Lessons Learned From a Practice-Based Approach to Teacher Education

• In Event: “Professional Language” in Education: Enhancing Communication Within and Across Research, Teacher Education, and School Settings

Abstract

Teaching is an individual practice, learned, according to practitioners, through experience on the job. Without the opportunity to interact with other professionals in detailed ways about practice, a useful professional language has remained underdeveloped. Coupled with a common orientation to teaching as a creative and individual craft, the core elements of the work have remained implicit and without precise distinction or taxonomy. For example, although questioning is central to almost any instruction, the practical lexicon for questions and their use is sparse and lacking in useful specification. Terms in use include adjectives such “higher order,” “factual,” “open-ended,” and “challenging.” But many useful question types and forms exist for which there are no terms and no way for practitioners to discuss, learn, or provide coaching on them.

Our work to develop a practice-based approach to teacher education led us to examine these problems of language. We identified three types of lack. First, we noted important dimensions or tasks of practice for which there are no sufficiently specific terms. For example, there are no terms for the practices of using one’s voice, physical movement, and the deliberate construction of a teaching persona. Second, we found that some elements of the work are labeled or described with many different terms. An example is the common practice of having on the board a problem or task for students to do when they first enter the classroom, which is referred to variously as a “warm up,” a sponge, or a “do now.” Although used by different people, these terms do not seem to name different versions of this important practice. A third problem is that important parts of the work lack terms that would distinguish types or ways of doing them. The lack of a practical lexicon for questions is another example. A fourth problem that we uncovered was the tendency to rely on value-laden terms –– “reform oriented” or “inquiry” ¬¬–– rather than terms that specify practice.

Our analysis suggests that these patterns and broad lack of language create three sets of barriers for detailed professional training for practice. One barrier is the difficulty in naming practice in ways that make it possible to specify what is being worked on. Working on formulating and using questions, for instance, is hampered without a useful taxonomy for question types, forms, or the tone and pace of questioning. Derivative from this is the barrier to building a shared curriculum. In fields where shared technical language exists, it is possible to build curriculum materials and other tools that can be shared across programs and contexts. In teacher education, it is much more difficult to share resources at this level of practice. A third barrier crucial for teacher education is the problem of providing teachers with useful feedback: without a shared and precise technical language, observations or suggestions must be formulated in global nonspecific terms or in personally idiosyncratic ones.

This paper provides detailed analysis of these problems of language and their effect on teaching and the development of teaching.

Authors

• Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Francesca Forzani, University of Michigan