A Pedagogy of Literacy Teacher Education: Going Beyond a Generic Pedagogy

Author(s):

Clare Kosnik(presenting / submitting)Clive Beck(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 07 D, Literacy, Citizenship and Physical Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-Theatre P

Chair:

Ratha Perumal

Contribution

The large-scale study Literacy Teacher Educators: Their Backgrounds, Visions, and Practices includes 28 literacy/English teacher educators (LTEs) in four countries: Canada, United States, England, and Australia is studying in-depth the backgrounds, pedagogies, and practices of a specific group of teacher educators.

Preparing student teachers to be effective literacy teachers has become increasingly complex because communication patterns are changing (e.g., use of digital technology). Regardless of the country “literacy” practices are changing. Literacy teacher educators are being asked to conceptualize and teach literacy in ways they did not as classroom teachers (Kirkwood, 2009). This seismic shift from a focus on reading and writing to a multidisciplinary perspective where literacy practices “account for the context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalized societies … [and] account for the burgeoning variety of text forms (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 9) leaves many LTEs floundering.

The specific questions that guided this aspect of the study are:

What are the elements of pedagogy of literacy teacher education?
What opportunities for learning are offered to help student teachers understand the changing conception of literacy?

Loughran (2006), Lunenberg et al. (2014) ,Korthagen (2010), and European Commission on Teacher Educators (2013) have identified the need for a pedagogy of teacher education. Loughran (2006) argues that teaching about teaching is a very different enterprise than teaching children. He states “[b]eing a teacher educator requires an understanding of teaching that goes beyond being a good teacher. There is a need to be able to theorize practice in such a way as to know and be able to articulate the what, how, and why of teaching and to do so through the very experiences of teaching and learning about teaching” (2006, p. 14).

Pedagogy in teacher education is complicated (Darling-Hammond 2006; Ellis et al., 2010) because “[o]ne of the particular aspects of initial teacher education is its layered nature – it is teaching about teaching. This creates a complex learning environment …. This is in part because making sense of teachers’ professional knowledge is perplexing, then attempting to translate teaching about teaching into action in teacher education is an even more daunting task” (Boyd, Harris, & Murray, 200, p. 13).

Shulman’s identifies pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as the “missing paradigm” in education (1986, p. 8). He poses the questions: What do good teacher of history do that distinguished them from ordinary ones? Or that distinguishes them from good teachers of mathematics (1992, p. 24)? Shulman argues that content “requires going beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain. It requires understanding the structures of the subject matter” (1992, p. 27). Regarding pedagogy Shulman says “the most useful forms of representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations and demonstrations - in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes if comprehensible to others (1986, p.9). Shulman provides the example: “how does someone who learned Shakespeare’s Hamlet learn to teach that play to others? (1994, p. 23).

In turn, what do literacy teacher educators do that distinguishes them from mathematics or social studies teacher educators? Those who educate literacy/English student teachers face specific challenges (Boyd & Harris, 2010); for example, the gap between the standardized curriculum in schools which still privileges traditional text-based forms of literacy (Brass, 2015) and broader views of literacy advocated in literacy methods courses can create confusion for student teachers. In many countries (e.g., England, Australia) the curriculum is being narrowed to technical skills (e.g., phonics and grammar) which creates significant tension for LTEs (Marshall 2016).

The aim of this research is not to mandate a prescriptive formula for literacy methods courses but to help LTEs navigate the complexities of the contemporary literacy landscape.

Method

All 28 participants were interviewed three times with each semi-structured interview taking approximately 60–90 minutes. The same questions were asked of all participants, but probe questions were posed. Most of the questions were open-ended in that they sought more than a yes/no responses or simple factual answers. Interviews were done either face to face or on Skype and were audio-recorded and transcribed. The second interview which focused on pedagogy had four parts: framework and goals for their literacy course(s); pedagogies used and reasons for using them; assignments and readings; how and why their views and practices have changed over the years. Much of the methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2014). Qualitative inquiry is justified as it provides depth of understanding and enables exploration of questions that do not on the whole lend themselves to quantitative inquiry (Merriam, 2009). It opens the way to gaining entirely unexpected ideas and information from participants in addition to finding out their opinions on simple pre-set matters. A modified grounded theory approach was used, not beginning with a fixed theory but generating theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2014). For data analysis, qualitative software NVivo was used. The first level of analysis, “open coding,” (Strauss & Corbin, 2000) was used to examine properties of the data (Creswell & Miller, 2000) by identifying salient words and phrases, relating to the research questions and any other category or theme, which were emerging. The next step was axial coding. Responses to the questions around goals for education were coded into 3 sub-nodes (themes): knowledge (e.g., theory of how children learn to read; government curriculum); skills (e.g., learning to observe, planning sequential lessons, developing assessment techniques); and dispositions (e.g., teaching as an intellectual enterprise; understanding teachers as decision-makers). The general node (theme) of pedagogy had 16 sub-nodes (e.g., approach, assignments). There were other relevant nodes such as preparing student teachers for school district curriculum, use of digital technology, and bridging theory and practice. Approximate 35 nodes that related to pedagogy were analyzed. As the analysis progressed, key findings were identified and refined through “constant comparison” of the interview transcripts. Selective coding led to a key finding that a broad and evolving conception of literacy must be the anchor/core of the literacy course and specific “elements” must be consistent with this view of literacy.

Expected Outcomes

Although learning about literacy and acquiring pedagogical strategies were common goals, interpretations of what student teachers need to know about literacy theory and teaching strategies varied. Some focused on critical literacy others on multiliteracies. Although the emphases differed for the most part there was a consistency in their conceptions of literacy; it is changing and expanding. For example Robyn whose view is typical of the others notes: “I want them to understand that Literacy is not a single, global skill that once you have, you have forever. I want them to understand that it’s becoming increasingly complex and is a whole lot of different literacies.’ While Peter describes his conception of literacy “I want them to think them about literacy as being broader than traditional views about reading, writing, and speaking.” Most anchored their courses in a broad and evolving conception of literacy. Justin does not want “to prepare beginning teachers for whatever the particular curricular or pedagogic demands of policy here now are but for a lifetime in teaching and this involves them being able to be both critical of initiatives that are thrust on them and creative in their approaches.” Ten elements of a pedagogy of literacy teacher education were identified: value and respond to diversity; weave theory and practice; build the class into a learning community; use a wide range of pedagogical strategies; integrate digital technology; set assignments to consolidate learning; create authentic reflection activities; connect practice teaching and academic program; participate in local and international communities and organizations; and read, discuss, and analyze a range of texts and genres. Some of the pedagogies used by the LTEs were: student teachers wrote a literacy autobiography; involving community members (e.g., Elders from Aboriginal Communities); and appreciating the arts as a form of literacy.

References

Boyd, P., Harris, K., & Murray, J. (2011) Becoming a teacher educator: Guidelines for the induction of newly appointed lecturers in initial teacher education. Bristol: The Higher Education Academy. http://escalate.ac.uk/8508 Boyd, P., &. Harris, K.. (2010). “Becoming a University Lecturer in Teacher Education: Expert School Teachers Reconstructing Their Pedagogy and Identity.” Professional Development in Education 36 (1–2): 9–24. Brass, J., & Webb, A. (2015). (Eds.) Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-down times. New York: Routledge. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge. Creswell, J. & Miller, D. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry Theory into Practice 39 (3), 124 – 130. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ellis, V., McNicholl, & Pendry A. (2012) Institutional conceptualisations of teacher education as academic work in England. Teaching and Teacher Education 28 685-693. European Commission on Teaching (2013). Supporting teacher educators for better learning outcomes. Brussels: European Commission. Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don't always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding about teaching and learning about teaching. London. Routledge. Lunenberg,M.,Dengerink,J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The Professional Teacher Educator: Roles, Behaviour, and Professional Development of Teacher Educators. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers. Korthagen, F. How teacher education can make a difference (2010). Journal of Education for Teaching 36 (4), 407–423. Marshall, B. (2016) Multi modalities in literacy/English education courses. In In C, Kosnik, S. White, C. Beck, B. Marshall, A.L. Goodwin, & J. Murray. (Eds.) (2016). Building bridges: Rethinking literacy teacher education in a digital era. (pp. XX). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4- 31 Shulman, L. S. (1992). Research on teaching: A historical and personal perspective in F. Oser, A. Dick, & J.L. Patry, Ed. Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 14-91). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2000). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Author Information

Clare Kosnik (presenting / submitting)

University of Toronto, Canada

Clive Beck (presenting)