (18 h). The clients came to the university reading center from various neighborhoods throughout the community. Some of the clients were English language learners, whose home language was primarily Spanish. The clients ranged in grade from kindergarten to grade ten. Site #1 had a class of 17 teachers. Of these, two were selected as case study teachers: Site #1: Teacher #1 At the time of this study, this teacher had not yet acquired a contracted teaching position and was currently substitute teaching. Site #1: Teacher #2 This teacher had more than 20 years of teaching experience. She had taught in a regular public elementary school, but was currently teaching at a juvenile correctional facility for high school-aged adolescents. 8.2.2.2 Site #2 The clinical context in Site #2 required the graduates to provide intervention to two struggling readers for 20 one-hour sessions at their own school sites. These children (students) were not identified as English language learners, but did come from homes where the primary language was Spanish. In addition, the clients participated in the free and reduced lunch program. From the Site #2 class of 12 teachers, two were selected for this study: Site #2: Teacher #3 Reentering the teaching profession after 8 years, this teacher had 2 years of teaching experience at a parochial school prior to her break in service. Site #2: Teacher #4 This teacher, an eight-year veteran, was teaching middle school reading/language arts at a school in which 77% of the children were receiv- ing free and reduced lunch and 85% were English language learners. 8.2.3 D ata In this paper we draw on two data sets. The first, larger set includes course evalua- tions and end-of-course reflections from graduate teachers engaged in the reading courses that were the focus of this study and field notes and reflections from instruc- tors/researchers. Across each phase of our study, we collected qualitative data. We used video recordings, video-prompted written reflections, anecdotal notes from the clinical sites, and notes from collaborative discussions among the researchers. Our goal in dealing with the larger corpus of data was to identify common themes occurring in teacher reflections and evaluations: what was working for the teachers in terms of reflecting using video and what was valuable to them and what needed
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 147 work or improvement. We added depth and detail to these global themes by using written responses from four case study teachers. We used researcher field notes and reflections as a way of deepening our understandings of the process by which reflec- tion was facilitated and problem solved as courses progressed. We used an inductive approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967) to code and analyze data from teachers and researchers. 8.3 Three Phases of Inquiry To understand how video-prompted reflection might be used to enhance teacher reflection in reading clinics across multiple sites, we collaborated across six research sites for 3 years. In this time we engaged in a formative experiment to design, trial and refine a video reflection protocol that would have high utility across many clini- cal sites and learning formats. We also worked together to develop a rubric that we could use with graduate teachers to enhance their reflective practice and draw them toward deeper more meaningful reflection that can impact practice and teacher development. 8.3.1 P hase 1: Design and Test a Reflection Protocol Informed by Research and Theory In 2010–2011, at an in-person meeting, multiple researchers discussed how video reflection was implemented at their sites. We reviewed the pre-existing protocols for video recording and reflection that graduate students in each clinical course were expected to use to guide their reflective practice. We selected one that we agreed was a good starting point for us all to work on. It was comprehensive and yet many thought challenging. Over several months, drawing on a review of literature of video reflection (Dozier 2006; Rosean et al. 2008; Tripp and Rich 2012), typologies of levels of reflection (e.g., Kreber and Cranton 2000; van Manen 1977), and inquiry into the role of prompts or questions in promoting teacher analysis and reflection (Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan 1994), we made efforts to simplify and improve the prompts and questions of the original protocol. The result was a simplified protocol that we agreed to trial. Over several semesters at five clinical sites where graduate reading courses were offered, the protocol was tested and reflections collated through a Google Sites community shared by the researchers. Discussions of field notes, student assign- ments and evaluations took place in person at conference venues and through elec- tronic communications and resulted in refinements being made to the protocol to attempt to improve the prompts once again again. Our desire was to have the protocol prompts focus teachers’ attention on their own pedagogy and to deepen their under-
148 E. Bowers et al. Prompt 1. Was the objective met? Prompt 2. Identify areas of teacher talk that scaffolded, extended, or redirected the student response. Prompt 3. Identify an alternative approach/strategy for follow-up. Prompt 4. If you were acting in a coaching role-what questions would you have? Prompt 5. What is a key learning you achieved by participating in this reflection? Fig. 8.1 Protocol with prompts for teacher reflection standing of the client’s engagement, the quality of instruction, and how these expe- riences might offer them transformational opportunities as a teacher. We wanted to prioritize open-ended questions that guided the teachers to think more deeply, so we added a prompt that pushed them to observe closely and think more deeply about the words they were using with their client: Prompt 2, identify areas of teacher talk that scaffolded, extended, or redirected the student responses. We also decided that we needed to focus teacher reflection on how they were addressing the specific needs of the client, so we asked, Prompt 3: What is a follow-up approach or strategy you would use with this client? Finally, our goals also included a desire to help teachers see their actions as situated in a broader context of their own development as professionals. So we added Prompt 5: What is a key learning you achieved by participating in this reflection? Here, we wanted them to reflect on their values and actions as intervention teachers for struggling readers. The final draft, the revised protocol, is shown in Fig. 8.1. It was re-trialed in Sites #1 and #2, and data gathered were again in the form of student assignments, videos, student evaluations, and researcher field notes and evaluations. 8.3.2 P hase 2: Analyzing the Results from the Revised Protocol The researchers at Sites #1 and #2 each used the revised protocol with one cohort of graduate reading teachers in the 2012 fall semester. Teachers (n = 29) participating in these courses reported that the video reflection assignment was useful and that they learned from it. Four teachers, two from each site, were selected as case study teachers, and their data were used to review the protocol use and utility in more depth. Videos of teaching, teacher reflection assignments, and field notes about interactions (both online and face to face) were analyzed for evidence of teacher reflection, with a view to understanding the possible levels of reflection the protocol might promote. For example, in many of the reflections, van Manen’s (1977) notion of technical reflection was evident as teachers provided simple descriptive accounts of the teaching they observed during their video-recorded teaching sessions. While we could identify this in most of the videos we viewed, we wanted to understand whether deeper reflection was also occurring. Guiding questions were used to focus researchers on the differences among levels of reflection. We asked ourselves: Was
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 149 the teacher naming and noticing specific teaching or learning behaviors? Was there evidence of deeper reflection? Was there an expression by the teacher that the reflec- tion might impact his or her future practice or values? 8.3.3 P hase 3: Creating a Rubric to Focus and Enhance Teacher Reflection In this final phase, we looked more carefully at our own and teacher responses to the reflective practice exercise undertaken. Our goal here was to develop a rubric, a set of criteria, which could be used to support teachers to undertake deeper levels of reflection and to help others do the same. We envisaged a way that this rubric could be used as a guide for understanding their own levels of reflection as they worked with their students in reading clinics and sought to improve their own practice. 8.4 Findings and Discussion After proceeding through Phases 1 and 2 of the design process, we focused our attention on the data collected through the final phase of testing the revised rubric. Our first area of interest was related to how useful reading teachers in training might find using video for engaging in reflective practice. Overall, the teachers involved (n = 29) in the study were positive about its capacity for improving their own aware- ness and learning. There were, however, several factors that seemed to mediate its utility as a tool for teacher learning. They were the learning format and the degree to which collaboration with instructors and peers was central to the reflective pro- cess, the presence of a reflective protocol to guide reflection, and the use of tran- scription as a focusing device. These factors seemed to work together to influence the reflective practice experience of the teachers. Figure 8.2 summarizes the factors we argue played a role in influencing video reflections. 8.4.1 Learning Formats Many reading programs are moving to online instruction for developing critical content and assessment and instructional intervention skills. While Site #2 always was and continued to be delivered in an on-campus learning format, Site #1’s course, once a face-to-face offering, shifted to an online delivery mode during the duration of this study. This change of learning formats presented a new set of challenges to instructors, who indicated that technology issues and new online methodology had changed the culture of learning in the course. They reported differences in their
150 E. Bowers et al. •Online Learning Collaboration •Reviewing video only •Face-to-Face •Reviewing transcript and •Peer Feedback video Learning •Instructor Guidance and Format Feedback Transcription •Protocol as Scaffold Fig. 8.2 Factors influencing the video reflection process experiences of teacher reflection in the online space when compared to the reflec- tions of those who were engaged in on-campus, face-to-face instruction. Some dif- ferences were located in the availability of technology tools and their use for capturing, uploading, viewing, and reviewing videos of teaching. These differences led to unexpected limitations in the experiences of online students. As part of their coursework, students in the online space were required to record and upload videos to a shared class secure wiki so that peer- and instructor-mediated reflection might take place in the context of lessons taught. According to teacher feedback, it often took multiple efforts and pathways to successfully upload their teaching videos and allow access to their instructors/peers. They also reported problems with access and playback for the videos of others. These problems influenced how students were able to get timely interaction around their focus lessons and led us to the conclusion that online course engagement, exacerbated by technology issues, can be a barrier to teacher video reflection in some cases. An instructor/researcher at Site #1 described the issues: Time is always such an issue when teaching. In the face-to-face context, we were able to problem-solve and provide feedback “in the moment” whereas in the online format both teacher and student can experience “lag time”. Lag time means - waiting one week for video posts to upload, dealing with trouble uploading leading to an even longer lag time … by the time the feedback on the reflection was provided, the next lesson has already been taught and the graduate student had moved on to something new. (Instructor, Site #1) In many ways, the instructor reported, it was harder to guide the teachers in deep reflections about their practice when the conversation and interactions were asyn- chronous and without a shared instructional context. On the other hand, the use of video for face-to-face students was often dealt with immediately – the instructor, peers, and teacher shared a common instructional context, and this seemed to sup- port a certain quality of teacher reflection as the real-time conversations took place and students negotiated their understandings of their own practice. Our conclusion
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 151 was similar to that of other researchers that it is not the video recording itself that matters as much as it is the possibility of thoughtful, structured interaction around them (Shanahan and Tochelli 2014). With the online format, achieving this struc- tured, thoughtful interaction was more difficult than we had at first imagined. 8.4.2 C ollaboration In this section we discuss collaboration as a factor that impacted teachers’ and researchers’ ideas about the utility of video–reflection as a tool for teacher learning. Three main sources of collaboration are considered here. First is the peer-to-peer collaboration that was structured and occurred in the course of undertaking the video reflection assignment as a peer-reviewed process. A second kind of collabora- tion occurred in the form of direct and personal instructor feedback and guidance. The third form of collaboration was that provided by the material scaffold (Wass et al. 2011) of the teaching resources. In this case this was the assignment reflection protocol. 8.4.2.1 Collaboration: Peer Collaboration Collaboration among peers differed across the two sites. Site #1 teacher group was an online group, and, while they used the same protocol, their methods of peer reflection were different. The Site #2 group was highly collaborative, whereas the Site #1 group was less so. Our hypothesis around collaboration was that social inter- action is a factor that influences reflection for teachers in different ways than inde- pendent self-reflective study might (Jones and Ryan 2014). Online teachers at Site #1 had asynchronous collaborations, which as we discussed above were affected by time lags. A result of this was that they had fewer opportunities to engage in col- laborative, meaningful real-time reflective conversations with others. On the other hand, teachers experiencing the Site #2, face-to-face weekly interactions shared an instructional context. Comparing field notes, the researchers noted that the learning format seemed to be having an impact on the ways in which, and the degree to which, the students collaborated with each other. As one researcher stated in her reflection: researchers are beginning to discuss ways to build rapport and community in the online setting. In my online supervision it can be more difficult to break through the wall of recep- tivity with regard to critique and reflection, in addition to providing a “safe space” where peer collaboration can occur- in a 16 week time frame! Whereas in the face to face context, a culture of risk taking and receptivity can be built much more quickly- through many inter- actions each week so that reflective learning can happen at a much deeper level. (Instructor, Site #1) While Site #1 teachers wrestled with technology and had the required interac- tions for course completions, Site #2 teachers extended their collaborations week
152 E. Bowers et al. after week. They built trust, they used collegial (small group real-time) debriefings, and they learned to reflect in the company of others. Teacher #3 sums up the benefit of this close in-person collaboration. Her language use (we, our, each other, fellow) describes a view of the interactions as collaborative and mutually beneficial. By sharing this with T, a fellow tutor and colleague in this program, we were able to see new ways of communicating and instructing students. It was also helpful to receive insight from each other on our respective students and instruction. (Teacher #3) Another significant issue that arose in the course of this study centered on the form and function of collaboration with others during the reflective process. We noted that some teachers engaged in and wrote their reflections independently, but others debriefed with colleagues while viewing their video recordings and then wrote up a reflection after this collaborative interaction. The process at the Site #2 followed this procedure: First, one teacher observed his/her own video. Then, she/ he chose a section to look at more closely. It was transcribed and viewed once more to check accuracy. Then, the video and the transcription were shared with a classmate. Vazzano and Pariza’s (2010) research supports this notion of collaboration enhancing video use. In their study of an advanced clinical practicum, participating teachers video recorded themselves teaching a metacognitive strategy to a strug- gling reader. At a subsequent seminar, fellow students viewed the video and partici- pated in a reflective debrief to closely examine elements of the strategy instruction. The conversation was guided by a reflective debrief protocol. The researchers video recorded the debriefing in order to study the reflective qualities of the debriefing sessions. During the initial debriefing sessions, despite adhering to the reflective debrief protocol, teachers were often unable to identify essential elements of the implemented lesson, compose perceptive observations, and offer substantive alter- native suggestions. However with ongoing practice, the reflective and insightful nature of the debriefing sessions did increase. 8.4.2.2 C ollaboration: Instructor Guidance and Feedback Collaboration with instructors for feedback and guidance was seen as important by both groups of teachers in the study. At both sites, teachers had the choice of which instructional component of their lessons to examine in their video reflections. They reported that they appreciated having the choice of what to showcase in their video recording, but they still wanted their instructors to provide guidance as to whether they were working to expectations. In reviewing the videos and reflections, we noticed that some teachers had difficulty identifying significant problems of prac- tice. As Vazzano and Pariza (2010) note, even with the use of a structured debrief protocol, teachers can still miss effective instructional elements or misinterpret why some elements of the instruction were effective. In Site #2, interactions with the instructor also took place within the collaborative or peer-to-peer reflection conver- sations. As students worked together, the instructor often assisted by modeling
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 153 guiding questions to focus the conversation. For example, “What do you notice?” “What are you going to change?” “What do you expect the client to do as a result of those changes?” “So, how will this change your own professional practice?” During these conversations, teachers considered new instructional strategies or approaches for the client, as well as new professional learning for themselves. Our teachers often missed crucial aspects of teaching behavior that we would have identified for reflection. Sometimes their capacity to “see” or notice what was occurring was limited. This was the case for both effective and less effective teach- ing practices being used. In other words, they did not just “not notice” practices that needed improvement, they often failed to notice really successful teaching behav- iors too. The following example from an instructor evaluation of a teacher’s reflec- tion illustrates this issue well. The teacher doesn’t seem strong on what is happening with this student. The teacher is missing quite a bit with respect to the actual instructional strategies she is using/not using. She does not notice a need to provide motivating and interesting instructional strategies to “hook” the student into learning new vocabulary words. The teacher did not reflect on the child’s actual learning beyond the word sort. The teacher did not reflect on the use of sen- tence context to support word retrieval when she offered the word “intermission” in the context of a student friendly sentence. Her scaffolding seemed obvious and necessary for the student in recalling the word and its meaning but she did not describe it. (Instructor, Site #1) Teachers too felt benefit from having a supervising instructor giving feedback on their reflections. Teacher #3 noted, “I always like a supervisor’s observation because I like hearing constructive criticism and I want to improve my teaching.” 8.4.3 C ollaboration: The Protocol as Scaffold The revised protocol used in this study contained reflection prompts we hoped would enhance teacher reflection without constraining it. As researchers and instruc- tors, we struggled with the tension of wanting to guide teachers through the use of the protocol, but not limit their thinking by providing a too rigid, top-down frame. We often shared with our teachers that a good reflection is comprised of more than simply summarizing the activities they observed, but rather trying to understand behaviors, actions, and values and their impacts on student learning. Our objective was to help teachers “think, analyze, evaluate, and own their practice.” The prompts provided focused the reflection, and in many cases they did seem to help teachers strive for a deeper understanding of their own teaching practices. But not all teach- ers responded this way. For other teachers, noticing and naming behaviors was a more common response in reflection. In such cases, after a teacher described what happened in a lesson, we often had to ask, “So what? You have described the lesson and commented that the student continues to need additional instruction in this area. What changes do you plan to make? What are the implications for your instruc- tion?” Through the use of the protocol, we were able to provide some guidance about what a good reflection focus might look like.
154 E. Bowers et al. It is interesting to note that the responses to the protocol were not more devel- oped for either online or face-to-face students. Nor was there a pattern of deeper reflection for veteran versus novice teachers. Across the two sites, the results were varied. The protocol questions provided examples for teachers of what they might reflect on and as such acted as an expert voice in their ears when no one was present in person. Teachers tended to agree with us that the protocol was structured enough to provide support while being loose enough to allow for a range of reflective options. Our experience using this protocol indicates that it is not the protocol itself that will foster reflection, rather the way it is used. In essence we saw the protocol as a form of scaffolding with the potential to enrich teacher reflection and learning. Teacher #4 agreed: I would say that the key learning from this experience was opening my toolbox to the vari- ety of ways that I can reflect. I found it to be very useful. While watching the video, the key learning that I experienced was to pay attention to how much I am talking and how much time I’m giving the child time to talk or answer a question. I believe this is important to the growth of both of us. (Teacher #4) 8.4.4 Transcription and Reflection While methods for reflection varied across the clinics, the use of transcription when coupled with interaction seemed to amplify the reflective process. When we began having conversations about the use of video in clinics, some of the instructors were using transcription of video as part of the video requirements. For example, several assignment outlines asked that teachers transcribe a small section of their instruc- tional videos and then reflect with the aid of video and transcript. Other instructors did not use transcription, but asked their teachers to work simply collaboratively while viewing their videos, to discuss them, and then to reflect individually. In this formative experiment, the procedure that seemed to show most promise was when teachers used written transcription in conjunction with video debriefing and reflec- tion with colleagues. We did not set out to test the use of transcription as a tool for reflection, rather we became aware of it as our design process progressed. Our thinking here is that transcription presents teachers with a focusing device. By this we mean that the transcript produced from the video allows for a representation of the events in great detail. As teachers transcribed, they paid attention to their inter- actions with their students through actions, words, nonverbal communications, facial expressions, and body language. These behaviors often occur simultaneously as people interact and can be difficult to notice. The advantage of having a transcript of the interaction is that it can be revisited many times and in great depth without the distraction of the fast-paced movement of the ongoing lesson. Theoretically, we might argue that the transcript promotes in Dewey’s terms (Dewey 1933) deliberate contemplation on a dilemma of teaching. It allows teachers to study the problem and come to decision about how to solve it. While we did not ask the teachers if and how transcription might impact their reflective process, our hypothesis is that
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 155 transcription allows teachers to stop and look, to notice and name a problem in more detail, and to reflect on small moments of opportunity with greater depth. Teacher #4 from Site #2 sums this up: Compared to other forms of self-reflection, this was a very saturated look into my reading intervention instruction. I was able to get a sense of every minute of the lesson, as well as the body language and non-verbal communication that was happening. (Teacher #4) What we do not yet understand is which aspects of video transcribing might be most influential on reflective practice. The pragmatics of transcribing video means that to capture the smallest details, one has to watch and re-watch the video many times. We wonder if perhaps this repeated viewing might be influential in helping teachers reflect. 8.5 D esigning an Instructional Rubric to Enhance Levels of Reflection In this final section, we discuss Phase 3 of this formative experiment, the design of a rubric that we could use as teaching tool to guide teachers to self-evaluation of their reflections. Examining teacher videos in conjunction with their accounts of those interactions and reflections on them via the protocol led us to the conclusion that not all teachers were reflecting in ways that had the potential to promote learn- ing for teaching. As we noted earlier, some teachers simply described the happen- ings of their lessons, engaging in little reflection at all. The following instructor note on a teacher’s progress illustrates this: Reflection appeared to be a cursory discussion of her lesson and only in brief 1–2 sentence answers. The teacher does not seem to have other language to describe how C (student) performed and how her teaching assisted C. The teacher mentions “using connections” but did not directly reflect on the significance of text-connections or prior knowledge as a scaf- fold for comprehension development. She observed that she helped the child with academic vocabulary (e.g. Native American) when the child had difficulty, but we did not observe her effectively supporting the child. (Instructor, Site #2) We noted that our teachers were not often aware of their reflective thought pro- cesses, nor did they always seem to understand what we meant as instructors when we invited them to reflect deeply on their instructional interactions. This problem is an old one revisited many times in the literature on reflective practice. People often have quite different views of what constitutes reflection and invitations to reflect might mean different things to different people as different modes of thinking are deployed (Danielson 2009). For this reason, we wanted to design a rubric that we might use as a teaching tool in our courses to assist teachers in understanding what we meant by deep or critical self-reflection and what reflections of that nature might look like. This is not to say that surface reflections were all we recorded, but that we wondered if the lack of deep/critical reflection we encountered was due to the lack of a shared understanding of what we meant by the term. Reflecting on our own
156 E. Bowers et al. practices as instructors, it might have been helpful to teachers to explain this expec- tation more fully and give examples. There were examples of deeper reflection in the teachers’ assignments. The description of a student self-reflection by one of the instructors shows a teacher thinking responsibly and considering the consequences of her actions during instruction. The instructor also views the teacher’s reflection as indicating a willingness to be open-minded about finding a new approach with the student. The teacher does a good job of noticing the student behaviors and her own instructional practice, although she missed some key points. The teacher notices that she should have limited the lesson to just the long “o”. However, her instructional objective focused on the larger linguistic element of how an “e” makes a vowel long. She did indicate that patterns were rapidly switched and presented and this was an area in which she could improve. (Instructor Site #1) Just as in the literature (Kreber and Cranton 2000; van Manen 1977), we found that reflective thinking can occur at different levels. In van Manen’s terms, we iden- tified reflective statements that were technical, practical, and critical. As a group, we became aware that we “read” the data differently and so much discussion ensued as to what we really meant by reflective levels. As we analyzed the transcripts, lessons and evaluations, we wrestled with defining those levels. Our process involved con- versations around our data, revisiting our assumptions and the literature on reflec- tive practice. Our discussions in Phase #3 yielded four broad categories of reflection, which with the examples drawn from data guided us in designing a rubric. This rubric contains three sets of criteria that capture different levels of reflection. A final category describes one set that was designed to capture those assignments from students who failed to develop a shared understanding of the process and concept of reflection. Table 8.1 represents the final form of the rubric designed through the formative experiment of this project. We agreed that it could help us in understanding our students’ reflective journeys as well being useful to guide teachers as they worked on the video assignments and considered their reflective responses. 8.5.1 C ritical Reflection These reflections include close observation coupled with a forward thinking, open- minded instructional stance, and critical awareness of the consequences of educa- tional practices. A reflection rated in this category would indicate that the teacher took on a self-questioning stance and addressed future learning. For example, a teacher infers how a change in goal setting might impact student learning. She probes her teaching behaviors and makes comments such as “if I had done this …,” “I wonder how the student would have responded if I had …,” or “Next session, I will do this because ….”
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 157 Table 8.1 Teacher reflection rubric Reflective level Level description Critical The teacher takes on a self-questioning stance. Teacher addresses future learning for the student and infers how a change in goal setting might impact student learning. She probes her own teaching behaviors, attitudes, and values and demonstrates an openness to learning Practical The teacher exhibits some evidence of noticing and naming elements of practice including teacher behaviors and their effects on student learning. Specific examples demonstrate an instructional problem-solving stance. Teacher notes changes that might be made to teaching Technical The teacher makes note of lesson features, but there is little or no elaboration on teaching and learning beyond the immediate context of the lesson. The main focus is on student behaviors. There is a minimal focus on the teacher’s own development Superficial The teacher provides a simple summary of the lesson events and seems unable to go beyond those events to reflect on participants’ actions and their consequences. This category does not include a reflection on teacher practice Below, Instructor #2 describes how Teacher #3 response demonstrates a critical stance. She felt she should have slowed down and used the same vowel pattern multiple times before switching to a new pattern. She also recognized that she should have provided a more interactive format for this young child. She made plans for her future instruction based on this lesson critique. (Instructor, Site #2) 8.5.2 P ractical Reflection The practical reflection category includes reflections that demonstrate some analy- sis of student and teacher behaviors for evidence that instructional goals are being met. For a reflection to be rated in this category, a teacher requires an open-minded, problem-solving approach to considering assumptions and consequences and some evidence of awareness of the impact of teacher behaviors on learning outcomes. The reflection includes specific examples of effective pedagogy. Teacher #4 demon- strates this in the following example: I scaffolded his learning by asking him to elaborate and answer, ‘What does back then mean? By asking him to ‘be more specific’, I am giving him the opportunity to think about his own learning, rather than me putting words in his mouth or leading him to the answer. (Teacher #4)
158 E. Bowers et al. 8.5.3 T echnical Reflection Reflections rated in this category are often brief and contain little elaboration on teaching and learning. The teacher notices and names some aspects of the lesson, but these are more related to the technicalities of the session’s execution such as the application of reading knowledge to intervention activities. There is little focus on teaching quality or on the instructional moves created and missed with the student. As Instructor #2 notes of Teacher #3’s reflection: The teacher did not reflect on the child’s actual learning beyond the word sort. The teacher did not reflect on the use of sentence context to support word retrieval when she offered the word “intermission” in the context of a student friendly sentence. Her scaffolding seemed obvious and necessary for the student in recalling the word and its meaning but she did not describe it. (Instructor, Site #2) 8.5.4 S uperficial Reflection The final category we incorporated was designed to capture teacher responses that do not really engage with self-reflection. Rather they note problems with little delib- erate thought of causes and consequences. For example, the teacher’s focus may be entirely on describing events with no commentary or interpretation. We hypothesize that these kinds of responses may have occurred because instructors and teachers were working to different definitions of reflecting on teaching. Included in this cat- egory are comments such as “I also noticed that the student was not as cooperative as I had first thought.” This teacher’s reflection focuses on the student rather than on her practice. She notices that her lesson did not work, but does not elaborate on how she determined this nor how her future sessions with this client might be modified based on these reflections. 8.6 C onclusions In conclusion, we offer some key findings from this formative experiment. When thinking about the use of video reflection in teacher education courses, we suggest that the learning format is a crucial consideration affecting the overall reflective experience for teachers. We found that the online format with its attendant technol- ogy demands often created problems. There was a lag time for teachers because of file loading and viewing issues, and this impacted their ability to engage in frequent and productive interactions around their videos. This led to some frustration with the reflective process and may have impacted results in some cases. Face-to-face classes did not experience these problems. Careful attention to solving technology issues may be needed before proceeding with this approach in online settings.
8 Using Video for Teacher Reflection: Reading Clinics in Action 159 In terms of collaboration, we drew two conclusions. First, when using video reflection as an instructional tool, we need to consider the impact of social media- tion on teacher reflection and learning. We found that teachers valued input from both instructors and peers. We agree with other researchers that video reflections can be used to increase opportunities for teachers to engage in reflective conversa- tions with colleagues about practice (Vazzano and Pariza 2010) and that this engage- ment can enhance reflection over time. We presented evidence that collaborative conversations around video are valued by and valuable to teachers. Risko et al.’s (2002) study also indicates the central importance of dialogue in helping teachers in training process and analyze their own teaching behaviors. The second conclusion we draw for collaboration is that the protocol used to guide reflection must be well designed so that it provides some structure for responses, but does not constrain them. We argued that reflection protocols should be considered as a material scaffold, a way of framing interactions by indirect social means. Our conclusions mirror closely those of Shanahan and Tochelli (2014) who reported that the structure provided to analyze video was more crucial than the actual video recording activity itself. Similar to the work of Santagata and Angelici (2010), we found that the broadly formed prompt questions that we offered teachers in the revised protocol allowed for more open reflection. Our conclusion is that the video reflection guided by protocol questions helped teachers become more mindful of, and insightful about, their own instruction and the necessity to reflect upon it. Our final conclusion relates to the use of transcription as a means of focusing teacher reflection. We acknowledge that transcription is a time-consuming and tech- nical process, but we think its value in helping teachers reflect on video is tangible, while yet not well understood. Perhaps, as we discussed earlier, transcription pres- ents opportunities for teachers to stop or slow down fast-paced instruction so that they can, as Dewey might urge them to, deliberately reflect on a dilemma and gather detailed information about their practices (Dewey 1933). In this respect, transcrip- tion would be a valuable tool, but we raised questions that a future study might address, such as: What reflective value does transcription add to the multiple video viewings that occur in the transcription process? The strength of this study was that it was undertaken by a diverse group of read- ing teacher educators, working together to solve common problems of practice. We studied video reflection in different instructional contexts and asked key questions about how to value and improve teachers’ reflections. We designed tools, including a teacher reflection rubric, that we feel have been instrumental in improving our own practices. We acknowledge that more inquiry into reflection using this rubric would be helpful in ascertaining its value as a focusing and feedback tool. By cap- turing reflection through practice, we hope to have contributed to ongoing discus- sion in the field about how to use video technologies as tools for reflective thinking.
160 E. Bowers et al. References Danielson, L. (2009). Fostering reflection. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb09/vol66/num05/Fostering- Reflection.aspx Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: D.C. Heath. Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful change. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Jian, W., & Kendall, H. (2003). Video technology as support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105–138. Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in reflec- tive practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 132–146. Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. Pena, C., & De Leon, L. (2011). The use of digital video to foster reflective practice in teacher education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(2), 125–132. Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to lan- guage and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press. Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 149–169). New York: Guilford Press. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary student’s independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 384–419. Risko, V. J., Vukelich, C., & Roskos, K. (2002). Preparing teachers for reflective practice: Intentions contradictions and possibilities. Language Arts, 80, 134–144. Rosean, C. L., Lundeberg, M. C., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360. Santagata, R., & Angelici, G. (2010). Studying the impact of the lesson analysis framework on preservice teachers’ abilities to reflect on videos of classroom teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 339–349. doi:10.1177/0022487110369555. Shanahan, L., & Tochelli, A. (2014). Examining the use of video study groups for developing lit- eracy pedagogical content knowledge of critical elements of strategy instruction with elemen- tary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 1–24. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011. Tsangaridou, N., & O’Sullivan, M. (1994). Using pedagogical reflective strategies to enhance reflection among preservice physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 13–33. van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205–228. Vazzano, J., & Pariza, J. (2010, December). Fostering the language of coaching while debriefing video-recorded strategy lessons. Paper presentation at the 60th annual meeting of the Literacy Researchers Association, Fort Worth, TX. Wass, R., Harland, T., & Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 317–328.
Chapter 9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice- Based Approach to Learning to Teach for Social Justice Sarah Schneider Kavanagh Abstract Currently, teacher preparation that is primarily focused on social jus- tice occurs through internal reflection: reflection on one’s own dispositions, identity, experiences, commitments, and beliefs. In this chapter, I propose a curricular and pedagogical framework for promoting reflection on issues of justice and equity that is practice based. Weaving together concepts from scholarship on multicultural edu- cation and scholarship on core practices of teaching, the framework offers curricular and pedagogical tools for teacher education that is anchored in practice and aimed at issues of identity, power, privilege, and equity. To date, the preparation of teach- ers for social justice work has primarily been understood as a process of disposi- tional change rather than a process of developing professional judgment and repertoires of practice. In this chapter, I argue for a shift toward the specification of justice-oriented teaching practices. Specifying practice allows teacher educators to engage preservice teachers in representations, decompositions, approximations, and reflections of and on episodes of teaching that intentionally bring social justice issues to the fore. When teacher educators can scaffold preservice teachers’ early attempts at social justice teaching by bounding and specifying teaching activities and social justice goals, they can create spaces of practice within which preservice teachers can reflect on how justice and equity play out in the fine-grained interac- tions that make up the work of teaching. 9.1 Introduction In this chapter, I pull together two strands of scholarship that have not typically been brought into conversation with one another: (1) scholarship on core teaching prac- tices and (2) scholarship on social justice education. Because core practice S.S. Kavanagh (*) 161 University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_9
162 S.S. Kavanagh scholarship has deep theoretical grounding in theories of professional learning that foreground reflective practice, it offers useful conceptual tools for helping to articu- late a process of learning to engage in and reflect on professional practice aimed at social justice. I describe one approach to redesigning a multicultural education course using tools and constructs from practice-based teacher education. My hope is that this chapter will articulate a process through which teacher educators who focus on issues of justice might reimagine their work in ways that better support preservice teachers to learn about justice by enacting and reflecting on justice- focused instruction. Teacher education programs in the United States frequently name social justice as a primary programmatic goal. While social justice teacher education has become a ubiquitous phrase, its meaning varies from denoting a commitment to prepare teachers to serve each individual student to indicating a dedication to prepare teach- ers who can interrupt broader structural inequities (McDonald 2007). While the social justice commitments of teacher education programs are rooted in different theoretical underpinnings, programs rely on similar approaches when it comes to integrating their commitment to social justice into their programmatic structure. A typical structural approach to integrating social justice commitments into a teacher education program is the addition of one or more courses dedicated specifically to social justice issues. Typically, these courses are housed in the educational founda- tion strand of a program’s coursework (McDonald 2005) and go by a wide variety of names. Some course names reference multiculturalism or diversity; others are anchored in cultural responsiveness, while others mention justice, identity, equity, power, or privilege. Differences in course names sometimes signify differences in theoretical perspective on the work of social justice education. While divergence is the norm when looking across programs’ theoretical under- standings of what social justice teacher education is, across programs there is gener- ally consistency in perspectives on what it takes to become a social justice educator. Most frequently, justice-focused coursework focuses on supporting candidates to develop attitudes and dispositions toward social justice. The work of reflection in social justice-oriented coursework is most often internally focused reflection—candi- dates reflecting on their own identities, biases, and positionality. It is far less frequent for justice-focused courses to engage novices in reflecting on their early attempts at teaching through lenses that bring questions of justice, equity, or power to the fore. There are definitely teacher educators across the United States whose work with pre- service teachers on issues of equity and justice is organized around teaching practice as opposed to teacher identity. However, as a field we have typically conceptualized the work of social justice teacher education as a process of dispositional change rather than as a process of building the capacity to enact professional practice and exercise professional judgment. By reimagining the role of practice in social justice prepara- tion, teacher educators might develop more justice-focused tools for reflective analysis of classroom practice. The approach taken in this analysis demonstrates the potency of a process of reflection on practice and indicates the ways in which contemporary teacher education scholarship would benefit from moving beyond
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 163 the singular focus on dispositional change to focus on developing professional judg- ment and repertoires of practice. The approach illustrates how the practice of reflec- tion is integral to shaping practice in classrooms. Because our conceptual orientation toward social justice education is primarily dispositional, scholarship on social justice teaching and social justice teacher edu- cation tends to focus on the beliefs and/or internal states of students, teachers, and teacher educators and focus less on practical classroom activity or instructional practice. This dispositional bent in justice-focused scholarship makes it difficult to aggregate knowledge about social justice as it relates to instructional and relational classroom practice. In other words, at a field level, we are adept at answering the question: what are the traits of a social justice educator? However, we do not yet have ways of answering the question: what do social justice educators do? As teacher education undergoes a shift toward practice-based preparation (a shift away from developing teachers’ beliefs and characteristics and toward developing teach- ers’ practice), constructing ways of understanding social justice teaching as an ele- ment of a teachers’ professional practice will become pivotal if just social justice is to remain relevant to the contemporary context of teacher education more broadly. In the following pages, I present a framework for understanding social justice teaching as a collection of practices that entail both knowing and doing, are identifi- able, are learnable by novices, and can be reflected on once enacted. In addition I describe approaches to teaching novices to enact these practices and supporting novices to reflect on their enactment. This framework draws on current scholarship on core practices occurring mostly in the content areas of mathematics, science, and English language arts where scholars are organizing teacher preparation around sets of core practices that characterize the work of teaching. A major contribution of a framework organizing learning to teach for justice around core practices is that it has the potential to provide a common language for teacher educators interested in engaging teacher candidates in reflecting on their teaching in ways that bring issues of justice, identity, power, and privilege to the fore. 9.2 The Turn to Practice in Teacher Education Scholars and researchers interested in improving classroom instruction increasingly argue for shifting the current focus on understanding and shaping teachers (their characteristics and beliefs) toward understanding and shaping the practice of teach- ing (Hiebert and Morris 2012). The scholarly community that is driving the turn toward practice is primarily doing so by pushing for the development of core teach- ing practices around which teacher education and professional development can be organized. One common mischaracterization of the core practice movement is that it is pushing for the development of one set of core practices for the field as a whole to adopt. However, this characterization does not align with all of the arguments being put forward by scholars within the core practice movement. Many core
164 S.S. Kavanagh practice scholars seem less interested in prescribing one set of core practices and more interested in developing a common understanding of the concept of a core practice so that the concept itself might become a field-wide tool for the organiza- tion and implementation of practice-based teacher education initiatives (McDonald, Kazemi and Kavanagh, 2013). While the field has not yet settled on a common understanding of the concept of a core practice, Grossman, Hammerness and McDonald (2009a) have set forth a preliminary list of characteristics that all core practices might share: • Practices that occur with high frequency in teaching • Practices that novices can enact in classrooms across different curricula or instructional approaches • Practices that novices can actually begin to master • Practices that allow novices to learn more about students and about teaching • Practices that preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching • Practices that are research based and have the potential to improve student achievement Grossman et al. (2009a) do not explicitly discuss the relationship between reflec- tive practice and core practices. However, reflection (or in the case of TeachingWorks (2016), Analyzing instruction for the purpose of improving it) is often included in lists of core practices. Advocates of core practices argue that a field-wide understanding of the concept of core practices offers the field a common language for various approaches to describing the practice of teaching. The development of this kind of common lan- guage could aid us in aggregating knowledge and agreeing on standards of practice. Second, identifying learnable practices that maintain the integrity and complexity of teaching would help teacher educators address the problem of enactment that has for so long plagued teacher education (Ball and Forzani 2009; Ball et al. 2009; Grossman et al. 2009a; Grossman and McDonald 2008; Lampert et al. 2010; McDonald et al. 2013). This work has the potential to deeply influence how the field decides both the content and the structure of teacher education. Therefore, it is important to note that core practice scholarship has been built almost exclusively out of research on instructional methods in the content areas and has yet to deeply engage with scholarship on the work of teaching for social justice that has histori- cally resided in educational foundations. 9.2.1 S ocial Justice Teacher Education and the Turn to Practice Teacher educators in educational foundations who approach their examinations of teachers and teaching using a social justice frame and not an instructional methods frame have a lot to learn from the core practice movement. There is a long history of researching teachers who teach toward justice, by which I mean teachers who
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 165 interrupt inequitable disparities between social groups. However, much like research on teaching more broadly, investigations into teachers who have successfully inter- rupted these disparities have almost exclusively focused on either teacher beliefs (Ladson-Billings 1994) or teacher characteristics (Klienfeld 1975). Since existing knowledge about teachers who effectively interrupt inequitable disparities between social groups focus primarily on who these teachers are and what they believe, it is unsurprising that we often find that even when we change teachers’ beliefs about students and the social groups to which they belong, we still have difficulty chang- ing teachers’ practice. In fact because we are so unclear about what it means to teach for social justice, we are not even sure what, within a teachers’ practice, we could analyze that would offer us information about the extent to which teachers are engaging in teaching practice that is just and equitable. By developing a language for describing social justice teaching practice, we could offer the field invaluable tools for supporting teachers in engaging in justice-focused reflection on their class- room practice. Investigations into the practice of teachers who interrupt disparities between social groups have the potential to benefit both scholarly communities interested in core practices and those interested in social justice teaching. Scholars working on core practices would benefit from expanding their conception of the work of teach- ing by incorporating scholarship that approaches teaching using a different lens than content-specific instructional methods. Alternately, scholars interested in teaching for social justice would benefit from supplementing their investigations of teacher’s characteristics and beliefs with investigations of teacher practice. 9.2.2 T he Role of Core Practices in the Turn to Practice Scholars of teaching have written eloquently about the improvisational nature of teaching, the complexity that is inherent in the moment-to-moment judgments that teachers make as they weigh their instructional goal, their individual students, their goals for justice and equity, and the integrity of the discipline they are teaching (Lampert 1985). Case-based methods of teacher education emerged as a way to enable teachers to get into this complex territory and engage in analyzing and inter- preting the decisions that teachers make to advance students’ learning and motiva- tion to learn (Grossman 2005). The move toward using core practices in conjunction with case-based methods was born out of a need to (1) parse the complexity of practice in ways that made that complexity learnable by novices and (2) develop a common language of practice to help the field aggregate knowledge about teaching. While case-based methods offer opportunities to consider practice, they are limited in their ability to scaffold preservice teachers into the enactment of practice. The field has long been plagued by the gap between what novices know and can consider and what they are able to do (Kennedy 1999). This gap between novices’ ability to consider teaching practice and their ability to actually enact teaching practice is especially large in the area of social justice teaching. The core practice work aims
166 S.S. Kavanagh to close this gap by specifying aspects of teaching practice that are essential to the work of teaching and which novices can learn and enact in their preservice and induction years. In addition, core practices are designed to be conceptual tools for supporting novices in the development of a vision of high-quality teaching that is content rich, rigorous, and meaningful to students and, if taken up by teacher educa- tors focused on social justice, aimed at interrupting inequitable disparities between social groups. Unlike other efforts in the past—for example, the competency-based efforts of the 1970s or the best practice efforts of the 1990s, which have both created long lists of teaching moves and behaviors—the core practice movement is not attempting to come up with a list of best practices comparable to the “7 habits of highly effective people” or to name effective teaching techniques as Doug Lemov (2010) does in his popular Teach Like a Champion. Instead the work is aimed at developing field-level conceptual clarity about the concept of a core practice so that it might be usable as a conceptual and practical tool for professional preparation. This is why core prac- tice scholars much more often cite Grossman et al.’s (2009a) criteria for determin- ing core practices, listed above, than they cite sets of core practices that they think others should adopt. Focusing on criteria for identifying core practices as opposed to static sets of core practices challenges scholars to avoid a reductionist approach in which core practices become nothing more than the simple selection of specific moves such as wait time or discrete strategies such as attention getting signals. With Grossman et al.’s (2009a) criteria in mind, what becomes important is not a consen- sus on a final set of universal teaching practices, but instead a continuous dialogue within the field and among scholars over how to conceptualize, in useful enough grain sizes, aspects of practice that support practitioner learning of high-quality instruction. Such a dialogue requires researchers and practitioners to be mutually engaged with one another in order to wrestle with the choices they have made and the ways in which those choices impact teacher learning and development. From this perspective, variation in core practices within and across content areas offers rich opportunities for the field to grapple, through reflection, with the implications all the various ways of slicing practice to support teachers’ learning. 9.2.2.1 C ore Practices and Multicultural Education There are an infinite number of possible core practices around which a teacher edu- cation program or individual teacher educator might organize preservice teachers’ preparation to teach toward justice. One approach to narrowing the scope of possi- ble core practices for teaching toward justice is by applying Grossman et al.’s (2009a) criteria to an existing organizing framework for understanding social jus- tice teaching. While there are multiple organizing frameworks produced out of scholarly communities such as multicultural education, social justice education, antiracist education, and anti-oppression education, for the purposes of this chapter, I draw on Banks’ (1995) five dimensions of multicultural education. I have chosen this particular framework because Banks and Banks (2012) are currently on their
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 167 eighth edition of a popular teacher education textbook, which is organized around these five dimensions. The popularity of this textbook indicates that its organizing framework is one that grounds a significant portion of social justice work in teacher education. Banks’ (1995) five dimensions include: prejudice reduction, content integration, knowledge construction, equity pedagogy, and empowering school culture. A first step for a teacher educator might be to decide whether or not these dimensions are, in fact, practices. While there are many ways of conceptualizing practice, I call on Lampert’s (2009) definition of a practice as a thing that people consistently and habitually do. Using this conceptualization of practice, some of these dimensions seem more practice oriented than others. Content integration, the dimension that highlights the importance of including curricular content that represents marginal- ized social groups (Banks 1995), is already very practice oriented. One thing that a social justice-oriented teacher consistently and habitually does is integrate content into their curriculum that accurately presents and authentically investigates people, places, and things that are representative of traditionally marginalized social groups. Others of Banks’ five dimensions, however, are not already conceptualized as practices. Empowering school culture, for example, is not a thing that teachers con- sistently and habitually do. Banks (1995) describes this dimension as the process of restructuring the culture and organization of the school so that students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social-class groups will experience educational equality and cul- tural empowerment. A teacher educator who uses core practices in his or her work with teachers might begin by reconceptualizing “empowering school culture” as a practice. To develop an understanding of what empowerment looks like in practice, I con- sulted the empowerment literature. Empowerment theory assumes that many soci- etal problems result from structural disparities that grant some people significantly more access than others to the tools necessary for controlling their own trajectories (Russell et al. 2008). Given these structural disparities, empowerment theorists argue that in order to positively affect the circumstances and outcomes of oppressed people, their advocates must support them in critically engaging with the systems of power that disadvantage them (Freire 1973). Empowerment in practice, therefore, might take several forms. First, teachers can create opportunities for marginalized students to become conscious and critical of patterns within their school environ- ment that place them at a disadvantage. Second, teachers can help marginalized students develop a sense of control over their own trajectory within inequitable environments. And third, teachers can engage in participatory action to affect change in the oppressive school cultures. While there might be many ways to recon- ceptualize “empowering school culture” as a core practice, one way might sound like taking action to change school structures that routinely disadvantage particular groups of students. In Table 9.1, I propose one reconceptualization of Banks’ (1995) five dimensions as a set of practices that teacher educators might use to organize a practice-based course in multicultural education.
168 S.S. Kavanagh Table 9.1 Reconceptualizing Banks’ dimensions as practices Banks’ five Banks’ dimensions A definition of the An example of the practice dimensions of reconceptualized practice multicultural as practices Noticing that none of your education Integrating content students are reading books Integrating content representing with Asian American Content traditionally characters and choosing a integration marginalized groups read aloud book whose main characters are Asian Knowledge Posing alternatives Posing alternatives to American construction marginalizing social narratives and the Pointing out to students that knowledge bases that the title of their textbook warrant them chapter, Westward Expansion, is embedded with Equity Leveraging Leveraging students’ the colonists’ perspective and pedagogy empowering cultural patterns of engaging students in cultural patterns participation and brainstorming other titles Prejudice language use when it reduction Interrupting expands students Leveraging signifying as a marginalizing opportunities to scaffold for teaching skills of cultural patterns participate literary interpretation to African American students Interrupting Interrupting students’ (Lee 2001) prejudice cultural patterns of participation and Noticing that girls in your language use when it math class tend to defer to constricts students their male classmate’s opportunities to arguments. In response, participate strategically assigning roles in small group work in an Anticipating and effort to counteract this responding to tendency prejudice Modeling an accepting Empowering Empowering Advocating with and attitude toward queer people school culture students for students adversely and communities by affected by inequities mentioning gay and lesbian friends and family members in informal conversations with students At a school where African American boys are disciplined more harshly than other students, proposing to the principal a review of discipline policies and practices and offering to chair the review committee
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 169 By reconceptualizing Banks’ (1995) five dimensions of multicultural education as professional practices of teaching, I hope to better pair essential knowledge and beliefs for teaching with the work of teaching itself. Building a practice-focused curriculum for learning to teach involves more than a reconceptualization of the curricular content or what teachers need to learn how to do. It also requires a rei- magining of the pedagogical approaches (including approaches to reflection) that teacher educators employ in the context of professional preparation. To prepare teachers to ambitiously enact the core practices that might comprise the content of the curriculum, teacher educators must employ pedagogies of enactment (Grossman and McDonald 2008) and then support novices in reflecting on their enactments for the purposes of improving instruction and developing social justice commitments. In the following sections, I describe current work on practice-focused teacher edu- cation pedagogies and how they might look if employed for the purposes of prepar- ing teachers to teach for justice. 9.2.3 T he Role of Teacher Education Pedagogy in the Turn to Practice Continued work on core practices will require a simultaneous focus on developing the pedagogies that can be employed to prepare teachers to enact those practices. If core practices represent the what of practice-based teacher education, teacher edu- cation pedagogies are the how. Without simultaneously focusing on both the what and how of practice-based teacher education, implementation will fall short of leveraging the majority of teacher educators in the 2000 plus institutions to engage this work. In 2013, my colleagues and I offered a simple framework, applicable across contexts, which might allow teacher educators to learn with and from one another about how they are preparing novices using core practices (McDonald et al. 2013). In the following section, I describe this framework and how it might be applied to teacher education work focused on preparing novices to teach for social justice. I start by discussing the theory of professional learning upon which the framework rests and then describe the framework itself. 9.2.3.1 T he Learning Cycle The pedagogy employed in many teacher education programs aligns with an acqui- sition model of learning: teacher educators deliver information about teaching to teacher candidates. The onus is then on the teacher candidate to carry that learning with him or her when entering the field. I understand that many teacher educators
170 S.S. Kavanagh strive to interrupt this model of learning, but most do so on their own within the confines of their own limited resources. By developing a cycle for learning to enact core practices that is strongly grounded in a situated perspective on learning, the framework is intended to push against the tendency in teacher education to default to an acquisition model of learn- ing. The cycle for learning to enact core practices is grounded in a theoretical p erspective that sees learning as collective activity that is mediated by individual and institutional histories as well as conceptual and material tools. I see professional learning as a process of continually recontextualizing prior learning in light of new experiences. This process of continual recontextualization requires structured opportunities to try on new practices and structured opportunities for reflection. Developed out of this perspective on learning as well as from a variety of teacher educators’ approaches to their own method classes (Kazemi et al. 2007; Windschitl et al. 2012), along with my colleagues, I proposed the following figure, the cycle of collectively learning to practice, as a framework for orienting the pedagogy of teacher education (McDonald et al. 2013). This cycle intends to offer guided assis- tance to candidates to learn a particular practice by introducing them to the practice, preparing them to enact that practice, requiring them to enact the practice with real students in real classrooms, and then returning to their enactment through reflection with a view to instructional improvement. Depending on the goals and purposes of the teacher educator, it is possible to start this learning cycle in any of its four quad- rants. For example, while we might often begin by introducing a practice to candi- dates through modeling or video representation, we could also begin by engaging candidates in reflecting on their own practice in an effort to help them understand why the core practice we intend for them to develop would support their K-12 stu- dents’ learning in ways that are either similar to or different from how they are cur- rently practicing (Fig. 9.1). To better understand how this cycle maps onto the work of teacher education, I will now elaborate how this cycle might be implemented to teach preservice teach- ers how to enact the potential core practice of Posing Alternatives. This core prac- tice is my reconceptualization of Banks’ (1995) dimension of “knowledge construction” or the procedures by which social, behavioral, and natural scientists create knowledge and “how the implicit cultural assumptions, frames of reference, perspectives, and biases within a discipline influence the ways that knowledge is constructed” (p. 392) within it. As a professional practice, I have reconceptualized this dimension as Posing Alternatives or the practice of identifying instantiations of marginalizing dominant paradigms and using these instantiations as opportunities to investigate how knowledge production processes can be biased toward main- stream groups and what alternative perspectives might exist.
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 171 Fig. 9.1 The learning cycle (McDonald et al. 2013) 9.2.3.2 Instructional Activities Our framework for learning to enact core practices calls me first to embed the prac- tice I am focusing on into an enactable activity, what some scholars are calling “instructional activities” (Lampert and Graziani 2009). While a practice is some- thing that someone habitually does, it remains an abstraction of the actual work of teaching until it is embedded into an instantiation of teaching in action. The use of instructional activities is one way to construct authentic episodes of teaching around core practices for the purpose of preservice teacher learning. Instructional activities are stable containers that offer novices an opportunity to try on a core practice with- out having to create that opportunity themselves, which can often be too difficult given their context and/or their capacity. Instructional activities are episodes that have beginnings, middles, and ends, and within those episodes, they clearly spell out how teachers and students are expected to interact, how materials are to be used, and how classroom space is to be arranged. The reason for this detailed specification is to create a stable container within which a preservice teacher might rehearse the relational and improvisational work that the core practice requires. Additionally, instructional activities act as common texts that teacher educators can use to help novices work collectively to construct the knowledge necessary to enact the core practice in a more authentic classroom setting.
172 S.S. Kavanagh 9.3 Unpacking the Framework with Examples 9.3.1 E xample One: Teaching a Core Practice Within an Instructional Activity One potential instructional activity within which a teacher educator could embed the core practice of Posing Alternatives is one I’ve entitled Challenging the Textbook. The activity would involve a planning component—choosing textbook content that presents material from a dominant perspective that is marginalizing to a particular group. This could be a world map that depicts North America and Europe as “on top” and distorts their size. Or it could be a chapter title in a US history textbook entitled “Westward Expansion,” which orients the reader to the European perspec- tive. It could be a line in a biology textbook that assumes the heterosexuality of all persons. There are countless instantiations of marginalizing dominant paradigms in curricular materials that a novice might choose. The activity would also include an instructional component, which would include a prescribed series of instructional moves through which the teacher would first draw students’ attention to the material in their textbook and second offer students an opportunity to investigate alternative paradigms. As an initial step in supporting teachers’ learning using this activity, a teacher educator might introduce the activity and embedded core practice to teacher candi- dates by modeling challenging a textbook or by watching and analyzing a video of a teacher challenging a textbook or by reading a case of a teacher challenging a textbook. These three pedagogies (modeling, video analysis, and written case analy- sis) are all representations of practice (Grossman et al. 2009b), which serve to help teacher candidates develop an image of the practice under study. Once teacher can- didates have developed a vision of the activity and embedded core practice through their work in quadrant one, they might move to the work of quadrant two, planning for and rehearsing the activity for themselves. This might take the form of collab- orative lesson planning followed by rehearsal of those plans in the context of their university-based method course. Together teacher educators and candidates would debrief the rehearsed attempts and revise the plan. Having prepared for enactment through planning and sheltered practice (what Grossman et al. (2009b) would call an approximation of practice), candidates would move into quadrant three, enacting the practice with students. This could take place, as it would in many teacher educa- tion programs, in the classrooms of mentor teachers or, if they were practicing teachers, in the context of their own classrooms. An important component of the enactment is to have teacher candidates capture their enactment in concrete ways that they can then share with the teacher educator and their colleagues as an anchor for collective reflection. Such examples could include taking a video of their efforts or collecting and analyzing artifacts of student learning. Finally, candidates would move into quadrant four, where they would reflect on their specific performance, or an investigation of practice (Grossman et al. 2009b). The reflection part of the cycle is to support teacher candidates to learn from their own practice—a skill that is
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 173 likely to help as they continue to develop their practice. It is important to note that the prescribed activity of “challenging the textbook” is not the only way that a skilled teacher enacts the practice of posing alternatives. A teacher with skill and experience poses alternatives following students’ public expressions of prejudice in the classroom, when talking about current events during passing period, and in split- second interactions with students after they make generalizations about what girls like to do versus what boys like to do. The instructional activity of challenging the textbook is merely a scaffold through which a preservice teacher can try on the practice in a sheltered, mediated environment. 9.3.2 E xample Two: Teaching Multiple Core Practices Within an Instructional Activity A teacher educator can also embed multiple core practices within one instructional activity. For example, a teacher educator might engage teachers in working on inte- grating content, posing alternatives, and interrupting prejudice within the instruc- tional activity of the interactive read aloud. This might occur several weeks into a multicultural education course, when teacher candidates have a firm grasp on the core practices around which the course is organized. The teacher educator might first show a video of a teacher conducting an interactive read aloud of a book that in some way interrupts a marginalizing social narrative about a social group. The book could do this implicitly, by telling a story that counters a common narrative without explicitly commenting on its own countercultural narrative. Books that fall into this category would include those books in which fathers are primary caregivers to chil- dren, families are headed by same-sex couples, or children attend mosques instead of churches. Alternately, the read aloud book might interrupt social narratives explicitly, by naming a marginalizing social narrative and explicitly posing an alter- native to it. Books that fall into this category would include, among others, books about children who are teased for not conforming to expected roles (for girls, for boys, for their race, etc.) and how they come to accept themselves for who they are. When watching this video of a teacher conducting a read aloud, the teacher educator could instruct teacher candidates to pay close attention to the teachers’ framing of the read aloud, the questions she asks the students when reading, and the moves she makes when facilitating discussion about the text looking for instantiations of the core practices of integrating content, posing alternatives, and interrupting prejudice. Along with the selection of the text, what else is the teacher doing in all of the small moments of teaching to enact the core practices of multicultural teaching? After identifying the core practices when watching a video, a teacher educator might guide teacher candidates through the selection of read aloud text for their own classroom. What marginalizing social narratives are prominent for their stu- dents? What stories would interrupt those narratives? Teacher candidates would need to consider how they would frame the book for students, what questions they would ask during reading, and the questions around which they would want to
174 S.S. Kavanagh facilitate a summative discussion of the text. Next teacher candidates would enact their planned read aloud in their placement classroom, videotaping their own enactment. And finally they would bring this video of their instruction back to their class to watch with a group of their peers. Video-based reflection would focus on identifying and discussing moments in instruction that begged for an interruption of prejudice, moments when teachers wanted to pose alternatives but didn’t know how, or moments when teachers responded to a students’ prejudiced belief. By offering teacher candidates a common language that can apply to the finest-grained moments of practice and by offering them a common activity to try on, teacher educators might create practical experiences for preservice teachers that are ripe for learning about issues of privilege, power, equity, and identity. 9.4 C onclusion Starting conversations between core practice scholars and scholars of social justice teacher education has the potential to benefit both scholarly communities. Scholars working on core practices would benefit from expanding their conception of the work of teaching by incorporating scholarship that approaches teaching using a dif- ferent lens than content-specific instructional methods. Alternately, scholars inter- ested in teaching for social justice would benefit from supplementing their investigations of teacher’s characteristics and beliefs with investigations of teacher practice. The field would benefit from having a conceptual mechanism through which to aggregate knowledge about the practice of teaching toward social justice and the pedagogical approaches that teacher educators can use to support novices to develop their instructional capacity in these practices. I believe that the conceptual tools of core practices, instructional activities, and the learning cycle may represent initial, if still unrefined, attempts at developing these tools. Further research and development work is necessary to determine the extent to which these tools will help teacher educators and programs prepare novices to practitioners with the nec- essary tools to both enact and reflect on their social justice goals. Acknowledgments I extend my gratitude to Morva McDonald, who offered feedback on early drafts of this chapter. References Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 458–476.
9 Practicing Social Justice: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Learning… 175 Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400. Banks, J., & Banks, C. (2012). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran- Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Review of research in teacher education (pp. 425–476). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Education Research Journal, 45, 184–205. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009a). Redefining teaching: Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273–290. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009b). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. The Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100. Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 92–102. Kazemi, E., Lampert, M., & Ghousseini, H. (2007). Conceptualizing and using routines of practice in mathematics teaching to advance professional education. Report to the Spencer Foundation. Chicago: Spencer Foundation. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of pre-service teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 54–86). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Klienfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. School Review, 83, 301–344. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–194. Lampert, M. (2009). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 21–34. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher edu- cators’ learning in and for practice. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491–509. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the discipline (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer. Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for under achieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McDonald, M. (2005). The integration of social justice in teacher education: Dimensions of pro- spective teachers’ opportunities to learn. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(5), 418–435. McDonald, M. (2007). The joint enterprise of social justice teacher education. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 2047–2081. 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. Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2008). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 891–903. TeachingWorks. (2016, May 25). High leverage practices. Retrieved from http://www.teaching- works.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instruc- tional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.
Part III Enacting Reflection in Teacher Educator Practice
Chapter 10 Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice Mellita Jones How we teach is the message. (Russell and Bullock 1999, p. 140) Abstract This chapter outlines a self-study project I engaged in to examine and subsequently improve my teaching within a 4th-year, core science education unit for primary pre-service teachers (PSTs) at a regional university in Australia. The impetus for this study was tied to widely reported issues about the quality and quan- tity of science teaching in primary schools and my desire to provide the best science teacher education possible to help address these concerns. The initiative involved the design and implementation of a teaching, learning and assessment task that required small groups of PSTs to plan a mini-unit of science that they then taught in a classroom. PSTs had to report on children’s science learning and reflect on their own learning about science teaching. Quantitative and qualitative data collected from PSTs and from my personal reflections were analysed for statistical signifi- cance and key themes, respectively. Results show the potential for a school-based approach to science teacher education to better achieve a nexus between theory and practice; align teaching, learning and assessment in more meaningful ways; and allow for critical reflective practice that enhances both the teacher education experi- ence and the learning achieved by PSTs. M. Jones (*) 179 Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_10
180 M. Jones 10.1 I ntroduction This chapter outlines the beginnings of my journey as a science teacher educator engaged in a self-study project to examine and subsequently improve my teaching within a fourth-year, core science education unit for primary1 pre-service teachers (PSTs) at a regional university in Australia. The field of self-study has emerged internationally as a methodology particular to teacher educators who are intent on improving their practice (Loughran 2004). Self-study as an approach to research attempts ‘to answer questions about how to best prepare new teachers and facilitate ongoing teacher development’ (LaBoskey 2004, p. 818). As such, self-study is as concerned with implementing and evaluating best practice approaches to teaching, learning, assessment and reflection, as it is with informing how these can best be achieved. This results in an inextricable link between self-study research and the body of research informing theories about effective teacher learning such as ‘deep’ learning, constructive alignment, theory-practice nexus, critical reflection and authentic assessment. The task at the centre of this self-study project was a particular initiative I had implemented within a pre-service teacher science education unit 2 years previously. The initiative involved the design and implementation of a teaching, learning and assessment task that required small groups of PSTs to plan a mini-unit of science that they then taught in a classroom, in one of three primary schools local to the university. PSTs then had to report on children’s science learning as well as reflect on their own learning about science teaching. The impetus for the introduction of this task stemmed from both my knowledge of the prevailing concerns associated with the quality of science teacher education (e.g. Kenny 2010; Goodrum et al. 2001; Skamp and Mueller 2001) and personal experiences of pre-service teachers being apprehensive and hesitant to teach science. In the following sections of this chapter, I explore some of the key literature informing my beliefs and practices as a science teacher educator. Two main fields of research are addressed: (1) issues facing primary science teaching and science- focused teacher education and (2) reflective practice and self-study methodology. This examination of the literature, coupled with collection of data from PSTs over two iterations of the task, and my personal reflections, provided the data required to examine my practice from various viewpoints, which is an important part of fram- ing self-study research (Samaras 2010). These data were then used collectively to identify the strengths of the task and the ways in which I could adapt it to further enhance the student experience and the intended outcomes. 1 In Australia, the primary years of schooling usually encompass the ages of about 5–12 years.
10 Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 181 10.2 The Quality and Quantity of Science Teaching Science education has been problematic for a number of decades, a situation that has been attributed to a general lack of quality and quantity of science teaching in the primary years of schooling. These concerns appear to have arisen from teachers’ self-professed lack of confidence in their background knowledge and ability to teach science, along with difficulties they report in accessing resources and time for science lesson preparation and storage for resources and student work artefacts (Jones and Carter 2007). In science education there are particular concerns associ- ated with the provision of deep learning and constructive alignment, circumstances that are exacerbated by the claims that school science often lacks relevance to stu- dents’ daily lives (Goodrum et al. 2001). It has also been reported that if/when sci- ence teaching does occur, it is usually limited to those components of the science curriculum that are ‘easier’ to teach like biological rather than physical sciences (Akerson 2005), or lend themselves more to literacy-based teaching approaches (Appleton and Kindt 1999), such as reading and writing. This limited quality and quantity of science teaching has been linked to broader concerns about the science literacy levels of wider society that limit capabilities for active citizenship in what is an increasingly scientific and technological world (e.g. Goodrum et al. 2001; Tan and Mijung 2012). It is also linked to reduced numbers of those taking up formal science qualifications and limits the science understanding and appreciation in those charged with science teaching (Lyons et al. 2006; Sanders 2004). Poor experiences of science in school are closely linked with the poor atti- tudes and low levels of confidence that are common among beginning primary pre- service teachers. Indeed, in an informal census I conduct at the beginning of each of my first-year science units, beginning teaching students almost exclusively indicate their dislike/hatred for science, and they have rarely studied it beyond the years of schooling for which it is compulsory (usually year 10 or about age 15). These reported feelings about primary school science, which are mirrored by similar fears/ attitudes from practising primary school teachers (Appleton 2003; Goodrum et al. 2001; Jones and Carter 2007), adversely influence the quality and quantity of sci- ence teaching in primary schools. Indeed, the tendency to avoid teaching science as a result of these low levels of confidence make it unlikely for primary pre-service teachers to observe science being taught or practice teaching it themselves when on professional experience placements in the primary school setting. This has certainly been evident among my own PSTs who generally report that they rarely, if ever, see science taught on their practicum placements and that they have not attempted to teach it themselves by the fourth and final year of their teaching course. Whilst this situation leads to concerns with the quality of science education experienced by children in schools, it also alludes to difficulties in the quality and effectiveness of science teacher education. With small amounts of time given to science-specific teaching in pre-service courses, it is difficult for PSTs to gain the knowledge and skills they need to teach science well (for a fuller discussion of issues related to science teacher education, see Goodrum et al. 2001;
182 M. Jones Kenny 2010; Skamp and Mueller 2001). Coupled with the difficulties of PSTs gain- ing practical experiences in schools to which they can apply theory and/or critically reflect to enhance their understanding and capability as teachers of science, the problems associated with the quality and quantity of science teaching in schools becomes compounded in the complex teacher education environment. Many researchers around the world have explored the complex or ‘wicked’ (Rittel and Webber 1973) problem of teacher education, and whilst there is no one magic solu- tion proposed, there are key themes emerging from this research that aim to guide improvement in its effectiveness. Ideas that rank highly in this discourse include enhancing the theory-practice nexus (Darling-Hammond 2006; Zeichner 2010), embedding critical reflection (Korthagen 2001; Loughran 2010), applying princi- ples of constructive alignment and deep learning (Biggs and Tang 2011; Light et al. 2009) and ensuring that assessment is authentic (Ramsden 2003; Mayer 2015). In applying these ideas for improved teacher education in my own field of sci- ence teacher education, where the ‘wicked’ problems are compounded by addi- tional science-specific issues, I sought to undertake a self-study of my own teaching in a science education unit. My goal was to evaluate my effectiveness as a science teacher educator aspiring to embed these elements of effective practice in my teach- ing and to measure the overall influence on PSTs’ attitudes and confidence to teach science. To overcome the unreliability of practicum to provide exposure to science teach- ing for PSTs, I implemented a science-dedicated teaching experience in schools as a part of the core science education component of the undergraduate teacher educa- tion course in which I taught. As part of this practicum experience, I tasked the PSTs with responsibility for planning, implementing, assessing and reflecting on a mini- unit of science, that they would subsequently teach in small groups in local schools. The school-based nature of the task provided the necessary conditions for me to better align the teaching strategies, assessment and learning environment in my unit. I engaged in self-study to explore the effectiveness of the design and implementa- tion of the task and to examine whether this approach did indeed influence PSTs attitudes, confidence and ability to teach science. As is common in self-study, I then analysed the evidence collected for ways in which I might further improve the design and implementation of the task. In essence, I worked to try to break the cycle of perpetual poor experience of science in schools; I sought to provide my PSTs with a positive, quality experience of science teacher education. I hoped that a posi- tive experience of science teaching and learning would help to improve my PSTs’ attitudes towards and confidence to teach science once they entered the profession. And I studied myself and this initiative as a way of understanding more fully how to improve my own practices as a science teacher educator.
10 Improving a School-Based Science Education Task Using Critical Reflective Practice 183 10.3 D eep Learning and Constructive Alignment Situating the science teaching experience outside of the formal teaching practicum, in which science teaching experience has been at best, ‘hit and miss’, meant that I could design the task and align it closely with unit outcomes to focus on deep learn- ing and constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang 2011). It is well established in the teaching and learning literature that constructivist approaches that acknowledge and build on students’ prior knowledge are more effective than those that do not. Biggs and Tang (2011) claim this is also true in higher education, where they argue that the provision of ‘deep’ learning opportunities and constructive alignment of the cur- riculum is needed. Deep learning is concerned with the ‘what’ and ‘how’ students learn rather than how much they remember (Ramsden 2003), and it requires an effort to make the teaching and learning strategies student-centred. Student-centred learning involves students as active participants, constructing knowledge based on what they already know and exploring concepts and ideas that are connected across the contexts that are relevant to their daily lives (Biggs and Tang 2011). Constructive alignment is defined by Biggs (2003) as occurring when the cur- riculum, teaching methods, assessment processes, learning environment and the institutional climate are coherent and consistent. It begins with the identification of the learning outcomes and works backwards to align the teaching and assessment to those outcomes. In this manner it is similar to the popular ‘Understanding by Design’ framework (Wiggins and McTighe 2005), which also emphasises a ‘work- ing backwards’ approach to planning. Alignment between teaching, learning and assessment is essential for the achievement of deep learning and student engage- ment (Biggs 2003; Light et al. 2009; Ramsden 2003). The emphasis on constructive alignment comes from the positioning of alignment within a constructivist frame- work (Biggs 2003), which is what sets it apart from alignment alone. Alignment on its own could achieve coherent and consistent teaching, learning and assessment, but may also encompass less desirable and less engaging surface learning approaches that are often associated with teacher-centred, transmission style instruction. The constructively aligned curriculum emphasises deep learning by focusing on social constructivism, using student-centred teaching and learning approaches and a wide range of assessment tasks and techniques. It also emphasises higher-order thinking through models like the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) tax- onomy that offers a guide for progressing teaching and learning from lesser to more complex levels (Biggs and Collis 1982). This positioning is also linked to the depth of learning ‘in which students construct their own deeper meanings from the course content’ (Light et al. 2009, p. 81). Achieving such a deep meaning of what and how to teach and assess is core to quality teacher education outcomes. Biggs’ (2003) notion of deep learning and constructive alignment is supported by a number of authors in higher education (e.g. Ramsden 2003; Light et al. 2009). In spite of its prevalence, Ramsden notes that poor learning is often encouraged in universities through the use of teaching methods that foster passivity and ignore students’ individual differences and, according to Biggs and Tang (2011), fail to
184 M. Jones stimulate higher-order thinking. These failures limit the depth of understanding that students can achieve and tend to diminish their engagement in learning (Ramsden 2003). Engaging students in learning requires the student-centred, active involve- ment that Biggs and Tang (2011) speak of – a notion that is certainly not new to the discourses around effective teaching and learning. Student-centred learning has its roots in the nineteenth century progressive curriculum tradition, which emphasises that the learning process is every bit as important as its outcome (Neary 2002). Focus on the learning process targets active student involvement, experiential learn- ing, learner interaction, problem solving and the incorporation of higher-order thinking (Biggs 2003). Designing tasks that cater for these characteristics means providing opportunities for students to apply learning, analyse data and evaluate information and outcomes and to be creative (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). This means that any effective teacher in higher education needs to ensure that pre-service teachers have opportunities to actively acquire and apply knowledge and use evalu- ative and creative skills. Such outcomes are reflected in teacher education standards around the world (e.g. AITSL 2011; Department for Education UK 2011; The Greater Teaching Council for Scotland 2012; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 2014). Moreover, with evidence to suggest that higher education students will focus their attention and effort on those aspects on which they will be assessed (Ramsden 2003), it is also essential that assessment is closely linked to the learning activities and depth of thinking and learning these activities encompass. The alignment of learning and assessment with higher-order, analytical, evaluative and creative think- ing are important components that teacher educators must consider when learning and assessment is being designed (Mayer 2015). Mayer, building on the initial ideas described in Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), identifies five required tasks that represent authentic assessment design – or ‘Authentic Teacher Assessment’ in the areas of (1) Context for Learning, (2) Planning Instruction and Assessment, (3) Instructing Students and Supporting Learning, (4) Assessing Student Learning and (5) Reflecting on Teaching and Learning. These five tasks are aligned with the broader ideas of effective teaching and learning in higher education that lead to a ‘readiness to teach’ which involves ‘doing the actual work of teachers over time in the workplace, and is backed-up with evidence’ (Mayer 2015, p. 13). These ideas, and those more specific to science teacher educa- tion described earlier, have informed the initial and ongoing design of the task under examination in the study reported in this chapter. 10.4 R eflective Practice and Self-Study Methodology When examining the practice of any professional, and especially that of teachers and teacher educators, the theoretical underpinnings that inform practice need to be interrogated in order for the reflection on practice to become critical in nature. Critical reflective practice is distinguished by its emphasis on personal experience
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250
- 251
- 252
- 253
- 254
- 255
- 256
- 257
- 258
- 259
- 260
- 261
- 262
- 263
- 264
- 265
- 266
- 267
- 268
- 269
- 270
- 271
- 272
- 273
- 274
- 275
- 276
- 277
- 278
- 279
- 280
- 281
- 282
- 283
- 284
- 285
- 286
- 287
- 288
- 289
- 290
- 291
- 292
- 293
- 294
- 295
- 296
