Symposium
Making teaching tangible for student teachers through core practices: Current findings and theoretical developments
Chair(s): Matthias Nückles (Universität Freiburg, Deutschland), Marc Kleinknecht (Leuphana Universität Lüneburg)
Discussant(s): Kathleen Stürmer (Universität Tübingen)
During the last two decades, research on teacher education in Europe and the US has undergone a “competence turn” in which the question of how future teachers can develop competencies that allow them to act flexibly and adaptively in the classroom, has become a focal point of interest. Whereas in German speaking countries empirical educational research has mainly concentrated on the assessment of cognitive and affective-motivational dispositions as prerequisites of teaching performance (e.g., Baumert et al., 2010), and on abilities to notice and interpret classroom situations (e.g., Seidel & Stürmer, 2014; Sherin & van Es, 2009), the practice-based teacher education movement in the US (Grossman et al., 2009, McDonald et al., 2013) has spawned concrete theoretical ideas of how teaching performance can be fostered. Specifically, the notion of core teaching practices has been suggested around which teacher education and professional development may be organized. A major strength of the core practices concept is that the concrete and situated demands of teaching come into focus which is likely a much more fruitful starting point for educating novice teachers than high-level abstractions from educational effectiveness research such as “cognitive activation” or “supportive climate” (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014; Klieme et al., 2009). The latter have recently become popular in teacher training and data-driven development of teaching quality in German speaking countries.
Following Grossman et al. (2009, see also McDonald et al., 2013) core practices can be conceived of as structured sequences of instructional activities which are essential to the teaching profession. Accordingly, core practices typically occur with a high frequency in teaching (e.g., giving explanations, eliciting and responding to students’ ideas) and are relevant for different curricula and subjects. Core practices are not simple teaching behaviors (such as “post-question wait time” see, Brophy & Good, 1986) as they have been investigated in early process-product research on teacher effectiveness (Berliner, 1989). Rather, core practices are holistic activities with a certain level of complexity. Despite their complexity, however, proponents of practice-based teacher education claim that novices can master them at a basic level early in their teacher studies. Following McDonald et al. (2013), core practices should ideally be research-based, that is, educational research can offer evidence-based recommendations of how a specific core practice should be enacted in concrete teaching situations in order to affect student behaviour or student learning positively.
This symposium brings together researchers from four different countries – the US, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany – with backgrounds in teacher education, medical education, empirical educational research and educational psychology. The symposium starts with two theoretical contributions followed two empirical contributions that feature quasi-(experimental) intervention studies. Fraefel and Grossman present a theoretical paper in which they characterize the core practice concept from the perspectives of philosophical pragmatism, sociocultural theory, and activity theory. Van der Schaaf compares the concept of core practices in teacher education with the concept of entrustable professional activities in medical education by discussing commonalities and differences between both concepts. Klaß, Calcagni and Gröschner present a quasi-experimental intervention study in which they contrast a learning environment for student teachers based on video modelling with a learning environment based on a teaching simulation experience. Hipp, Holstein, Kleinknecht and Nückles present an experimental intervention study in which they investigated which phases a core practice training should be composed of to foster teacher students’ acquisition of core practices best. Together, the four contributions shed a multidisciplinary and multifaceted light on the concept of core practices by highlighting both high-stakes empirical research as well as innovative theoretical perspectives on the core practices approach.
Presentations of the Symposium
Considerations on the theoretical underpinnings of the core practice approach
Urban Fraefel1, Pam Grossman2
1Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW, 2University of Pennsylvania
The approach of Core Practices, as it has been conceptualized in the USA, is also attracting increasing attention in Europe. However, it has become apparent that the definitions of practice are often far apart, not only in terms of their theoretical framing, but also in terms of their specific manifestation, their function in the teaching profession, and their acquisition. This presentation addresses, on the one hand, the commonalities and differences of the concept of core practices with some theoretical approaches, focusing on theoretical perspectives that are fundamental to the concept of core practices in different national and historical contexts.
Theories of practice, which see practices as the irreducible units of all social and, according to the German sociologist Reckwitz (2002, p. 249), "a routinized type of behavior," differ from theoretical approaches that locate the social, for example, at the level of individual mental and physical activities or interactions. Drawing on Bourdieu (1977) and Schatzki (1996, 2012), among others, practice theories as a basis for analyzing and understanding social practices have also found strong reception in the fields of teaching and teacher education in recent years in the German-speaking world, especially from a structural theory perspective (e.g., Bohnsack, Bonnet & Hericks, 2022).
As insightful as practice-theoretical approaches may be for understanding social practices, they make little contribution to the learning of practices as well as to transforming existing practices into normatively desirable ones. Here, pragmatism (Dewey, 1933, 1938) as well as sociocultural and activity theory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1979, 1991; Lave, 2019) prove more fruitful especially with regard to learning core teacher practices that are central to teaching and educational impact on students: Inherent in Deweyan pragmatism is problem solving and improving unsatisfactory situations, and the concept of "guided participation" (Rogoff, 1990), based on the foundations of the sociocultural approach, also proves effective in learning practices in teacher education.
In the German-speaking world, the approach of teachers' core practices has to be distinguished from the prevalent conceptualization of competencies on the one hand and from the idea of mere routines on the other. Whereas competencies were discussed around the turn of the millennium as a construct that integrates knowledge, skills, and action even under complex conditions (Weinert, 2001; Oser, 2003), in the reality of German teacher education it has been largely reduced to the cognitive knowledge components (Baumert & Kunter, 2006), and the achievement of professional performance (Blömeke, Gustafsson & Shavelson, 2015) as a learning focus plays a rather subordinate role in teacher education reality. Furthermore, the concept of core practices clearly distinguishes itself from the notion of acquiring decontextualized routines, especially from pure training forms of isolated skills such as the microteaching of the 1970s (Cooper & Allen, 1970); in contrast, core practices aim at adaptive professional action in complex situations (e. g. e.g., Ghousseini, Beasley & Lord, 2015).
The theoretical framework of pragmatism, sociocultural theory, and activity theory explains that the fleshing out, learning, and acquisition of core practices is a collective activity, for which a number of teacher education practices have been developed recently (e.g., Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald, Kazemi & Kavanagh, 2013). In the symposium, reference will be made to some of these practices and their theoretical background, and implications for research and development will be discussed.
Comparing core practices and entrustable professional activities in teacher and medical education
Marieke van der Schaaf
University Medical Center Utrecht
In this contribution the focus is on comparing the concepts of Core Practices (CPs) in teacher education and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) in health professions education, with the aim of understanding their development and positioning in curricula. The alignment of educational programs with the development of future professionals' expertise is crucial to facilitate students' growth. We seek to identify both the differences and similarities in how task-units within these programs are structured and utilized.
The development of professional expertise is characterized by the adaptation of individuals to the demands of their respective tasks. This adaptation implies that people “restructure, reorganize, and refine their representation of knowledge and procedures for efficient application to their work-a-day environment” (Feltovich, Prietula & Ericsson, 2006, p. 57). It can be accelerated through a cyclical process of task improvement (cf. Ericsson et al., 1993).
CPs in teacher education and EPAs in medical education both represent units of professional practice. However, there are several differences. CPs emphasize pre- and post-lesson activities, including planning and reporting (Grossman et al., 2009), while EPAs primarily describe activities during medical practice, such as basic medical procedures (Ten Cate & Scheele, 2007). Further, EPAs assess the level of supervision a learner requires in the workplace, determining their autonomy, whereas teacher education students teach as autonomous teachers, with supervisors present only occasionally. Also, healthcare settings involve short encounters between trainees and various supervisors, while teacher education features longer and more uniform interactions with single supervisors, including observations and activities outside the classroom.
Despite these differences, CPs and EPAs share certain commonalities. Both are designed as units of professional practice, serving as building blocks in flexible curricula. Their development involves co-creation with stakeholders from practice rather than a top-down approach. Various methods, including delphi studies, site visits, and meetings with field experts, are used to ensure alignment with the dynamic nature of specific curricula. Both CPs and EPAs offer flexibility for professionals to set their own learning goals and adapt their learning processes, although, the case of EPAs, they remain standardized components that need to be incorporated into the curriculum.
This contribution highlights the need for further research to gain insight into how CPs and EPAs impact students' development as future professionals. Qualitative approaches that explore students' perceptions of these concepts and their influence on development should be pursued. While CPs and EPAs have the potential to contribute to curriculum flexibility, they may not automatically align with how professionals as learners develop in the workplace context.
In summary, this contribution delves into the comparison of Core Practices (CPs) in teacher education and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) in medical education, shedding light on their development and utilization. While both concepts share commonalities in terms of being units of professional practice, there is a lack of understanding of their impact on students' development. We suggest the need for further research in this area. Additionally, it acknowledges the differences in content and context between these two concepts, highlighting the importance of tailoring them to specific curricula and workplace environments.
Fostering classroom dialogue as core practice in teacher education: the role of different learning designs during a field experience
Susi Klaß, Elisa Calcagni, Alexander Gröschner
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Theoretical background
Core practices occur frequently in teaching, are evidence-based, contribute to student learning and can be analytically decomposed to make them accessible to students in teacher education (Grossman et al., 2009). The question of how core practices can be implemented in preservice teacher education, is increasingly being researched in Germany and has been linked to optimizing students’ practicum experiences (Schellenbach-Zell & Hartmann, 2022).
In this paper, we present ongoing research on core practices conducted in the Learning-to-Teach-Lab: Science (LTL:S), a university classroom equipped with video cameras, a control and observation room and in-ear microphones. The LTL:S is conceived as a learning and research setting emphasizing evidence-based learning opportunities (Gröschner et al., 2022).
Based on the assumption that classroom discourse can be defined as the core of the teachers’ instructional activities, the focus in LTL:S is on modeling productive classroom dialogue (Gröschner et al., in press). In this setting, we developed a practice-based cycle that involves students’ learning, trailing and reflecting on discursive practices during their practicum supported by an accompanying university course (McDonald et al., 2013). In it, a key learning experience consists of representing practices through classroom videos. In this study, we replaced this with a teaching simulation in the LTL:S to bring students closer to practice. Our aim is to compare the two learning designs in terms of students’ relevant knowledge, the intention to implement and perceived relevance of the course.
Research question
How do student teachers assess their understanding and the applicability of productive classroom dialogue depending on the learning condition?
Methods
We conducted a quasi-experimental study to investigate how students perceive and benefit from different learning experiences through a newly developed “approximation” approach involving role-play simulations followed by immediate video analysis compared to external video analysis only. N=159 students participated in two introductory sessions and were randomly assigned to two groups with a 3-hour-long modeling task. Students in the control group (CG, n=58) participated in a seminar where they analyzed an external instructional video on productive classroom dialogue and reflected on it in small groups (Kleinknecht & Gröschner, 2016). Students in the intervention group (IG, n= 101), in contrast, conducted a videotaped simulation in the LTL:S seminar, where they tried out elements of productive classroom talk and reflected on their video. After these sessions, students in both groups were asked to complete a survey about their learning experiences.
Results
Three aspects were assessed: Knowledge about productive classroom dialogue (KPCD, α=.94), Intention to implement ( ItI, α=.88) and Perceived practical relevance (PPR, α=.92). Comparisons using t-test indicated differences in student teachers’ perceptions on all three scales in favor of the intervention group: KPCD: t(157) = 2.554, p =.012, MIG(101) = 4.54; MCG(58) = 4.11; ItI: t(157) = 2.979, p =.003, MIG(101) = 4.56; MCG(58) = 4.06; and PPR: t(157) = 4.455, p =.000, MIG(101) = 4.63; MCG(58) = 3.93.
Discussion and Research outlook
This first feasibility check study showed that the simulation condition yielded higher perceived knowledge, intentions and practical relevance. In an ongoing study, we delve deeper into how this learning situation can be optimized for students. Accordingly, we investigate how guidance and different levels of prompts for productive classroom dialogue promote students’ learning best. We focus on the role of reflection during the debriefing of each modeling session and ask: Are debriefing discussions more focused after a more structured simulation (compared to debriefing sessions without prompts)? Do students learn differently with different levels of prompting during simulations? First results of this study with N=108 students will also be shared and discussed in the symposium.
How can the acquisition of core practices be optimally fostered?
Hadmut Hipp1, Anna Holstein2, Marc Kleinknecht2, Matthias Nückles1
1Universität Freiburg, 2Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Theoretical background and research question
Core practices have been proposed as a solution for the theory-practice gap in teacher education. They can be defined as domain-general, research-based teaching activities that appear in high frequency (McDonald et al., 2013). So far, there is no evidence-based consensus on how to structure teacher trainings to foster the acquisition of core practices best. Our DFG-funded research project ACTion addresses this question by bringing a prominent instructional approach to the teaching of core practices (i.e., the Learning Cycle, McDonald et al., 2013), with a prominent skill acquisition model from cognitive psychology (i.e., ACT-R theory, Anderson, 1982), in a dialogue. From this discussion, we conclude that core practice trainings should at least include the following phases: (1) a theory-based explanation, (2) a modelling, and (3) the opportunity to practice with students.
Our project focuses on “supporting students’ self-regulated reading of scientific texts” as domain of practice, which is instantiated by the evidence-based reading strategy training “Reciprocal Teaching” (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). RT comprises three core practices: “giving explanations”, “cognitive modelling” and “adaptive scaffolding”. In an experimental intervention study, we compared different training sequences. We assumed that RT can be acquired best in a training that includes the phases of (1) studying a theoretical explanation of RT, (2) studying a modelling, and (3) practicing RT with students.
Method
Our sample consists of 128 preservice teachers. We used a four-group between-subjects design with different combinations of instructional phases. The first group studied a theory-based videotaped explanation of RT, followed by a videotaped modelling of RT and then practiced RT with students. Each of the other groups lacked one of the training phases. To keep time on task constant, in those conditions where one of the phases was omitted, one of the realized phases (e.g., theory-based explanation, modelling) was studied twice. In the condition where practicing with students was omitted, pre-service teachers composed a written reflection about the explanation and modelling videos. One week later, we administered (a) a paper-pencil knowledge test, (b) a professional vision test comprising four short staged videos (c) a performance test which was videotaped and subsequently coded. In the performance test, preservice teachers enacted RT with a small group of secondary school students.
Results
The knowledge test showed that the group who studied the theory-based explanation of RT twice and practiced RT with students performed significantly better than the other groups, F(1, 123) = 4.52, p = 0.04, η2 = .04. The professional vision test showed that groups who studied a theory-based explanation and a modelling video of RT performed significantly better than the groups who either studied a theory-based explanation or a modelling video, F(1, 124) = 7.78, p = .006, η2 = .06. Our preliminary performance data analyses (currently 18% of the sample) suggest that the group who underwent all three phases of the core practices training spent significantly more time on explaining, F(1, 18) = 7.63, p = .013, η2 = .30, and modelling RT, F(1, 18) = 15.89, p < .001, η2 = .48, than the other groups.
Discussion
Hence, somewhat qualifying our initial assumption, the results suggest that different compositions of instructional phases have different implications for levels of skill acquisition. Professional vision benefitted most from a combined studying of theory-based explanation and modelling. The ability to perform RT competently benefitted most from the combined studying of theory-based explanation, modelling and practicing with students. Thus, depending on the goal of teacher training (e.g., fostering analytical abilities versus performing a core practice competently), different compositions of training sequences might be promising.
|
