Watch and Learn: Developing Preservice Math and Science Teachers’ Ability to Attend, Analyze, and Respond to Student Thinking

• In Event: Tools and Routines for Preparing STEM Teachers

Abstract

Purpose: An important component of pre-service teacher (PST) education is developing prospective teachers’ analytic skills so they can learn in and from practice (Heibert et al., 2007). This requires that they develop knowledge and skills to create and enact ambitious instruction (Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Windschitl et al., 2009), as well as frameworks for reflecting on the impact of their teaching on student learning. It is difficult to achieve this goal, however, because reflection is not well defined (Zeichner, 1994) and reflective activities are limited to unstructured field-based experiences, where the classroom contexts may not promote a vision of ambitious teaching (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Valencia et al, 2009).

Perspective: The Learning to Learn from Teaching (LLfT) course was designed to support PSTs in developing skills and practices for analyzing teaching. Video analysis of experienced and novice teachers, along with targeted field-based experiences, provide PSTs with frameworks for engaging in evidence-based analysis of teaching and learning (Santagata & van Es, 2010).

Methods: This presentation investigates the impact of the LLfT course once PSTs began student teaching. We examine the impact of the course on their classroom practice and on their analysis of their own teaching.

Data sources: Data come from two cohorts of pre-service mathematics and science teachers, one that participated in the course (n = 44) and one that did not (n=21). The Performance Assessment of California Teachers Teaching Event (PACT-TE), a portfolio consisting of lesson plans, assessments, and video and reflections of teaching, was used to compare differences in PSTs teaching practice and analyses of teaching. We examined responses from the PACT-TE in three areas: a) attending to student thinking; b) interpreting student thinking; and c) reflecting on taking up of student ideas during instruction (van Es & Sherin, 2002; Windschitl, et al., 2009), with each area given a score of Less or More sophisticated. We then analyzed the videos of teaching for differences between the two cohorts in terms of enacting a more student-centered pedagogy (Boaler & Humphreys, 2005; van Es & Sherin, 2010).

Results: Data analysis reveals significant differences between the two cohorts’ analyses of practice. The LLfT participants cited specific evidence of student thinking, interpreted this evidence to make claims about instructional effectiveness, and commented on adjusting instruction in response to student ideas. Additionally, more attention to student thinking tended to occur with more sophisticated analysis and responses to student thinking. Data analysis of teaching practice suggests that the LLfT participants adopted a more student-centered pedagogy--they elicited multiple student ideas, used student ideas as the object of inquiry, and questioned students to probe their understanding, elaborate their thinking, and make connections.

Scholarly significance: We propose that participation in the LLfT course helped PSTs develop a vision of ambitious instruction that enabled them to begin to enact practices for making student thinking visible and available for analysis. The course activities and frameworks helped PSTs learn to highlight important interactions in classroom episodes so that they could make claims about the relationship between teaching and learning.

Authors

• Tara Barnhart, University of California - Irvine

• Elizabeth A. van Es, University of California - Irvine