University teaching: its pedagogical knowledge from different knowledge fields. A multiple -case study with professors from Barcelona's University

Author(s):

Lorena Cruz Garcette

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

PRE_D4, Preconference; Paper Session D4

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-08

14:45-16:15

Room:

C 105

Chair:

Airi Rovio-Johansson

Contribution

As an early stage researcher and involved in the process of my doctoral thesis some questions, thoughts and reflections have emerged from two dimensions. One of them focused on the topic of interest of the research: “the construction of pedagogical – didactic content knowledge of university teachers from different fields”. The other dimension is centred on methodological aspects, not only on the chosen instruments to collect the information, the process to collect these information and the analyse of it too, but also through all these the self control of my conceptual framework. What is the meaning of this?. I am conscious that what I observe, how I observe and the meaning of it depend on my conceptual framework, on my theoretical perspective. That is the reason why, I assume as a challenge to develop some field notes concerning this aspect. This research is focused on the professional knowledge of university teachers. These university teachers have been constructing their pedagogical content knowledge through the interaction between the disciplinary framework and the practice of their teacher function. The disciplinary framework has the advantage of being shape in an early and conscious training. ¿How has this interaction been developed in the construction of the pedagogical knowledge? The challenge is to investigate how is this interaction? and how is the influence between the conceptual framework (from his/her specialized field training ) and the pedagogical knowledge ( from the teaching practice as an university professor)?. Does the ontoepistemological framework from their specialized field gives any particularity to their teaching and to their construction of the pedagogical knowledge?. If this particularity exist, how is it? Some researches showed that teachers who teach in the ‘hard’ disciplines ( physical sciences, engineering and medicine) were more likely to apply a teacher centred approach to teaching, whereas teachers from ‘soft’ disciplines (social sciences and humanities) took more student –centred approach teaching. (Lueddeke, 2003). It seems that depend on which kind of discipline teachers came from is the particularity of their approach to teaching. Can we assume this affirmation as something determined? Is there any other possibility? Can teachers from ‘hard’disciplines apply to student –centred approach teaching? Is it possible that teachers from ‘soft’ disciplines take more teacher-centred approach teaching? From this kind of researches the balance inclines toward the disciplinary framework constructed during their specialized training,. In other words, this frame shapes the pedagogical view. According to this point of view we can assert that different conceptions as teaching, learning, curriculum, etc. will depend on the window built on their disciplinary field. It is necessary to include other point of view for this interaction between these two knowledges. Could pedagogical content knowledge construction question their own ways to approach reality from the disciplinary framework? How could this pedagogical knowledge question the specialized frame?

Method

Regards to the decisions about methodological design and its ontoepistemological foundations it is necessary to specify that this research is being sustained by the qualitative research perspective and the constructivism point of view of educational reality. The Multiple - Case study is the methodology adopted for this research process. The cases are being represented by four university teachers positively valuated (not only by their students but also by their colleagues). They belong to different fields of knowledge from the University of Barcelona. Not participant observation of classes, department meeting, in depth interviews with teachers and students and the analysis of some documents and didactic material are the instruments that are being used to gather data. From the process of collecting the information emerge some questions related to self-observation as a researcher, to the dimension of self-reflection of my own point of view, of my own ontoepistemological frame. Why do I observe a part of the setting and not another? Am I conscious or not of my cut, of what I observed from the reality? Am I able to go beyond my conceptual frame? How can I suspend my epistemological point of view? How can I systematize this self control? This on-going research is in the stage gathering data. The main instrument in this moment is the classes’ observation. How I register these observations?. My notebook is dived in three columns: observation notes, theoretical references and self perspective reflections. As data analysis is concerned it is important to expound that within qualitative perspective I will use the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Although the constant comparative method will be use later I can affirm that analysis is taking part also in the gathering data process.

Expected Outcomes

As it is an on- going research is not possible at this stage to set out any kind of outcome, but it is possible to expound what it is expected to be reached. One of the main objectives to achieve is to understand how university teacher discipline training affects, consciously or not, pedagogical practice, and how pedagogical practice affects, consciously or not, the discipline perspective. Furthermore, I expect to reach a profound comprehension of pedagogical content knowledge construction through the interrelationship between university pedagogical practices and their discipline framework. Another challenge, previously exposed, and as significant as the others, is to systematize my self reflection, my conceptual framework control, my self perspective of university teaching practice

References

- Angulo Rasco, J.F. (1999). De la investigación sobre la enseñanza al conocimiento docente. En Peréz Gómez, A., Barquín Ruiz, J. y Angulo Rasco, J.F. (Ed.). Desarrollo profesional del docente: políticas, investigación y práctica. Mardid: Akal - Clark, C. yYinger, r. J. (1979). Three studies on teacher planning. East Lansing. Michigan State University. Institute for Research on Teaching. Research Series, nº 55. - Charlot,B. (2000); A relaçao com a saber: conceitos e definiçoes. En: Da relaçao com a saber: elementos para uma teoria. Porto Alegre: Arte Médicas. - Díaz Quero, V. (2005). Teoría emergente en la construcción del saber pedagógico. En Revista Iberoamericana de Educación.nº 37/3. OEI - Eisner, E. (1998), El ojo ilustrado. Indagación cualitativa y mejora de la práctica educativa. Barcelona: Paidós - Erickson, F. (1997). Métodos cualitativos de investigación sobre la enseñanza. En Wittrock, M. (1997) La investigación de la enseñanza II. Métodos cualitativos y de observación. Vol. II. Barcelona: P.Educador. - Fernández Pérez, G. (1992). Desarrollo profesional del docente universitario: texto, contexto y pretexto. En Marcelo, C. y Mignorance, P. (Eds.). Pensamiento de profesores y desarrollo profesional (II). Formación inicial y permanente. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla - Fournez, G. (1994) La construcción del conocimiento científico. Filosofía y ética de la ciencia. Madrid:Narcea - Geertz, C. (1973), The interpretation of cultures. Nueva York, Basic Books. - Lindblom-Ylänne, S. Trigwell, K. Y Nevgi, A. (2006). How approches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. En Studies in higher Education, vol, 31, nº 3, june 2006, pp285-298. - Lueddeke, G. (2003) Professionalising Teaching Practice in Higher Education: a study of disciplinary variation and teaching –scholarship. En Studies in Higher Education, vol. 28, nº 2. - Medina Moya, JL. (2001), Conocimiento profesional del docente. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. Capítulo 4 de Proyecto docente. Documento policopiado. - Montero, L. (1992) El aprendizaje de la enseñanza: la construcción del conocimiento en la enseñanza. En Marcelo, C. y Mignorance, P. (Eds.). Pensamiento de profesores y desarrollo profesional (II). Formación inicial y permanente. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla (Ed.).La función docente, Madrid: Síntesis. - Schön, D. (1992), La formación de profesionales reflexivos. Hacia un nuevo diseño de la formación y el aprendizaje en las profesiones. Madrid: Paidós MEC. - Shulman, L. (1986), Those Who understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. - Shulman, L. (1987), Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review Vol.57, nº1, pp. 1-22. - Trigwell, k. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects : aquantitative analysis, Art, Design and communication in Higher Education , 1, 69-80. - Vain, P. (1998).La evaluación de la docencia universitaria: un problema complejo”, presentado en el marco de la convocatoria organizada por la CONEAU, octubre 1998, Buenos Aires. - Valles, M.S. (1997). Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional. Madrid: Síntesis. -Van Manen, M. (Ed.) (1983). Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills. California:Sage. - Van Manen, M (2003). Investigación educativa y experiencia vivida. Barcelona: Idea. -Wilson, S., Shulman, L. y Richert, E. (1988). 150 Different ways of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In: J. Calderhead (Ed.) Exploring teachers’ thinking. London: Cassel. - Wright, G. (1979).Explicación y comprensión. Madrid: Alianza Universidad

Author Information

Lorena Cruz Garcette

Barcelona University

Didactic and Educational Organization

Barcelona

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.