Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ...

Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ... Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice: A Case Study of ...

pfeiffer.nele60
from pfeiffer.nele60 More from this publisher
16.08.2013 Views

issues that his pupils were raising in his lesson. He was also able to clearly motivate the reasons for his altered course ofaction in his lesson. An area ofhis teaching, in which John had made a notable shift, was his questioning style. John had begun to vary the type ofquestions he posed to his learners. Questions with different levels ofcomplexity became a feature ofhis lesson. This was evidenced in the lesson transcript and the worksheet that he compiled. The quality ofJohn's worksheet had changed to become more focussed and directed towards achieving the purpose ofthe lesson. The next section provides a summary ofthe key differences between John's teaching practice before his involvement in the TEMS programme and after eight months of participation in the TEMS programme. 181

5.4.3 A summary of the key differences between John's teaching practice before his involvement in the TEMS programme and after eight months of participation in the TEMS programme Table 5.1: Key differences in John's practice Key characteristics of his classroom Key characteristics of his classroom practice before participation in TEMS practice after participation TEMS Poor subject content knowledge Displayed significant subject content knowledge Inability to relate everyday economic Had developed an economics perspective - phenomena to EMS and EMS teaching in a ability to identify and make sense ofeconomics meaningful way in everyday phenomena Lessons built on potentially misleading Lessons developed with an understanding of everyday understandings ofeconomic the concepts ofthe discipline phenomena Tight locus ofcontrol with regard to what and Improved knowledge enabled a more dispersed how learning took place (as a result of 'rein' on how and what was learnt. Ability to insecurity related to inadequate EMS exploit opportunities that arose to enhance knowledge) pupils' understanding ofEMS Inadequate subject content knowledge resulted Improved knowledge facilitated freer and more in stifled interactions with pupils purposeful interchange with pupils Unfamiliar with the nature ofthe discipline and Had begun to engage in a pedagogical its associated pedagogical approach approach that articulated with the nature ofthe discipline Limited meaningful questioning - little or no Significantly improved questioning technique attention paid to levels ofquestions asked and testing higher order thinking skills with seemingly little awareness ofhow these might contribute to learners' conceptual development Inability to probe incorrect responses - Confidence to engage with incorrect responses dismissive - preferred to 'side-step' the - tolerant and supportive - comfortable with unknown uncertainty and confident in his ability to direct responses towards more correct positions Insular approach to content and its boundaries Easily identifies opportunities for integration across learning areas Limited opportunities to engage pupils in Opportunities for reading, writing and speaking reading, writing and speaking leading to conceptual development in EMS Fairly rigid approach to lesson planning and Made critical and valid shifts during the course presentation - lesson proceeded rigidly ofthe lesson, making the most oflearning according to plan opportunities as they arose - had developed a deep enough understanding ofsubject content knowledge to do so. Poor subject matter knowledge resulted in Logical, sequential development ofconcepts - misconception and confusion ofconcepts increasing complexity 182

5.4.3 A summary <strong>of</strong> the key differences between John's teach<strong>in</strong>g practice before<br />

his <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> the TEMS programme and after eight months <strong>of</strong><br />

participation <strong>in</strong> the TEMS programme<br />

Table 5.1: Key differences <strong>in</strong> John's practice<br />

Key characteristics <strong>of</strong> his classroom Key characteristics <strong>of</strong> his classroom<br />

practice before participation <strong>in</strong> TEMS practice after participation TEMS<br />

Poor subject content knowledge Displayed significant subject content<br />

knowledge<br />

Inability to relate everyday economic Had developed an economics perspective -<br />

phenomena to EMS and EMS teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a ability to identify and make sense <strong>of</strong>economics<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>gful way <strong>in</strong> everyday phenomena<br />

Lessons built on potentially mislead<strong>in</strong>g Lessons developed with an understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />

everyday understand<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong>economic the concepts <strong>of</strong>the discipl<strong>in</strong>e<br />

phenomena<br />

Tight locus <strong>of</strong>control with regard to what and Improved knowledge enabled a more dispersed<br />

how learn<strong>in</strong>g took place (as a result <strong>of</strong> 're<strong>in</strong>' on how and what was learnt. Ability to<br />

<strong>in</strong>security related to <strong>in</strong>adequate EMS exploit opportunities that arose to enhance<br />

knowledge) pupils' understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong>EMS<br />

Inadequate subject content knowledge resulted Improved knowledge facilitated freer and more<br />

<strong>in</strong> stifled <strong>in</strong>teractions with pupils purposeful <strong>in</strong>terchange with pupils<br />

Unfamiliar with the nature <strong>of</strong>the discipl<strong>in</strong>e and Had begun to engage <strong>in</strong> a pedagogical<br />

its associated pedagogical approach approach that articulated with the nature <strong>of</strong>the<br />

discipl<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Limited mean<strong>in</strong>gful question<strong>in</strong>g - little or no Significantly improved question<strong>in</strong>g technique<br />

attention paid to levels <strong>of</strong>questions asked and test<strong>in</strong>g higher order th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g skills<br />

with seem<strong>in</strong>gly little awareness <strong>of</strong>how these<br />

might contribute to learners' conceptual<br />

development<br />

Inability to probe <strong>in</strong>correct responses - Confidence to engage with <strong>in</strong>correct responses<br />

dismissive - preferred to 'side-step' the - tolerant and supportive - comfortable with<br />

unknown uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty and confident <strong>in</strong> his ability to direct<br />

responses towards more correct positions<br />

Insular approach to content and its boundaries Easily identifies opportunities for <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />

across learn<strong>in</strong>g areas<br />

Limited opportunities to engage pupils <strong>in</strong> Opportunities for read<strong>in</strong>g, writ<strong>in</strong>g and speak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

read<strong>in</strong>g, writ<strong>in</strong>g and speak<strong>in</strong>g lead<strong>in</strong>g to conceptual development <strong>in</strong> EMS<br />

Fairly rigid approach to lesson plann<strong>in</strong>g and Made critical and valid shifts dur<strong>in</strong>g the course<br />

presentation - lesson proceeded rigidly <strong>of</strong>the lesson, mak<strong>in</strong>g the most <strong>of</strong>learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />

accord<strong>in</strong>g to plan opportunities as they arose - had developed a<br />

deep enough understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong>subject content<br />

knowledge to do so.<br />

Poor subject matter knowledge resulted <strong>in</strong> Logical, sequential development <strong>of</strong>concepts -<br />

misconception and confusion <strong>of</strong>concepts <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g complexity<br />

182

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!