Date post: | 04-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | stefan-rathert |
View: | 182 times |
Download: | 1 times |
STEFAN RATHERT
LINKING VARIOUS APPROACHES:
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL MIND
SET
and
MORAL PERSPECTIVES IN
TEACHER THINKING
ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY ADANA, ELT DEPARTMENT, NOVEMBER 4, 2014
ELT 825 Exploring Teacher Thinking
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Overview
teachers’ professional landscapes
research on teacher thinking:
conceptions of teachers
conceptions of students
conceptions of context
knowledge teachers live by
the matter of the practical
teachers’ mind sets: where are they set andwhat is their setting
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Teachers’ professional landscapes
Since the 1990s teachers’ professionallandscapes have changed:
shift towards team-based pedogogical action
shaping school-centered curricula has becomea teachers’ task
shift of administrative power from superiors toschools
teachers responsible for classroom practices andplanning
teachers no more passive curriculum users but active curriculum makers
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Teachers’ professional landscapes
teachers are“more
responsible forthe totality of
the instructionalprocess”
(Kansanen et. al, 2000, p. 36)
practicalcapacities
theoreticalcapacities
institutionalcontext
culturaland social
context
teacher practice
and teacher thinking
are essential for
education delivered
to learners
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Research on teacher thinking
formerly exclusive research focus on teacher
behaviour (external competencies): “What is
effective and good teaching?”
re-definition of teaching practice (including the
knowledge base, school context, planning,
etc.):
now focus on teacher thinking as well
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Conceptions of teachers
3 phases in the conceptual development in research on teacher thinking
1. teachers as decision-makers addressinglearning problems through instruction
2. teachers as sense-makers: reflectiveprofessionals who interpret and apply theirextensive knowledge to create meaning forlearners and themselves
3. teachers as constructivists building andelaborating their personal theories of teaching and education
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Conceptions of teachers
decision-maker sense-maker constructivist
•mechanical
paradigms
• internally
consistent way
of teacher
thinking
•teacher
thinking
directed to
classroom
interaction
• inconsiste
nt and
incomplet
e ways of
thinking
•teacher
thinking
directed to
classroom
and wider
context
•critique of cognitive-constructivist approach: mind regarded as information
processor, not as meaning maker
•shift towards mindful orientation? I.e. focus on teachers’ moral and ethical sense
that “aims at shaping and influencing what students become as persons when
living through pedagogical situations in schools and classrooms” (Kansanen et al.,
2000: 39)
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Conceptions of students
Change of the cultural image of schooling:
students seen as thinkers, planners, decision
makers
use own cognitive strategies and previous
knowledge base
make sense of their own studying by
constructing knowledge in interaction with
peers
active members of the instructional process
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Conceptions of context
Change in understanding of context:
teachers and learners do not act in fixed and
predetermined classroom environment
teachers and learners construct school context
through mutual negotiation, i.e. context is
practice-based
context is
actual: place were actions are taken
symbolic: symbolises participants’ understanding of
school
open to change (e.g. virtual classrooms)
displays continuity as setting with a history
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Knowledge teachers live by
teacherknowledge common
knowledge/common
sense• acquired in
cultural patterns, e.g. schooling
specialised/professionalknowledge:
• acquired in teachereducation andteacherdevelopment
teachers use both common sense and specialised
knowledge
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Knowledge teachers live by
Relational knowing:
teaching embedded in social action between teacherand students; i.e. there is a pedagogical relation
pedagogical relation depends on teachers’ pedagogical minds
pedagogical minds are concerned with everything thatcontributes to students upbringing from an internal perspective (directly related to pedagogical
practice)
an external perspective (not directly related to pedagogicalpractice but addressing educational matters)
internal and external perspective must be taken intoaccount to explore teacher thinking
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
Knowledge teachers live by
Interrelating cultures:
cognitive perspectives in research limited:
ignore the interpersonal side of teacher thinking
neglect the influence of the social and cultural contexton teacher thinking
however teachers’ reports on their teachinginclude reflection of their own context and culturebecause teacher thinking and knowing involve
attaching meaning to the own context/culture
acting the mind to deal with the challenges of life withmoral and intellectual strength
Teachers’ pedagogical mind set:
The matter of the practicalIs teacher knowledge a product of theoretical reflection orexamination of practice?
Is teacher knowledge conceptualised as episteme or as phronesis?
how do teachers perceive reality of their teaching practice andfeatures beyond their teaching practice?
teacher thinking outcomes are mind-mediated versions of reality and must be interpreted
episteme
• scientific understanding of problems throughanalytical rationality
• universal, abstract, invariable
• context-independent
phronesis
• understanding of concretecases and complexsituations
• context-related, concrete, variable
• based on life experience
Teachers’ pedagogical minds:
Where are they set and what are
their settings?Teachers’ pedagogical thinking, i.e. their
pedagogical minds, are linked to perception-
based and subjective knowledge
instead of relying on ready-made theories
researchers have to ask:
•What concrete situations do teachers perceive?
•What experiences do they have?
•What plans do they intend to execute?
•How do they reflect upon consequences?
Teachers’ pedagogical minds:
Where are they set and what are
their settings?Two complementary conceptualisations of the
teachers’ minds: mindset refers to…
… a rather stable mentalattitude towards perceivingobjects and events.
It informs about
• what is perceived
• the content of teacherthinking
• what teachers treat as focal.
… an integrative andinterrelated context in
teachers’ thinking.
It informs about
• how teacher thinkingoccurs
• how teachers employreasoning
• the framework of mentalconstructs (e.g. beliefs, assumptions) that attachmeaning to professionalknowledge.
Moral perspectives in teacher
thinking
Overview Moral dimension of teaching
Teachers’ professional morality
Promoting moral learning in students
Moral dimension of teaching
1990s: conceptualising of moral dimension of
teacher thinking:
morality professional ethos of teachers
teacher’s decision-making can be interpreted
from ethical point of view (moral message)
Moral dimension of teaching
morality is manifested in
formal curricula (e.g. religious schools)
within subject curricula
moral practices (classroom rules, ceremonies, classroom practices, personal qualities of teachers)
morality hidden but present in teaching andclassroom interaction
teachers good at moral reasoning and giving justsolutions; however, responsible judgements tosolve moral dilemmas require strategies, i.e. teachers’ professional morality
Teachers’ professional morality
Oser (1991): 3 types of morality
normative morality
• reasoning abouthypotheticalactions in decision-making(with referenceto moral norms)
• insufficient toaddressconcretesituations
situationalmorality
• decision-makingin real-life situations
• decision-makinginfluenced bythe situationalcontext (social, psychological, political, economicaspects)
professionalmorality
• connected tofunctional, professional, seeminglynonmoral acting
• e.g. giving poormarks to a student mayconflict withjustice, caringand truthfulness(Vartiainen, 2007: 685)
Teachers’ professional morality
• not facing the problem
• refusing responsibilityavoiding orientation
• accepting responsibility
• no own decision; delegating to, e.g., principal
delegatingorientation
• accepting responsibility and acting, often in authoritarian manner
• teacher assumes own expertise
single-handeddecision making
• accepting responsibility and acting
• explaining how justice, caring and truthfulness have been balanced
Discourse I(incompletediscourse)
• accepting responsibility and acting by involving students(parents, etc.)
• teacher assumes others are capable of balancing justice, caring and truthfulness
Discourse II(completediscourse)
Teachers’ decision-making strategies in solving
dilemmas: 5 orientations
Promoting moral learning in
students
by setting learning goals (e.g. Golden Rule) in national or school curricula
by negotiating rules collaboratively
by delivering moral messages in an unplannedmanner, i.e. in daily teaching
by addressing children’s needs: to be loved, tobe led, to be vulnerable, to make sense, toplease adults, to have hope, to know truth, tobe known, to be safe, to make one’s mark
Promoting moral learning in
students:
1. Values clarificationValues clarification focuses on process of valuing:
students are encouraged to:1. choose freely among alternatives
2. prize and affirm their values
3. act upon chosen values consistently
values are personal, not right or wrong
clarifying values is prerequisite for responsible
judgements
does not provide cognitive aspects of ethical
requiring
promotes self-regarding reasoning and
subjectivism
Promoting moral learning in
students:
2. Applied KohlbergKohlberg’s stages of moral development (Crain,
1985) universalprinciples
social contractorientation
maintaining the socialorder
interpersonal relationships
self-interest orientation
obedience and punishment orientation
Promoting moral learning in
students:
2. Applied KohlbergProcedure in ‘Applied Kohlberg’:
1. teacher presents dilemma; discussion in
class; students propose judgement
2. teacher presents moral judgement that is one
level higher than students’ judgement
effective means of inducing moral change
use of real-life dilemmas promising
Promoting moral learning in
students:
3. Discourse ethicsPresuppositions in discourse ethics:
norms are established intersubjectively, i.e. in
social action
universalisation: a norm is valid if all participants
know the consequences of a norm, the
consequences meet their interests and the
consequences are preferred to known
alternatives
principle of discourse ethics: a norm is valid if all
participants have approved it in a practical
discourse
Promoting moral learning in
students:
3. Discourse ethicsmoral discourse in educational practice has to
consider (cf. Fritzén & Tapola, 2008):
solution to a given problem is justified in
discourse, i.e. it is an outcome of negotiating
all participants are able to engage
consequences, also of alternative solutions,
are known
teacher trusts students to be able to participate
in moral discourse
References
Crain, W.C. (1985). Theories of Development. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Fritzén, L. & A. Tapola (2008). Habermas’s discourse ethics in educational practice. SIG 13 Symposium Florina Greece. Draft version. Retrieved October 28. 2014 from: http://www.eled.uowm.gr/sig13/fulltexts/Paper3.pdf
Kansanen, P., K. Tirri, M. Meri, L. Krokfors, J. Husu, & R. Jyrhämä (2000). Teachers’ pedagogical thinking. New York: Peter Lang.
Oser, F.K. (1991). Professional morality: A discourseapproach. In Kurtines, W.M. & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbookof moral behavior and development. Volume 2: Research (pp. 191-228). Hillsday: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vartiainen, T. (2007). Moral conflicts in teaching project work: a job burdened by role strains. Communication of theAssosiation for Information Systems 20, 681-711.