Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education

Case Pedagogies and Curricula for Teacher Educators

Suzanne E. Wade

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2000
• Print ISBN: 9780805825091
• eBook ISBN: 9781135686642
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book--a companion volume to Inclusive Education: A Casebook and Readings for Prospective and Practicing Teachers--is designed to assist instructors in using Inclusive Education as a text for preservice or in-service teacher education courses.

Part I (Chapters 1-5) of Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education provides a general introduction to case pedagogies and chapters describing curricula that teacher educators have developed using cases designed to prepare teachers for inclusive education. Part II provides Teaching Notes that correspond to the 14 cases in Inclusive Education.

I
CURRICULA FOR PREPARING TEACHERS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1
An Introduction to Case Pedagogies for Teacher Educators

Suzanne E. Wade

Elizabeth B. Moje

Case pedagogies¹ are ideally suited to preparing teachers for inclusive education by helping them understand the needs and concerns of students and parents and by developing the understandings, attitudes, and experience in problem solving that teachers will need to work successfully and collaboratively in inclusive settings. As narrative descriptions of particular experiences, cases present realistic dilemmas and problems in richly detailed, contextualized situations that may be similar to ones teachers have experienced or expect to experience in their future practice. Despite a long and distinguished history in other professional schools such as business, medicine, and law, case pedagogies are relatively new in teacher education and represent a radically different approach (Carter, 1988; Harrington & Garrison, 1992; Merseth, 1991; L.Shulman, 1992; Sykes & Bird, 1992). Instead of beginning with abstract theories and generic prescriptions that students are expected to apply to practice, learning with cases involves “acting, reflecting, [and] deliberating on problematic situations with the aid of various theories” (Sykes & Bird, 1992, p. 12). In other words, theory becomes a useful and meaningful tool for understanding practice, rather than an end in itself (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996).

Many educators also see case pedagogies as a way to foster the development of critical, reflective thinking (cf. Grossman, 1992; Harrington, 1995; Harrington & Garrison, 1992; Harrington, Quinn-Leering, & Hodson, 1996). Critical reflection involves analyzing problems from multiple perspectives; questioning assumptions and beliefs; framing and reframing problems; generating and evaluating a range of possible solutions; and considering the personal, academic, political, and ethical consequences of solutions (Gore, 1987; Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Schon, 1983, 1987; Zeichner, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Theoretically, case discussions are well suited to promoting critically reflective thinking because they involve dialogue. In contrast to the “banking” view of education in which the teacher deposits a fixed body of knowledge into the heads of learners, dialogue has been described as “the sealing together of the teacher and students in the joint act of knowing and re-knowing the object of study” (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 14). Others have described dialogue as “guided by a spirit of discovery” in which participants develop greater understanding, insight, and sensitivity (Burbules, 1993, p. 8). According to Burbules, dialogue involves one’s ability to reason, “especially our ability to solve problems, to think sensibly toward conclusions, to weigh competing considerations, and to choose reasonable courses of action” (p. 11). These same ideas are captured in Martin’s (1985) description of conversation as:

neither a fight nor a contest. Circular in form, cooperative in manner, and constructive in intent, it is an interchange of ideas by those who see themselves not as adversaries but as human beings who come together to talk and listen and learn from one another, (p. 10)

By analyzing complex teaching situations and by articulating, listening to, and possibly challenging a variety of interpretations presented during case discussions, students can become creators and definers rather than simply recipients of knowledge (Harrington & Garrison, 1992; Richert, 1992).

Case teaching also can prepare teachers for collaboration with other teachers, special educators and resource personnel, administrators, and parents—a crucial ingredient in creating successful inclusion in schools. Discussions and small-group work give teachers opportunities to hone their communication skills, articulate positions, and accept and respond to criticism. Also, most of the cases in this volume are problem based and require teachers to engage in collaborative problem solving. Some are also well suited to role playing situations, in which teachers can work together to generate and evaluate solutions.

PREPARING FOR CASE DISCUSSIONS

As the site where dialogue most often occurs, whole-class discussions figure prominently in case pedagogies. Good discussions require a great deal of planning on the part of both the instructor and the students. “An Introduction to Cases,” which begins Part II of Inclusive Education, describes in detail what students should do to prepare for case discussions. In this chapter we share what we have learned from our experiences as instructors and the research we have conducted on our own case teaching.

Deciding on Your Goals and Selecting Cases

The first and most important decision in selecting cases and planning for case discussions is to decide what you want to accomplish with them in your courses. We begin this process by reflecting on our own philosophy of teaching, just as we ask our students (prospective and practicing teachers) to do. Although our primary goal has been to foster critically reflective thinking, we also have more specific goals that vary depending on the content and purposes of our courses and our students’ backgrounds and experience with case pedagogies and with teaching. For example, our purpose in using some cases is to have teachers examine their attitudes toward students with disabilities or students from whom they differ in language, culture, or gender. Other cases can help teachers plan a curriculum to meet their students’ needs, plan strategies for solving problems in collaborative situations, or analyze racist and sexist assumptions that might underlie certain educational practices.

To help you select the cases in Inclusive Education that are aligned with your goals, we have provided, in the “Teaching Notes for the Cases” (Part II of the present volume), a synopsis of each case and a description of some of the issues that are central to it; we have also provided space for you to note additional issues that you find important. Once you have selected (or written) the cases you plan to use and the issues you want to highlight in each case, we recommend that you think about how the cases might relate to one another. To maintain continuity and reinforce important concepts, you may also want to revisit a case on occasion. For example, at the end of a course, you might return to a case presented earlier to allow class members to assess their growth in understanding an idea or their own professional development. We also have found it important to put the same care into selecting the readings and other media presentations that present course content and serve as tools to help class members make sense of the cases. These include textbooks; journal, newspaper, and magazine articles; works of fiction; documentaries; and movies. These texts can provide students with the content, theories, and analyses of issues that you want the cases to illustrate, enliven, or challenge.

Creating a Community of Learners

Successful case discussions require a classroom environment that encourages both a sense of community and critical dialogue. These two qualities have been contrasted as “connected knowing” and “separate knowing” by Belenky and her colleagues (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986); as the “believing game and the “doubting game” by Elbow (1973, 1986); and as “inclusive” and “critical” orientations by Burbules (1993). The first is most related to the idea of an inclusive learning community, in which participants in a dialogue are willing to consider, at least initially, the plausibility of what another person is saying by listening and thereby attempting to understand the beliefs, experiences, and emotions of the other. By feeling empathy (which comes from experience), people can attempt to share the experience that has led a person to embrace an idea, realizing of course that such knowledge can only be an approximation. The words Elbow used to describe the believing game—for example, “involvement,” “commitment,” “willingness to explore what is new,” “opening,” “flexible,” “nonaggressive,” “supportive,” “cooperative,” “listening,” “silence,” and “agreeing”—reflect his desire to give this stance legitimacy (1973, pp. 178–179).

In contrast, the doubting, critical stance is skeptical, questioning, distanced, and evaluative, testing interpretations and beliefs against evidence, logic, and consistency (Burbules, 1993). Elbow (1973) describes the doubting game as seeking Truth by “seeking error” through the use of evidence and logic (p. 148). Belenky et al.’s (1986) conception of “separate knowing” is similar to both conceptions, equated as it is with being tough minded and skeptical, assuming that everyone, including oneself, might be wrong.

While these two stances may appear to conflict, both are necessary and complementary. Only an environment that fosters trust, listening for understanding, the expression of multiple perspectives, and risk taking allows such inquiry to occur. Building a community in which learning can occur requires “responsibility, directiveness, determination, discipline, and objectives” (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 16) as well as group solidarity and participant sensitivity (Moje, Enersen, & Dillon, 1993). The first step is to encourage class members to get to know one another. Name cards and simple introductions in which they are asked to tell something interesting about themselves work well in the beginning. Small-group activities prior to whole-group discussions also allow more people to contribute in some way and build group solidarity and confidence by enabling students to practice making a point to a smaller, safer audience (Frederick, 1980). Finally, arranging the room in a U-shaped design encourages interaction among class members.

Having the class establish ground rules for discussions also helps to build a sense of community in the classroom. You might begin by asking class members to describe the kinds of interactions they would like to see occur and what they can do to foster them. They will likely mention some variation on the idea of “active listening” (cf. Rogers, 1987). Instead of focusing on one’s own turn and responses, active listening involves consciously working to understand what discussion participants mean, what their experiences might have been, and how they feel about what they are saying. According to Elbow (1986), suspending disbelief and entering into another’s way of thinking, even temporarily, forces us to analyze our own ideas more carefully. For further information (and inspiration), see Rogers (1987), Wasserman (1993), Welty (1989), and Christensen, Garvin, and Sweet (1991). The “Introduction to Cases” in Part II of Inclusive Education also includes a discussion of how to create a community of learners in classrooms.

Once class members have discussed their roles in fostering a community of learners and in case discussions, the facilitator’s job is to make these things happen throughout the case discussions. Sometimes it is helpful during “debriefings” to have class members comment on how the discussions are going and to reflect on the difficulties of active listening, suspending disbelief, and questioning not only other people’s assumptions but also their own. Debriefings of this kind may result in class members suggesting pragmatic ways to achieve their ideals and perhaps constructing new, emergent rules.

Thinking About Your Role as Facilitator

The facilitator serves a critical role in a case discussion: structuring discussion time, deciding on whom to call, and trying to ensure that all participants have opportunities to speak (Garvin, 1991). To the extent possible, the facilitator’s job also is to ensure that dialogue really occurs: that class members engage in “an interchange of ideas, as opposed to mere exchanges” (Moje, Enersen, & Dillon, 1993, p. 23). Without careful direction by the facilitator, case discussions can become story or opinion swapping (Sykes, 1989); or involve “parallel talk,” in which other perspectives, although expressed, are not heard (Moje & Wade, 1997). Thus, one of the questions you are likely to ask yourself as you prepare for a case discussion is, “How directive should I be as the discussion leader?”

Christensen (1991) suggested that the ideal relationship between students and teacher is one of reciprocal inquiry. The teacher’s role is not to be the authority in the classroom and to transmit a prescribed and fixed body of knowledge to students, but rather to foster conditions in which students are encouraged to construct knowledge themselves. Shor and Freire (1987) described the dialogic teacher as one who knows the objects of study at the beginning of the course better than students do, but who relearns them through studying them with students. According to Shor and Freire, it is the teacher’s openness to relearning that gives dialogue a democratic character.

Emphasizing the relational nature of dialogue, Burbules (1993) also argued that we should not frame our position as teacher or justify our authority solely on the basis of that role. Instead, we should be honest about the knowledge and talents that we possess and the position of authority to which they have led. On the other hand, it is important to understand our students: “what motivates them to enter into the process; what they stand to learn and what they stand to teach us” (p. 33). According to Burbules, we need to be willing to listen to students, not only as a way to encourage them to develop and express their points of view but also as a way to learn something new. By listening, the facilitator also helps to create an environment of respect, interest, and concern in which everyone feels confident and secure.

Oyler and Becker’s (1997) concept of shared authority is similar. They define shared authority as the middle ground between the authoritarian concept of teaching, in which knowledge and power reside solely in the teacher, and the abdication of authority by the teacher. One way to create classroom interactions that exemplify shared authority is to invite students to participate in creating “the work of the classroom”—both its content (what is to be learned) and its processes (how content will be learned). That is, the teacher is open to hearing students express their needs and to helping them pursue what is important to them. When student contributions do not match the teacher’s discussion plans, teachers can view such contributions as “diverse entry points” and seek to create links between what has just been said and their original agendas. Shared authority also involves negotiated evaluation of students’ work, in which the teacher and students develop criteria together for evaluating work. In addition, shared authority can involve seeking students’ evaluation of the course at certain points to find out what is going well and what students would like to see done differently.

Getting to Know Your Students Well

An important element in selecting cases and crafting case discussions is knowledge of our students. As Christensen (1991) noted, “the subject matter defines the boundaries of the intellectual territory, but the students’ intellects, personalities, learning styles, fears, and aspirations shape the paths they will take” (p. 24). Students also differ greatly in their background, experience, culture, language, and pedagogical orientation. Consequently, they vary in the tools they possess to interpret case events, in the motives they construct for individuals featured in the cases, in the assumptions they challenge and leave unchallenged, in the issues they identify as important, and in the solutions they propose. For example, in our own research (Moje & Wade, 1997), we found differences between prospective and practicing teachers in how they made sense of the cases. Whereas prospective teachers relied on theories from university course work and on their experiences both as students and as student teachers, practicing teachers relied primarily on their teaching experiences. As a result, prospective teachers tended to hold the teachers depicted in the cases as responsible for students’ success or failure, whereas experienced teachers tended to view teaching as far more complex and constrained by large class size, administrative mandates, and other contextual factors.

Knowing students well also helps in deciding which students to ask particular questions, what to expect in response, and how to pose questions that students can answer successfully, thus building their confidence as well as their critical reflection abilities. Such knowledge is also helpful when assigning students to role-playing activities and when dealing with controversial issues. Additionally, you may want to use less structured discussion formats and to vary the format and follow-up activities as the students become more experienced and confident with case pedagogies.

Knowing the Case Well and Planning the Discussion

If you have selected a case to use from Inclusive Education, you may want to turn to the teaching notes for that case in this volume (see Part II). These are designed to acquaint you with the case and to plan case activities. We encourage you to view the teaching notes as a resource, selecting what you find most appropriate and modifying questions and activities to meet your needs. To begin the planning process, you might want to select the most important concepts and issues you want students to understand, referring to the “Issues in the Case” section of the teaching notes for the case you have selected. Returning to your goals, you might then ask yourself, “Why did I select this case and these readings?” Because major concepts have important subconcepts as well as connections to other major concepts, developing an outline or visual graphic may suggest one or more logical patterns that the discussion might follow (Welty, 1989). Such planning, along with experience in using each case, allows you to be ready for almost any direction or connection students might make. Careful preparation thus allows you to be flexible and to guide the course of the discussion—not in predetermined ways, but rather along the multiple paths that your students may generate. Bec...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Contributors
• I Curricula for Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education
• II Teaching Notes for the Cases in Inclusive Education: A Casebook and Readings for Prospective and Practicing Teachers