Enacting a Pedagogy of Teacher Education

Values, Relationships and Practices

Tom Russell, John Loughran

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• Print ISBN: 9780415418997
• eBook ISBN: 9781134112456
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Building on John Loughran's latest work Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education, this book focuses on how individuals enact pedagogy in the context of teacher education. With teacher educators actually teaching while showing student-teachers how to teach, the quality of teacher education improves.

Bringing together contributions from internationally known teacher educators, a school administrator who supports teachers' professional learning, someone studying to become a teacher educator and someone studying to become a teacher, the book examines enacting educational and pedagogical values in personal practice and developing the interpersonal relationships that are so essential to quality teaching and learning.

Each chapter illustrates an individual working to better understand the processes of teaching and learning and then modifying personal practices to enact a productive pedagogy of teacher education. This collection extends the rich literature emerging from the field while also focusing explicit attention on the challenges of enacting a pedagogy of teacher education.

1 Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education

John Loughran

If the well entrenched, taken-for-granted aspects of teaching resulting from years of an apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) are to be seriously examined with students of teaching, then the “highly visible” teaching in teacher education must make clear all of that which has hitherto been unseen and unappreciated. To do so is obviously a demanding task and helps to account for the growing momentum for the articulation and development of a pedagogy of teacher education.

(Loughran, 2006, p. 173)

Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education is enmeshed in the ways in which teacher educators knowingly and purposefully create opportunities for students of teaching to see into teaching. It is about how teacher educators are able to make teaching a site for inquiry. In so doing, students of teaching might see into practice (both their own and that of their teacher educators) in such a way as to gain a genuine appreciation of the skills, knowledge and abilities that shape practice. Such inquiry opens teaching to questioning, probing, reflection and critique that goes way beyond the technical. Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education matters so that practice is not simplistically viewed as just “doing teaching.” As noted above, it is not easy work for either students of teaching or for teacher educators, yet it is fundamental to better understanding and valuing teacher education practices.

As the chapters in this book clearly illustrate, a pedagogy of teacher education requires a deep understanding of practice through researching practice. In order to develop such deep understanding, it is important not to be constrained by a teacher educator’s perspective but to actively seek to better understand the perspectives of students of teaching. By drawing appropriately on both of these perspectives, the sometimes contradictory and competing agendas and insights into the ways in which teaching is conceptualized and practiced might then influence the way in which teaching and learning about teaching might be articulated and portrayed. Endeavouring to act in ways that are responsive to both of these perspectives is essential in enacting a pedagogy of teacher education.

Teaching about teaching

Teaching about teaching is complex work and demands a great deal of teacher educators (see, for example, Berry, 2004; Bullough, 1997; Bullough and Gitlin, 2001; Clarke and Erickson, 2004; Dinkelman et al., 2006; Hoban, 2005; Korthagen, 2001a; Nicol, 1997, 2006; Northfield and Gunstone, 1997; Tidwell, 2002; Trumbull, 2004; Tudball, 2004). The complexity is embedded in the very nature of teaching itself, and thus when the focus is on teaching teaching, even more sophisticated understandings of practice are essential.

Deeper understandings of practice revolve around (at least) such things as: the problematic nature of teaching; making the tacit explicit; teaching as relationship; and challenging the tyranny of talk. Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education means that these elements must then be explicitly addressed through a teacher educator’s practice.

Focusing on the problematic in teaching teaching

One approach to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education emerges through the ways in which a teacher educator questions—and encourages students of teaching to question—the taken-for-granted aspects of one’s own practice. Seeing teaching as problematic, looking into and beyond the idiosyncrasies of practice, being able to abstract from the specific to the general—and vice versa—by developing an approach to pedagogical reasoning that genuinely informs teaching is important. Making that clear to oneself as a teacher educator matters, making it explicit for students of teaching is crucial. However, it does not follow that it is easy to do because:

One difficulty with conceptualizing teaching as being problematic is that, for novices, the messiness, the apparent lack of a clear path . . . may create a yearning for a much simpler solution in order to fashion a sense of control over the impending uncertainty of teaching.

(Loughran, 2006, p. 31)

Experienced teachers seem to effortlessly and confidently manage the uncertainty of practice. In so doing, to an observer (especially a novice), it can appear as though teaching progresses along a preordained path with little divergence from a well-established objective or goal. If this impression is gleaned, then in many ways it can be argued that the very act of good teaching actually masks the skilful ways in which teachers respond to the problematic nature of practice. Therefore, in teaching teaching, there is a pressing need for teacher educators to be able to bring to the surface the reactions, responses, decisions and moves that influence and shape their teaching during teaching. On the one hand, this is important in order for teacher educators to be cognizant of their own skills, knowledge and expertise in teaching. On the other, it matters if students of teaching are to see beyond the superficial and to engage with practice in more nuanced and sophisticated ways.

In the first instance, articulating a pedagogy of teacher education requires teacher educators to be aware of how they recognize and respond to the problematic nature of teaching. Yet as Korthagen makes clear, the problematic nature of teaching in teacher education is linked to the “technical-rationality model [that] still represents a very dominant line of thought” (2001b, p. 8). Thus it is important for teacher educators to be reminded about the fundamental nature of practice in order that they continue to question the taken-for-granted in their own teaching and not succumb to (or regress toward) a technical-rational approach to teaching teaching.

Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education means developing ways of delving into, and working with, the problematic nature of practice in order to highlight that teaching is much more than well-rehearsed scripts and routines. If pedagogical expertise is embedded in the ways in which a teacher skilfully manages the dilemmas, tensions, issues and concerns of practice during practice, then genuine examples of such situations must be made available to students of teaching, preferably through the very experiences of their own learning in their teacher education classes, as demonstrated by Clare Kosnik. The difficulty for teacher educators is in having the wisdom to know when they are confronted by a teachable moment (Van Manen, 1991) and how to productively open it up for inquiry in ways that do not become tedious or lead to an over-analysis of the simple or superficial.

Berry’s experience offers insights into the dilemmas and difficulties of enacting this element of a pedagogy of teacher education:

Usually, there is a multitude of thoughts running through my head as I teach. How do I know which of these is useful at any particular time to select to highlight for my students? . . . I had to choose carefully what I held up for public examination that would be useful and accessible for these student teachers . . . I wanted to convince them that it is OK to be unsure in your own practice, that teaching is problematic.

(2001, p. 3)

Teacher educators need to be aware of the difficulties associated with attempting to make the problematic examinable for student teachers and the ways in which that might be done draws attention to the difference between teaching and telling; a major dilemma for many teacher educators. The way these two issues are intertwined is interesting in terms of a pedagogy of teacher education for it is not good enough to simply tell students of teaching that which appears problematic and that which does not. In a similar vein, nor is it helpful in learning about teaching to simply hear how to deal with such situations. Learning about the problematic nature of teaching is embedded in how teacher educators and students of teaching together recognize, respond to and are encouraged to explore the problematic. Such explorations offer insights into how some teacher educators enact a pedagogy of teacher education. Clare Kosnik in Chapter 2 captures the essence of one way of enacting this aspect of her pedagogy of teacher education by making the problematic a site for inquiry. In her chapter, she explains how she shares with her students her teaching intentions, thereby creating opportunities to examine the reasons for the sequence of her courses, her rationale for selecting particular readings and assignments, and her inevitable struggles with particular content and topics as well as with grading assignments. In so doing, she offers her students of teaching ways of “hearing her internal dialogue” and creates real possibilities for questioning that which happens in their shared teaching and learning experiences in their teacher education program.

In approaching her practice in this way, Kosnik highlights the importance of making the tacit aspects of practice explicit; initially for herself, but ultimately for her students of teaching so that they are offered useful ways of seeing into the complexity of practice. Her invitation to students of teaching to unpack their experiences of her teaching offers a concrete example of teaching teaching in accord with the needs and expectations of enacting a pedagogy of teacher education.

Making the tacit explicit

Expert teachers possess richly elaborated knowledge about curriculum, classroom routines, and students that allows them to apply with dispatch what they know to particular cases. Where novices may focus on surface features or particular objects, experts draw on a store of knowledge that is organized around interpretative concepts or propositions that are tied to the teaching environment. Because the knowledge is tacit, it does not translate easily into direct instruction or formalization. This may help to account for the difficulty that teachers have in articulating the pieces that comprise their performance and knowledge base.

(Munby et al., 2001, p. 889)

Teachers’ professional knowledge has long been recognized as largely being tacit. But for students of teaching to see into the complex nature of teaching, there is a need for teacher educators to be able to make the tacit explicit; something that as (or if they once were) classroom teachers they were perhaps less well versed in doing. There is a constant need for teacher educators to be able to answer questions from students of teaching such as: “Why does that teaching procedure work?”; “How does concept mapping enhance student learning?”; or “Why would I use a jig-saw method for groupwork?” Being able to articulate one’s own knowledge of practice is vital to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education in order to be able to answer questions of this type. Scholarship in teaching and teacher education is evident when teaching procedures are used for particular reasons, in particular contexts, with particular content; not just because “they work.” The expectation that teacher educators are scholars of teaching must then be a catalyst for making the tacit explicit.

Alicia Crowe and Amanda Berry in Chapter 3 offer insights into this aspect of enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In developing and articulating their principles of practice they draw attention to ways of making the tacit explicit. Their second principle of practice, Prospective teachers need opportunities to see into the thinking like a teacher of experienced others, goes to the heart of what they describe as creating access to their pedagogical reasoning. Importantly, they do not see this as something to “build up to,” rather, they launch into it at the outset. They describe how during the first day of classes their students of teaching are exposed to the thinking of a teacher as they are asked to consider the reasoning underpinning the actions of their teacher educator which creates a platform from which they can (together) examine fundamental principles of her practice. Through this approach, students of teaching begin to see below the surface of the teaching and learning episodes they have just experienced.

This approach to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education also illustrates the risks associated with attempting to make the tacit explicit. There is an inevitable vulnerability that accompanies making teaching about teaching a site for inquiry; placing one’s own teaching on the table for dissection and analysis. Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education requires a confidence that might only be developed through learning to openly deal with the dilemmas, tensions and concerns of publicly examining the problematic nature of teaching in teaching teaching. Therefore, it is understandable that for some teacher educators there may well be a reluctance to overtly challenge their own teaching expertise; however, I would argue that such challenges are needed in order to begin to ask the hard questions about one’s own pedagogical reasoning. Otherwise, it may well be that in modelling teaching, the impression gained by students of teaching is that being able to “do teaching” is all that matters. Thus, without intending it to be the case, a technical rational approach to learning about teaching may well prevail and create an unwitting counterpoint to any argument that teaching is a complex, messy yet sophisticated business.

As noted above, and further reinforced by Joe Senese in Chapter 4, making the tacit explicit is difficult for classroom teachers, and not necessarily something that is expected or encouraged. As a high school administrator, Senese has recognized the value in helping teachers begin to articulate what they think they are doing in the classroom in order to compare it to what they actually do; and to learn from the difference. He notes that teachers have little practice in articulating their pedagogical reasoning and that they are largely unaware of the “larger purposes, the overarching goals, and the deeper questions involved in teaching and learning.” He draws attention to the personal and professional risks involved in examining the underpinnings of practice and how important it is for them to work with trusted colleagues in safe conditions. Yet, in so doing, teachers gain confidence and develop deeper understandings of what they do and why, which helps them to uncover assumptions about teaching and learning that then inform their practice.

The fact that it is difficult for experienced teachers to make the tacit explicit further reinforces why it is so important that teacher educators be skilled at so doing. Senese eloquently captures some of the difficulties and dilemmas of enacting this aspect of a pedagogy of teacher education. But, despite these difficulties he does not resile from the need for this to be a core attribute of teaching teaching for it is a conduit to teachers’ professional knowledge.

Teaching as a relationship

Bullough and Gitlin offer a compelling argument about teaching as a relationship. They describe teaching as a way of being with, and relating to, others. When they extend this into teaching about teaching, they state that it requires more than “just dispensing information in a timely fashion but of building trust, of talking and problem-solving together” (2001, p. 3). Understanding teaching as a relationship hinges on a responsiveness to the dynamic nature of the teaching and learning environment and a sensitivity to its participants.

Coming to understand teaching in this way requires a commitment to looking more deeply into practice. For teachers this approach is sometimes captured through the notion of reflection (e.g., Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983), for some teacher educators, it is most commonly displayed through self-study (Aubusson and Schuck, 2006; Hamilton et al., 1998; Kosnick et al., 2006; Samaras, 2006).

In Chapter 5, Ruth Kane highlights the ways in which honesty, trust and risktaking must not only be reflected upon, but acted upon, in learning to articulate and better value professional knowledge of practice. Underpinning relationships is also important beyond the individual, and Kane shows clearly how her knowledge of teacher education practices also influenced the manner in which she conceptualized, and then constructed, a teacher education program.

In Chapter 6, Shawn Bullock offers an intriguing account of the development of his understanding of teaching as a relationship. Through analysis of his daily journal of his teaching, he came to see how important it was to the way in which he developed his practice to pay careful attention to relationships, particularly those between teacher and students. As he reflected on his practice he came to see that “recognizing the primacy of relationships in teaching represented a major shift in [his] thinking” about teaching. The primacy of relationships carried over in important ways into his learning in teaching about teaching and helped him to concentrate on appropriate ways of addressing the tensions and dilemmas associated with trying to teach (as opposed to telling) students of teaching about the complexity of practice. Bullock’s efforts highlight how enacting a pedagogy of teacher education requires close attention to relationships and how sensitivity to situations is so important in shaping actions in action.

Relationships influence a great deal in learning and teaching about teaching. Whether intended or not, all that teacher educators do models something about practice. Maintaining a respect for the need to positively develop and respond to relationships is the key to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education and is hopefully something that is genuinely and purposefully modelled in teaching teaching.

Challenging the “tyranny of talk”

Bullock’s chapter draws attention to the enduring effects of transmissive teaching. He describes the challenge he faced to his “default understanding of teaching as telling,” as he confronted the need to challenge the tyranny of talk. Challenging the tyranny of talk requires looking into the relationship between teaching and learning and endeavouring to develop ways of engaging learners in learning. One way in which this might begin for teacher educators is through sustained efforts to encourage, support and learn through metacognition (theirs and their students).

In Chapter 7, Linda Kroll illustrates how her pedagogy of teacher education has been influenced by her thinking about her own learning and how that relates to students as learners of teaching and learning. By questioning her own history of learning and how that has been constructed, she is able to “unpack” some of the crucial relationships between teaching and learning that matter in the ways in which she thinks about how her students might learn.

Such thinking is indicative of learning through metacognition and, importantly, of doing so in a purposeful and serious manner. By linking teaching and learning in real ways, by contrasting the roles of teacher and learner, Kroll is able to construct pedagogy that is embedded in relationships. Doing this in her own practice brings to the surface (for herself) what this aspect of a...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contributors
• 1 Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education
• 2 Still the same yet different: Enduring values and commitments in my work as a teacher and teacher educator
• 3 Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like a teacher: Articulating our principles of practice
• 4 Providing the necessary luxuries for teacher reflection
• 5 From naïve practitioner to teacher educator and researcher: Constructing a personal pedagogy of teacher education
• 6 Finding my way from teacher to teacher educator: Valuing innovative pedagogy and inquiry into practice
• 7 Constructing and reconstructing the concepts of development and learning: The central nature of theory in my practice
• 8 Do you encounter your students or yourself ?: The search for inspiration as an essential component of teacher education
• 9 A teacher of teachers
• 10 Enacting a pedagogy of practicum supervision: One student teacher’s experiences of powerful differences
• 11 Program restructuring and reconceptualizing practice: An epiphany
• 12 Value-based teacher education: The role of knowledge, language and golden moments
• 13 How experience changed my values as a teacher educator