Signature Pedagogy and Pedagogies of Practice: Key Concepts and the Case of Physical Therapist Education

• In Event: Hilton Roundtable Session 1
  In Roundtable Session: Exploring Signature Pedagogies and Pedagogies of Practice: Implications for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice

Abstract

Purposes:
This initial paper has two primary purposes: (1) to describe the two conceptual frameworks that will be explored across the session and examine the intersections between the concepts of Signature Pedagogy1 and Teaching for Practice10 in professional education, and (2) to present findings from a national study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education that proposed a signature pedagogy for the profession and uncovered various forms of representations, decompositions, and approximations of practice that are characteristic of the pedagogies for professional preparation in “relational” practices described by Grossman and colleagues.10

Perspectives:
Working from the dual concepts of signature pedagogies and teaching for practice in professional education, we describe each of these concepts and examine the relationship between them. We consider how a concurrent exploration and deeper understanding of both might inform teaching and learning within and across the professions that comprise interprofessional health care teams. To illustrate the pairing of these concepts, we present findings from a multi-year investigation of physical therapist education.8,13 The study was grounded in a sociocultural perspective on learning and modeled after the Carnegie Foundation Preparation for the Professions Program (PPP) studies.2-6

Methods/Modes of Inquiry:
The study design was multiple, qualitative case studies and employed a constant-comparative method for within case and cross-case analysis. The design and analytic approach used was similar to those in the Carnegie PPP studies.

Data Sources:
A national call for nominations resulted in a purposive sample of six academic sites and five clinical sites that were identified as exemplars of excellence. During site visits data collection methods included field observations in classroom and clinical settings followed by debriefings, review of artifacts, individual and focus group interviews. Data sources included students, interns, residents, academic and clinical faculty, and administrators.

Results and Conclusions:
We suggest that the pedagogies of practice in professional education identified by Grossman and colleagues are likely embedded in signature pedagogies and are worthy of further investigation. To date, many of the professions that comprise interprofessional health care teams have identified their signature pedagogies. If we agree that the majority of those professions constitute “relational” practices with a goal of human improvement,14 then exploration of the forms of representation, deconstructions, and approximations of practice within and across each profession’s signature pedagogy may shed new light on teaching and learning for interprofessional collaborative practice. In our study of physical therapist professional and residency education, the “human body as teacher” was proposed as a signature pedagogy centered on the subject matter of human movement and function. Within that pedagogy we identified various forms of representations, decompositions and approximations of practice.

Scholarly Significance:
Using the case example of physical therapist education, we illustrate the promise of concurrently examining signature pedagogy and the pedagogies of practice for professional preparation in relational practices. Exploring and comparing signature pedagogies and pedagogies of practice across the professions involved in interprofessional teams may prove fertile ground for sowing the seeds of pedagogical imagination, innovation and excellence for teaching and learning for interprofessional collaborative practice.

Authors

• Elizabeth Mostrom, Central Michigan University

• Gail M. Jensen, Creighton University