Teaching About Teaching

Teaching about Teaching
Teaching about Teaching:

Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy
in Teacher Education
Edited by
John Loughran and Tom Russell
The Falmer Press

(A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)
London • Washington, D.C.
UK Falmer Press, 1 Gunpowder Square, London, EC4A 3DE
USA Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc., 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101,
Bristol, PA 19007
© J.Loughran and T.Russell, 1997
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing
from the Publisher.
First published in 1997
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British

Library
ISBN 0-203-45447-2 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-76271-1 (Adobe eReader Format)

ISBN 0-7507-0708-9 cased
ISBN 0-7507-0622-8 paper
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available

on request
Jacket design by Caroline Archer
Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders for their
permission to reprint material in this book. The publishers would
be grateful to hear from any copyright holder who is not here
acknowledged and will undertake to rectify any errors or omissions
in future editions of this book.
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Foreword by Gary D.Fenstermacher viii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 An Introduction to Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy 3

John Loughran
Section 1: Principles and Practices Which Shape Teaching

about Teaching 11
Chapter 2 Practicing Theory and Theorizing Practice in Teacher

Education 13
Robert V.Bullough, Jr.
Chapter 3 Teaching Teachers: How I Teach IS the Message 32

Tom Russell
Chapter 4 Teacher Education as a Process of Developing Teacher

Knowledge 48
Jeff Northfield and Richard Gunstone
Chapter 5 Teaching about Teaching: Principles and Practice 57

John Loughran
Section 2: Challenges in Teaching and Learning about Teaching 71
Chapter 6 Teaching Teachers for the Challenge of Change 73

Anna E.Richert
Chapter 7 Learning to Teach Prospective Teachers to Teach

Mathematics: The Struggles of a Beginning Teacher
Educator 95
Cynthia Nicol
Chapter 8 Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education: Who is

Carrying the Ball? 117
Peter Chin
v
Contents
Section 3: Rethinking Teacher Educators’ Roles and Practice 131
Chapter 9 Learning about Learning in the Context of a Science

Methods Course 133
Garry Hoban
Chapter 10 Teaching to Teach with Purpose and Passion: Pedagogy

for Reflective Practice 150
Vicki Kubler LaBoskey
Chapter 11 Advisor as Coach 164

Anthony Clarke
Section 4: Conversations about Teacher Education 181
Chapter 12 Obligations to Unseen Children 183

The Arizona Group: Karen Guilfoyle, Mary Lynn
Hamilton, and Stefinee Pinnegar
Chapter 13 Storming through Teacher Education: Talk about

Summerfest 210
Allan MacKinnon, Michael Cummings and
Kathryn Alexander
Section 5: Conclusion 227
Chapter 14 Becoming Passionate about Teacher Education 229

Tom Russell
Notes on Contributors 236
Author Index 239
Subject Index 241
vi
Acknowledgments
We are most grateful for the time, help and support from Airlie and La Verne.
We would also like to acknowledge the support of our Deans of Education (Rena
Upitis and Richard White) who also share the passion for teacher education which
is so important for our pre-service programs to continue to attempt to address the
needs and concerns of pre-service teacher candidates.
John Loughran and Tom Russell

September, 1996
vii
Foreword
Gary D.Fenstermacher
In these times, it is much in vogue to speak of silenced voices. The reference is

typically to the voices of teachers, women, children, or members of minority
groups. It also applies to the voices of teacher educators. We hear the voices of
university researchers, of law makers, and of policy analysts, speaking about
what teacher educators do or fail to do, but we do not often hear the voices of
teacher educators themselves. This book begins the remedy for lopsided talk
about teacher education.
In the chapters that follow, you will ‘hear’ teacher educators discussing their
own work. They describe their aspirations for the teachers they teach, their methods
for realizing these aspirations, the concepts and theories that ground these methods,
and the tribulations and triumphs encountered in the course of their work. These
are remarkable essays, for they are at once intellectually engaging and refreshingly
personal. This duality of thoughtful abstraction and personal experience permits
the reader who has taught teachers to both identify with and learn from the authors.
These chapters can be read for profit and for pleasure, a treat too often absent from
academic literature.
When the editors asked if I would prepare some prefatory material for this
book, I agreed not so much because I have a high opinion of forewords (I do not),
but because I wanted to read these writers as quickly as I could lay my hands upon
their work. I know most of them, professionally if not personally, and I anticipated
with pleasure the receipt of their manuscripts. Not only was I not disappointed in
what I read, I was delighted with what I learned for my own teaching. The
manuscripts arrived just as I was putting together a foundations course for secondary
level teacher education students. The course I designed is different from the ones
taught previously because of the work contained here.
Having said that, I know I should tell you how it is different, but I will not. At
least, not yet. You see, like so many teachers I know, I am more comfortable talking
to you about my efforts after I have tried them. They do not have to succeed; they
simply have to be—to get a life, if you will—before I will talk much about them.
The reason for my stance becomes evident as one reads these chapters. We learn
by doing and by reflecting on what we are doing. In some ways, we may be said
not to know what we are doing until we have done it. As we engage in an activity,
it becomes increasingly clear to us what we are about, providing we do not go
about it naively or thoughtlessly. Thus I will refrain from telling you what I am
trying to do, because I am not yet sure just what it is.
After it is underway or nearly finished, when I am clear enough about it to
viii
Foreword
attach words to what I am doing, then I will tell you. I will be sad if it fails, though
that will not keep me from telling you about it. Whether I succeed or fail is not
what keeps me from revealing what I am doing; it is, rather, the absence of sufficient
experience with the activity to be able to express it clearly. As I try out the ideas
gained from this book, and gain sufficient feel for them to attach reasonably accurate
descriptive terminology to my activities, I create the conditions for reflection. Some
will argue with this phrasing, saying that reflection need not or should not await
the right words (here is where such notions as tacit, pre-cognitive, ineffable, and
pre-conscious are tossed into the mix). We need not contest the point here, however,
for all are likely to agree that reflection cannot be long sustained without expression
in words. By naming what I am doing, I create the basis for sharing it with others,
for analysing it myself, for asking others for their help or advice, and for changing
my practice.
Now we venture on to contested ground, for there are those who would argue
that the naming itself is the act of critical engagement, whereas others contend that
how we are engaged in the naming is the act of critical engagement. There are vital
differences here. These differences speak to the sense of wonder these essays evoked
for me. Let me see if I can capture my puzzlement with sufficient clarity that you
come to share it with me.
Within the community of teacher educators, there are a number of families.
One of these families is concerned with preparing teachers who will impart their
content efficiently and expertly, accompanied by high levels of acquisition by the
students. Another family believes that teachers must know how to assist students
to develop a critical understanding of society, so that they do not merely reproduce
the given culture. A third family contends that the construction of meaning is the
essence of teaching and of learning; members of this family prepare teachers to
assist students in becoming makers of meaning. Still another family consists of
those who believe that the essence of teaching is in reflecting on experience and
reconstructing practice following reflection. This book consists primarily of work
from members of this fourth family. They might be called the Schön family, after
the person who appears to have given identity and coherence to this family. However,
it includes members who exhibit varying degrees of consistency with Schön’s
ideas, so it might be more accurate to call them the Reflectivist family.
Although it is of some value to understand that the contributors to this volume
exhibit sufficient commonality to be grouped into a family, that is not an insight of
much significance. What is worth more, I believe, is understanding how the families
differ from one another. Of particular interest to me is how the Reflectivist family
differs from a fifth family, one I will call the Analyst family.
The Analysts hold a high regard for reflection, but are not content with the mere
act of reflection. Instead, they insist on standards for reflection. These standards
vary from one family member to another. Some Analysts argue for a standard of
truth, or at least validation by agreement between the initial claimant and other
observers of the same phenomenon. Others contend for an analytic framework,
wherein the activity of reflection is held accountable to some standards of procedure
and outcome. Still others press for the transitive nature of reflection, averring that
ix
Foreword
reflection must always be about something in particular before we can assess it as

a process or a product. The Analysts are an odd lot, insofar as they have quite
different ideas about how reflection is subjected to analysis. They are, however,
united into family membership by the belief that reflection is an instrumental good,
not a good-in-itself. Hence the analysts require standards, criteria, or analytical
frameworks for the activity of reflection, and will not give much credence to
reflection devoid of these tools.
Reflectivists and Analysts have been known to spar over their positions, as
occurs, for example, when Tom Russell and Gary Fenstermacher get on the same
symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. With the utmost respect for one another’s position, they argue the
benefits of their own views and the liabilities of the other’s views. Allow me to
demonstrate how well I have listened by arguing for the Reflectivist family position.
The beauty of the Reflectivist position is that it keeps intact the thinking and
deliberation of the person reflecting. The Reflectivist, as one sees so clearly in the
chapters of this book, cares deeply about getting the agent to deliberate on what he
or she is doing or seeing others do. The Analyst, on the other hand, risks corruption
of the deliberation of the one reflecting by pressing these deliberations into an
analytical mold of some sort, be it a standard for truth, logical coherence, or moral
discernment. The Reflectivist is not without standards, though these are, by and
large, standards derived from the process of reflection itself, not standards derived
elsewhere against which the quality of the reflection is measured.
By imposing a scheme or model of some sort, the Analyst engenders something
of the same situation Heisenberg describes in the uncertainty principle: Any attempt
to measure the momentum and position of subatomic particles runs afoul of the
process used to measure them, for the act of measuring itself disturbs either position
or momentum. Analysts have a similar predicament, for in imposing some framework
or standard, they risk altering the deliberations so that they become more representative
of the framework or model than of the person doing the deliberating.
If I have fairly and accurately represented the Reflectivist position vis-à-vis the
Analyst position, perhaps I might now be permitted to examine a puzzling aspect
of Reflectivism. To what end is the reflection undertaken? If reflection is an end-
in-itself, the answer is obvious. One undertakes reflection in order to be reflective.
If, on the other hand, reflection is viewed as an instrumental benefit, then there is
something more that must be provided. What is it?
It is a theory of education. Such a theory specifies what we mean when we
speak of education, of an educated person, and of receiving an education. The
theory contains a moral dimension, setting forth the proper contribution of education
to moral development; an epistemic dimension, providing a basis of making claims
to knowledge or informed opinion; and a practical dimension, setting forth a
conception of skilled performance in matters common to the life of the species
(e.g., political, consumer, and parent practices). Such a theory then serves as the
framework for reflection. It provides both structural substance for reflection as
well as a standard against which to determine whether one’s deliberations are
gaining or losing ground for the person reflecting.
x
Foreword
With the publication of this book, members of the Reflectivist family have created
the occasion for teacher educators of all family backgrounds to express themselves
on the personal and professional aspects of their practice. I hope we will be able to
continue and enlarge this discussion by fashioning a working theory of education
against which the work of all the families might be appraised. What a magnificent
achievement that would be for teacher educators everywhere.
Before that can happen, books like this one must happen. Voices must be found,
passions revealed, purposes uncovered. These are the things that will form the
families of teacher education into the community of teacher educators. The task
will not be easy, for those outside teacher education seem more preoccupied with
marginalizing than with advancing it. For decades teacher education has been the
deprived stepchild of the academy. The pursuit of any form of educational studies
within institutions of higher education, at least in much of the English-speaking
world, has always been somewhat suspect. Within educational studies itself, the
activity of teacher education has been even more suspect.
Those who labor in teacher education may feel righteous indignation at their
place on the academic pecking order, but it is well to recall that there was a time
when the ranking may have been deserved. I think, for example, of my own
experience as a student in teacher education. It began when I was in my early
twenties, a baccalaureate degree in hand, and the prospect of mandatory military
service ahead. When poor eyesight disqualified me for officer training, I learned
that my local draft board was imagining what I would look like in a soldier’s
uniform. My choices were clear: A private in the Army or a graduate student. The
latter looked to be the better part of wisdom, though not valour, and I found myself
knocking on the door of my alma mater.
An admissions officer said I was too late for the coming Fall, that I might be
considered for Spring, but most likely admission would not come until the following
Fall. Had I followed their advice, I would probably have been policing the 38th
parallel in Korea, or perhaps included in the first contingent of military ‘advisers’
in Viet Nam. Such thoughts gave rise to greater inventiveness on my part. I went
looking for the school of education, thinking it an easy mark for my tale of travail.
The people there were exceptionally nice, but firm on this point: While I could not
be admitted to a master’s degree program in such haste, I could get into the teacher
preparation program. Were I in such a thing, I asked, would I still be considered an
enrolled student? (Were it not so, my draft board would soon have a real picture of
me in uniform.) Oh, yes, they said; of course you will be a regular, enrolled student.
My next question was where to sign.
My questions about admission and student status were among the last I would
ask for that month, indeed, for the entire semester. I was handed a course program,
stipulating in unambiguous detail what to take, when, where, and with whom. I
recall reading it and silently asking whether I had in fact been drafted, as my days,
weeks, and months were mapped with the same kind of precision I was sure would
go into planning an assault on a military target. Even so, I began my courses eagerly,
thinking that though my choices had been so grossly instrumental to this point, I
liked the idea of becoming a teacher. That sense of anticipation began to dissolve
xi
Foreword
as I attended my first classes. As it became clearer to me what this activity called

teacher education was all about, despair began to displace anticipation.
When I was an undergraduate major in government, I was often asked for my
views on matters of consequence. Few professors liked what I said, and graded me
accordingly, but I was flattered to be asked. As a student in teacher education, no
one seemed interested in what I thought, save as a way of saving me from error. I
was not asked for my views, but instead told that certain views were required in
order to succeed. These were views about childhood learning, about parent
involvement, about teaching methods, and about relating to other teachers and
administrators. Recall that it was the early 1960s, when professors (especially, it
seemed to me, education professors) seemed very sure of their ground. No
discovering your own meaning here, no post-Enlightenment relativity, no narrative
or story, no reflection, no personal or practical knowledge, no authority of
experience, no allowances for context or culture; just pure logic, truth, and goodness.
It was as if we were being initiated into the priesthood, with the noble task of
ensuring that the magnificent attainments of western civilization were passed
without corruption to the young. In hindsight, I suppose we were expected to feel
as one might on being asked to carry the Olympic torch and light the great flame.
That is not what I felt. Instead, I felt my flame getting smaller and smaller, in
danger of being extinguished. To the extent the instruction was practical, I failed to
understand it because I had no experiential basis for making it real or concrete. To
the extent the instruction was theoretical, I saw it as so far removed from what I
would be doing that I dismissed it as the leisured meanderings of the theory class.
I had a few interesting and engaging professors, but I recall finding them interesting
on intellectual grounds, not on the likelihood of their being helpful to me when it
came time to teach.
Near the end of that first semester, I asked my adviser if I might take some
courses in the college of arts and sciences. He was delighted to have me do so, and
signed all the necessary papers. At the time, I was unaware that I would not again
take an education course until after being admitted to the doctoral program. In the
process of learning to become a teacher, I became something else. What I became
was neither a teacher or a teacher educator.
I did not return to teacher education until encouraged to do so by the dean of the
college where I took my first position. It was John Goodlad, then Dean of UCLA’s
School of Education, who convinced me of the importance of teacher education.
He understood its peripheral status within research universities, indeed within his
own school of education, and sought to nurture a faculty that would take teacher
education seriously as both an arena for serious inquiry and a place to take pride in
one’s own teaching. The results of his immediate efforts were mixed, given the
scale of the challenge (one need only examine the experiences of so many of the
institutions that are participating in the Holmes Group to understand the enormity
of the challenge Goodlad faced in the late 1960s).
Teacher education has lived and, to a considerable extent, still lives on the margins
of academic life, where it has little or no scholarly space or professional voice. By
scholarly space, I mean a program of formal inquiry that is accorded respect through
xii
Foreword
the usual academic trappings: departments, journals, associations, ‘invisible

colleges’, publishers, and doctoral programs. By ‘professional voice’ I mean
intellectually grounded conversations among colleagues about their work, framed
within a discourse that permits the participants to learn from one another, to advance
the larger activity in which they are mutually engaged, and to gain the regard of
those engaged in different, but pertinent, conversations.
This volume makes a vital contribution to the creation of scholarly space and
the finding of professional voice for teacher education. It reveals the delight, the
frustrations, and the rewards of being a teacher educator. It gives to teacher educators
what they have had too little of, a public voice that speaks of personal experience
and grounded theory with passion and with purpose. While it is true that these
voices are raised within the same family of teacher educators, that is a benefit in
this case. For those I have here identified as members of the Reflectivist family are
among the most passionate, most concerned teacher educators. They are the ones
who have so willingly engaged in the study of their own and one another’s
professional practices. They are the ones who have organized conferences on teacher
education, created new and different literatures about teacher education, and brought
so many different elements of reflective scholarship to bear on its study and its
practice. In this book we witness the fruits of their good labors. I trust it is as much
a treat for you as it has been for me.
Gary D.Fenstermacher
xiii
Introduction
1 An Introduction to Purpose,
Passion and Pedagogy
John Loughran
During the Fall term of 1995, I had the good fortune of spending my sabbatical
leave at Queen’s University in Canada. One of the major reasons for going to
Queen’s was to work with teacher educators and student teachers and to experience
a different approach to pre-service teacher education from the one in which I teach
in the School of Graduate Studies at Monash University. Tom Russell hosted my
visit and initiated a research project so that we could actively pursue a study of
teaching in teacher education. Through this project I was invited into all of Tom’s
classes as well as those of his colleague Peter Chin.
My collaboration with Tom and Peter largely focused on ‘unpacking pedagogy’
in a manner similar to that in a school-based professional development in-residence
program I had been involved in for the previous four years (Loughran, 1994). The
project at Queen’s included pre-teaching discussions about what was planned for
a class and why, observation of the class, and an extended period of de-briefing to
develop alternative perspectives on the events of the class. In short, we engaged in
a collaborative form of reframing (Schön, 1987). During each teaching session I
would move around the class as appropriate, joining in with different groups of
student teachers as they worked on their activities. This helped to broaden my
understanding of their views on the teaching episode. An important aspect of this
involvement was the rich range of data on which to base our discussions in the de-
briefing sessions as we explored the ‘real’ teaching and learning events that had
unfolded during each class.
Not surprisingly, then, throughout the Fall semester, Tom, Peter and I spent
numerous hours passionately discussing pedagogy and purpose in pre-service
teacher education. We were continually striving to better understand how these
student teachers learnt about teaching. We pushed each other to better understand
the impact that teaching about teaching had on new teachers’ learning about
teaching. We also unpacked some of the principles of pedagogy that underpinned
the teaching about teaching practice used. One important aspect of this work that
continually surfaced in our discussions was the recognition of the developing
understanding of pedagogy in teaching about teaching. It seemed to us that there
was an important transition in understanding required of all teachers of prospective
teachers. The three of us are experienced high school teachers, but the knowledge
of pedagogy we acquired by teaching was not in itself sufficient for the task of
teaching about teaching. Nevertheless, it was clearly an essential starting point.
3
John Loughran
What became moreand more apparent was the professional knowledge of teaching
about teaching that we had developed through our experiences teaching pre-service
teachers. This professional knowledge included an understanding of:
• student teachers’ needs and concerns in their transition from student to

teacher;
• appropriate ways and times of challenging their beliefs about teaching
and learning;
• a range of school teaching situations (content, year level etc.); and
• approaches and practices in supervision; pedagogy; and, teaching about
teaching.
As we regularly revisited different aspects of practice, we began to recognize an

important knowledge of teaching about teaching that we were always returning to
and articulating as we discussed the teaching and learning episodes being created for
the student teachers in the pre-service education classes. The content of this knowledge
encompassed both a knowledge of pedagogy as well as a knowledge of the subject
matter content. Hence, in teacher education, helping student teachers to learn about
and experiment with pedagogy for particular subject matter knowledge involves a
knowledge of pedagogy that might bring this knowledge to the fore. It could therefore
be that this special knowledge of teaching about teaching is tacit knowledge,
knowledge easily overlooked by others, taken for granted by teacher educators
themselves, and consequently neither sufficiently understood nor valued.
During a break in my discussions with Tom and Peter, when their students were
teaching in schools, I travelled to Vancouver to visit the University of British
Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Having spent so much time discussing
learning about teaching and teaching about teaching, it was inevitable that my
discussions with Tony Clarke, Cynthia Nicol, Allan MacKinnon and others also
focused on this theme. It seemed that, even though pre-service teacher education
is the starting point for beginning teachers to learn about teaching and learning,
there is minimal ‘institutional’ value or understanding of approaches to the
pedagogical reasoning and purpose inherent in pre-service teacher educators’
practices. While it has been recognized for some time that many faculty institutions
responsible for teacher preparation have an interest in teacher education but are
not actively concerned with teacher education (Borrowman, 1965), there has been
little progress in developing our collective understanding of the pedagogy unique
to pre-service teacher education.
Beginning teachers’ views of the teaching profession, as well as their
understanding of the role of Schools of Education, are necessarily influenced by
their experiences during their studies in initial teacher education programs. These
experiences need to be seen as relevant and appropriate, just as the teaching they
experience needs to model ‘good practice’. When this is the case, our best efforts
to educate teachers in ways that reinforce the importance of the links between
teaching and learning are modelled through our teacher education programs. The
need for teacher educators to practice what they preach seems obvious.
4
An Introduction to Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy
That the relationship between theory and practice should be apparent within the
teaching and learning episodes we create is central to learning about teaching.
There seems little point in telling student teachers about the benefits of group
work if those benefits are not demonstrated through our teaching practice. Similarly,
it is counterproductive to lecture on higher-order questioning skills, wait-time or
the benefits of interpretive discussions if these important aspects of teaching cannot
be demonstrated through our own practice. It is even worse if our practice ‘in
action’ is contradictory. As teachers of teachers we need to be able to understand
our pedagogy from differing perspectives so that our roles in improving the
preparation of prospective teachers can be meaningful and fruitful both for our
student teachers and for ourselves.
Teaching about teaching is no easy task, and learning about teaching is equally
demanding. For student teachers to learn about teaching, they need to operate
constantly at two levels, as do their teachers. One level concerns the need to learn
about learning through the experiences they are offered in pre-service teacher
education programs. The other level concerns the simultaneous learning about
teaching. We believe it is woefully inadequate to assume that learning about teaching
occurs only in practice teaching placements. Within the context of the teaching we
do in pre-service courses, we must attend to learning about teaching as well as
learning about learning. Only in our own classrooms do we have the opportunity
to control and explore the significance of the teaching strategies we adopt. In the
teaching and learning episodes in which we engage our teacher candidates, they
need to reflect on their cognitive and affective development as learners as a result
of our pedagogy, while also reflecting on the pedagogy itself—how and why it is
used, adapted, understood and developed. Through all of this, the attentive teacher
educator also needs to be cognisant of these perspectives and to be ready, willing
and able to respond to each as appropriate and as necessary. This is far from an
easy task, but we believe that investing effort in this domain promises to improve
the effectiveness of teacher education programs as well as the images of teacher
education carried away by beginning teachers.
Van Manen (1995) offers insight into ways of understanding different
perspectives on teaching and learning episodes through his conception of anecdotes.
For many practicing classroom teachers, his anecdotes are a powerful tool for
reconsidering pedagogy and for reconsidering familiar situations by helping us
see the ‘taken for granted’ in new ways. The following anecdote was written by a
student teacher enrolled for the Graduate Diploma in Education at Monash
University in response to being asked to write about a personal experience during
the pre-service program.
A Lesson on Policy
The tutorial room was quiet. Only the professor’s voice broke the silence.
I had to say something. I disagreed with what he was saying. I spoke up.
That’s what I thought we were supposed to be learning to do. To be actively
5
John Loughran
engaged in our learning. To question our understanding. We’re certainly

expected to be doing that with our students in school.
I don’t think that policy has to be about change!’ I said, and I gave
some examples to support my point of view. With that, others in the class
also started to contribute.
‘This is what the definition is! Reputed researchers agree!’ was his
rather forceful response.
Faced with that, what else could I say? He was the expert. He would
take it as a personal insult if I again raised issues, so I kept my mouth
shut. As the rest of the monologue surged forth, the class returned to its
earlier silence. I opened my note book and wrote furiously, ‘I disagree, I
disagree.’
We had just been talking about including people in discussions, accepting
others’ point of view, inclusion, understanding. I don’t think that classrooms
should be lecture theatres. Teaching is not a one-way process.
This anecdote goes to the heart of the central concerns of the contributors to this
book. Chin, Hoban, LaBoskey, Nicol, and Richert all write about their approaches
to their teaching in ways that demonstrate the importance of the relationship between
teaching and learning. They show how program intentions must be supported and
reinforced through the teaching practice if the intended effects are to be achieved.
Teaching about teaching as Bullough demonstrates, requires a genuine commitment
to pedagogy, a pedagogy that is underpinned by principles of practice that overtly
shape actions. The importance of these principles of practice are extended through
the work of Guilfoyle, Hamilton and Pinnegar, MacKinnon, Cummings and
Alexander, Northfield and Gunstone, and Russell.
It is difficult to believe that the student teacher (above) who wrote the anecdote
on policy learnt much of what the professor ‘intended’. The anecdote clearly
demonstrates the ‘real’ impact of the session and the obvious learning as a result
of the teaching approach. Students of teaching should not suffer learning about
teaching as contradiction, it is certainly not a productive way to engender a sense
of valuing pedagogy. Pedagogy, must surely portray discretion, judgment, caution
and forethought (van Manen, 1994), regardless of the setting in which it occurs.
Learning about teaching does not occur only in university classrooms. A great
deal of learning through experience occurs when our student teachers explore their
learning about teaching in the ‘real world’ of schools. Clarke takes up this point as
he unpacks his approach to supervision during the teaching practicum. In this
setting, the role of the teacher educator needs to again be carefully considered. It
needs to be considered in ways that highlight the importance of support,
understanding and guidance so that learning through the experiences may be
meaningful and valuable. Here again the teacher educator’s role is crucial, even
more so when student teachers find themselves in vulnerable situations. Our actions
in situations of vulnerability will influence not only new teachers’ learning about
teaching but also their views of the profession they seek to enter and the profession
that ‘nominally’ supports their learning to teach.
6
Consider the learning significance of the messages about teaching and learning
to teach embedded in two more anecdotes, one by a student teacher and one by a
teacher educator.
The First Lesson
It was the first day of my first-ever teaching round. I was excited but
anxious, so to keep calm I concentrated on my breathing. I was down for
lesson one, two and three! I was, needless to say, fairly nervous. This
must be ordeal by fire,’ I thought to myself.
My stomach was churning and I was beginning to wonder what I was
about to undergo. First up would be Chemistry. Yay! The excitement was
giving way to fear as the minutes ticked by. I snapped to attention the
second my supervising teacher came to collect me on his way to class.
The waiting was over. ‘OK, here goes. It can’t be that bad surely.’
I followed my supervising teacher across the yard to the classroom.
‘So how do you think you’ll go?’ he asked. ‘Oh, OK,’ I said a little
hesitantly. Then I blurted, ‘But I am really nervous!’
When we arrived at the class he introduced me and wrote my name on
the board. It was spelt wrong! Then he squinted, his eyes focusing in on
me, and I looked down sheepishly.
‘Now’, he started, ‘Be nice to Miss. She’s a bit nervous.’ Twenty-six
pairs of devilish and now intrigued eyes turned on me. Aagh! Am I even
the size of an ant? I don’t think so.
This anecdote comes from the student teachers’ perspective, but in teaching about
teaching, there are times when the demands of teaching and learning are equally
as frustrating and contradictory for the teacher educator. Dick Gunstone offered
the following anecdote as a vivid memory of just such a situation.
Because the Teacher Says
They were a great group—mostly! All but Mary. I found her to be rather
prickly, and, judging by some of the interesting group dynamics, it seemed
that the rest of the group had somewhat similar feelings. It was therefore
a little reassuring to think that it wasn’t just me.
Mary’s major problem with me and the other group members was her
inability to hear ideas that did not agree with the position she already
held. We were about four months into the course, and the students had
had their first taste of teaching. Three weeks with their own classes isn’t
a lot, but it had given most of them a sense of reality. I was into my third
or fourth group session of interactive, discussion-based consideration of
all this research about the ideas children bring to science classes. We had
7
John Loughran
evendropped the magic term ‘alternative conceptions’ and had linked this
with notions like ‘superficial learning’ and ‘passing tests but not learning’.
Now we were looking at teaching approaches and materials produced by
science teachers I had been working with for a number of years.
It all got to be too much for Mary. ‘I don’t care what you say. When I
tell kids something, they will believe me because I am the teacher.’
That was too much for me. My response was, unfortunately, not
delicate. ‘Well I’m the teacher here and I say you are wrong!’
Notice, of course, that Dick’s response failed to take Mary’s position as an

‘alternative conception’, and in a situation such as this, a constructive response
would have been extremely difficult. Perhaps teaching about teaching is inevitably
problematic simply because teaching comprises a complex array of skills, attitudes,
actions and meanings. Because teaching prospective teachers demands time, effort
and commitment, perhaps it is not a field that is easy to study or understand. Perhaps
this is why models of imparted learning underlie most traditional pre-service teacher
programs (Sumison, 1996). Perhaps it is simply easier to ‘tell’ prospective teachers
how to teach than it is to model for them how to learn about teaching and to design
experiences that reveal the inner nature of teaching. In this context, the importance
of documenting the purpose, passion and pedagogy of teacher educators becomes
increasingly important.
At a time when teachers’ professional knowledge is starting to be recognized
and valued in both the teaching profession itself and in Faculties of Education, we
find it important to also recognize the goal of teacher educators’ professional
knowledge: enhancing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, practice,
reasoning and development. In a recent paper in which Hargreaves (1996) ‘revisits
voice’, he concludes that there are important reasons why teachers’ voices need to
be represented and heard through educational research. His third point, ‘…that as
a prin ciple of professionalism, we should not dismiss or diminish the words of
wisdom of trained individuals…’ (p. 16) is particularly compelling and equally
appropriate for researching teaching in teacher education.
In this collection, we have assembled the insights and understandings of a range
of teacher educators who share a commitment to the importance of pedagogy in
teacher education. They all associate pedagogy with both purpose and passion. We
see each author as committed to the ongoing development of personal understanding
and practice in teaching about teaching, and in so doing, as better able to help student
teachers prepare themselves for the problematic nature of teaching throughout their
teaching careers. Not only did each prospective author respond positively, but,
following an initial meeting at the AERA meeting in New York, each also worked
quickly to produce a full draft of the book in very short time. Their commitment to
teaching about teaching was translated directly into their commitment to articulating
and disseminating their ideas clearly and on time—perhaps that old and important
teacher trait of getting work back on time still lingers.
The contributors to this volume represent a range of levels and types of experience
in teacher education, from method lecturers to program directors. All consider
8
their involvement in pre-service education to be important in shaping the purpose,

philosophy and approach to teaching that will challenge their student teachers.
They are also pedagogues who continue to reflect on their own practice as they
strive to create better learning about teaching opportunities for their students of
teaching. Although it may once have been the case that, ‘teachers of teachers—
what they are like, what they do, what they think—are typically overlooked in
studies of teacher education’ (Lanier and Little, 1986, p. 528), we hope that the
contribution by the authors in this book demonstrate why teachers of teachers,
their knowledge and practice, can no longer be overlooked.
References
BORROWMAN, M.L. (1965) ‘Liberal education and the professional education of teachers’,
in BORROWMAN, M.L. (Ed) Teacher Education in America: A Documentary History,
New York, Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
HARGREAVES, A. (1996) ‘Revisiting voice’, Educational Researcher, 25, 1, pp. 12–19.
LANIER, J.E. and LITTLE, J.W. (1986) ‘Research on teacher education’, in WITTROCK,
M.C. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., New York, Macmillan Publishing
Company.
LOUGHRAN, J.J. (1994) ‘Professional development for science teachers: A school based
approach’, Science Education International, 4, 4, pp. 25–8.
SCHÖN, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
SUMISON, J. (1996) ‘Empowering beginning student teachers: Challenges for teacher
educators’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 1, pp. 33–46.
VAN MANEN, M. (1994) ‘Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching’, Curriculum
Inquiry, 24, 2, pp. 135–92.
VAN MANEN, M. (1995) ‘Pedagogical politics?: Political pedagogy?’, in MIEDEMA, S.,
BIESTA, G., BOOG, B., SMALING, A., WARDEKKER, W. and LEVERING, B. (Eds)
The Politics of Human Science, Brussels, VUBPRESS.
9
Section 1
Principles and Practices Which Shape

Teaching about Teaching
2 Practicing Theory and Theorizing Practice
in Teacher Education
Introduction
Principles emerge from practice; we practice our principles, and in practicing and
confronting our limitations often we discover just what those principles are. And
so the initial question posed by the editors of this volume, ‘Why teach teachers as
you do?’ necessitates a two-phased response, beginning with practice and ending
with principles, guiding assumptions or fundamental beliefs, which, hopefully,
wraparound and inform and sustain my practice. The first phase inevitably takes a
biographical turn because practicing teacher education, like other teaching
relationships, involves testifying—to teach is to testify; to bear witness of a way of
being in and understanding the world; a life is an argument—and because, like
teachers, teacher ‘educators’ work…appears to be significantly shaped by prior
experiences’ (Hatton, 1994). I begin, then, with a story that represents my initial
grounding, the argument I brought with me to teacher education. Then I address
their second question, ‘What principles underpin your practice?’ and their third,
‘How do I know what I do makes a difference?’
Grounding in Biography
I never intended to be a teacher. I was not called to teach. Growing up my father

was a junior high school art teacher who always worked at least one, and usually
two, jobs after school in order to take care of his family. He scooped ice cream.
Swept floors. Pumped gas. My mother saved change, ever hoping to purchase a
needed item, a piece of furniture, a lamp, tires for the car. A penny saved was a
penny earned. Frugality was a necessary virtue. We ate a good deal of macaroni
and cheese—the high cholesterol kind, orange and slippery. Lacking adequate
medical insurance, a small accident could spell disaster. I broke a collar bone, my
sister broke an arm, and months of payments followed. No, I had no desire to be a
teacher; and my father did his part to steer me elsewhere.
The Viet Nam War loomed over and stood in the way of my efforts and those of
other young men to realize what Levinson and his colleagues (1978) called ‘The
Dream’, a dream of the ‘kind of life they want to lead as adults’, a vision ‘of self-
in-adult-world’ (p. 91). Many a young man’s Dream was cut short in far away rice
13
paddies. Like many others of my generation, I became increasingly disillusioned

with the prospects of working in government service and corporate America was
out; no one dreamed there. My academic studies shifted from ancient history to
South Asian studies as though it was a natural move, a fateful slide that was supposed
to be. All the while, I wondered what to do, what the future did hold for me,
assuming there would be a future after my draft deferment ended.
By default, I enrolled in an education course. Although I did not want to be a
teacher, when compared to other options teaching seemed noble, an honorable
vocation driven by a service ideal that resonated deeply. Ironically, the implicit vow
of poverty that had so profoundly and negatively impacted my family only added to
teaching’s nobility. The course was dreadful. The professor was inexperienced, overly
concerned with appearing professorly but the cap sat awkwardly, and the gown hung
uncomfortably. It was a bad role play. Options limited, I enrolled in additional
education courses, which only added to my growing disillusionment. Reconsidering
my options, I decided to withdraw from teacher education.
I clearly recall sitting in a methods course taught by Flo Krall, drop card in my
shirt pocket. I only needed her signature and I was out of there for good. I approached
her and waited as she addressed other students’ questions. My turn came, she
looked up, and before I could say a word, stated in her direct, no nonsense, way,
‘I’ve been watching you.’ I remember wondering what I had done. I expected
trouble. She asked if I would like to complete the certification require ments by
working in an alternative program she had recently begun in a local high school
for ‘disaffected’ students. Initially stunned, I jumped at the offer, and not only
because it signaled the end of my formal, and to that point dreadful, teacher
education. Call it fate or call it synchronicity with Jung, but at that moment my life
changed.
Within days I found myself working at East High School with three other
university pre-service teachers, half days, in an evolving program that had no other
purpose, initially, than to provide something of educational value that would keep
thirty students in school. There were no clear policies to guide our work. If there
were administrative boundaries, we only discovered them after crossing over.
Drawing on Paulo Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972), we began
exploring ways of organizing curricula thematically. No topics were off limits, at
least none I can recall. Topics arose from the students—war, power, sex, ecology—
and flowed into one another as we sought to locate content and create the conditions
needed to realize our incipient understanding of critical consciousness. Friendships
developed. Issues were confronted. Students stayed in school. It was, in the parlance
of the time, an educational ‘happening’.
That Spring I failed my draft physical—freed to dream. That Fall I was hired to
direct and continue to teach in the program. Eventually, we worked with two groups
of about thirty or thirty-five students, one group in the morning and the other in the
afternoon. In addition to curriculum development and administrative
responsibilities, I worked with pre-service teacher education students who, like
me the year before, were seeking certification. I did all this despite being virtually
ignorant of teacher education, which seemed at the time a kind of virtue, not a
14
Practicing Theory and Theorizing Practice in Teacher Education
vice. Interdisciplinary teams were formed that assumed responsibility for planning
and implementing the curriculum with the public school students. The curriculum
evolved but continued to be organized thematically. At times, visitors from the
university who were interested in the program would remind us that our units
needed to be purposeful, that we had a tendency to get overly excited about an
activity or a unit just because it was engaging and not because it was educationally
powerful. Happenings were that way. Reminiscent of early attacks on progressive
education in the United States, we sometimes engaged in activity for activity’s
sake. Our intention was to create a responsive curriculum, one within which the
students would feel a measure of ownership and find place. This intention aside,
sometimes we lost our way and the aim of producing an engaging curriculum
shoved aside more educational purposes, ones associated with helping students
gain the intellectual tools and understanding needed to meaningfully make their
own ways in the world.
After two years I quit. Perhaps I became overly involved in the lives of my
students. I found myself engaging in a good deal of student counselling, without
training, testifying in court, working with and visiting parents and parole officers
and much more. The program consumed me. I had chronic headaches. Although
to the end the work remained exciting, I realized I needed a change; failing to pace
myself, I flickered, and burned out. I left East High School somewhat puzzled by
what had happened to me but still believing that teaching was a noble profession,
one that could improve the wider society. Increasingly, I found myself interested
in social theory and in the role of schools in society.
I enrolled in a Ph.D. program at The Ohio State University to pursue a degree in
foundations and curriculum. This move was prompted by a number of factors, and
not only the realization that a degree in history emphasizing South Asian studies
was not worth much. Even while teaching art, my father had continued his formal
university studies. After twenty-three years of college he completed a doctorate
and assumed a position as an assistant professor of education. His excitement about
research touched me. Then there was Flo Krall, whose professional life—more a
life force—exemplified praxis. She was a formidable presence, one who understood
deeply the social responsibilities that attend professing and the import ance of
providing contexts within which younger people can confront and perhaps transcend
their own limitations. Her interpersonal style was unique, simultaneously
confrontational yet nurturing. Together with sizeable chunks of my father and of
Flo, I took with me to Ohio parts of several of my teachers and professors whose
lives testified that ideas matter and have social consequences.
Just prior to leaving for Ohio, I received a phone call from a faculty member
at Ohio State who informed me that prior to the beginning of the school year a
series of meetings would be held to plan the curriculum for the methods course
I would be involved in teaching as part of my assistantship. He used the word
‘competency’, and my heart sank. I knew what that word meant, and that the
intention was to develop a list of skills, complete with performance indicators,
that would serve as the objectives for the course. The student will be able to…’
was and still is foreign to my way of thinking. Program aims would be established
15
in advance, and, ignoring Dewey’s profound discussion of the relationship of

aims and means, means would be prescribed. Controlling learning outcomes
was the aim. Themes? Interdisciplinary units? A responsive curriculum? All
nonsense, or so I feared. I debated whether to withdraw and go to one of the
other schools interested in having me as a student but, being a person who must
read a book to its end, and despite my misgivings, I packed my few belongings
and headed east for Columbus, Ohio.
Once there, I soon discovered that I was not alone in my misgivings. While
some faculty were anxiously working to develop a competency-based program,
others had serious doubts, among them Paul Klohr, who became my advisor.
Themes, interdisciplinary units, and a responsive curriculum all made sense to
him. He admired Freire, and being historically grounded in the work associated
with the Eight Year Study (Aikin, 1942) and the lab school at Ohio State (see
Alberty and Alberty, 1962; University School Faculty, 1952), he could nudge my
thinking along in fruitful ways. He pushed me, for example, to read extensively in
the history of American progressivism and in curriculum theory and development.
Moreover, he was exploring work in continental philosophy and was chewing at
the edges of the disciplines, seeking deeper insight into the personal and
philosophical foundations of education (Klohr, 1978). He was especially interested
in the problem of meaning making, of hermeneutics. Well before the constructivist
revolution, Klohr understood that meaning is constructed and constructed in terms
of past experience, a point first understood, I suspect, through his careful study of
the writings of John Dewey and Boyd Bode.
Having lived long enough to see this competency movement fade, and eventually
return in the different guise of outcome-based or performance-based education, I
am less ruffled by the winds of change than I was when I first arrived in Columbus.
Mercifully, winds shift and a few educators have memory enough to recognize it.
Graduating from Ohio State, I assumed a position at the University of Utah, my
home, as an assistant professor in the Department of Education. The foundations
faculty was housed in Educational Administration, so I soon found myself living
schizophrenically. Formally, educational foundations were separated from methods
courses. Mostly I taught a skills-based course like the one I had taught at Ohio
State. The program itself was disjointed. Students often and rightly complained of
redundancy and irrelevance. Professors, like their students, dropped in and out of
the program, and no faculty member was responsible for helping students make
sense of what was happening to them. Continuity was lacking, but more importantly,
so was caring. Unlike my experience at East High School, I felt disconnected. I
had difficulty even remembering student names from one quarter to the next, let
alone feeling connected to them in any significant way. Yet I feared spending too
much time with them because of needing to prove myself as an academic through
publishing and at least appearing somewhat expert, when clearly I was not. Expertise
encourages disengagement and distance. Like my first education professor, mine
was a bad role play.
In his study of teacher education, Teachers for our Nation’s Schools (1990),
John Goodlad accurately and painfully portrayed the problems of teacher education
16
in research institutions, problems I came to know well. Within universities the

norms of the arts and sciences dominated, and in the pursuit of an illusive prestige,
education faculty often distanced themselves from teacher education and the
concerns of teachers. Adjunct faculty increasingly bore the burden of teacher
education. External agencies set teacher education policies and there was
comparative little ‘curricular autonomy’ (Goodlad, 1990, p. 93). Programs lacked
coherence. Relationships with schools were often strained, and placements were
made for practice teaching with comparatively little regard for cooperating teacher
quality. Preparation programs did little to influence the beliefs and expectations
about teaching that beginning teachers brought with them: ‘Their preparation
programs are simply not powerful or long enough to dissuade them from what has
already been absorbed from role models’ (Goodlad, 1990, p. 149). Little attention
was given to socializing students to a professional ideal; surprisingly little attention
was given to the moral and ethical issues that ought to command the attention of
educators. As I said, foundations and methods were separated. Instead, the values
of individualism dominated: ‘They come through their preparation as
individuals…likely to take responsibility only for their individual classrooms and
assume that someone else will take care of the rest’ (Goodlad, 1990, pp. 265–6).
Students entered and left their programs with a ‘very practical orientation—an
orientation that leads them to judge all education courses by utilitarian, instrumental
criteria’ (Goodlad, 1990, p. 213). Accordingly, the ‘socialization process appeared
to nurture the ability to acquire teaching skills through experience rather than the
ability to think through unpredictable circumstances’ (Goodlad, 1990, p. 215).
Technique mattered, and learning to fit into and survive within ‘an operational role
in the classroom’ mattered most (Goodlad, 1990, p. 251).
These were, and to a degree still are, the problems of teacher education. They
certainly were weaknesses of the program within which I served. But at that point
I did not think of myself as a teacher educator. They were not my problems. My
research interests had taken a turn and in the late 1970s and early 1980s I was part
of a study group that slowly and carefully worked its way through the writings of
Karl Marx and then those of Jurgen Habermas. We produced a book, Human
Interests in the Curriculum: Teaching and Learning in a Technological Society
(1984), and also a few papers that sought to ground the insights we were gaining in
a critique of schooling. Central to our argument was that the desire for control
embedded in instrumental reason and expressed in the pursuit of ever more powerful
teaching techniques, had overwhelmed and undermined the concern for education
and human emancipation. Marx’s discussion of alienation and of species being
were especially important to our analysis, as were Habermas’ concepts of human
interests and of the ‘ideal speech situation’, where the aim is communication without
domination (Habermas, 1979).
I began teaching introductory foundation courses following a merger of the
foundations faculty with the education department and the formation of a new
Educational Studies Department. But mostly I continued to teach curriculum and
methods courses. The more I taught, the more frustrated I became. Eventually I
realized I could not flee teacher education, that the problems of the program were,
17
after all, my problems. There was no escaping that conclusion, which was forced
on me not only by my teaching assignment but also by my study of Marx and
critical theory. Theory could not be separated from practice; there was no escape.
I knew this, Dewey and Boyd Bode had taught me this lesson before, but knowing
the good and doing it are not the same: ‘It is a good divine that follows his own
instructions: I can easier teach twenty what were good to be done, than be one of
the twenty to follow mine own teaching’ (Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act I,
Scene II).
Ironically, in 1983 I was elected chair of secondary education and, almost despite
myself, became intimately involved in program development. Through the dean’s
efforts, the department became involved in the early days of the Holmes Group,
which brought numerous opportunities to further think about teacher education.
Just prior to becoming chair, the program had been reorganized around cohorts of
students. Secondary education students would stay together for a year and, under
the guidance of a professor and a teaching associate, would complete curriculum
and methods courses, practice teach, and participate in a weekly problem-solving
seminar. This was the program I administered. My first ‘cohort’ proved to be a
difficult teaching assignment, but I became increasingly interested in the problems
of teacher education, especially of how to integrate social theory and methods.
This lesson I had learned when doing a section of my dissertation on Bode:
‘educational practice which avoids social theory is at best a trivial thing and at
worst a serious obstruction to progress’ (1937, p. 74).
Spending a year with a group of students inevitably forced me to attend to
developmental issues. I noticed that some students seemed able to ignore what I
taught while others grabbed hold of it easily, as though what I had to say confirmed
but failed to challenge beliefs. While struggling with this issue, I began exploring
the role of life history as the backdrop against which students become teachers.
Paul Klohr planted that seed when I was a graduate student, a seed that grew in the
hands of the reconceptualists in curriculum theory (Pinar, 1975) and has since
grown mightily (Richardson, 1996).
My second cohort changed me, fundamentally. I bonded with this group quickly.
I found myself heavily invested in their learning and in their school successes. Their
disappointments became my disappointments. I worked very hard with, and on behalf
of, this group but when the year ended I felt a measure of disappointment, although
I did not know why. After school ended, and while on the way with my family to
vacation in West Yellowstone, I decided to conduct a case study of one of the students
in the cohort as a way to begin rethinking my work. Returning home, I contacted
Kerrie Baughman and began the series of studies that led to the publication of First
Year Teacher: A Case Study (1989). I also completed a series of essays that formed
The Forgotten Dream of American Public Education (1988), which was an attempt
to settle my thinking about education and to present foundational issues in ways
accessible to beginning teachers and others interested in education. Other studies
followed, most notably Emerging as a Teacher (1991), that involved writing a series
of case studies of first-year teachers along with meeting them in a weekly seminar to
discuss their concerns. From each study I learned a great deal, and simultaneously
18
the problems of teacher education became more intriguing. I also began gathering
data from students in my cohorts, and I used the data to rethink content, instruction,
and class organization. With my students I openly explored what we were doing and
why and solicited feedback and criticism. Exit interviews were conducted and written
evaluations invited. A series of articles resulted from this work, some touching on
life history and others with teaching metaphors as means for helping beginning
teachers think about themselves as teachers (Bullough, 1991). Still others explored
what I came to call Personal Teaching Texts (PTTs), case records of a sort, as means
for helping beginning teachers take greater responsibility for their development and
for building program coherence (Bullough, 1993). The initial focus on metaphors
came from spending a year and a half in Kerrie Baughman’s classroom and coming
to realize how central nurturing and mothering were to how she thought about
teaching. Only later would I realize that others were working along similar lines.
Recently, the results of this work were brought together in a single volume Becoming
a Student of Teaching: Methodologies for Exploring Self and School Context (1995),
written with Andrew Gitlin. By 1990 I realized I had become a teacher educator,
almost despite myself.
Private Theories and Principles
Telling this story as a way of beginning to address the question ‘Why teach teachers
as you do?’ was necessary because actions become meaningful by placing them in a
narrative, or a narrative form, by imposing order. The order we impose is grounded
in the beliefs we hold, the tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) that underpins our sense
of the world, our world view. To create a story is thus to engage in narrative reasoning,
which plays a central role in a teacher’s efforts to create a teaching self, a moral
orientation to the world of which we testify when we teach. Principles come later.
Personal identity can be brought to self-awareness through narrative self-

reflection. Self-knowledge not only assumes that one can establish one’s
own personal identity by means of stories, but also assumes that one can
be accountable narratively for how one has developed as a person—for
how one has become what one has become…. Self-knowledge is related
to the search for one’s own life story. Thus, by engaging in such narrative
‘theorizing’ teachers may further discover and shape their personal
pedagogical identity, and through such stories they can give accounts of
the way they have developed over time into the kind of persons they are
now. (Van Manen, 1994, p. 159)
Story telling, then, is a way of getting a handle on what we believe, on the models,
metaphors and images that underpin action and enable meaning making, on our
theories. Through story telling, personal theories become explicit, and in being
made explicit they can be changed, where change is warranted, and a new or different
story results; we behold differently. The ‘critical root’ of the word theory, as Robert
19
Coles reminds us is ‘“I behold”, as in what we see when we go to the theatre’

(1989, p. 20).
It is important that theory emerge from practice, as David Hunt observes,
because ‘unless theories come from practice, they will not apply to practice’
(1987, p. 109). Hunt’s assertion presents a problem, however. In teacher
education, a gulf divides theory from practice, as Goodlad’s study demonstrated
so forcefully. It is common among teacher educators to talk about the need for
linking theory with practice, yet foundations courses continue to precede field
work; those who teach these courses seldom venture into the field. We speak
of learning from experience but not in experience. Those who spend a majority
of their time working in the field with beginning teachers often speak as though
time spent in schools equates with learning, forgetting Dewey’s insights that
for experience to have educational value, one must ‘extract its net meaning’
through reflection (Dewey, 1916, p. 7) and that not all experience is educative,
indeed some experiences are ‘miseducative’ and impede future growth (Dewey,
1938, p. 13). Doing without ‘undergoing the consequences of doing’ does not
count as experience at all (Dewey, 1916, p. 323). Consequences matter because
it is through attending to them that theories are tested, as Dewey remarked:
‘An ounce of experience is better than a ton of theory simply because it is only
in experience that any theory has vital and verifiable significance’ (Dewey,
1916, p. 169). It is little wonder the preponderance of evidence suggests that
when making instructional decisions teachers rarely value and perhaps seldom
draw upon the kind of theory—what Griffiths and Tann (1992) call ‘public
theory’—that is presented to them in teacher education. Ironically, there is
good evidence to suggest that teacher educators similarly ignore public theory
and instead rely on personal experience and implicit theory, on common sense,
when making decisions (Hatton, 1994; see also Eisner, 1984). Like our students,
we face the daunting challenge of becoming our own best theorists, as Hunt
would say, and this requires attending to our experience as teacher educators
and reflecting on it.
My story points in the direction of an answer to the question, ‘Why teach teachers
as I do?’, but a richer response necessitates digging into the story to uncover theories
that underlie my practice, my principles. While the principles I identify initially
arose from thinking about my practice, my experience of being a teacher educator,
it is important to note that public theory has played a prominent part in nurturing,
refining, and in some cases undermining them. Public theory has on occasion helped
me to know what to look for and helped me better to see, to anticipate consequences.
Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed played such a role early on when I taught at
East High School, and Dewey’s writings, among others, continue to challenge and
to inspire my thinking as is readily apparent from what I have written here. Through
seeking an active conversation between private and public theory, played out in
my classroom, I have come to behold teacher education more richly and more
fully, albeit still only partially. It is for this reason that Dewey asserted that ‘Theory
is in the end…the most practical of all things, because [of the] widening of the
range of attention beyond nearby purpose and desire…’ (Dewey, 1929, p. 17).
20
The following set of principles arise from my experience and underpin my

work which is driven by one fundamental aim: to help prepare teachers who are
disposed to be students of teaching, who are morally grounded in the practice of
education as the practice of freedom, who are at home with young people, and
who possess the skills and knowledge needed to design potentially educative
environments characterized by civility, inviting the young to work at the edge of
their competence. At present, my principles include these:
1 Teacher identity—what beginning teachers believe about teaching and

learning and self-as-teacher—is of vital concern to teacher education it is
the basis for meaning making and decision making. Teachers, like Flo
Krall, teach themselves. Teacher education must begin, then, by exploring
the teaching self.
2 Because selves are formed in context, the exploration of teacher identity
necessitates the study of schooling and the wider social context and the
ways in which those contexts both enable and limit meaning, privilege
and suppress knowledge (Bullough, in press). One hears the echoes of
various critical theorists here.
3 To identify ways in which contexts enable and limit meaning requires an
understanding of social philosophy and the aims of education in a
democracy.
4 Reflecting a life-time investment, self conceptions are deeply resistant to
change, as my determined flight from the problems of teacher education
illustrates. Yet self-study can be risky and is fraught with danger. Teacher
education must be powerful enough to challenge beliefs that potentially
might be miseducative in their effects, while the immediate context of
teacher education must be supportive and respectful of the individual as
an adult learner fully capable of making reasonable judgments about his
own learning and the direction of that learning.
5 Part of building a trusting and respectful learning environment is to openly
articulate the reasons lying behind program decisions. Purposes, I have
learned, must be explicit and open to scrutiny before they are found
compelling.
6 All education is ultimately indirect, as Dewey argued; teachers can create
the conditions for learning while learning itself is the responsibility of
those who chose either to embrace or reject the opportunity. Many of my
students have rejected my offerings but some, I have discovered, find
value in them later.
7 Educational outcomes are inevitably unpredictable and aims flexible.
While there may be a minimal level of acceptable student performance in
teacher education, the most important learning outcomes will be personal,
idiosyncratic, and probably unmeasurable. There is no one best teaching
style, personality or model that can serve as a standard for evaluation.
Competency models inevitably oversimplify teaching and impoverish
teacher education and teachers. Nevertheless, quality judgments of some
21
kinds must be made because of teachers’ ethical responsibilities to serve

young people.
8 Each person makes teacher education meaningful in her own way, a point
illustrated by my story and in each of the case studies I have written of
beginning teachers.
9 Program continuity is not just a matter of sensibly sequencing courses
and content but of creating means that enable students to forge their own
sense of continuity through attending, systematically and over time, to
their experience of teacher education and development as teachers. This
point is consistently supported by the richness and diversity of the Personal
Teaching Texts my students produce.
10 Coming to feel part of a profession not only requires learning the language
of teaching but learning and applying it with others who are similarly
invested in professional education and in situations that have genuine
educational consequences.
11 To teach is to testify and also to care about, converse, and connect with
others whose experiences differ from our own. To teach is to enable
boundary crossing while seeking to build a sense of belonging to a wider
and ethically grounded community. Lastly, and now going outside the
story presented, seeking to develop teaching skills and eventually artistry
in teaching necessitates opportunities to teach, to test and explore methods
and techniques under the guidance of thoughtful teacher-critics while at
the same time engaging in ongoing data-driven self-evaluation.
Operationally, these eleven principles, taken as fundamental working assumptions,

are not distinct. They intertwine. The cohort organization provides the context
within which the principles find expression and plays an important role in creating
the ‘shared ordeal’ (Lortie, 1975) so often missing in teacher education. Although
disconnected from work done in the subject matter areas, which is unfortunate, the
considerable amount of time given to the cohort has enabled a measure of
experimentation impossible under other conditions. Moreover, experimentation
has been encouraged by a kind of institutional benign neglect. Within this context
and with the involvement of the students themselves, it has been possible to explore
questions of purpose, content, and process.
The Principles in Practice
The curriculum is composed of content, activities, and processes or methodologies,

each grounded in the principles as I currently understand them. The formal content
includes published research, methods materials, a Personal Teaching Text—a student
produced case record—(Bullough, 1993), and written and video cases. Running
across the year, the methodologies which often require work in the field, include
writing life histories, metaphor analysis, student shadow studies, interviewing
teachers, classroom ethnographies, textbook analysis, action research, peer
22
observation of, and conversation about, teaching, and writing a periodic Review of
the products of the other methodologies to assess professional development and
the direction of that development (see Bullough, Knowles and Crow, 1992, Chapter
10; Bullough and Gitlin, 1995).
Life History
The year begins with students writing life histories as a point of departure for self-
study. These are not elaborate literary creations, but are intended to get the students
thinking about how they have come to hold their current beliefs about teaching
and themselves as teachers. This chapter begins with part of my life-history. The
assignment reads as follows:
Write an ‘education-related’ life history. In the life history describe how

you came to your current decision to become a teacher. Especially identify
important people or ‘critical incidents’ that significantly influenced your
decision and your thinking about the aims of education, the proper role
of teachers, and about yourself as teacher. Consider your ‘experience of
school’, how school felt, and how you best learned and when you felt
most valued, connected, and at peace—or least valued, most disconnected
and at war with yourself and with school.
The life histories are discussed, shared, and themes identified that hold out the
possibility of challenging student views of teaching. They become the first entry
into the Personal Teaching Text, and are returned to throughout the year.
Metaphor Analysis
Drawing on the life histories, students are asked early in the year to identify and
describe a Personal Teaching Metaphor that captures the essence of how they think
about themselves as teachers. With secondary education students expert metaphors
are very common. Nurturing metaphors are also prevalent. Throughout the year
we return to the metaphors which are updated to reflect current thinking. Through
discussing and comparing metaphors and changes in metaphors students are helped
to think about their thinking about themselves as teachers, to consider factors
influencing their development, and to entertain alternative conceptions of teaching.
The later point is particularly important for students who have only vague or
contradictory conceptions of the kind of teacher they wish to become. Such persons
appear especially vulnerable to institutional pressures to conform (see Bullough,
Knowles and Crow, 1992).
Through this work, I was prompted to explore my own teaching metaphors,
which revealed something of a struggle between the desire to be a conversationalist
and at times function as an expert (Bullough and Stokes, 1994). Teaching is
23
conversation is a particularly powerful metaphor in part because, as John Dewey

remarked at his 90th birthday party, democracy begins in conversation—so does
professional community.
Student Shadow Studies
Teacher education students shadow a public school student seeking to capture a

portion of what the school day is like for students and to recall their own lives as
students. They are expected to shadow students quite unlike themselves. The studies
are used as a basis for considering and criticizing current school practices and for
identifying the sources of student satisfaction and dissatisfaction and for making
comparisons of school experience. Such comparisons are crucial to boundary
crossing. Factors that make for good teaching and student learning are identified
and explored in relation to some of the available research literature.
Teacher Interviews and Classroom Ethnographies
To begin participation in the professional conversation of teachers, early in the

year and after observing a variety of teachers, students interview a potential
cooperating teacher (the list of teachers available to serve as cooperating teachers
is limited, and approval of the building principal and cohort leader is required
before a placement is finalized. Depth of experience is valued over breadth so
students work in a single school for the entire year). Aside from facilitating
conversation, the purpose of the interview is to identify sources of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with teaching in anticipation of a more careful study of the work
context. In addition, the interview enables the student to compare and contrast his
thinking with the teacher being considered as a cooperating teacher. Again, the
results of the interviews are shared and comparisons made between teacher views
and student-teacher conceptions of teaching and learning.
The study of the context of schooling begins with a classroom ethnography.
The writing assignment reads as follows:
Ethnography, simply stated, is the ‘work of describing a particular culture’

(Spradley, 1980, p. 3). The challenge is to grasp how those within a culture
understand it, how they make sense of their experience. Identify a class
that you will be student teaching and that you find interesting or
challenging. Your task is to gather data through observations, informal
and formal interviews, and whatever other ingenious means you can come
up with, that will enable you to describe how the classroom environment
is understood and recreated by the teacher and students. What are the
formal and informal rules, the norms, that give order do the classroom?
In what ways are they enabling and limiting of meaning? What roles do
the students and the teacher play and what is the relationship of these
24
roles to one another? How do the students and the teacher experience the
classroom? What are the key words, metaphors, ideas, concepts, that they
use to give meaning to the classroom and to structure their experience?
Try to get underneath surface appearances by asking not only what do I
see these people doing, but what do these people see themselves doing?
Additional directions and helpful hints are given. The focus initially is on
understanding how roles are negotiated and bounded and then attention is shifted
to identifying ways in which cultures can be shaped and changed, made more or
less friendly to teacher conceptions of good teaching.
With some cohorts, the classroom ethnography has been introduced by
videotaping a portion of a class session, viewing the video, and then exploring the
guiding questions as they relate to my teaching. Although a bit threatening, the
results are inevitably interesting. Such an approach has the added benefit of
underscoring for my students that I am seriously studying my practice.
Textbook Analysis
Given the prevalence of textbooks in American education and of how profoundly

they influence the curriculum and teaching, teacher education students obtain a
textbook or a curriculum guide commonly used in their area of expertise. Using a
set of guidelines, they criticize the text seeking signs of bias, and identify and
explore assumptions about teaching, learning, and the good life embedded within
it. The aim is to help them develop a set of conceptual tools useful for becoming
critical consumers and producers of curricula.
Action Research
To enable the study of practice, students practice teach half, not full, day. Encouraged
to work in teams, students identify and frame an issue and go about the complicated
process of gathering data through a variety of means, including audio and video-
taping, peer and cooperating teacher observation, questionnaires and reviews of
pupil work, and proposing, implementing, and evaluating a plan designed to
ameliorate the problem or build on perceived strengths. Students understand that I
collect data on my own teaching as a means for better understanding my practice
in order to improve it and that I expect them to do the same now and in the future.
Peer Observation and Conversation
During winter term when students engage in a short-course during which time
they teach a unit to a class in anticipation of student teaching and in student teaching
itself, they observe one another teach and talk about their observations. Electronic
25
mail is a tool we are exploring as a means of extending and enriching this

conversation. The students are observers, not critics. When they share observations
the aim is to explore their practice in relationship to their intentions. An exception
to this is when peer observation is used as a means for gathering data for an action
research project.
Personal Teaching Text
All the written work from the year is gathered to form a Personal Teaching Text
(PTT). At the end of each quarter the students are asked to review their texts, and
assess their development and its direction. A recent Review assignment read as
follows:
Re-read the contents of your Personal Teaching Text for the entire year.
Based upon this reading, assess your development as a teacher. Are you
pleased with what you have accomplished so far? Any disappointments?
Has your resolve to become a teacher strengthened or weakened? Why?
Has your view of yourself as a teacher changed during the course of the
year? If so, what has prompted the change? If not, why not? Are you on
course for becoming the kind of teacher you imagine yourself capable of
becoming? Be specific, and give examples.
The Personal Teaching Text is a record of development, one that seems to help
them become increasingly responsible for their own professional growth, to
recognize the value of teacher education, and to bring a sense of closure to their
pre-service preparation (see Bullough, 1993).
How Do I Know It Makes a Difference?
I have been deeply troubled from time to time by the question, ‘What difference
does it make?’ This concern, joined with the inevitable hope that my work had value,
led me to begin the ongoing study of my practice. Here I mention just a few studies.
Based upon an analysis of student work, interviews and questionnaires, Bullough
and Stokes (1994) presented strong evidence that students not only changed as they
progressed throughout the cohort year, but changed in some dramatic ways. Their
conceptions of teaching became increasingly complex and sometimes sophisticated.
Their views of student learning and understanding of students similarly became more
complex. Naive optimism about themselves as teachers was replaced by a more
mature self-confidence, an outcome prompted by the ongoing study of teaching
metaphors, a method that was judged useful by nearly all of the twenty-two student
participants. Moreover, twelve of the students presented evidence of engaging in
critical reflection, where they attended to issues that required that they step outside
of themselves for a time and think about education contextually.
26
Case studies of my students have demonstrated the importance of the focus on

self in teacher education, and how issues related to self profoundly influence the
experience of the first year of teaching (Bullough, 1992; Bullough, Knowles and
Crow, 1992). In Bullough and Baughman (1993) we explored how metaphors evolve
over time and in relationship to life history and school context and how ongoing
teacher education may influence this development. Evidence from this study
underscores that powerful teacher education requires the joining of pre-service
with in-service teacher education.
As already noted, exit interviews are conducted routinely with students who
complete the cohort, and I send anonymous follow-up questionnaires to obtain
additional data. Data from one of these questionnaires, sent out in November
during the first year of teaching to a group of recent cohort graduates, follows.
This questionnaire was sent in part in response to the challenge of Gary
Fenstermacher, issued in his presidential address to the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education. He asserted that in the face of the overwhelming
power of the ‘systemics’ of schooling on beginning teachers, colleges of education
should ‘diminish [their] involvement in pre-service teacher education and
increase… involvement in in-service teacher education’ (Fenstermacher, 1992,
p. 5). ‘Systemics’ are the socializing and legitimating functions of schooling
including grading, tracks, tests, texts and the like. They are the ‘forms and
structures, processes and procedures, put in place to carry out the business of
schooling’ (Fenstermacher, 1992, p. 2). Systemics emphasize training over
education. Fenstermacher doubted that pre-service teacher education was worth
the investment. In response, I found myself wondering anew if what I did had
value. Thus I chose November—three months after the beginning of the school
year—to send out the questionnaire because I thought that many of my former
students would still be struggling with systemics. I thought some would feel
overwhelmed and that they might be especially critical of the program and
doubtful of its value. I worried about what I might discover.
The questionnaire was sent to seventeen students. One student could not be
located. Fifteen questionnaires were returned. Included in the questionnaire were
items intended to identify the power of ‘systemics’ in shaping these teachers’
thinking and practice during the first few months of the school year. My expectation
was that systemics would be the dominating concern, issues of establishing control
and fitting into the school, yet I hoped there would be evidence of holding onto
and working toward the attainment of more educational purposes. Items also sought
to identify if there was a preferred teacher role in the school and whether or not the
role, if there was one, was congenial—consistent with the teacher’s conception of
self as teacher. Additionally, information was sought that described how the
beginning teacher responded to the discovery of tension between an institutionally
preferred role and the teacher’s professional and personal identity, their metaphor(s).
Questions asked the beginning teachers to judge the value and influence of the
cohort. And finally, questions were asked that sought indirect evidence about
whether or not these former students still felt a sense of connection to their cohort
colleagues and of professional community.
27
The first cluster of questions asked the beginning teachers to rate on a 1

(negligible) to 7 (very high) scale the value and influence of the cohort experience.
The first question read, ‘Rate the overall value of the cohort experience.’ Results
were as follows: The mean was 5.5; the median six; and the mode seven. There
was one three rating and six seven ratings. The second question read, ‘Rate the
influence of the cohort experience on how you now think about teaching.’ For this
question the mean was 5.7 and the median and mode six. The third question read,
‘Rate the influence of the cohort experience on your teaching practice.’ The mean
for this question was 5.9, the median six and the mode seven.
The beginning teachers were asked to rank in ‘order of priority…the three most
helpful activities or assignments undertaken in the cohort. The results of this question
were surprising. I had expected that all would mention student teaching, but eight
did not. In fact, sixteen different responses were given that ranged from a unit on
cooperative learning to the focus on metaphors, the Personal Teaching Text and
even the Life History assignment. Perhaps the question was ambiguous, and some
students did not think of student teaching as an ‘activity’, but this seems unlikely.
Additional data are needed to illuminate this apparent anomaly.
Question 13 stated: ‘Identify your most serious teaching problem or concern at
the beginning of your first year of teaching (please explain).’ And Question 14
stated: ‘Identify your most serious teaching problem or concern now (please
explain).’ The idea was to see if there had been any change in concerns or problems.
I anticipated that virtually all the beginning teachers would say that systemics—
discipline and management, specifically—were primary early concerns. I wondered
if there would be any sign of an increased emphasis on educational concerns with
the passage of time. Fourteen of the fifteen beginning teachers mentioned
management or discipline related issues in response to question thirteen. The one
exception appears indirectly related to systemics. Although not clear, this beginning
teacher seemed concerned about classroom authority. These results were expected.
Six of the beginning teachers mentioned concerns related to systemics in their
responses to Question 14, but nine did not. For the six, grading (including issues of
fairness), lesson pacing, and firming up initial management plans dominated. The
others mentioned a range of concerns that relate more directly to the educational
purposes of schooling. Responses included, ‘making the lessons [more]
understandable’, creating a better, more productive, classroom climate, setting up
better science labs, ‘making the content fun for students’, ‘planning meaningful
lessons that teach something worthwhile for students’, and motivating lower level
students. These results were somewhat surprising. In part they suggest that for
some of the beginning teachers, systemics, while still undoubtedly claiming a good
deal of energy, has diminished in importance and energy was being directed toward
the educational purposes of schooling: These teachers seemed to be thinking
seriously about the educative ends of teaching. The responses to the first cluster of
questions relating to the value and influence of the cohort, and Question 11, that
will be discussed shortly, suggest that there is at least indirect evidence that the
cohort had a hand in bringing about this shift in concerns.
Question 17 asked the following: ‘In your school is there a preferred teaching
28
role? If so, what is it? What is your relationship to this role (Does it fit you? Have
you created a different, perhaps contrary, role for yourself?’ The responses revealed
remarkable diversity, suggesting that context differences matter a great deal. In
one school, for example, the beginning teacher reported having difficulty with a
dominating administrator and being unwilling to fit into the role of ‘teacher as
Gestapo’. She reported that she was functioning as a ‘quiet rebel’, seeking to
maintain her ideal of herself as a teacher and shape the work context. In the same
school, another beginning teacher characterized the preferred teaching role as that
of ‘strict disciplinarian’. She stated: ‘This role does not fit me, but I understand
why most of the teachers [buy into it]. Some of the kids are amazingly horrible,
mean, rebellious. I find myself fitting into this role more and more, though I’m not
sure I like it…’ Another reported that the preferred role emphasized student
involvement, and that this role ‘fits…. However, I am not as involving as I wish to
be because of the amount of time necessary to prepare such lessons.’ Eleven reported
either that there was no preferred role or if there was one they had not yet discovered
it. Typical comments included, The English Department head is great about letting
everyone do their own things’ to ‘teachers have a great amount of autonomy, and
I feel I fit into my school well’. These beginning teachers felt, in varying degrees,
that they could become the kind of teachers they imagined themselves becoming
during the cohort, although they were aware of having to make some compromises.
Several reported that the focus on self in the cohort was a source of strength and
confidence as they sought to establish themselves in a new role.
Finally, Question 11 asked if they were in contact with other cohort members.
With the exception of two beginning teachers (one of them took a job out of state),
all fifteen teachers (including one teaching out of state) answered that they had
been in contact with others. Some met frequently to share experiences and work
together developing curriculum. Friendships were formed through the cohort, but
more importantly it appears that a sense of community was built that has extended
into the first year of teaching and eased the transition, somewhat. However, whether
a wider conception of community will emerge is uncertain.
Admittedly, the data from the questionnaire are more suggestive than convincing
but, when coupled with other cohort-related research, I have good reason to continue
pushing along the lines presented here. The principles, of course, are subject to
revision as I continue to act and undergo and think about the consequences of my
action, as I experience teacher education and seek to make my experience more
fully educative. Soon the university will be moving from a quarter to a semester
system and, with changing structures, I will have additional opportunities to
reconsider my work. The public schools within which we place students are also
changing as we struggle to better understand what a professional development
school might contribute to pre-service teacher education (Bullough et al, in press).
By necessity and by design, I have become a student of teaching and teacher
education. The work has become more interesting and challenging than I ever
imagined it could be, especially when I think back to when I was fleeing from it. I
am now convinced that the future of teacher education is dependent on the
willingness of teacher educators to practice theory and to theorize our practice and
29
to put the results of our efforts before a frequently hostile public. We must make a
compelling case that what we do has value.
References
AIKIN, W.M. (1942) The Story of the Eight-year Study, New York, Harpers.
ALBERTY, H.A. and ALBERTY, E.J. (1962) Reorganizing the High-school Curriculum,
3rd ed., New York, Macmillan.
BODE, B.H. (1937) Democracy as a Way of Life, New York, Macmillan.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. (1989) First Year Teacher: A Case Study, New York, Teachers College
Press.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. (1991) ‘Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher
education,’ Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 1, pp. 43–51.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. (1992) ‘Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal
teaching metaphors, and teacher education,’ Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 3, pp.
239–52.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. (1993) ‘Case records as personal teaching texts for study in preservice
teacher education,’ Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 4, pp. 385–96.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. (In press) ‘Self and social location of teacher education,’ in BIDDLE,
B.J., GOOD, T.L. and GOODSON, I.F. (Eds) The International Handbook of Teachers
and Teaching, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
BULLOUGH, R.V. JR. and BAUGHMAN, K. (1993) ‘Continuity and change in teacher
development: First year teacher after five years,’ Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 2,
pp. 86–95.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. and GITLIN, A. (1995) Becoming a Student of Teaching:
Methodologies for Exploring Self and School Context, New York, Garland.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR., GOLDSTEIN, S. and HOLT, L. (1984) Human Interests in the
Curriculum: Teaching and Learning in a Technological Society, New York, Teachers
College Press.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR. and STOKES, D.K. (1994) ‘Analyzing personal teaching metaphors
in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development,’
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 1, pp. 197–224.
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR., KAUCHAK, D., CROW, N.A., HOBBS, S. and STOKES, D.K. (in
press) ‘Professional development schools: Catalysts for teacher and school change,’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 2.
BULLOUGH, R.V. JR., KNOWLES, J.G. and CROW, N.A. (1992) Emerging as a Teacher,
London, Routledge.
COLES, R. (1989) The Call of Stories: Teaching and the Moral Imagination, Boston,
Houghton Mifflin.
DEWEY, J. (1916) Democracy and Education, New York, Macmillan.
DEWEY, J. (1929) The Sources of a Science of Education, New York, Horace Liveright.
DEWEY, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York, Macmillan.
EISNER, E. (1984) ‘Can educational research inform educational practice?,’ Phi Delta
Kappan, 65, 7, pp. 447–52.
FENSTERMACHER, G.D. (1992) ‘Where are we going? Who will lead us there?,’
Presidential address to the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, February.
FREIRE, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
GOODLAD, J.I. (1990) Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
GRIFFITHS, M. and TANN, S. (1992) ‘Using reflective practice to link personal and public
theories,’ Journal of Education for Teaching, 18, 1, pp. 69–84.
30
HABERMAS, J. (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston, Beacon Press.

HABERMAS, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society, Translated by Thomas
McCarthy, Boston, Beacon Press.
HATTON, E. (1994) ‘Work experience as a solution to the problems of relevance and
credibility in teacher education,’ Australian Journal of Education, 38, 1, pp. 19–35.
HUNT, D.E. (1987) Beginning with Ourselves: In Practice, Theory, and Human Affairs,
Cambridge, MA, Brookline Books.
KLOHR, P.R. (1978) ‘Emerging foundations for curriculum theory,’ Educational
Considerations, 6, 1, pp. 17–19.
LEVINSON, D.J., DARROW, C.N., KLEIN, E.B., LEVINSON, M.H. and McKEE, B.
(1978) The Seasons of a Man’s Life, New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
LORTIE, D.C. (1975) School-teacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
PINAR, W. (Ed) (1975) Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists, San Francisco,
McCutchan.
POLANYI, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
RICHARDSON, V. (1996) ‘The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach,’ in SIKULA,
J. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd ed., New York, Macmillan, pp.
102–19.
SPRADLEY, J.P. (1980) Participant Observation, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL FACULTY (1952) A Description of Curricular Experiences: The
Upper School, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University.
VAN MANEN, M. (1994) ‘Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching,’ Curriculum
Inquiry, 24, 2, pp. 135–70.
31
3 Teaching Teachers: How I Teach IS
the Message
Tom Russell
Introduction
I am a teacher who teaches teachers. When I use that description to introduce

myself, it always seems awkward, highlighting the complexity, the ambiguity, and
the apparent contradictions of the enterprise of teacher education. This chapter is
an account of how I teach teachers, why I teach them that way, and how I came to
hold the views and display the practices I do. To start at the beginning makes as
little sense as starting at the end. And so I begin somewhere in the middle, work
my way back to the beginning to indicate the origins of some of my beliefs and
practices, and then return to the present, acknowledging debts and treasured
connections made along the way.
I write to the people I teach, about their work and my own work. One significant
piece of writing more than four years ago was rediscovered recently by virtue of
the fact that a beginning physics teacher, Paul Tarc, from my 1991–2 class, returned
to Queen’s in 1995–6 as a full-time M.Ed, student after three years of teaching. In
1991–2 I taught a physics class in a local high school (Frotenac Secondary College).
Paul had watched me teaching in the school and had offered some thoughtful
critiques of that teaching. In so doing, Paul also made it clear to me that he attended
carefully to his own learning experiences. My final assignment each year in my
science methods course is to write a personal ‘story of learning to teach’. It seems
to be an unusual assignment, and I tell those in my class that I want them to have
it so that in two or three years’ time they can look back and see how far they have
progressed since their pre-service courses and teaching experiences. Here is what
I wrote to Paul in 1992, in response to elements of his ‘story of learning to teach’
assignment:
The obvious point, then, as I look at it, is that save for exceptional people
like you (and we should learn from the exceptions!), people come [to
teacher education programs] to be told how to teach X so that they can go
forth and teach X for the next thirty-five years and collect their pensions
and retire from teaching X. The TELLING cycle can’t be broken, for
most people. I like to think I’ve broken it myself, but I don’t think I did
when I was teaching at Frontenac! I’ve figured out how to break it in the
32
Teaching Teachers: How I Teach IS the Message
McArthur [McArthur Hall, the building which houses the Faculty of

Education at Queen’s University] context, but all around me are enough
colleagues who still follow the TELLING cycle so that I have no assurance
that the signal I’m trying to send appears as signal rather than noise when
all is said and done.
[There is] an interesting dilemma in your reluctance to make anything
of the practice teaching rounds. ‘Mini-experiences’ is a good way to describe
them. I guess you are pushing me to say to myself that, until we get a truly
different practicum arrangement, we are not going to produce people who
have learned to teach before they get their own full-time classes, and we are
not going to produce people who understand what has happened to them. It
is so much more than length of time in a classroom, though what I dream of
can’t happen in two or three weeks. Two months is probably a minimum.
And time alone won’t do it. [Teacher candidates] had three months in
England, but they didn’t do anything with it. The Waterloo people are very
different, but little is being done with their time in schools, so again what
could happen is not. Unless we train people to do things that will document
and show them what is happening to them in the world of practice, and then
make something of the data when they return from practice, I’m going to
continue to fall short of my goal of having the profession understand where
its knowledge comes from. When I try to push that goal at experienced
teacher educators, it comes across as noise—it doesn’t mean anything.
I find this piece from my personal ‘paper trail’ fascinating because it confronts me
with some of the key features of my teaching as it has evolved over my twenty-
two-year teacher education career:
• I began my work in pre-service education with the challenge of doing

less ‘telling’ how and what to teach than most teacher educators seem to
do in their teaching. A group of experienced teachers sensitized me to
this issue just before I moved into pre-service work.
• I returned to the secondary school classroom in a significant way (one-
third time, for two half-years) in 1991–3 (after twenty-four years away
from it!). I fell far short of my own ‘ideals’ for science teaching, and I
learned a great deal about what I am trying to help new teachers to learn.
• Understanding how we learn from experience continues to be a
fundamental theme in my approach to teaching people how to teach.
• My view of the importance of ‘understanding where our knowledge comes
from’ is one that I try to practice myself, as this excerpt illustrates. Four
years ago, I had no way of knowing that, at the 1993 AERA conference, the
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) Special Interest Group
would be formed, and that I would see the pre-service program at Queen’s
University transformed, profoundly, to a design with ‘early extended
teaching practice’ that promises to remedy the ‘making something of the
experiences’ shortcomings that I mention in my letter to Paul.
33
Tom Russell
I try to be a teacher educator who walks his own talk. Only recently have I begun
to recast this to see that, in the special context of learning to teach, the most powerful
initial influence on each new teacher’s classroom practices may be the millions of
images of teaching that go with them into the practice teaching setting. Against
these images, there is little hope for significant influence from any generalizations
about learning they may have drawn from their own student experiences. Cultural
maxims (such as ‘Don’t smile until Christmas’ or ‘Keep it simple’) may be
remembered, but I see little hope for influence from what I say in class or what
teacher candidates read in books and research about good teaching. Recently I
have found it useful to think in terms of getting our practices to catch up to what
we say and write, and to catch up to what we say we believe about teaching and
learning. It is also a matter of learning how to make our beliefs influence our
practices, recognizing all the while that the central matter is ‘listening to our
practices’—learning what words mean when we express them in our actions, and
learning what ideas do to the people we are teaching. These are major challenges
for experienced teachers and teacher educators. Those who are new to teaching
may not even see the issue, because they have not had access to the experiences of
teaching that are essential to understanding just how easy it is to separate actions
from beliefs and goals at the front of a classroom.
Collecting ‘Backtalk’ by Early Necessity: Why Do Teachers

So Rarely Ask Directly for Students’ Comments about
the Learning Experience?
When I started at Queen’s in 1977–8, I had two classes of twenty-five to thirty

people in secondary science methods. The room was a ‘pedagogical nightmare’,
with eight huge lab benches firmly fastened to the floor, and a central corridor
leading to the front, where a ninth ‘demonstration’ bench blocked the route to the
chalkboard. Simply to get closer to the people I was teaching, I moved to the back
of the room where there was a smaller but closer chalkboard. After only a few
weeks, I sensed that my students were having reactions I needed to know about
that were not being vocalized to me. In fact, this was one of my earliest reactions
to pre-service teaching: it was so lacking in any kind of evidence of how my teaching
would ultimately affect their teaching. I began to invite groups of five or six people
for pizza at my home, where I could hear about, and we could discuss, the confusions
I was creating by deliberately reducing the amount of talking I did.
Later, I found ways to collect ‘backtalk’ on paper and share it with my students,
and I invented (for myself) a ‘mid-course evaluation’ in which people supplied
strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions. These were compiled, printed, and returned
at the next class for all to read and discuss. It became a powerful way of showing
them how many features of teaching are appreciated by some but not by others. I
also found that the data were vital to establishing an ‘agenda’ that I very much
wanted to introduce, but which seems rare in most teaching: ‘Why does the teacher
teach in particular ways?’ The mid-course evaluation became an important
34
opportunity for me to raise a new set of issues for the remainder of the course.
Students did not always accept my explanations, but they respected them and could
learn more from my classes once they had started to think about why I was doing
(and not doing) things in particular ways. The classic comment came in December,
1978, during the discussion of the mid-course evaluation, when one particularly
frustrated individual demanded, in a tone verging to frantic, ‘Why didn’t you tell
us you weren’t going to tell us?’ The irony was obvious, both in the question itself
and in the fact that I had told them but they had not known what my words meant.
I continue to emphasize small-group discussion and leadership from within the
group, but that comment convinced me, forever, just how powerful and important
it can be to resist the basic teacher tendency to fill classroom silence with talk. Of
course all teachers do this because they have seen all their own teachers do it.
Master of Rote Learning: Do Most People Never Realize that

Alternatives Exist?
How much of what we do as teacher educators is in reaction to our own experiences

of schooling? Don’t most of us enter the profession to make teaching even better
than the teaching at which we were so successful? Don’t teachers who move into
teacher education do so to improve the process of learning to teach? As I look
back, it is fairly obvious that I was good at mastering ‘school knowledge’. I
completed secondary school in New York State, where the long-standing system
of ‘Regents exams’ continues almost forty years later. In each course, the mark on
the New York State Board of Regents examination in a subject was my final mark
for the course. For some reason I have never parted with the copy of the April 1959
issue of American Heritage magazine, given to me by the man who taught me
American History in Grade 12. A small card inside states, To the highest Senior in
American History Regents in June, 1959. Tom Russell, 98 percent.’ Although I
did not see it that way at the time, having the highest average in my graduating
class meant that I had fairly good skills of ‘rote learning’. Science and mathematics
were my most obvious strengths, so how do I explain the success in history? I can
still remember my history teacher explaining that if we memorized his thirty-four
outlines for common topics on the Regents examination, then we would be well
prepared for any essay question that might be presented to us. I must have taken
him at his word. In 1993, when I returned to Cornell University for a conference
thirty years after completing my first degree, I sat in the quadrangle where statues
of Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White face each other, and made notes to
myself about how little I had understood the learning process itself and about how
dependent I had been on recall rather than conceptualization of what I was trying
to learn. A course in American History at Cornell had quickly ‘brought me up
short’ as I discovered that I was expected to know several different interpretations
of a set of events, along with the names of the individuals who developed them.
Memory was no longer the key; understanding mattered. It was little wonder, then,
that my early years of teaching (1963–7) saw me fascinated by the 1960s critiques
35
Tom Russell
of learning in schools. Today, in my science methods classes, I am far more likely

to be asking questions such as ‘What is the point of teaching density?’ and ‘Now
that we have demonstrated what happens, what’s the point?’
Teaching without Formal Pre-service Teacher Education:

Only Teaching Experience Can Generate the Essential
Learning-to-Teach Questions
From Cornell, I stepped directly into the Peace Corps, five months before JFK
was shot. As Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria was a prime destination
for volunteers who could teach, and experience or formal training were welcome
but not required. Physics was a scarce subject, so off I went to Nigeria,
wondering where my first meal would come from. My two-month training
program was held in New York City, and preparation for teaching was only a
modest part of the overall ‘orientation’ to a new set of cultures. Two weeks of
each of three different languages was more than my rote learning skills could
master. The training program did provide me with two opportunities to stand
before children taking Summer school courses in science, but I seem to
remember more about the elevators to get us out of the subway station than I
do about those first moments of teaching. In Nigeria, my students and I survived
my ‘teaching myself how to teach’—an experience that confirmed that virtually
anyone with more than fifteen years of experience as a student has seen enough
of teaching to be able to make ‘teaching-like moves’ at the front of the
classroom. Some of my earliest teaching moves were horrendous, yet I doubt
that prior training would have made a big difference. I remember starting with
science and math to the younger students, and one day in a math class I said
something that caught their attention but not mine. When algebra teachers need
examples with letters other than x, they usually choose y and z, but no one had
told me that Nigerian English, like the Queen’s, required me to say ‘zed’ rather
than ‘zee’ when I worked a problem on the board. This was hardly a profound
issue, but it certainly mattered to my students! Once I moved into a decently
equipped science lab to teach physics, I had no hesitation about making good
use of the equipment, but I did not understand the importance of helping students
make sense of their lab data. Today, Peter Chin and I speak of the difference
between ‘What?’ and ‘So what?’ but then I think I worked with a sense that the
phenomena somehow ‘spoke for themselves’ and made a case on their own for
the law or theory being illustrated. Some physics teachers may recall a refraction
experiment (in the unit on light) in which pairs of straight pins are used on
both sides of a rectangular glass block to infer the path of the light ray through
the block. It was one thing to show students how to line up the pins, and it was
quite another to know how to unpack the assumption that light travels in straight
lines. In hindsight, I was fortunate to begin my science teaching with students
who had, I eventually learned, an innate scepticism about western science. In a
non-western culture, there are many non-scientific explanations for natural
36
phenomena, and these can predispose students to doubt the truth of what the
science teacher sees so clearly. My own career as a student had never suggested
the possibility that learning could involve multiple sets of explanations for the
same events; small wonder that the external examinations tended to yield high
failure rates. In western culture, students learn ‘H O’ as a substitute for ‘water’
2
long before they could possibly know its chemical meaning. In Nigeria, they
had every reason to ask what such a term could possibly mean, yet they had no
guarantee that their teacher would reward their scepticism.
When I returned from Nigeria to do my teacher education in an M.A.T. program
at Harvard, I had two important reactions. I realized that I had many more questions
than my colleagues who had no prior teaching experience, and I realized that it
would have been wonderful to experience that program of pre-service education
after just one year of teaching. I kept thinking how differently I would have taught
in my second year, just completed in Nigeria. In the summer of 1966, after finishing
at Harvard, John Holt published ‘The Fourth R—the Rat Race’ in the New York
Times Magazine on a Sunday when I happened to buy the newspaper. Holt was
teaching in a private school on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, and I managed
to make telephone contact with him and then meet him at the school. I still have
my $1.85 paperback copy of How Children Fail (Holt, 1964), the book that had a
profound influence on my next year of teaching, in 1966–7. In hindsight, Holt’s
ideas on ‘Fear and Failure’ and ‘Real Learning’ became the first ‘theory’ that I
tried to express in my teaching ‘practice’. This was not theory in a formal research
sense, but ‘theory’ in the form of conclusions about learning drawn from personal
teaching experience. Here is a paragraph marked as one that I noticed thirty years
ago, before starting my third year of teaching:
The invention of the wheel was as big a step forward as the invention of
the airplane—bigger, in fact. We teachers will have to learn to recognize
when our students are, mathematically speaking, inventing wheels and
when they are inventing airplanes; and we will have to learn to be as
genuinely excited and pleased by wheel-inventors as by airplane-inventors.
Above all, we will have to avoid the difficult temptation of showing slow
students the wheel so that they may more quickly get to work on the
airplanes. In mathematics certainly, and very probably in all subjects,
knowledge which is not genuinely discovered by children will very likely
prove useless and will be soon forgotten. (Holt, 1964, p. 125)
It was the era of discovery learning, and I was teaching from the second edition of
the PSSC Physics course. Holt speaks about mathematics teaching, but the wheel-
and-airplane example transfers readily to the physics context. Holt’s issues and
examples were powerful ones for a new teacher, simply because I had never thought
about ‘slow students’ and how teaching them might mean more than ‘slowing
down the pace of my teaching’. I recall clearly saying over and over again to my
students that year: ‘What matters most to me is what you are going to remember
about these ideas five years from now.’ That was my personal translation of Holt’s
37
Tom Russell
message, intended to signal that I really did want to focus on ‘real learning’. I still
do. Perhaps that indicates one of the reasons why some teacher candidates find my
approach ‘less than comfortable’. If a teacher educator aims for the long haul
while a new teacher seeks only the basics needed for the next teaching assignment,
missed messages become more and more likely in both directions.
In-service Teacher Education before Pre-service Work: A Captive

Audience Working for High Grades Cannot ‘Talk Back’
My career in teacher education began with three years (1974–7) at the Ottawa
Valley Field Centre of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where I
worked closely with David Ireland and others on short-term and long-term
activities for teachers and principals. Three years with an in-service focus before
any pre-service experience convinced me of a powerfully important difference
between the two: when teachers can vote with their feet, they will! Ongoing in-
service work is only ongoing as long as the teachers feel that their time invested
is justified in the value of the activities. Pre-service teacher education is
fundamentally different because those learning to teach are enrolled in
university programs and cannot ‘vote with their feet’. I was astonished when I
learned that some of my colleagues made attendance compulsory or included
attendance as an element of their marking schemes. Yes, I believe each and every
one of my classes is important, and I try to make each one as valuable and
productive as possible. Yet it is important to me that teacher candidates be able
to ‘vote with their feet’ in the ways that university students usually assume that
they can. Increasing numbers of absences can be the clearest indication that
something is not right and there are issues to be addressed sooner rather than
later. In such situations, teacher educators have an invaluable opportunity to
model how a teacher can deal with such a situation, and a range of issues come
to mind:
• How can a teacher respond most constructively when ‘problems’ become

apparent?
• What prevents students from speaking directly about their concerns?
• What are the risks to students and teacher, and when do the risks outweigh
the potential benefits?
I have dim memories, as well as vivid ones, of times when I explored these
issues in front of my classes, with no idea whether the result would be positive or
negative. In 1995–6, the mid-course evaluation in my M.Ed, course on action
research seemed to provide a way to move forward, but something went wrong
as I tried to unpack the issues the class had expressed as strengths and weaknesses
in our first six weeks. Although we all felt set back by that discussion, the positive
and constructive responses from the class members in the following weeks led,
quite unpredictably from my perspective, to an intense and successful conclusion
38
for many in the group. Our journey into assumptions about teaching and learning
had moved many people forward in their personal understandings of the
complexities of teaching.
Research on Reflective Practice (Schön) and the Authority of

Experience: Learning Is in the Experience, and Reflection Can
Link Learning Back to Action
I began teaching pre-service courses (in secondary science methods) in 1977, and
by my fourth or fifth year at Queen’s I had a basic pattern established that got me
from one end of the academic year to the other without major protests to the Dean’s
office or major shortcomings on my course evaluations. My attention continued to
focus on the theory-practice interface in teacher education: Does what we do in
‘the crystal palace’ (where it all sounds so easy) have any impact on what they do
in classrooms? I developed ways of encouraging the people in my science methods
course to tell me about their experiences in practice teaching placements, and their
honest replies were clear: practice teaching is what matters, and so does the style
of the associates or cooperating teachers who receive them into classrooms, share
resources, and offer their voices of experience.
In 1983, I read Schön’s (1983) The Reflective Practitioner just before my first
sabbatical leave; I treasured the opportunity to work with those ideas in another
setting, with ‘space’ away from the intense experiences of my first six years of
pre-service teaching. My first research grant followed soon after, and since 1985
Hugh Munby and I have pursued a series of research grants related to the
development of teachers’ professional knowledge. Funding from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada continues to be a treasured resource
that facilitates progress with new ideas, perspectives, and practices. By 1988, Hugh
and I were using the phrase, ‘the reflection is in the action’, to express our sense of
Schön’s much-debated ‘reflection-in-action’, which we interpret as indicating that
coming to see events of practice in new ways is a first step which must be followed
by expression of that new perspective in changed practices. More recently, we
have begun saying ‘the learning is in the experience’, rather than ‘from’ the
experience. If we think of learning as something that ‘happens later’, then we
shortchange ourselves and those we teach. The ‘here and now’ is what we share
and what we have to work with. What we learn can always be reinterpreted later,
but it is important that people leave any and every class with a sense that they have
learned something.
One of the great flaws in my own interpretation of the history of teacher education
relates to this issue. We speak to teacher candidates as though they can understand
our words as we do, yet they have little experience of teaching to guide their
understanding of, or to promote their challenging of, what we say. Then we wonder
later why they have ‘difficulties’ with their earliest teaching experiences. When
this happens, I tell myself that what they learned was not what I intended them to
learn, and I reassess my own teaching with a view to designing in-class events and
39
Tom Russell
experiences that will generate more of the learning I intend. Of course, critiques of
teaching in schools seem to deal with similar issues.
Action Research—From the Ford Teaching Project and Douglas

Barnes to Jack Whitehead, Jean McNiff, and the Ontario Public
School Teachers’ Federation: Teacher Research by and for
Teachers Is Coming of Age
My earliest introduction to Action Research came from the work of John Elliott
and Clem Adelman on the Ford Teaching Project in England in the mid-1970s.
That work is still classic in its respect for teachers’ thinking about their work and
in its efforts to show what is possible in thinking about teaching (Elliott, 1976–
7). I encountered this work as I was engaging in ‘in-service work before pre-
service teaching’, in which we were showing several groups of teachers how to
study their own teaching (Ireland and Russell, 1978). As they came to understand
their teaching, they became eager for ‘respectable alternatives’ to ‘traditional’
teaching in which curriculum content is presented, practiced, reviewed and tested.
Douglas Barnes (1976) had just published From Communication to Curriculum,
and his accounts of the potential benefits of students working in small groups
appealed to many of the teachers. Barnes’ contrast between ‘transmission’ and
‘interpretation’ still influences the thinking of many who work in teacher
education. The work of Barnes and of Elliott and Adelman supported my growing
interest in teachers’ abilities to understand their own practices, and paved the
way for my eager response to Schön’s (1983) The Reflective Practitioner six
years into my work in pre-service programs.
For reasons that remain unclear, I did not follow closely the literature of action
research in education and teacher education during the 1980s. I knew it was there,
but no individual contributions or personal contacts drew me in. In 1992, I
‘reconnected’ with Action Research by meeting Jack Whitehead (University of
Bath, UK) in Stanford at a Teacher Research conference related to the imminent
publication of Teacher Research and Educational Reform (Hollingsworth and
Sockett, 1994). A conference on ‘teacher research’ seemed unusual and promising.
While that conference and the associated book are, in my view, early ‘landmarks’
in the field of teacher research, it was Jack Whitehead who provided me with a
personal re-introduction to action research. His frequent asking of the question,
‘How can I improve the quality of my students’ learning?’ always strikes me as
going to the heart of what every teacher and teacher educator should be asking.
Jack has introduced me to a range of people in England, including Pam Lomax
and Jean McNiff, who with Jack are co-authors of You and Your Action Research
Project (McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead, 1996). Jack has been able to join me in
supporting exciting developments in action research in my own province of Ontario,
where the Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation has just completed a
stimulating and promising one-year project encouraging teachers to explore the
potential of action research in their classrooms (Halsall and Hossack, 1996).
40
Returning to the Physics Classroom, Twice: Why Didn’t I Think

of It Sooner?
What is teaching? Only in recent years have I paid particular attention to the way
beginning teachers seem predisposed, by most of their experiences as students, to
assume that a teacher’s greatest challenge is to be able to answer every question
students may ask. Perhaps many teacher educators make that assumption, just as
many teachers do. Six history teachers in Ottawa in 1976 taught me otherwise, and
the lesson fits with my interpretation of my own past as student and teacher. Most
teachers quickly become very good at answering all the questions, far better than
they were when writing examinations themselves. How do you keep the challenge
in teaching once you can answer all the questions? For me, the essential challenge
of teaching follows from realizing that teaching’s greatest mystery is the fact that
we have no control over what our students make of what we say and do as we
teach, and this is as true for learning to teach as it is for learning subjects. In
teacher education, it may be far more important to be able to ‘tune in’ to, and work
with, each individual. After at least fifteen years at school and university, and perhaps
years of experience in other work settings, the intending teacher is a unique ‘bundle’
of experiences, images, and beliefs about teaching. While coming to understand
one or more disciplines accumulates over most of two decades, the transition to
teaching is usually limited to a year or two. I incline increasingly to the view that
I need to know as much as possible about each individual with whom I work.
A sabbatical leave at the University of York (UK) provided access to practices
and experiences of pre-service teacher education in a different social and political
context, stimulating extensive questioning of a program structure that had become
quite familiar. Re-entering the physics classroom personally appeared to be an
appropriate and promising professional move, and I was fortunate to be able to
make the administrative arrangements quite easily. When I returned to the physics
classroom, seventy-five minutes every day from September 1991 through January
1992, and again in 1992–3, I discovered that I first had to prove to myself, my
students, and the other science teachers in the school that I could cover the
curriculum and achieve the same class averages that they could. Beyond that, and
much more fully in the second year, I was able to focus on what the physics students
were making of the curriculum and what the beginning teachers in my physics
methods class were constructing from my teaching—in a school and at the
university. Interestingly, that group of new physics teachers in 1992–3 gave me
some very frustrating messages about what they were making of my teaching in
two contexts, one of which was intended to help them bridge the gap between
theory and practice. To make sense of their backtalk, I began to think of ‘barriers
to learning to teach’ which, in varying degrees, exist between the students
themselves and their pre-service teacher education program experiences. In
summary form, those barriers are as follows:
1 Teaching can be told.

2 Learning to teach is passive.
41
Tom Russell
3 Discussion and opinion are irrelevant.

4 Personal reactions to teaching are irrelevant.
5 Goals for future students do not apply personally during teacher education,
6 ‘Theory’ is largely irrelevant to learning to teach.
7 Experience cannot be analyzed or understood.
While the majority of teacher candidates disagree with most of these

statements if asked directly for reactions, their own actions in my classes
appear to contain at least some elements of these statements, and those who
are least happy with my teaching tend to be those who enact those ‘barriers’,
even as they may disown them in what they say and write. These barriers to
understanding what is required in the actions of learning to teach tend to be
consistent with society’s views of teaching (as an ‘easy’ profession) and
with the images of the relationship between words and actions conveyed in
school and university classrooms. Returning to the classroom to teach the
same course twice had a profound impact on how I understand my own work
with new teachers (Russell, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c). I realized that the
teaching role I enacted was very different from the one to which I aspire and
hope that new science teachers will eventually enact. I lived and breathed the
countless constraints on teaching options that fade when one’s teaching
experience is limited to teaching within ‘the crystal palace’, as one teacher
fondly described the Queen’s University Faculty of Education. That ‘crystal
palace’ reality is changing as this book goes to press, as we pilot a new pre-
service program design with sixty-two individuals prior to expanding it to all
700 teacher candidates in 1997–8. On September 3, 1996, at a 7.30 am staff
meeting prior to students arriving for the first day of school, six new
teachers and I were introduced to a school staff of seventy, and the new
teachers began the first day of fourteen weeks of teaching that will precede
most of their course work in education. I am truly fortunate to work in an
organization that is enacting many of the principles that I have discovered
for myself over two decades.
Backtalk, P.O.E. and PEEL: Teaching Is Long Overdue

for Shock Treatment
I know of only one sustained ‘assault’ on the general assumptions about teaching
and learning that I have been trying to question and challenge in my own teaching
practices over the years, and that is the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning
(Baird and Mitchell, 1987; Baird and Northfield, 1992) centred in the state of
Victoria in Australia. This project seeks to unite teachers and students in having
students take more responsibility for, and assuming a more active role in, their
own learning. The project appears to be a forerunner of the growing interest in
teacher research and action research in education. When a group of teachers in one
school joined together to encourage ‘good learning behaviors’ as antidotes to
42
students’ ‘poor learning tendencies’, their professional lives were touched forever,
and not always positively. Changing the patterns of teacher-student and student-
student interaction is no easier in Grade 3 or in Grade 10 than it is in a teacher
education classroom. Yet the initial ideas of the project have stood the test of time
and spread to a network of schools that take turns producing issues of a newsletter,
PEEL SEEDS, now in its thirty-fourth issue of alternative teaching strategies and
associated student work.
‘Backtalk’ is a strategy quite consistent with encouraging more personal
responsibility for learning, and providing backtalk to teachers certainly would count
in my book of good learning behaviors. The single most powerful strategy that I
have taken from PEEL that I can use readily in my teaching is the ‘P.O.E.’, short
for Predict-Observe-Explain. While it may be most easily described in the context
of science teaching, it can be applied across the school curriculum. Science classes
often involve demonstrations in which students are given opportunities to observe
phenomena as an explanation is given. Observations are selected for the students
by the teacher, and so the students’ sense of involvement and engagement is often
quite limited. The P.O.E. strategy involves having the students make predictions
before they are permitted to observe the phenomenon, and the effect of this
apparently modest change can be very dramatic, even shocking! However, in
addition to this, the explanation part of this strategy is also very important. No
matter whether the prediction is correct or incorrect, the participants need to explain
their prediction in light of the observation. Hence, the total P.O.E. strategy causes
an engagement in understanding the phenomenon beyond that which is ‘normal’
for a classroom demonstration. In fact, some of my fondest memories of my classes
relate to times when those I am teaching generate a P.O.E. experience for the class
and my own personal prediction is shown to be incorrect. For example, in last
year’s class, two people prepared identical balloons inflated to different levels and
then clamped off, but the balloons were connected by a piece of tubing. They
asked for predictions of what would happen when the clamps were released so that
air could move freely between the balloons. I was very sure that the air would
move so that the balloons would both become the same size, and so I was speechless
when they released the clamps and the small balloon shrank, increasing the size of
the larger one.
Do backtalk and P.O.E. merit the term ‘shock treatment’? Is that what teaching
and teacher education require? In teacher education, as in teaching at any level,
our responsibilities as teachers include understanding how people learn and change,
treating learners with respect, and accepting responsibility for helping individuals
and groups to learn more about their own learning. Is it unkind to suggest that the
teaching strategies most of us remember focused on (1) getting us to think we
understood, and (2) getting us to think that learning is easy? I see backtalk and
P.O.E. as samples of simple, elegant, cross-curricular teaching strategies that can
bring refreshing winds of change to any teaching-learning context. They appeal
because they focus on the unexpected, which is often the trigger for new
understandings. Backtalk, P.O.E., and similar ‘shocking’ strategies have much to
contribute to teacher education.
43
Tom Russell
The Content Turn and then the Pedagogical Turn:

Learning to Teach Is a Two-step Process
While John Loughran was visiting Queen’s University for the Fall term of 1995,
he paid me the professional compliment of sitting in on every class I taught that
term. Our discussions afterwards were among the most exciting of my career
because they were about my personal practices as well as the general issue of how
we help teachers learn to teach. One day’s discussion led to the idea that becoming
a teacher educator (or teacher of teachers) has the potential (not always realized)
to generate a second level of thought about teaching, one that focuses not on content
but on how we teach. Most people who begin a teaching career seem to focus,
naturally and understandably, on what they teach. Most seem to report that the
earliest years of teaching a subject (or age group, if elementary) generate significant
rethinking of subject matter (or how children of a particular age think about their
world, across the curriculum). I began to refer to this, in the secondary context, as
the ‘content turn’, following Schön’s (1991) ‘reflective turn’. People who move
on to work in a teacher education context must continue to think about how teaching
affects one’s understanding of what one teaches, but a new dimension also appears.
When individuals find themselves recommending particular teaching strategies
for particular purposes, they start to realize that their own teaching must be judged
similarly. This new perspective constitutes making the ‘pedagogical turn’, thinking
long and hard about how we teach and the messages conveyed by how we teach.
This began to happen to me in 1977 when I wanted to model ‘less teacher talk’ to
new teachers, who were accustomed to being taught by teachers who did most of
the teaching.
I have come to believe that learning to teach is far more complex than we have
ever acknowledged within teacher education or within society generally. The content
turn seems to come naturally, because preparing and presenting familiar material
to those who find it unfamiliar seems to lead most people to ‘fill in the gaps’ in
their own understanding of a topic. The conditions for entering into and surviving
the pedagogical turn are far less clear. Little is written about it, few people seem to
talk about it, and many teacher educators seem not to recognize its significance.
Perhaps these three conditions are interrelated. There is and always will be a
‘content’ of teacher education, and teacher educators will make a content turn as
they come to terms with presenting that content. For some, and perhaps for many,
that may be enough. Others go further, moving beyond the various content pieces
of the formal teacher education curriculum to begin to make the pedagogical turn,
realizing that how we teach teachers may send much more influential messages
than what we teach them.
As the letter early in this chapter and the letter that follows indicate, some teacher
candidates do find themselves drawn, early on, into the pedagogical turn. Others
seem to see no need at all for attention to the effects of how we teach, and so they
may leave my course feeling frustrated by how I taught it. They may wonder why
I went to the effort of teaching in unexpected ways. They may wonder why I did
not include some of the topics they expected me to ‘cover’. Speaking of a content
44
turn followed by a pedagogical turn that may or may not occur helps me to
understand my enterprise and my reasons for persisting to call attention to how I
teach. I believe that schools already offer extensive resources for developing the
content of teaching and surviving the content turn. I believe that teacher education
has a responsibility for indicating the possibility of moving into the pedagogical
turn as one’s career unfolds. This is, of course, a message more easily conveyed
when people have significant teaching experience before their courses in a pre-
service teacher education program, and it is very encouraging that the program
within which I teach will provide extensive early teaching experience for all teacher
candidates from the 1997–8 academic year.
How I Teach IS the Message: Is Anybody Watching?

Listening? Hearing?
Everything comes together for me, as a teacher educator, when my efforts to challenge
people’s premises and assumptions about learning come full circle and appear later
in their subsequent teaching. Schools and universities have similar ‘cultures’ which
tend, quite unwittingly, to suppress discussion of the learning process. P.O.E., backtalk,
and the idea of barriers to learning to teach share the property of calling attention to
the learning process itself. While I believe that it is essential for teacher education to
place each teacher candidate’s own learning in bold relief, if there is to be any hope
that they will make similar moves as teachers, there are always some who resist my
efforts to bring the individual learning process into the mental spotlight. Some class
groups resist these efforts more than others, and the 1994–5 group is one I remember
in that way. Thus it was very special to receive, as I was preparing this chapter, the
following thoughts from one member of that class as he completed his first year of
teaching at an international school in Europe:
Date: 20 Jun 96 09:42:13 EOT

To: Tom Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: End of Year
Hi Tom,
Well I’ve made it. I am tired and feel as though I deserve a vacation. I am
looking forward to next year, when I know that I will change many things.
Today was the last day with students, and tomorrow we have to hand in
our report cards, so I have to get working. I was thinking of you today as
I received an email from a student of mine. I have attached it at the end. I
think that I took many things away last year from your teaching style [my
emphasis]. I was very open with many of my students, very flexible, trying
to let them learn what they wanted to learn. I know that this did not work
with all students, and I will modify my approach next year to try to take
into account a greater variety of learning styles (some kids definitely need
more direction with step-by-step instruction). However, I know that for
some students, this year was a very successful one. Anyway, I just wanted
45
Tom Russell
to share this with you. I will be in Canada for two days in July, and a week
in August. I hope to stop by and say hello. Have a great summer, and I
hope that you find yourself well prepared for the major changes taking
place in the teacher education program in Ontario.
From a student in my grade 8 class:
Well, here we are, at the end of the year. You know, this year I have learned
many things, and I want to thank you for giving me the liberties and
privileges that you have. I have really enjoyed the course, and I wish I
could stay another year.
Learning the HTML language was one of my primary goals, and what
I’ve learned gave me hours of enjoyment at home making my own pages
at my house. Giving me the N:\> drive access was really cool, and it gave
me a feeling of authority.
I was just writing this note since I wanted to thank you for teaching the
course. I’ll try to keep up my work with the crusader when I’m in Japan.
When you do send me the files in Japan through Compuserve, they’ll
need to be text files, since I don’t have Pagemaker. Thanx for the cool
year! (JH, personal communication, June 20, 1996)
When JH and I parted company at the end of his pre-service teacher education
program, I had little evidence that he had attended to how I taught the class. There
had been some ‘rocky moments’ with his class, and I was not feeling I had done
my best when we finished the year. After only a few exchanges by electronic mail
over the year, it was an ‘unexpected treasure’ to learn that he attributed some of his
first year successes to the manner in which I taught his class. I am pleased that he
himself received encouraging backtalk from a student and will always be grateful
that he then made the effort to share that with me. Comments such as this make the
risks and the uphill efforts worthwhile. Learning from time to time, usually in
unexpected ways at unexpected moments, that some new teachers did ‘catch the
message in my teaching’ and express it in their own teaching sustains my conviction
that how I teach should be the message that teacher candidates take from my
classroom. If they also remember how much teacher education consumes me as it
also fascinates and puzzles me, then I have successfully shared my professional
passion for teacher education.
References
BAIRD, J.R. and MITCHELL, I.J. (Eds) (1987) Improving the Quality of Teaching and
Learning: An Australian Case Study—The PEEL project, Melbourne, Monash University
Printery.
BAIRD, J.R. and NORTHFIELD, J. (Eds) (1992) Learning from the PEEL Experience,
Melbourne, Monash University Printery.
BARNES, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum, Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin.
46
ELLIOTT, J. (1976–7) ‘Developing hypotheses about classrooms from teachers’ practical

constructs: An account of the Ford Teaching Project,’ Interchange, 7, 2, pp. 2–22.
HALSALL, N.D. and HOSSACK, L.A. (Eds) (1996) ‘Act, reflect, revise…revitalize: Action
research: Moving beyond problem-solving to renewal,’ Mississauga, Ontario, Ontario
Public School Teachers’ Federation.
HOLLINGSWORTH, S. and SOCKETT, H. (1994) Teacher Research and Educational
Reform, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
HOLT, J. (1964) How Children Fail, New York, Dell.
IRELAND, D. and RUSSELL, T. (1978) ‘The Ottawa Valley curriculum project,’ Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 10, pp. 266–8.
McNIFF, J., LOMAX, P. and WHITEHEAD, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project,
Bournemouth, Hyde Publications and London, Routledge.
RUSSELL, T. (1995a) ‘A teacher educator and his students reflect on teaching high school
physics,’ Teacher Education Quarterly, 22, 3, pp. 85–98.
RUSSELL, T. (1995b) ‘Reconstructing educational theory from the authority of personal
experience: How can I best help people learning to teach?,’ Studies in Continuing
Education, 17 (1 and 2), pp. 6–17.
RUSSELL, T. (1995c) ‘Returning to the physics classroom to re-think how one learns to
teach physics,’ in RUSSELL, T. and KORTHAGEN, F. (Eds) Teachers Who Teach
Teachers: Reflections on Teacher Education, London, Falmer Press, pp. 95–109.
SCHÖN, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New
York, Basic Books.
SCHÖN, D.A. (Ed) (1991) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice,
New York, Teachers College Press.
47
4 Teacher Education as a Process of
Developing Teacher Knowledge
Introduction
There are at least two fundamental purposes for teacher education. Firstly it must
be concerned with assisting teachers to learn and apply important ideas about
teaching and learning. Secondly, teacher education must be presented in ways that
achieve some balance between the existing context and role of teaching and the
possibilities for improving teaching and learning. As well as preparing teachers
for schools and existing curriculum demands there is an expectation that teacher
education will encourage a critical perspective on schooling.
Each of these purposes seem trite and self-evident, but may be worth explor ing
in more detail. How do we believe teachers learn about teaching and learning?
What are we expecting teachers to get better at as they undergo teacher education?
How do we prepare teachers for existing conditions and still provide a vision of
what might be possible for teachers and schools? This last question is very important
when there are clearly expressed concerns about the way teachers and teaching are
regarded (Smyth, 1995, p. 1). There appears to be little confidence and support for
teachers to implement policies and provide leadership in education. Munby and
Russell (1994) would also suggest that teachers have reservations about the nature
and quality of their own knowledge, experience and capacity to shape educational
improvement. Teacher education may make its greatest contribution by enhancing
the way teachers value their own knowledge generation and dissemination. Kessels
and Korthagen (1996) are quite clear about the teacher education implications of
enhancing the value of teachers’ knowledge.
(A teacher educator) is there to help the student see, not to teach the
student a number of concepts. One is there to help the student refine his
or her perception not to provide the student with a set of general rules.
One is there to help the student make his or her own tacit knowledge
explicit, to help the student capture the singularities of the experience, to
find the rightness of tone and the sureness of touch that only holds good
for a particular situation. One is not there to lecture about educational
theory, to instruct given rules, or extensively discuss instructional
principles. (Kessels and Korthagen, 1996, p. 21)
48
Teacher Education as a Process of Developing Teacher Knowledge
As a pair of teacher educators, our own personal learning has been long and difficult
as there is always a tendency to overestimate what we were able to tell teachers
and underestimate the importance of, and our ability in, providing conditions for
teachers to be learners about teaching. Our challenge has been to develop teacher
education courses (both pre-service and in-service) in ways that reflect this
developing insight that it is teachers who have to be learners and then appreciate
the nature and significance of their knowledge and experience.
This chapter argues a set of principles which form a basis for an approach to
teacher education which is designed to enhance teachers’ capacities to affect their
situations. These principles are developed from a set of assumptions about teacher
education and those who practice as teacher educators.
• Teacher education programs should model the teaching and learning

approaches being advocated and promote the vision of the profession for
which they are preparing teachers.
• Teacher education must be based on a recognition of the prior and current
experiences of teachers and encourage respect for teacher knowledge and
understanding.
• Teacher educators should maintain close connections with schools and
the teaching profession. They need to be advocates for the profession and
supporters of teachers’ attempts to understand and improve teaching and
learning opportunities for their students.
• Learning about teaching is a collaborative activity and teacher education
is best conducted in small groups and networks with ideas and experiences
being shared and discussed.
• Teacher education involves the personal development, social development
as well as the professional development of teachers.
The interaction of these three aspects of education in science teacher education is

well expressed by Bell and Gilbert (1996).
Social development…involves the renegotiation and reconstruction of

what it means to be a teacher… It also involves the development of ways
of working with others that will enable the kinds of social interaction
necessary for renegotiating and reconstructing what it means to be a teacher
of science. Personal Development…involves each individual teacher
constructing, evaluating and accepting or rejecting for himself or herself
the new socially constructed knowledge about what it means to be a teacher
…and managing the feelings associated with changing their activities and
beliefs…particularly when they go ‘against the grain’ of the current or
proposed socially constructed and accepted knowledge. Professional
development as a part of teacher development involves not only the use
of different teaching activities but also the development of the beliefs and
conceptions underlying the activities. It may also involve learning some
science. (Bell and Gilbert, 1996, p. 15)
49
This need for teacher education to be concerned with the personal, social and pro
fessional development of individuals is a constant theme as we outline the
pedagogical implications of the ideas and assumptions introduced in this section.
Towards a Set of Principles to Guide Teacher Education
The following set of principles have been discussed and modified and interpreted
over almost two decades of our collaborative reflection on our own practice. The
ultimate test of the principles lies in their compatibility with the values and
assumptions outlined above and the direction they provide for the implementation
of teacher education programs. We state the principles as assertions and each is
further developed with implications and some of the experiences that have been
associated with our trying to apply them in different teacher education situations.
The first assertion focuses on the background and prior experiences of those who
participate in teacher education.
Assertion 1
The teacher has needs and prior experiences which must be considered in
planning and implementing the program. The nature and intensity of these
needs should shift throughout the teacher education program.
At pre-service level the work of Hall and Hord (1987) which focused on stages of
concern was very significant when making decisions about sequencing ideas and
activities. The self, task and impact concerns offered a rationale for initial activities
and reminded us of the personal development agenda that has to be part of any
teacher education effort (Bell and Gilbert, 1996). The personal concerns of new
teachers had to be addressed and our latest effort is in the form of a first unit
‘Images of Education’ which acknowledges the experiences of education that
students bring to the course from their own schooling and the media presentation
of teaching and education. These ‘images’ are the basis for beginning to form an
image of themselves as a teacher. The further development of this self image as a
teacher will require opportunities to begin teaching where feedback and support
are available from colleagues as well as teacher educators.
At this early stage of professional education it is clear that personal development
is going to require working with a small group of colleagues and a staff member
where a level of trust and confidence can be established quickly. Peer teaching and
micro-teaching can then be opportunities to begin teaching in ways that allow
participants to see themselves as others see them in teaching situations and provide
constructive responses to their colleagues as they begin teaching. One to one teaching
opportunities with pupils are also designed to take away the threats of teaching new
subject matter to large groups of unknown pupils. Confidence is likely to be increased
as the new teacher is able to form a relationship with individuals and small groups of
pupils and feel that their contribution is valued by the pupils.
50
Assertion 2
The transition to teacher as a learner of teaching is fundamental and difficult
and is facilitated by working in collaboration with colleagues.
The isolating effects of teaching cannot be allowed to limit the ways teachers learn
about teaching. At pre-service level it is important to introduce teaching as a
collaborative activity. It is inconceivable that new teachers can develop an image
of themselves as teachers in the absence of others’ views of their ideas and practices
as they begin teaching. This is most likely to occur if the prospective teacher can
build a level of trust and confidence in those who are working with them. Beginning
the study of teaching within a small group of fifteen to twenty new teachers and
one or two staff members for a large proportion of time would seem to introduce
students to the way in which teaching is conducted in schools The ability to work
with colleagues is an important part of the personal and social development required
of teachers. It provides conditions where teachers can share and shape ideas and
teacher knowledge and understanding is seen as the way of addressing teaching
and learning challenges.
Of greater importance is the message to teachers that knowledge about teaching
and learning is to some extent an outcome of their experience and their effort in
interpreting that experience. Knowing and implementing system and school policies
with some understanding of fundamental educational ideas is only the first level of
teacher professional development. It forms the knowledge and ideas which are
essential for teachers but in themselves and in the way this knowledge is generally
delivered it only forms part of what teachers need to know and be able to do. Table
4.1 sets out one view of what professional development could mean for teachers.
The four levels beyond the first all require interaction with colleagues and it would
seem important for all new teachers to experience each of the levels of professional
development. The second level highlights the importance of teachers developing
personal understanding and accepting their responsibility to be independent learners
about teaching and learning. Level 3 highlights the ability of teachers to develop
teaching and assessment strategies—the important ‘second wave’ of activity as
new educational programs and policies are introduced to schools. There needs to
be recognition that it is only teachers who can turn the policies and ideas into
Table 4.1: The meaning of professional development
51
practice. Teachers also need to have the confidence and skills to understand new
innovations and generate the strategies to make them work. This respect for their
own knowledge and expertise by teachers must begin with teacher education and
providing conditions to experience and learn for this part of the teacher role.
Levels 4 and 5 show aspects of professional development which require high
levels of support and teacher interaction with colleagues if they are to become part
of the teacher role which allows them to have shaping and leadership roles in their
profession. Any teacher education program must include opportunities for teachers
to work together as they reflect on their teaching experiences and endeavor to
understand and communicate their ideas to others.
Assertion 3
The teacher is a learner who is actively constructing ideas based on personal
experience. This learning must occur in at least the following areas:
1 Ideas about the teaching and learning process

2 Ideas in relevant knowledge discipline areas
3 Understanding of self
4 The social structures within the profession and in school communities.
This is a comprehensive agenda for teacher education but each of the components
needs to be addressed in the process of learning about teaching. The nature of
teaching and the experiences of teachers mean that teachers gain their knowledge
and understanding in some unique ways. Table 4.2 sets out a tentative list of features
of teacher knowledge which seem to emerge from working with teachers who
have explored ways of communicating their experiences and understanding to other
teachers. These features provide directions for those who are committed to forms
of teacher education which have the generation and dissemination of teacher
knowledge as an outcome. Our experience suggests that teachers tend to have
long-term concerns about teaching and learning as a basis for the things they wish
to know about and study. Improving children’s understanding of ideas, increasing
children’s self-image as learners, increasing motivation and interest are examples
Table 4.2: Some unique characteristics of teacher knowledge and research
52
of the broad concerns that teachers have and there is a reluctance to specify these
more precisely into more manageable questions for study. Their concerns match
the nature of the teaching demands that they face.
The second point in Table 4.2 is crucial if teachers are to value their own
knowledge and understanding. Munby and Russell (1994) use the phrase ‘authority
of their own experience’ to describe the recognition and confidence teachers can
achieve about their own knowledge and experience. Dealing with teaching demands
does not depend on external sources of knowledge and ideas (or the elusive promise
of these) but can be addressed by analyzing their own experience and sharing
ideas with colleagues.
The importance of reviewing experiences with other teachers over extended
periods of time must therefore be an essential part of any teacher education effort.
The consideration of experience can extend to the description of significant events
by teachers to represent important issues (Point 3 in Table 4.2). We have noted the
way teachers tend to use incidents to highlight an area of concern. The complexity
of the issue can be put to one side to allow a vivid vignette which is significant for
the teacher. ‘Here is how it is’…. ‘Let me give you an example’. These vignettes
are indicators of teacher knowledge that deserve to be more widely considered as
case examples to perhaps affirm other teachers’ work and ideas or further clarify
common areas of concern. The teacher still remains very aware of the complex
context of the classroom and the difficult task of responding effectively but finds a
way of exemplifying an important area of concern.
The remaining four characteristics in Table 4.2 are concerned with the way
teachers have to respond to their new understandings. New insights have to be
incorporated almost immediately into the teaching tasks. Teachers have to deal
with findings and adjust their classrooms so that new knowledge and daily teaching
become interwoven. However, the demands of teaching mean there is little time to
reflect and find ways of communicating findings to others and perhaps sharing
experiences with colleagues.
There are clear implications for teacher education. Beginning at pre-service
level it is important that the teacher role be introduced with opportunities and
encouragement to review and reflect on their growing experience. Maintaining
journals, contributing to discussions, acknowledging teacher experience when
introducing topics are more obvious ways of showing respect for teacher knowledge.
Requiring teachers to prepare case studies or represent their ideas as portfolio
items emphasizes the importance of ‘writing for understanding’. Insisting that ideas
and drafts be reviewed by peers presents teaching as, ideally, a collaborative
profession despite the isolating pressures on teachers and the dailiness of the role.
At the in-service level the same implications and possibilities are important but
the limiting factor of time for professional development must be acknowledged.
However, a more subtle factor is the apparent lack of respect for teacher knowledge
and understanding when we tend to rely on ‘up-front’, ‘one-off, delivery modes
for communicating policies and ideas to teachers. It seems obvious that teacher
education should be presented in ways that model the principles underlying the
program, a proposition which can be expressed as Assertion 4.
53
Assertion 4
Teacher education should model the teaching and learning approaches being
advocated in the program.
How do we believe the new teacher becomes an expert teacher? This fundamental
question is the starting point for Farnham-Diggory (1994) to outline three
predominant models—the behavior, apprenticeship and development models—
which seem to be evident in teacher education. Associated with underlying
assumptions of these models about how a novice becomes a teacher are assumptions
about the nature of knowledge in teaching and learning.
A teacher education program derived from a behavior model will place priority
on what teachers need to know and are able to apply in the school situation. The
apprenticeship model would emphasize school experience with teachers being
socialized to fit into the existing school contexts. The development model would
set out to build teacher confidence in their own learning, and their understanding
of experiences. In the latter model, teacher educators need to be seen to be learners,
monitoring their own experiences and supporting teacher research efforts and
valuing teacher knowledge and experience. The problem with establishing a set of
principles for teacher education is that the purposes embedded in the principles
will only be communicated if the practice models the aspirations. A teacher
development perspective would seem to imply a teacher education approach where
the teacher educator is able to form a long-term relationship with a small group of
teachers assisting them to interpret their own experiences (similar to the cohort
approach used by Bullough, in press; see his chapter in this book). If possible the
value of collegial learning must be demonstrated while acknowledging that teaching
has isolating pressures and working and sharing with others will require levels of
trust and confidence which are not always possible in school contexts. Teacher
educators should demonstrate their willingness to work in collaboration with each
other as well as with teachers. In short, teacher educators must model continual
learning if such a priority is to be evident in their teacher education programs.
From another perspective, a commitment to improvement means that teachers
(and teacher educators) must be prepared to question existing practices. Being
prepared to make the ‘taken for granted’ problematic requires a willingness to move
away from everyday practices and the confidence to review accepted approaches.
The pedagogy of teacher education must also include a willingness to review and
revise teacher education experiences and an expectation that the teacher participants
have a responsibility to shape the program they are engaged in. Learning about
teaching requires the consent and active participation of all involved in the process.
Assertion 5
Teacher participants should see the teacher education program as a worthwhile
experience in its own right.
This assertion is most likely to be achieved if the teacher education program has
personal social and professional development (Bell and Gilbert, 1996) as the
54
purposes for its agenda. Placing value on teacher knowledge and experiences and
accepting a view that experience precedes understanding of teaching and learning
puts the teacher at the centre of the teacher education effort. Requiring participants
to reflect on the purposes of their teacher education and the relationship of these
purposes to the pedagogy being used means that all have to accept responsibility
for the processes and outcomes.
The evaluation of teacher education must extend beyond what is taught and
include the quality of understanding that has been achieved by participants.
Assertion 6
Teacher education programs are by definition incomplete.
If one accepts that teacher programs can only make a contribution towards increasing
prospective teachers’ understanding of teaching and learning, then it becomes clear
that teacher education is a starting point with a focus as a career long learner about
teaching and learning. Therefore, a teacher education program is inevitably
inadequate in ‘preparing teachers’ because it is the starting point in a career and
not an end unto itself. Clearly then, making progress towards understanding must
be seen as the optimum outcome when teacher education activities and experiences
are reviewed. Each participant should be encouraged to test their growing
understanding in their classrooms and with colleagues. The emphasis on personal
development of ideas must be balanced by a willingness to test these ideas as they
practice their profession. A teacher education program must provide opportunities
to test new ideas and underline their incompleteness in at least some respects.
Conclusion: Towards a Pedagogy of Teacher Education
A coherent pedagogy of teacher education requires addressing the question, ‘What

do you expect the teacher to get better at?’ This in turn requires considering how
teachers learn about teaching and what it means to know and understand teaching
and learning. In this chapter we have introduced a series of related assertions which
begin with the concerns and experiences of teachers, a view of teacher knowledge
and understanding, and a wish to place a high value on teacher experience and
understanding in meeting educational challenges. The implications of the assertions
or principles that follow from our position continue to require defending, and our
reviewing of the way our teacher education is structured and presented. As teacher
educators we are required to defend what we do to each other and the teachers
with whom we work. The defence and maintenance of our programs do not become
easier. Long-term relationships with smaller numbers of teachers must be balanced
against cutbacks and pressure for more ‘efficient’ delivery of programs with fewer
staff and resources. Universities are places which do not easily reward the long-
term contacts that are maintained with students. Quality teaching is seen as often
quality delivery of knowledge by acknowledged experts. Research and publication
records are important and, in teacher education, long term studies in teaching and
55
learning within their own teaching programs and with teachers in school settings
have been rare and not highly regarded (Fensham and Northfield, 1993).
In this case we have indicated a pedagogy that is easier to argue than implement
in the conditions for teacher education which exist at pre-service and in-service
levels. It requires considerable commitment and energy to align practice with
principles but we would argue that no coherent pedagogy of teacher education can
be developed without first addressing fundamental questions about teacher
knowledge and learning.
References
BELL, B. and GILBERT, J. (1996) Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education,
London, Falmer Press.
BULLOUGH, R.V. (In Press) ‘Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education’,
in LOUGHRAN, J.J. and RUSSELL, T.L. (Eds) Teaching about Teaching: Purpose,
Passion and Pedagogy, London, Falmer Press.
FARNHAM-DIGGORY, S. (1994) ‘Paradigms of knowledge and instruction’, Review of
Education Research, 64, 3, pp. 463–77.
FENSHAM, P.J. and NORTHFIELD, J.R. (1993) ‘Pre-service science teacher education:
An obvious but difficult arena for research’, Studies in Science Education, 22, pp. 67–84.
HALL, G.E. and HORD, S.M. (1987) Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, New
York, SUNY Press.
KESSELS, J.P.A.M. and KORTHAGEN, F.A.J. (1996) ‘The relationship between theory
and practice: Back to the classics’, Educational Researcher, 25, 3, pp. 17–22.
MUNBY, H. and RUSSELL, T.L. (1994) ‘The authority of experience in learning to teach:
Messages from a physics methods course’, Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 2, pp.
86–95.
SMYTH, J. (1995) ‘Introduction’, in SMYTH, J. (Ed) Critical Discourses on Teacher
Development, London, Cassell, pp. 1–19.
56
5 Teaching about Teaching:
Principles and Practice
John Loughran
Introduction
As a high school teacher I planned lessons that I thought were interesting in the
hope that it would help my students come to better understand the content we were
studying. However, over time, I came to recognize that, despite these good
intentions, another crucial shaping force which had an impact on my students’
approach to learning was assessment. Sadly, almost regardless of how I taught, if
the assessment strategies I used did not reflect my espoused beliefs about my
approach to teaching, then my efforts were blunted. This was never more obvious
than in the senior years of schooling where external examinations were the driving
force of the curriculum and, therefore, a major determinant of ‘school learning’.
Although I wanted my students to understand the content I was teaching, the need
for them to be able to cope with (and succeed in) the forms of assessment they
would face at the end of the year eventually influenced their view of learning and
their understanding of what was ‘important’ to learn, which also inevitably affected
how they learnt.
In many ways, then, when I began teaching pre-service teacher education
students, a similar dilemma arose. Despite what I thought was important about
teaching, if I did not teach in ways that reflected my beliefs, my student-teachers’
ideas about what was important to learn and how to apply themselves to learning
about teaching would be shaped more by my practice than my philosophy. For
example, there was little value in encouraging student-teachers to consider using
the jigsaw group-work strategy in their teaching if they did not experience it as
learners. Hence, a lecture on the ‘jigsaw’ would lead to, at best, a superficial
understanding of the teaching and learning aspects of the approach, but more likely
simply be counterproductive. Clearly, if it was worth knowing about the jigsaw
method, the best way of ‘knowing’ would be through experiencing the strategy in
action. Similarly, as a science-teacher educator, my concern about the way science
teaching is often depicted as the presentation of a long list of propositions delivered
by the teacher, then digested and regurgitated by students in an examination, could
not be challenged if my teaching did not offer alternative experiences of being
engaged in science. Therefore my teaching through the use of strategies such as
Prediction-Observation-Explanation (P.O.E.), concept maps, Venn diagrams and a
57
John Loughran
variety of other teaching approaches designed to probe students’ understanding

(White and Gunstone, 1992) has become not only fundamental to my beliefs about
teaching science, but also imperative in my practice of teaching about science
teaching and learning.
In the transition from a teacher of school students to a teacher of student-teachers
I have also been confronted by the need to better understand my own pedagogy. I
have come to recognize that teaching about teaching by using engaging strategies
is in itself not sufficient. I have come to understand that I must also be able to
articulate my understanding of my practice; purpose and intent.
This need to articulate the thinking which underpins my pedagogy is primarily
borne of the student-teachers’ need to know ‘why’. Just because I was an experi
enced high school teacher was not sufficient reason for them to simply accept my
views, or for me to believe that the authority of position (Munby and Russell,
1994) was sufficient reason for their learning; it was important that they actively
ques tioned my views and brought to bear the authority of their own developing
experience. Therefore, my once tacit views of student learning and the way they
linked to, or influenced my teaching, have become much more explicit as I have
felt a need to be able to communicate these to my student-teachers.
This desire to be able to articulate my understanding about my pedagogy has
become increasingly important to me because I want my student-teachers’ learning
about teaching to be more than the absorption of propositions about teaching. If
learning about teaching is simply the absorption of a teacher educator’s pedagogical
knowledge, then it seems to me most likely that it will be learnt in a manner that
encourages digestion and regurgitation in practicum experiences then, more likely
than not, rejected in their own post-university teaching practice when the pervading
influence of their being assessed is removed. I want my student-teachers to be
engaged in their learning about teaching. I want them to consider their own
developing practice and to make informed decisions about their teaching, and I
want this to be based on an explicit ‘knowing about practice’ which they develop
through their own active and purposeful learning about teaching.
It has been through thinking about learning about teaching based on the
dilemmas, hopes and challenges outlined above that my understanding and practice
in teacher education has developed. What follows then is my understanding of the
‘why’ of teaching about teaching; for me, this ‘why’ is based on a number of
principles which I continue to better understand and articulate as I reflect on my
teaching with prospective teachers.
Principles of Pedagogy in Teacher Education
Differentiating between ‘telling’ and ‘teaching’ needs to be clear if the following

principles of pedagogy are to have meaning. For me, teaching is based on an
understanding of oneself and others (it is not unlike the tact of teaching described
by van Manen, 1991), hence the heart and soul of teaching begins with relationships.
Teaching is a relationship. Without building relationships the purpose of teaching
58
Teaching about Teaching: Principles and Practice
is diminished. Other principles of pedagogy are enhanced through relationships;

therefore, not surprisingly, although I do not view my list of principles of pedagogy
as a checklist to be considered in rank order, the first principle (relationships) is
foremost.
Relationships
The ability to mould one’s teaching so that it most closely aligns with students’
learning needs is developed and enhanced through better understanding the
participants in the teaching and learning environment. This understanding is based
on developing relationships with students on a personal basis both as individuals and
as a group. The personal aspect of knowing one’s students is obviously something
which is fundamental to helping each individual strive to learn for understanding.
However, the importance of group relationships is sometimes overlooked in teaching.
Yet the way individuals relate to one another and to their teachers is different in
different situations, hence the need to be able to relate to learners as a group. This
entails a need to know individuals and the ways they interact and develop within
their group because, as the group develops, so relationships within the group develop,
and these relationships are far from static, they are continually evolving.
Building relationships begins with a genuine concern to listen, to be aware of
the changing nature of the classroom context, and to be interested in, and responsive
to, the needs of students. For me, the development of relationships is fundamental
to teaching and learning because relationships are built and enhanced through
increasing the elements of trust which are so important if learning is to be more
than knowing and if teaching is to be more than telling. Trust is a two-way process.
It is equally important from the teacher’s and learners’ perspective.
Trust
Mitchell (1992) found through his work in the PEEL project, as he attempted to
encourage school students to be more metacognitive, that trust was important in
shaping students’ changes in their approach to learning. So, too, trust is an important
element of teaching in teaching about teaching. As a teacher educator I need to be
confident that my learners will see my pedagogy as a starting point for engaging
them: it needs to be an impetus for learning. There is a continual need, therefore,
for me to believe that the learners will want to grasp the major concepts and ideas
under consideration and grapple with them in ways that are not solely dependent
on me as their teacher for absolute direction, definition and understanding. Hence
I need to be able to trust that, in the teaching-learning environment, regardless of
the participants’ previous learning experiences, they might genuinely be able to be
encouraged to approach learning as a collaborative venture. However, this requires
an acceptance of shared responsibilities in learning and therefore necessitates a
joint trust from both the teacher’s and learners’ perspective.
59
John Loughran
From a learner’s perspective, trust involves knowing and believing that

individuals’ ideas, thoughts and views can be offered and explored in challenging
ways such that the challenge is professional not personal. Concerns that participants’
suggestions, ideas and input might in some way be ridiculed or devalued by others
need therefore to consistently be addressed. This is then a trust in the care for
others as persons, and it has as its basis a need to maintain and develop one’s self-
esteem throughout the exploration of the content or issues being addressed. The
learner therefore has a need to trust that the teaching and learning environment is
a ‘safe’ place to raise and pursue issues, concerns and the development of
understanding. This calls for a genuine commitment to the notion that ‘challenge’
is not a personal attack but a search for clarification and understanding.
There is also a trust whereby problems, concerns or issues which are raised in
the teaching-learning environment will not superficially be dealt with but will be
addressed in a manner which demonstrates a genuine attempt to resolve the concern.
This trust is not really possible in an environment where the teacher educator
assumes a role of ‘expert’ in total control of the direction of inquiry, and perhaps
loses sight of, or does not acknowledge, the individual’s needs. For students to be
able to genuinely raise issues or concerns, they must be able to trust that in so
doing their queries will be fairly addressed. Without such a trust, there is little
incentive to take the risk to speak up.
Independence
Relationships within the teaching-learning environment are also influenced by the

extent to which independence is acknowledged and respected. Despite the teaching
concern to achieve desired learning outcomes (notwithstanding the fact that learners,
too, have learning expectations), there is still a need to recognize that good teaching
inevitably leads to a diversity of learning outcomes. Therefore, individuals’
independence is important in shaping the extent to which they choose to take up
the opportunities possible through their interactions. It is not possible to make real
choices if there is not a sense of independence. I believe that a lack of independence
encourages convergence of learning rather than a breadth of understanding.
A crucial factor associated with the development of independence is the teacher’s
ability to withhold judgment. Learners are not likely to pursue their own
understanding or to reconsider others’ views if they have a sense of being judged,
or if they are trying to ‘guess what is in the teacher’s head’. The need to withhold
judgment, to be conscious of one’s own wait-time and to want to hear from others
is a key to building relationships that enhance a diversity of learning outcomes.
Purpose
Teaching needs to be purposeful and this is important from both the teacher’s and
the learners’ perspective. Teaching is more than an array of strategies and skills to
60
be called upon or changed from lesson to lesson or day to day. Teaching is the use
of appropriate methods designed to encourage learning. Pedagogy should not be
something that is changed or selected in order to ‘break-up’ the normal routine.
Teaching strategies should be carefully selected for the learning they can provide
for the content being studied. Just as Shulman (1986) described pedagogical content
knowledge, so there is a pedagogical content knowledge which teacher educators
possess and develop whereby ways of best probing the content are enhanced through
the appropriate use of pedagogy. It is therefore clear that teacher educators need to
have this sense of purpose foremost in their minds as they construct their teaching
episodes.
In a similar vein, this sense of purpose also extends to the learners. They need
to know and understand why particular pedagogy is employed and to be able to
question their involvement in the learning process. If there is to be a common
understanding of the ‘expectations’ of learning, there needs to be a clear purpose
and it needs to be clearly articulated. However, this does not mean that the purpose
should be a restriction on teaching and learning but, more so, a starting point for
exploration, a touchstone (Walker and Evers, 1984) or reference point, a signal of
the expectations of engagement for learning.
Engagement/Challenge
Learning about teaching involves an extensive and complex array of skills and
knowledge which are called upon in different ways in different situations, but it is
not really possible to describe this learning as linear, nor to consider that a particular
end point might be reached. The accumulated wisdom through reflection on
experience is an important aspect of teaching which continues to shape one’s practice.
Therefore, in a teaching-learning environment, something is missing if the participants
(teacher and learners) are not engaged or challenged by the experience.
Learners clearly need to be challenged through the pedagogy if they are to do
more than absorb information. They need to reconsider their existing knowledge
in light of the experiences being created with them. There is also a need for them
to process information and ideas and to synthesize these in new ways if their learning
is to be active and purposeful. Similarly, processing and synthesizing are enhanced
through metacognition, yet these skills and attributes are restricted if learning is
not engaging and challenging. Therefore, an important element of pedagogical
purpose is to encourage engagement and challenge in learning so that there is a
likelihood that an active and persistent commitment to understanding subject matter
is possible.
Just as learners need to be challenged by their understanding of subject matter,
so to it should be that pedagogy has an impact on the teacher. The array of students’
responses, the influx of new and challenging ideas and the experience of cognitive
dissonance when alternative conceptions are explored should also engage the teacher
as a learner. Hence, even though a thorough understanding of certain aspects of
particular subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge may reside within
61
John Loughran
a teacher, when the two are combined within an interactive teaching-learning

environment, understanding continues to be developed. For me, it is important to
demonstrate this engagement in teaching about teaching. This demonstration of
engagement/challenge in one’s own teaching comprises modelling and can give
student-teachers real access to the thoughts, skills and knowledge of experienced
teachers in ways that allow them to make their own decisions about pedagogy
(Loughran, 1996).
Modelling
As I have outlined above, I believe that teaching needs to be interactive and

challenging as learning does not occur just by listening, it occurs by reconsidering
one’s understanding through deeds, thoughts and actions. It therefore follows that
if student-teachers’ learning about teaching is to be meaningful, they need to be
adequately challenged and motivated to take the necessary steps to make new
meaning from the teaching and learning episodes in which they are involved. Hence,
for me, teaching student-teachers about teaching hinges on a need for teacher
educators to ‘practice what they preach’. For example, a lecture on role-plays or
group work might well convey the information about the procedures involved but
would certainly not encourage participants to be engaged in such a way as to better
understand how the teaching strategy affects their learning. If student-teachers are
to understand a particular teaching strategy, they need to experience it as learners
and as teachers, not just hear about it.
Modelling teaching in ways that demonstrate this commitment to better
understanding through experience is important to me. However, this does not mean
that a model for how to teach is to be placed before student-teachers to mimic;
rather it means offering them the opportunity to better understand the pedagogical
purpose, to experience some of the likely learning outcomes as a result of the
experience (both cognitive and affective), and to allow them to make their own
decisions about how they might incorporate that into their own practice. In a similar
fashion, it is also important to me to highlight the different ‘ways of knowing’ that
arise in teaching and learning situations so that they can see the possibilities created
through the appropriate use of teaching strategies. To do this, I try to help my
student-teachers recognize what it is they need to know and why and, then, how to
apply their knowledge in different problem situations to further develop their
understanding. This is what I describe as modelling. It is modelling the processes,
thoughts and knowledge of an experienced teacher in a way that demonstrates the
‘why’ or the purpose of teaching; it is not creating a template of teaching for
unending duplication.
As teaching strategies are both content- and context-dependent, being able to
respond to changes in the teaching and learning environment is vital. Modelling
offers the ability to genuinely demonstrate that knowing how to use a strategy is
one facet of teaching, but knowing why to use it is another. The need to adapt and
change, to be responsive to the teaching and learning environment, is a critical
62
attribute for teaching; modelling this is crucial if student-teachers are to understand

the pedagogical reasoning which they, too, need to experiment with and develop.
Knowing ‘why’ must be linked to knowing ‘how’ if student-teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge is to be more than a list of propositions. They therefore need to see this
in their teacher educators’ practice and to similarly experience it in their learning
about teaching experiences.
Reflection
Teaching is inextricably linked to learning; therefore, teaching is a two-way process.

Teaching about teaching should extend teachers’ and students’ views of teaching
and learning, and this extension is dependent upon reflection on both the teaching
and the learning that occurs; it follows that reconsidering one’s actions, refraining
(Schön, 1983) problematic situations, mulling over the flow of suggestions, and
reasoning through the implications of alternative views and testing hypotheses
(Dewey, 1933) are the cornerstones of reflection. Again, if reflection is to be better
understood by student-teachers, it needs to be explicitly modelled in practice in
order to encourage them to consider approaching their teaching in ways that might
be based on a similar basis or foundation.
My thinking aloud about my pedagogy (see Loughran, 1996 for more detail) is
an attempt to give students immediate access to the thoughts, ideas and concerns
which shape my teaching.
It would not be uncommon for me to preface my teaching at the start of a

class with the reasons for the structure about to be employed. In so doing
I would attempt to demonstrate my thinking about previous lessons, my
intentions for the upcoming lesson, and what I anticipated for the following
lessons, and that these are all linked in a holistic manner. Therefore, my
reaction to what I perceived to be the learning as a result of a teaching
experience is an important starting point for my thinking about the lesson
to be taught. In essence, I would be giving my students access to the
pedagogical reasoning which underpins my thinking as I attempt to
develop the ‘purpose’ for, and approach to, a teaching and learning
experience… Teaching and learning are interconnected through a dynamic
system in which one continually influences the other. To appreciate this
interplay ‘in action’ is difficult as the ideas, perceptions, reactions and
recognition of anticipated and unanticipated learning outcomes ebb and
flow in response to the stimuli which prompt the thinking. It is fundamental
to my view of modelling that this thinking during teaching be overtly
demonstrated for my students if they are to fully appreciate the complex
nature of learning about teaching; even more so if they are to seriously
consider their own practice in relation to my modelling… Although I
have described my thinking about teaching within three distinct periods
(pre [anticipatory reflection], post [retrospective reflection] and during
63
John Loughran
[contemporaneous reflection] a pedagogical experience), clearly all three

are linked and related in a complex web of thoughts and actions which
are very much context-dependent. (Loughran, 1996, pp. 28–9)
This thinking aloud is designed to give my student-teachers access to my reflection

on practice. For me this is a most important aspect of learning about teaching. Student-
teachers cannot be told about reflection then be expected to simply incorporate it
into their practice. They need to see and understand its use and development in the
‘action setting’ so that their understanding might be enhanced. However, I also believe
that reflection facilitates risk-taking; therefore, if learning about teaching is to help
student-teachers learn through risk-taking, then teacher educators themselves need
to model this risk for their student-teachers. They need to be willing to expose their
own vulnerability as a learner in teaching in ways similar to those which they would
hope to encourage in their student-teachers. Of course little of this applies if learning
about teaching is conceived of as being told how to teach, or simply knowing about
a list of interesting teaching strategies. Clearly for me, learning through risk-taking
is an important principle of learning about teaching.
Risk-taking
Learning about teaching requires a pushing of the ‘boundaries of practice’ in order

to encourage seeing and understanding from a variety of vantage points. By
attempting to implement the use of teaching strategies which challenge one’s
‘comfort level’, new ways of seeing and understanding become possible through
experiencing the discomfort of being less certain about the unfolding events within
a teaching-learning episode. I would argue that this discomfort is an important
attribute for learning and helps to heighten the senses so that the active reframing
possible through such risk-taking substantially broadens one’s understanding of
both the teaching and learning (cognitive and affective) through the experience.
An important aspect of risk-taking is the need to recognize and acknowledge
the individual nature of such activities. What may be a risk for one person may
pose little risk for another, hence the extension of pedagogical knowledge and
understanding possible by challenging practice and reasoning at the margins of
normal practice will be different for different individuals. However, the powerful
learning about practice as a result of actively choosing to extend one’s repertoire
of teaching approaches, to use familiar strategies in unfamiliar situations, or
unfamiliar strategies in familiar situations, is the essence of personal professional
development. As individuals learn in different ways, it is important for teachers to
use pedagogy that is appropriate to the variety of learning approaches within their
classes; therefore, it may well be that particular approaches to teaching which are
uncomfortable for individual teachers are important to a range of students’ learning.
Risk-taking involves pursuing the implementation of such strategies as appropriate
to cater for the diversity of learning needs within the teaching-learning environment.
To me, this is as equally important in teacher education as it is in school teaching
64
generally. However, if teacher educators do not take risks in their own practice, if
they do not overtly model the need to extend the margins of understanding and
experience for their own pedagogy, it makes it difficult for student-teachers to
believe that the value of taking risks will be worth the discomfort they will
experience in practice. In many ways encouraging risk-taking involves a stepping
out in faith, a faith which is based on a trust in believing that, through taking the
risk of experiencing both the trials and errors of learning by experimenting with
pedagogy in a range of situations, circumstances, subject-content and contexts, an
understanding will emerge. I believe that this is an aspect of learning about teaching
that many student-teachers are more than prepared to consider; however, they need
to see that their teacher educators will positively support them.
The principles of practice which I have outlined above, for me, are the essence
of teaching about teaching. They create the conditions which offer student-teachers
opportunities to develop their teaching, and are the foundations of ongoing reflection
throughout practice.
Creating a Context for Teaching about Teaching
Shulman (1986) described a perspective on teacher knowledge which encompassed

content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge. Just
as these are important elements of teacher knowledge, so they should equally apply
to learning about teaching. However, I would argue that, for student-teachers to better
understand these aspects of teaching, they need to be continually reinforced through
the learning experiences created within teacher education programs. Fundamental,
therefore, to my view of learning about teaching is that student-teachers continually
be placed in situations whereby they learn through being in a learning position,
learning through the experience by being in the experience. If they are to understand
how a teaching strategy influences learning, they need to experience the teaching
strategy as a learner. Similarly, to understand the intricacies and subtleties of a teaching
strategy they need to experience using it, unpacking it and reconstructing their practice
through the experience. This learning through being a teacher and a learner is then
what I would describe as the context for teaching about teaching. It is an important
way of helping student-teachers come to see, feel and reflect on the complex nature
of teaching and learning. It also highlights the diversity of learning outcomes
associated with teaching-learning episodes and genuinely places student-teachers in
situations whereby through discussion and de-briefing a range of attitudes, views
and practices can be purposefully explored.
I recently taught a lesson on the Van De Graaf generator with the student-teachers
in my Science Method class. As a biologist I find this topic challenging, particularly
as my understanding of the content knowledge is sorely tested—‘I am not sure
that Mr Van De Graaf himself really understood precisely the finer points of their
operation’ (Hodson, 1993, p. 27). I started the class by placing the Van De Graaf
generator on a table in the middle of the room and asking if anyone could tell us a
little about it. An hour and a half later, together as a group of learners, we had
65
John Loughran
traversed a great deal from the workings of the Van De Graaf generator through to
why it sparks, the important distinction between voltage and current, the principle
of an earth, why touching the dome makes one’s hair stand on end, and a host of
other issues associated with the concept of static electricity.
In this class, it was important to me that I modelled the value of learning through
questioning, developing and testing hypotheses, and working with colleagues to fully
develop, articulate, test and reconsider one’s own ‘knowing’ in order to lead to a
better understanding of the content under consideration. At the end of the class we
briefly discussed aspects of the session that we thought influenced the way the class
had learnt and been taught. This placing student-teachers in a genuine learning about
teaching and learning context is how the principles (outlined earlier) which underpin
my practice are played out in my teaching with prospective teachers. It is something
that I learn more about the more I use my own learning about a concept to drive my
approach to teaching about teaching—as I actively consider (and reconsider) how I
learn and come to understand content knowledge—so that it directly influences the
way I teach about that content knowledge. This is what I describe as creating a
context for teaching about teaching. The content under consideration is a vehicle for
highlighting approaches to learning about learning, and learning about teaching.
Appropriate use of context offers insights into pedagogical reasoning, intent and
purpose as well as into learners’ needs, processes and practices.
After this class, I asked my student-teachers to write a brief paragraph about,
‘The things that help you learn about teaching.’ Their responses included:
Student 1 I learn best by doing what the students will be doing in the
classroom. Being taken through ideas for teaching as if I am the student
so I can get an idea of how they would be feeling about it as well as
taking note of what the teacher is actually doing and how to get things
going. Getting a chance to practice taking classes is also important.
Student 2 A secure comfortable environment is necessary for most

effective learning…debriefing after a lesson is an activity I find I
learn a great deal from.
Student 3 Learning by doing—both the teaching part, and also being

put in a student’s position, and actually taking part in activities etc.
That we will be getting kids to do, to see the problems etc. that they
may have with concepts etc. Becoming more confident in myself,
and my knowledge, not necessarily that it’s right, but that it’s
acceptable to others [for me to develop this in our classes], no matter
how convoluted it may be.
Student 4 At first, have a healthy rapport with the classroom

environment…a good groundwork to start so everyone is comfortable.
Most importantly the ideas, attitudes and knowledge expressed by
other people in the class—this is a huge resource. Talking and
66
discussing real life problems and the real life solutions of ‘what would
happen’ in the classroom, e.g., What problem would arise if….
Bringing everything into classroom situations acknowledges the
different knowledge and strengths of people. Discussion of case
examples of what has happened [is helpful too].
Student 5 Firstly, to learn from experience: trying different things out

in different ways (because one particular way is not going to suit every
class, year level, student, etc.). A lot of this comes from trial and error
because I learn both from things that go well and from things that don’t
work. Also looking at things from different viewpoints i.e., class
discussion like what we did today to pool everyone’s ideas. Not to be
told things, but to learn things and discover things myself.
Student 6 I suppose one of the key things that helps me to learn to

teach is trial and error. I feel it is important to try things out and then
see how they go i.e., learn from experience. Also, if this was the case
I’m sure it assumes that as I go along I should go from bad to better.
This is not the case as I suppose it comes down to many factors e.g.,
Time of day, the students themselves etc. Also, I really feel that by
putting myself in their shoes and trying to take it from a different
perspective helps too. If I can imagine how they thought a lesson
went (which is not always possible) then I may get an understanding
of my teaching. The most important thing for me is not to be told
what to teach, but to be given chances to learn how I may go about
it…. Also, talking about experiences with each other helps me to figure
out a lot of other people’s ideas and to work from them.
Student 7 I think some of what we learn about teaching we learn almost

unconsciously by the way we are taught ourselves by the teachers this
year. Other things we consciously think about e.g., I like this, I don’t
like that, that was interesting, that was boring, that made me want to
know more, this challenged me. We learn from making mistakes and
our supervisors’ suggestions. We learn a lot from each other—seeing
how someone else approached something, different perspectives. We
learn by reflecting on how we ourselves were taught by teachers in the
past. Then we try to link all of this practical stuff with the theory (this
is hard) and try to come up with a concept [of practice] that works.
Student 8 I think it’s been good how we were taught to do a lot of

question asking during the class. I was not very good at this during
my first teaching round because I got frustrated and just gave the
kids the answers, but in my second teaching round, I practised this
and found that it works. They do get a lot more out of it [the teaching]
if they think for themselves—with the guidance of the teacher.
67
John Loughran
Student 9 Being put in risk taking situations helps me to learn. It

helps me to understand what it is like to be a student again. As a
result, I enjoy activities which make me take risks. I find open class
discussion very valuable. I value an environment in which everyone
has a chance to contribute, not just those with the loudest voices or
all the knowledge. Learning to teach is a very vulnerable experience
and I think it is very important that we are in an environment which
has trust—both teacher-student and student-student. I think a high
interaction with your peers is very important in Dip. Ed. This
interaction keeps us ‘on track’ and makes us realize that we all have
similar problems.
It is not often that in the rush to teach about teaching we take the time to ask our
students what they think they need to know, or how they would like to learn, but it
is interesting to consider the responses above and to use these ideas as shaping
factors for our approach to helping our student-teachers learn about teaching in
ways that are congruent with their needs, expectations and concerns. What we do
with our student-teachers is much more important than what we do to them.
Conclusion
Many years ago, Fuller (Fuller, 1969; Fuller and Bown, 1975) described the shifts
in student-teachers’ concerns as they progressed through their teacher education
programs. I believe that teaching about teaching needs to occur in a context in
which these shifts are constantly being recognized and responded to by the teachers
of teachers so that learning about teaching is a dynamic, challenging and interactive
process which encourages individuals to learn to reflect on their experiences and
to pursue their pedagogical development in ways that are thoughtful and meaningful.
For this to be the case, we as their teachers must not lose sight of the challenge
of learning ourselves and the importance of its relationship with teaching; otherwise,
teaching about teaching might (sadly) too easily become just a way of trying to tell
beginning teachers what we think they should know, bypassing the important
learning experiences which are so crucial in shaping views of, and practice in,
teaching. Through my experience in teaching pre-service teacher education students,
I have come to believe that learning through the experience is highly valued by
student-teachers and that they are more than prepared to take the risks and face the
challenges associated with so doing. In this way their learning about teaching is
significantly enhanced. Clearly, this is severely diminished if teaching is simply
equated with telling, and understanding is not seen as a fundamental outcome of
learning. Pre-service teacher education programs are the first place of contact
between beginning teachers and their prospective profession. If they are to value
the pedagogical knowledge that is continually being developed, refined and
articulated within their profession, if they are to understand the complex nature of
teaching and learning, and if they are to be ‘teachers’ not ‘tellers’, ‘trainers’ or
68
‘programmers’, then this first contact through pre-service programs is crucial. The
pedagogy involved in teaching teachers is very important.
References
DEWEY, J. (1933) How We Think, New York, Heath and Co.

FULLER, F.F. (1969) ‘Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization’, American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 2, pp. 207–26.
FULLER, F.F. and BOWN, O.H. (1975) ‘Becoming a teacher’, in RYAN, K. (Ed) Teacher
Education: the 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 11,
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
HODSON, B.L. (1993) ‘Technical update: Power Supplies’, Lab Talk, 37, 4, pp. 27–9.
LOUGHRAN, J.J. (1996) Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and
Learning through Modelling, London, Falmer Press.
MITCHELL, I.J. (1992) ‘The class level’, in BAIRD, J.R. and NORTHFIELD, J.R. (Eds)
Learning from the PEEL Experience, Melbourne, Monash University Printing Service.
MUNBY, H. and RUSSELL, T.L. (1994) ‘The authority of experience in learning to teach:
Messages from a physics methods course’, Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 2, pp.
86–95.
York, Basic Books.
SHULMAN, L.S. (1986) ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’,
Educational Research, 15, 2, pp. 4–14.
VAN MANEN, M. (1991) The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness,
Albany, New York, State University of New York Press.
WALKER, J. and EVERS, C. (1984) ‘Towards a materialist pragmatist philosophy of
education’, Education Research and Perspectives, 11, 1, pp. 23–33.
WHITE, R.T. and GUNSTONE, R.F. (1992) Probing Understanding, London, Falmer Press.
69
Section 2
Challenges in Teaching and Learning

about Teaching
6 Teaching Teachers for the Challenge
of Change
Anna E.Richert
Introduction
To say these times are harrowing seems true enough. Change is happening so
quickly that it is hard to keep track of what’s what, who’s who, and what matters.
At least that is how it feels to me when I think about my work of teaching teachers
to teach school in urban America. In school, change is the only thing we can predict
with certainty. Yet change makes the work of teaching school difficult. It makes
teaching teachers hard work as well. That is what this chapter is about—the hard
work of teaching teachers to meet the challenge of change. I will begin by exploring
the issue of change in school settings in order to lay out the challenge of change
for teaching and teacher education and then I will provide examples from my own
practice of my attempts to meet this challenge. Thirdly I will explore the results of
those efforts. I will present the analysis of an example from my teaching as means
for considering how my students think about their work in schools, and their
preparation for doing it. As might be predicted, these results raise new questions.
These new questions, and the persistence of always facing new questions, explains,
perhaps, the most challenging part of dealing with change in the first place—its
unending, enduring nature. Deliberating the challenge of change in school settings
is where we will begin our consideration of what teachers need to know and be
able to do to meet it. From there, we can look at the subsequent challenge of
preparing them for that daunting task.
Change and Teaching School
An interesting paradox presents itself when one begins to consider the significance
of change to the workings of school. On the one hand, change, more than anything
else, characterizes the reality of school life. Everything about school changes all the
time: the children change, the communities they come from change, the subject
matters change, the teachers change, the purposes of school change, the sources of
support for schools change as does the demands for support resources. On the other
hand, in spite of these obvious and generally accepted changing conditions of school
life, schools themselves appear to be relatively stable. Life in school goes along as it
73
Anna E.Richert
always has; teachers still do most of the talking and children most of the listening.
Bells ring at predictable hours. Subject matters are still considered separately rather
than interconnected as they would be if they were presented to describe the real
‘stuff of children’s lives. Biology is taught separately from chemistry, for example,
and chemistry separately from math. English is separate from history, and separate
from mathematics as well. Algebra is taught before geometry, and American History
before Government but after World. School leadership remains similarly stable in
American schools with most schools having principals who lead them, and most
principals continuing to be men. It is indeed curious to notice that, while the world
changes, schools remain virtually the same. Why is this so?
The answers to this question, of course, are numerous, complex and beyond the
scope of this chapter. We are perched to explore one set of them, however, the
teachers who teach in schools—who they are, what they know and are able to do,
how they understand the purpose of schooling in the first place, how they think
about and deal with change, how they are prepared. It is the last of these—teacher
preparation—that I address in this chapter.
Rather than confronting the issue of necessary change, it is more likely that
teachers who teach in schools as we know them teach as they were taught; teacher
education does little to challenge the systems of schools as they are. Nor does the
reward system of schools (salaries, advancement, special assignments, and so forth)
direct teachers to examine the purposes of their work in the first place, and/or
explore alternative conceptions of what is and what might be to accomplish different
ends. For better or for worse, schools are persistently stable places. Deborah Meier
(1995) hints of this factor of persistence and its systemic and pervasive nature
when she says in her recent work on school reform, The thing that is wrong with
prescriptive teaching is not that it does not work—it’s that it does’ (p. 604). Teachers
learn what school and teaching are first as students, and perpetuate through deed
and action these conceptions in their new role as teachers. Interestingly, the problem
we face in education and the urgency with which it confronts us at this time results
as these two factors about school change intersect—the inevitability of change on
the one hand, and the resistance to change on the other.
Those of us working in urban settings know, even without needing to explore
very deeply, that while change is ever-present in school settings, undirected change
does not work in the best interest of many of our school children. Nor does it work
in the best interests of the teachers who teach them. We know, also, that schools
are predictably less successful in reaching certain groups of students—the poor
and the foreign-born, for example. Similarly, they work predictably less well for
the teachers of those same children. But even for other children, including children
who score high on standardized tests, and/or children from homes of affluent means,
school does not work particularly well. It does nothing to teach these children of
the problematic nature of schooling, or tests, or the mechanisms that sort them into
their privileged positions. In fact, as it currently exists, school functions to muffle
rather than sharpen consciousness about the social inequities it serves to perpetuate.
The challenge for teacher education, then, begins with the challenge of how to
question the status quo of schools, and raise consciousness about the need to examine
74
Teaching Teachers for the Challenge of Change
the conditions of school life. The process must begin with determining what our
students know and believe about teaching and about schooling. It is commonly
accepted practice in teaching children that one begins by determining what those
children already know. Were we to follow that common practice in the teaching of
teachers, we would learn what preconceptions our novice teachers hold about
teaching and school, and begin there to prepare them for work that is new. In this
way the task of preparing teachers becomes linked with that of reconceiving schools
to better meet the needs of the people they serve.
Though there is a constant effort on the part of teacher education to do what it
does better, the question guiding teacher education reform seldom takes us to the
place of questioning the fundamental questions of schooling in the first place. This
brings us to the importance of linking teacher education reform with school reform.
To do this teacher educators must step back again to examine the core questions of
what school is for, and what teachers need to know and be able to do to help
schools accomplish those goals. Rather than accepting the factors of school as
‘given’, we must learn to cast them as ‘problematic’. If we were able to do it, such
casting would allow us to consider anew what and how we teach in relationship to
who and why we teach. We would also be one step further in meeting the urgent
challenge of change.
Where Should We Begin?
How, then, might we go about preparing teachers to both survive the system of
school as it currently exists and contribute to reforming it at the same time? We
might begin by asking ourselves what we believe teachers need to know and be
able to do to function in changing schools. We must also examine where this
learning might best occur (in the university or the school, for example) and when
in the teacher’s career. I begin by exploring the question of what teachers need
to know.
Recent research on teacher knowledge suggests that beginning teachers need to
know about all kinds of things: students, learning, subject matter, how to teach
subject matter, context, curriculum, teaching (Grossman, 1990; Wilson, Shulman
and Richert, 1987; Shulman, 1986). The list does not end there either. Policy-
makers interested in extending the teacher’s role to include participating in school
reform, and managing the school’s academic agenda, add to the knowledge-
requirements list issues of school governance, conflict resolution, community
building, etc. (Darling-Hammond, 1993; Grossman and Richert, 1996; Murray,
1994; Lieberman, 1995; Fullan, 1993; Sarason, 1993). While knowledge in each
of these domains is essential for teacher success, the critical issue for beginning
teachers, it seems to me, is how teachers learn to think about the source and role of
that knowledge for their own school practice. Acquiring new knowledge is an
important part of the process of learning to teach, to be sure. However, given the
uncertain and changing context where that knowledge will be used, an approach to
knowledge acquisition which accommodates uncertainty and change is needed.
75
Anna E.Richert
Learning to accept and deal with the inherent uncertainty of teaching is an important
early step in preparing teachers to deal with change. Given this uncertainty, it is
important, also, for teachers to recognize their professional role in determining
how they will act in school—what they will do in their interactions with children,
what principles will guide the decisions they make, how they will conduct
themselves as colleagues, and so forth. The work of teaching is not predetermined;
therefore, recognizing the moral component of the work is also central to meeting
the challenge of change in schools. Let us push these ideas a little further before
considering the form our programs might take to prepare teachers for this complex
challenge.
Dealing with Teaching’s Uncertainty
Learning about uncertainty needs to be one piece of the teacher education

curriculum. From the start, preparing teachers to embrace uncertainty is an uphill
climb. Students enter the profession having experienced literally thousands of hours
of classroom life. They know a lot about school when they arrive, and about teaching,
about kids, and even about curriculum. To make matters even more difficult for
teacher education, the schools they will encounter within the teacher education
context will do little to convince them that what they already know is not enough
for smart teaching practice. As has already been discussed, schools are very stable
places. They look pretty much like they always have—chairs, rows, desks, bells,
blackboards, tests, teacher talk, detention, homework, points, grades. The systemics
that characterize school life seem to endure in spite of the changing world that
encircles them.
While schools look the same, however, the truth is that they are not the same.
All of us involved in education must learn to look more closely at schools, and
learn how to understand differently what we see. As familiar as school processes
and procedures appear, we have learned that each teaching/learning situation is
actually quite different (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989). Knowing how to ask
questions of every particular situation is therefore critical knowledge for teaching.
Knowing how to ask questions and knowing what to ask presuppose knowing to
ask questions in the first place. All three are parts of reflective teaching that must
be part of a teacher’s professional preparation. A look at the changing demographics
in this country underscores how critically important it is that teachers develop this
reflective approach towards teaching. The population served by American schools
in 1996 is much broader than the one they served at the time public schooling was
initiated in this country; the world is different from the time when most of the
school practices now in place were created.
For this reason, I think what teachers need to learn first in their professional
preparation is to acknowledge change and uncertainty, and cast all aspects of school
as ‘problematic’ rather than ‘given’. Novice teachers must become aware that,
while there is a lot about school that we do know, there is at least as much about
school that we do not know. In confronting what we do not know honestly, and
76
searching together to learn what we need to know, we can acquire the knowledge
and skill to not only survive school as it is but to transform it in ways that better
serve its clientele. This is the challenge of our work: how to deal with that uncertainty
and use what we do know in service of what we do not know.
Considering Teaching’s Moral Imperative
The uncertainty of teaching places teachers in the position of making moral decisions
as a regular and routine part of their work. The changing world of which schools
are a part renders both the ends and means of teaching uncertain. For this reason,
the teacher must learn to examine both the purposes and consequences of his or
her actions—a daunting challenge indeed. It involves questioning why do what we
do, and constantly examining both what we teach and how we choose to teach it.
For example, it is one thing to know algebra, or even how to teach algebra. It is
quite something else to have considered why algebra is important to know in the
first place. As part of the formulation of this chapter I gathered materials from my
current teacher education students in order to explore their emergent skills for
dealing with both the uncertainty and morality of teaching. I came upon several
examples of my students examining what and how they were teaching, in relation
to the purposes for which they saw themselves being there in the first place. Matt
was a fifth-year credential candidate preparing to teach secondary mathematics
who struggled with the question of ‘Why algebra?’. His ruminations on a curriculum
project, which I will describe more fully later in the chapter, reveal part of his
journey to construct and/or articulate his purpose for teaching mathematics. His
comments suggest an emerging sense of connection with a purpose that contributes
to a greater good for his students—greater in that it takes them (and him) beyond
the mechanics of doing math well.
In the context of the Curriculum Project Matt was put to the test of articulating
his purpose by his student teaching partners who wanted to know ‘Why math?’.
Why teach mathematics as part of the K-12 curriculum? Matt found that he needed
to question much of what he had taken for granted as a successful undergraduate
math major in a competitive East Coast university. He said in his post-assignment
reflection, ‘I found myself wondering at times why the hell I’m teaching something
which often lacks any obvious influence on students’ emotional/personal lives’
(MR, Curriculum Reflection 5/96). And continued later in that same document:
As I struggled more and more…some very subtle but important realisations

came up. I began to realise the important role math played in my own
personal life, and not just in my intellectual growth. I began to look at
math as a very pure and simplified medium to understand and practice
important life themes. The beauty of math is that packed within those
tiny equations are profound observations of nature’s patterns, and tucked
in all those models and proofs are helpful approaches to problem solving
of all kinds. (MR, Curriculum Reflection 5/96)
77
Anna E.Richert
Interestingly, Matt’s examination of the discipline he intends to teach in terms of

its potential for generating meaning-making possibilities for his students led him
to a realization or position similar to my own: We both have identified uncertainty
as significant in life, and consequently, important to teach in school. He continued:
I am still fascinated that whenever one draws a circle and measures the
diameter and circumference, they will be related by a factor of pi (3.14).
Why is this always true? Who or what made nature have this relationship
and why? Packed in the simplest relationships are some of the most
profound questions, ones that we have no answers to. Math is another
lens to dissect why things are the way they are, and to realise that we have
a very limited understanding of existence in general…Math is important
to do taxes and understand statistics, but it becomes relevant to students’
personal lives (social, emotional, etc.) in that it is a powerful and safe
place to face problems and cope with uncertainty. (MR, Curriculum
Reflection 5/96)
Shoshana, a colleague of Matt’s who is preparing to be an elementary school teacher,

found herself grappling with the coupled questions of why teach history to fourth
graders, and then how to do it, as she worked on the same curriculum project as
Matt. Shoshana’s process also began with a self-interrogation. After much searching
through her own preconceptions about what school is for and how history as a
content area within the structure of the school curriculum contributes to the
aforementioned purposes, she decided to help her students situate themselves in
time and space. She and her curriculum colleagues chose the concept of ‘identity’
which Shoshana conceptualized as foundational to understanding history. The
process of interrogating herself and others about what she would teach and why
led her slowly to new understandings about what history might be for fourth graders,
and how she might approach it in her classroom. The choice of ‘identity’ as a
focusing concept came about with effort that involved, among other things, extensive
conversations with her curriculum partners, other teachers, and her college faculty.
Rather than accept without question the concept of ‘identity’ to teach as part of a
history curriculum, Shoshana framed the interrogation of identity as a concept to
teach in terms of what she hoped to accomplish in her classroom and why. About
this challenging journey to understanding which allowed her to move forward in
her curriculum planning, she said:
It was then, and only then, that I truly understood the value of children
learning who they are, who their families are, and where they come
from. By using one’s identity as a foundation for studying history, then
everything to follow has personal significance. (SB, Curriculum
Reflection 3/96)
Teaching is fundamentally a moral endeavor made more complex by the uncertainty

that surrounds it, and the need for teachers to examine, with each action, their
78
purposes and the possible consequences. How to recognize teaching’s moral content
and work responsibly towards its moral imperative must also figure heavily in the
pre-service education of teachers. As the examples of Shoshana and Matt exemplify,
the exact substance of the teacher’s moral reasoning will be as diverse as the people
engaged in the reasoning process and the dilemmas they confront. So, too, will the
outcomes of those deliberations be different. What must remain as consistent and
centrally important are the processes of questioning purposes and consequences,
reasoning through decisions about actions relative to those purposes and
consequences, and acting with intent in one’s work as a teacher.
Not unlike the inherent uncertainty that necessarily frames teachers’ work in
schools, the moral component of teaching can be invisible to the unconscious eye.
Part of what teachers need to learn at the outset of their careers, therefore, is to
recognize the uncertain and moral components of their work, and to operate in schools
with those as given. Interestingly, part of what renders teaching uncertain is the
unresolved morality that frames every aspect of the work. Part of learning to deal
with uncertainty is learning how to resolve moral dilemmas and take moral action.
Teacher education needs to set the stage for this work by establishing the existence
of the conditions of morality and uncertainty, and preparing novice practitioners for
a wholehearted engagement with meeting the challenges they present.
Agency, Reflection, and Learning to Teach
The ability to take moral action requires that teachers learn to act with intent. This
means that teachers need to locate expertise inside, rather than outside, themselves.
What I am suggesting here is that teachers learn to see themselves not as ‘received
knowers’, (Belenkey, et al., 1986), but as agents of their own school practice. The
agenda for knowledge acquisition in teacher education must have two parallel
strands: in one, the novices learn what knowledge the field has to offer about
children, subject matter, teaching, curriculum, and the like; in the second they
learn to construct new knowledge, to recognize themselves as experts, and to
acknowledge the significance of their own knowledge construction in determining
their practice. In this model, expertise is located both inside and outside the teacher-
knower. The teachers are seen not only as users and dispensers of knowledge, but
as creators of knowledge as well. Part of the work of teaching is constructing new
knowledge in a vitally dynamic system of change. The process requires asking
powerful questions and searching for equally powerful answers.
Asking questions and searching for answers is no small challenge in a culture that
associates certainty with truth, truth with knowledge, and knowledge with power. It
is no wonder that schools strive to be certain places where life is under control and
outcomes are predictable and steady. Unfortunately, (or fortunately) real life in school
is necessarily uncertain. Everything changes all the time. This is a hard lesson for
novice teachers to learn; it is especially hard if they have no support in examining
that truth as they encounter it in the daily world of school life.
The process of learning to teach needs to provide novices with both an experience
79
Anna E.Richert
in school, and an opportunity to think about that experience and make sense of it in
new ways. They need to learn to look back and examine all-too-well known and
comfortable ‘certainties’ about schooling, teaching, and learning. The imperative
for teacher education is to offer novices that opportunity: it is our responsibility to
prepare teachers with the knowledge and skills of reflective practice so that they
can act with intent in morally responsible ways. Teachers need to know how to
examine what is in school, and how to determine or imagine what could be or
might be as well. They must learn to confront the uncertainty of their work, deliberate
the moral questions that underlie their actions, and act with intent as both learners
and teachers in the setting of school.
Program Form and the Challenge of Change
How might teacher education be structured to prepare teachers to accomplish these

goals? In the following pages I will suggest several overarching principles that
could guide the construction of such a program. I will follow this with an example
from my own teaching that was designed to embody those principles. Included
with the example is an analysis of my students’ reflections on it. I have drawn on
the work of the credential class which has most recently graduated. Their words
provide insight as to whether or not, and how, these teacher education activities
prepared them to embrace the inherent uncertainty of teaching, and to examine the
moral content of their work. They also provide access to the connection between
uncertainty, morality, and the possibility of change.
Problem Solving and Inquiry
A core feature of a teacher education program that is oriented towards change is that
the program is inquiry based and geared towards the definition and exploration of
problems/dilemmas rather than towards the acquisition of prescriptive teaching
strategies and techniques. Such a problem-exploration approach to teaching and
teacher education underscores the idea that ‘things-as-they-are’ in school settings is
not necessarily the same as ‘things-as-they-might-be’, or ‘things-as-they-ought-to-
be’. Each situation involves different people, different subject matters, different
purposes and so forth. Teachers need to be prepared to analyze the factors that define
the different situations that confront them. From there they must learn to determine
which of these factors is most important to guide action towards the pur poses they
define. The reflective process of inquiry that this examination entails is learned. It
involves coming to hold the knowledge, skills, and commitments necessary to ask
powerful questions and search for equally powerful answers about what they believe,
what they see, what they know, what they do, and ultimately, what they have done. In
developing the knowledge and skills of inquiry novice teachers will have the
opportunity to draw on the substantial research literature in education. In this way
they will learn to use that which we do know, in service of what we do not know.
80
Problems That Are Real and/or Problems That Cause Us to Stretch
The type of problems around which such a teacher education program might be
constructed serves to define the second principle I will suggest for developing a
teacher education curriculum. Donald Schön (1983) in his work on reflective
professional practice cautions us to recognize that the most challenging part of
problem-solving is problem definition. The problems or dilemmas that form the
‘text’ of a teacher education curriculum need to meet at least two overlapping criteria:
1 They need to be real, that is tied to real circumstances in local schools

that are recognizable to both the university and school practitioners who
are engaged in exploring them.
2 They need to be defined or constructed to challenge existing school
structures and systems.
Let us think for a moment about these two criteria. Real problems are not difficult
to find in the workings of school. However, they are difficult to capture in forms
that are useful for teacher education. Part of the challenge of constructing an inquiry-
based teacher education curriculum is finding a mechanism for capturing the ‘real
stuff of school life and presenting it in a form that will generate a meaningful,
extensive, rigorous, examination by the teacher education community (novice
professionals, and their more experienced school-and university-based colleagues).
Determining what is ‘real’, furthermore, is rendered problematic by the complexity
of life in school, and the powerful role of perception in defining what matters. It is
important that the problems that serve as text for teacher education be determined
by the variety of people trying to understand them. Teacher-written cases of practice,
video representations of work in school, curriculum representations of a variety of
forms, aggregations of students’ performances, etc. all hold potential for creating
a text that is real.
The second criterion is that the problems open a conversation that pushes its
participants beyond the status quo. The issue I raise here concerns both the learning
context that frames the problem exploration and the problem itself. Certain problems
or dilemmas lend themselves better to examining existing practices than others,
and examining them in the good company of colleagues. Similarly, how we frame
those problems suggests different kinds of conversations as well. Several examples
can be drawn directly from the school reform agenda that has captured the attention
of American educators: for instance, the question of how to get parents more
involved in the education of their children, a common dilemma faced by many
interested in school reform (Fine, 1993). The question that might guide the
exploration of this issue could be framed in a number of different ways each one of
which would suggest a different level of engagement with the issue of parent
involvement. ‘How can we get more parents involved in our school and our
classrooms?’, for example, suggests a different conversation from ‘What role should
parents have in the workings of our school?’ Similarly, asking ‘How might we
implement the state’s suggested science curriculum for K-l classrooms?’, is different
81
Anna E.Richert
from asking ‘What science knowledge and skills do we want first graders to know
by the time they head off to second grade?’ Pushing ourselves and our students to
consider a deeper or more fundamental set of questions about how life in school
ought to proceed helps us create a meaningful conversation that promotes learning
and challenges the status quo at the same time. We must be vigilant about asking
ourselves ‘Why?’ ‘Why is this important, why is this so, why am I doing this?’ and
so forth. Asking why allows us to define as uncertain that which may be perceived
as given; it opens up the more fundamental questions which allows us to challenge
things as they are.
Colleagues and Collaboration
The third guiding principle for teacher education that promotes and supports an
agenda of change is that the program be designed to develop the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions needed for collaborative work in school settings. Asking ourselves
why, and exploring anew the practices, structures, complexities of school life,
requires the presence of others. The work of teaching is far too complex for teachers
to manage it alone—the problems are too numerous and complex, the uncertainties
too ubiquitous, the challenges too great. Teachers need one another just as they
need participation and support of their school administrators, the dis trict personnel,
the parents and other community members whose children they serve. Alone,
teachers are limited in their ability to define the issues and dilemmas adequately,
and limited in defining the best course of action for different situations—different
students, different intended outcomes, and so forth. Shulman and Gary (1987)
argued almost ten years ago that teachers are bounded in their ability to function
rationally, and this has been exacerbated as the populations and purposes they
serve have become increasingly diverse.
Given the norm of isolation in schools, the importance of developing the skills
of collegiality in teacher education cannot be emphasized enough. The culture of
teaching as work, and the culture of school which separates people—by grade, by
age, by subject area, by role, etc.—does little to promote meaningful collaboration
among school colleagues. Yet meaningful collaboration is essential if we are to
expand our school agenda to help teachers teach all children important content in
rigorous and challenging ways. Teachers need to learn the value of collaboration
and develop the knowledge and skills that will allow them to do collaborative
work successfully.
Teacher Education for Change
Perhaps the longest persistent challenge of teacher education is how to teach theory
and practice together in ways which promote the use of theory to illuminate practice,
and the use of practice to challenge and extend theory. These coupled practices are
the mainstay of reflective teaching and, therefore, the core of inquiry-based teacher
82
education as I’ve been describing it in this chapter. Existing theory helps teachers
both frame and explore problems by helping them to ask pertinent questions, to
know which questions to ask, to examine data that will help them answer their
questions, and so forth. In a similar way, everyday practice challenges teachers to
examine theory by looking for confirming and disconfirming evidence, and to
construct new theory as a result of their reflective work. By definition, teachers
who approach their work in this reflective and inquiring way necessarily embrace
the uncertainty of the work of teaching because they do not take as given but as
problematic the conditions of school. They see their work as guided by a process
of coming to understand more fully what is, in order to determine what needs to be
as the work proceeds. Understanding what is in relation to what might be requires
these teachers to examine the purposes of the work of school in the first place. In
the process, they necessarily engage the moral questions of their work.
In structuring teacher education to promote these capabilities in novice teachers
it is important to consider all aspects of the program. Not only do the experiences
that the student teachers have in their fieldwork placements need to be guided by
norms of reflective practice, but the work in their university classes also needs to
be guided by the same set of ideals. Teacher educators need to be reflective
practitioners themselves, and the work that they require of students needs to con
sistently convey a reflective and inquiring stance towards teaching and the work of
schools. This reflective stance necessarily brings together theory and practice in
teaching; as the novice professionals engage in their work in schools, and as their
faculty engage in the work of teaching them, both groups (the student teachers and
their university faculty) will be simultaneously engaged in the complex processes
of making sense of what they are doing and why. Each group alone and in
collaboration will necessarily consider the purposes of their decisions and actions,
as well as the consequences of what they do.
An Example
One place to examine how this might look in a teacher education setting is in the
experiences student teachers have in their professional education programs. An
experience my students have in their program occurs within the context of my
course entitled Introduction to the Profession of Teaching Diverse Learners’. There
are several structural features of the course that I designed to embrace the principles
just described. First, all of the student teachers in the program take this yearlong
class. Elementary and secondary teachers are together in conversation with one
another throughout the year as are subject matter specialists from all of the different
secondary disciplines. First grade teachers work with high school teachers of
mathematics. English teachers work with physics teachers, and kindergarten
teachers work with both.
Second, I have conceptualized the ‘text’ for the class as having two sides that
we examine simultaneously. On side one, the students do substantial reading of
the education research literature; side two is a text they create by bringing to class
83
Anna E.Richert
various representations of the work they are doing in their classrooms. The dialogue
among the class colleagues is one which consistently traverses the theory and
practice divide. A goal of this course is that by its completion the students will see
theory and practice as not separate but as parts of an elastic continuum that pulls
and stretches at each end in an interplay that causes both ends to grow.
All of the assignments in this course, as well as the course meetings themselves,
are designed to accomplish the goals I have outlined in this chapter. The second
semester Curriculum Project serves here as a case example. For the Curriculum
Project, I organize the group of sixty students into groups of three or four. In each
group there is at least one elementary school student teacher, a second from the
middle school and a third from the high school grades. The cross-grade-level and
interdisciplinary design is meant to challenge the discipline and grade-level
boundaries of most K-12 curriculum planning. Using Burner’s (1977) idea of the
spiral curriculum as a guide, the student teachers work together in these mixed
groups over a four-week period to plan the teaching of a concept they have chosen
within the subject area and grade levels they teach. The four weeks end with a
Curriculum Symposium where each group presents its work in the form of a poster
presentation. The assignment requires that the posters convey the concept the teacher
groups have chosen together with the justification they have created that will support
their choice (in the paragraphs below I describe this piece of the assignment more
fully). They must capture the essence of how the concept will be taught at the
different grade levels represented in the group and the manner in which the team
has considered the spiralling factor that Bruner suggests.
The concepts the students teach come from a list I provide, or from others that the
students choose. Independent of its source, the assignment requires the students to
justify the concept as to its importance in the K-12 curriculum. ‘Interdependence’
was one concept students chose this year, as were ‘change’, ‘scarcity’, and ‘point of
view’. The assignment requires the students to justify their choice of concept by
answering the question: Why teach this concept?—what makes this concept so
important that it needs to be taught (as Bruner would suggest) numerous times, with
increasing complexity, over the twelve years students are in school? Rather than take
as given the content of one’s teaching, the students are asked to examine their purposes
and justify their choices. In this instance, they are also asked to do this reasoning in
collaboration with colleagues, further challenging the status quo of schooling which
isolates teachers from one another. The groups prepare a joint justification statement
which they either include or otherwise represent on the posters they create.
Once the group has chosen and justified its concept, each member is responsible
for leading a discussion of how that concept might be taught at the level he or she
is currently teaching. The assignment suggests that the teachers visit one another’s
classrooms so that the ensuing conversations are more fully grounded in the reality
the teachers face. With the help of his or her colleagues, then, each teacher prepares
either a lesson, a series of lessons, or a unit that is aimed at teaching the concept.
Though those lessons are not necessarily presented in full on the poster, they are
represented symbolically in some way, and are written up and available for
distribution at the Curriculum Symposium. Critical to the lesson planning piece of
84
this assignment—and significant in terms of the impact of this assignment on

students according to the data collected during and at its completion—is the
requirement that the plan reveals the pedagogical reasoning or justification for
why the teacher aims to teach the concept indicated therein. If the teacher plans to
use poetry to teach ‘point of view’, for example, she needs to explain why she has
made these coupled choices—why point of view, and why poetry to teach it? If the
elementary teacher chooses to situate her lesson on ‘identity’ in the context of
history (as Shoshana did in the example presented earlier) she needs to explain
why she has made this decision as well. Furthermore, the students are also asked to
explain and justify their methodology. If the social studies teacher plans to randomly
assign students to groups for an opening exercise on land acquisition in the United
States, he needs to explain why groups?, why random assignment?, etc. In the
development of their lesson plans, the students were asked to draw on what they
had learned in this class and others, what they had learned from their work in the
field, and what they believed to be the purpose of their work in the first place. The
assignment brought them face-to-face with the reality that each decision a teacher
makes represents what he or she knows and believes about teaching, learning, and
the purpose of school. The work of school is not neutral; this assignment is
particularly powerful in driving that point home.
The concluding activity of the Curriculum Project is the Curriculum Symposium,
a two-hour event where the teachers publicly present their work. The Education
Department teaching and supervising faculty are invited to attend the event, but
the primary participants are the class members themselves. Organized to
approximate poster sessions in professional settings, the Symposium consists of
the teachers presenting their posters to one another in an open arena where
colleagues meet somewhat informally to discuss their work. The requirement is
that one person stays with the poster to explain it, distribute lesson plans, etc.
while the others are free to visit other poster stations. Presenting their work in a
coherent and compelling form that represents the group’s joint perceptions, on the
one hand, and the individual’s special contributions on the other, is a challenge
that many students mentioned as important to their growing identities as teachers
and professional colleagues.
The final step of the Curriculum assignment is for the students to write a brief
reflective essay on their learning in the context of this work. Using David Hawkins
(1974) essay ‘I, Thou, and It’ as another guide for the curriculum work we do in
this class, I generate feedback about the process at several points during the four
weeks. The reflective essay at the end is the culmination of this data-gathering
effort. Hawkins suggests that part of the teacher’s role as curriculum developer is
to be a diagnostician. As the student engages with the subject matter, Hawkins
argues, the teacher (who is also engaged with the subject matter) needs to attend to
what the student is doing, what the student knows, what the student needs to know,
the direction of the student’s work, and so forth. As the teacher watches the students
engage with the work, she diagnoses their progress and feedback of that information
to the students they teach. Teachers who have many students (such as I did in this
class) need to create ways to acquire the information they need to accomplish this
85
Anna E.Richert
diagnostician role. Throughout the Curriculum Project I collected various forms

of information (including an analysis of the first drafts of their lesson plans, for
example, and the first drafts of their concept justifications). I analyzed during the
process the data I was receiving from students, and fed that information back to
the group as a means of modelling both Hawkins’ idea, and the idea of reflective
practice more generally. This system of data collection, analysis, and feedback is
an ongoing process throughout the class. I make explicit my pedagogical reasoning
which I base on my continuous assessment of purpose in relationship to the students
I have and what I learn about their purposes and their reactions to and success with
the work of the class.
A Look at Results
What did I learn about how this assignment works to promote reflective practice
of the kind that will help novice teachers meet the challenge of change? Was there
anything in the data that might help us understand what parts of the assignment the
teachers perceived as particularly helpful with regard to their professional growth?
In reviewing the data (including my viewing the process itself and the Symposium
event at the end) I learned that several particular structures of the assignment were
most powerful for accomplishing the change-agent goals outlined in this chapter.
The first of these was the requirement of the assignment that the teachers work as
colleagues in cross-grade level and interdisciplinary teams. While collegiality is a
central goal of the program more broadly, what distinguished this experience from
some of the others they had had working with colleague groups at other times was
the composition of the groups, the focus on curriculum, and requirement for a
final product that they perceived as having meaning for the profession more broadly.
The second structure of the project that teachers reported as significant was the
requirement that they justify their pedagogical choices to a professional audience
(their curriculum partners first, and the broader professional community second).
I will discuss what I learned from my students about both of these factors, and
illustrate in my analysis how each of them contributed to the preparation of these
novice professionals for their impending work as change agents in the setting of
school. Their words provide access into some of the processes of conceptual change
that are part of learning to teach in a reflective way which promotes and supports
change. It appears that a careful examination of things as they are, in the company
of others who are similarly engaged, is a first step in prompting novices to imagine
things that could be new and different for schools.
Collegiality
In spite of what the teachers said about believing in collegiality before they began
this assignment, and the program emphasis on collaborative work, the requirement
that this assignment be completed in cross-grade-level, interdisciplinary teams was
86
met with enormous resistance at the outset. The objections to their working in
mixed groups was similar to the objection teachers in school settings have working
together: it is too difficult to coordinate and there is too little in common to share
even if the coordination difficulties were overcome. Most made manifest in their
reflection essays their changes of heart over the four-week period. Still, the
beginning was rough going. ‘This curriculum project was a taxing task’, one
reported. ‘Crowded schedules, differences of geography, style, and focus, and almost
separate philosophies created a complex situation for collegiality to flourish’ (MFD,
Curriculum Reflection 5/96). Another corroborated, ‘My first thought was “There
is no way that we’re going to be able to come up with something we can all relate
to, let alone represent on a poster!”’ (HR, Curriculum Reflection 5/96). A third
began her essay:
Asking four dynamic people with strong personalities, values and vision
to create a piece of curriculum together is ambitious. To ask that same
group of four people to create a fantastic, cumulative, continuous,
structure-focused curriculum is nothing short of admitting that you believe
in fate. From the start, this assignment seemed disaster-bound. (IK,
Curriculum Reflection 5/96)
Ilana, the third of these teachers continued her essay by saying, ‘Contrary to my
original anticipation regarding the sanity of this assignment, I found that the project
provided for a wonderful opportunity….’ The opportunity she went on to describe
included working with colleagues from different grade levels and subject areas.
Genevieve shared a similar reaction:
Although we have been told that collaboration between teachers of all

grade levels was crucial to our personal efficacy as teachers, I did not
realise how fruitful an interaction it could be until we began our work on
the Curriculum Project. We had in our group three teachers who taught
the full spectrum of students: kindergarten-second graders, fourth graders,
and twelfth graders. At first the task seemed rather daunting because of
the differences in ages of the students that we had; how could we define a
slippery and amorphous concept such as power and make it recognisable
to 6 year-olds as well as students who are entering college in a few short
months? (GH Curriculum Reflection, 5/96)
Most of them, as they moved through the steps of the assignment, eventually
accepted the challenge, and came to experience, first hand, the value of
collaboration. They also came to understand the particular power of working with
colleagues whose perspective, responsibility and, consequently, insights are
different. Genevieve continued in her reflective essay,
Interestingly enough, the wide range of our teaching experiences and

knowledge of students rendered this daunting task much easier to
87
Anna E.Richert
accomplish. Drawing from each other’s knowledge, we were able to

scaffold our definition of power and its relationship to gender. (GH
Curriculum Reflection, 5/96)
Drawing on each other’s knowledge, learning from each other’s perspective,

meeting the challenge of speaking one’s emerging professional truth, became factors
of the Project that the teachers came to recognize as essential for meeting the
extraordinary demands of their work. They also began to recognize their own
resistance, and some located its origin in the structure of school. Ilana reflected,
for example:
There is a hierarchy in place that divides teachers on a variety of different

planes. Teachers are stratified according to grade level, academic discipline
and institutional prestige. While there is a current separation that flows
through many communities of teachers, there is dire need for a forum to
be provided that not only encourages teachers to communicate with one
another, but a forum that challenges teachers to look critically at curric
ulum and how that curriculum is being communicated to students. In the
context of this collective Curriculum Project, I have been given not so
much a taste, but an experience that demonstrates how teachers who are
confronting challenges like their differences, can organise their thoughts,
feelings, and expertise, to create an exceptional product. (IK,
CurriculumReflection, 5/96)
An exceptional product, yes, but more significantly perhaps, a sense of community,

a shared sense of purpose, and ultimately a sense of hope:
In building bridges between teachers of different grade levels in order to

create meaningful curriculum coherence, the concomitant creation is some
thing which seems to be lacking in many of our schools, and in many of
our individual teachers and students: a sense of hope. (GH, Curriculum
Reflection, 5/96)
The sense of hope that Genevieve suggests here seems to come from several sources
that warrant mentioning in the context of this argument about preparing teachers
for the challenge of change. One is the feeling of purposefulness that the
conversation about curriculum raised for the teachers. Their reflections on the
process point towards a clearer idea about the substantive connections that could
or might exist across the K-12 experience. Mary, who is preparing to teach secondary
physics, said, for example, ‘I learned first-hand how important it is for teachers to
cross curricular lines and to cross those invisible boundaries of grade level of school
group (elementary, middle, and high schools)…it focused the task of collaboration
on curriculum where I believe it belongs’ (MFD, Curriculum Reflection, 5/96).
The power of crossing curricular lines and grade levels allows teachers to see the
connections they have with their colleagues, and the connections that are essential
88
in the development of knowledge and skills for their students. In this realization,
there is hope for change. Genevieve captured this feeling that was shared by many
of her colleagues when she said:
I was fascinated by the idea that through curriculum development and

teacher collaboration we stand a real chance of creating widespread
change for our students, schools and communities…. This constant
reinforcement of ideas which a spiral curriculum faithfully implemented
at all grade levels brings to students, will, in my opinion, help to create
a new generation of people who consciously seek to create for
themselves, and for those less powerful, an equitable society. (GH,
Curriculum Reflection 5/96)
The feeling of community that the project engendered, and the potential power of
that community connection, was a second source of hope for the student teachers.
People in community feel less isolated. For teachers this is critical given the
complexity of the work and the inherent uncertainty that makes that work so arduous.
One of the most difficult things to accept in teaching is the uncertainty of the
task—a central point of this chapter. It is impossible to know with certainty that
the choices you make as a teacher will help the children you are working with
grow in the direction you hope they will. While this is hard to accept for all teachers,
it is most difficult for novices who enter the profession with high ideals, and who
have little evidence that they are making any progress towards reaching those ideals
as they begin their work in the field. More experienced teachers are able to better
predict student outcomes, at least a particular type of student outcome (those that
can be observed, measured, quantified) with a modicum of success. Novice teachers
are much less able to predict these outcomes (Jackson, 1986). Beyond that, outcomes
that are not measurable in these ways—and outcomes that often capture the attention
and imagination of beginning teachers such as equity and access for urban poor,
raised confidence in marginalized children, raised consciousness regarding earth’s
resources—are problematic for novices in even more ways: They are not only hard
to predict, but difficult to identify and articulate clearly in the first place.
From my student teacher colleagues I have learned that one mechanism to cope
with these uncertainties is by working with colleagues. The Curriculum Project
had an important impact on the students for this reason. The requirement to work
with others in these mixed groups seemed to provide the occasion to experience
the value of collaborative work especially as it functioned to result in a sense of
shared responsibility. Sheryl wrote on a feedback form, for example, ‘Being able
to collaborate, struggle, and be unsure together was essential. We were not isolated
and this was good’ (Sheryl, 5/96). What was good about it was elaborated by
Louise who said, ‘I have learned that it is okay and educative not to know, and that
there is so much to be learned through collaboration. I get to have the privilege and
responsibility of not knowing which, when working on things with others, means
I will always be learning more’ (Louise, 5/96). Carol Margaret’s reflection revealed
the pain of coupling responsibility with uncertainty—a pain familiar to all teachers.
89
Anna E.Richert
She also described the relief that comes with learning to trust colleagues with
whom you can share the load:
As you know very well—the most problematic experiences for me are

those over which I have no control yet feel entirely responsible: the lives
of my students, the pressures/problems of society. If I can let go of my
notion of having to do all things at all times, for all students, being always
right and having to do it all on my own, then I think I’ll really be able to
be present, real, and make a difference in my own life as well as those of
my students. (CM 5/96)
Reflecting on this further she says:
The biggest lesson has been to communicate with others, not to shut down,
isolate myself and pretend everything in my classroom is just my respons
ibility; I don’t have that much control…. We are all in this together—
amazing how we are trained and brainwashed to isolate ourselves when it
is the connections with others that hold us, suspend us in the living, breath
ing world. (CM 5/96)
Articulating One’s Beliefs: Pedagogical Justification
Genevieve closes her reflection by addressing this issue of collaboration and trust
that the Curriculum Project seemed to engender:
Through teacher collaboration, we not only strengthen our students’ aca

demic experience, but also foster a sense of trust between us as colleagues.
In so doing, we can entrust each other with the care of our students,
knowing that we share the same fundamental goal—to help our students
live as powerfully as possible. (GH, Curriculum Reflection 5/96)
In order for teachers to come to trust one another, they need to talk about things
that matter to them. Ironically, there is little opportunity in teaching for teachers to
have such a conversation, and little opportunity to develop the know ledge and
skills necessary to have it as well. There is considerable evidence in the data that
the Curriculum Project offered the student teachers an opportunity to speak about
what they believe, and to become clearer about what they believe through the
process of these conversations. Though there were several points in the project
where the teachers were challenged to justify their work, one frequently mentioned
place was in the conversations they had with their colleagues about their plans.
Louise described a learning opportunity like this:
My thinking was more disciplined as a result of our collaborative efforts.

I recognised that as a multiple subjects teacher, my thinking is frequently
90
too broad. I want to teach because I want to give children a certain sense
of purposefulness, intention, and unique contribution. I seek to create ties
between the individual, the classroom, the school community, the family,
the neighbourhood, and the world. My colleagues forced me to ask, ‘But
what specifically are you teaching in this instance? What is sustainability
a foundational idea to? How can you justify teaching this concept through
Language Arts lessons?’… Certainly I recognise in a more practical way
how my teaching is informed and made meaningful through a collaboration
with primary and secondary teachers. (LM, Curriculum Reflection, 5/96)
For Louise, and for many of her colleagues, this challenge to clarify her beliefs
and articulate them occurred in the collaborative planning meetings. In these
planning sessions, which were mentioned by almost all of the students as
particularly powerful in the learning opportunity they offered, the students worked
diligently to explain to their partners how they planned to teach their concept,
and why they planned to teach it in that way. They reported that at times this
self-interrogation drove them to the depths of their beings in search of who they
were and what motivation or belief guided their intended action. The experience
also caused them to draw on sources of knowledge that were tacit—and in certain
instances somewhat unconscious. Several reported that the challenge helped them
recognize how much they knew; apparently, the process raised consciousness
about how much they had learned on this journey of learning to teach. In her
reflective essay Joanna exclaimed, for example, ‘I realized I do have the rationale
in me. It gave me confidence about my pedagogical choices’ (JT, Curriculum
Reflection 5/96).
The challenge of needing to justify their pedagogical choices was built into the
assignment in a number of ways. In an indirect way the teachers were in constant
conversation with their colleagues which, as the quotations above indicate, required
them to justify their ideas, plans, and beliefs. Similarly, the culminating Curriculum
Symposium made this conversation even more public and was seen by many as an
additional opportunity for probing more deeply into the reasons for teaching.
Throughout the assignment the students were asked to bring consciousness to their
pedagogical choices, and therefore engage with the moral questions underlying
their work. Joanna explained how she began to connect the challenge of constructing
knowledge in collaboration with her partners and the concomitant revelation of
beliefs and commitments. She began to see this process as part of the moral
dimension of teaching:
From walking around at the symposium I…noticed I was getting in touch

with others’ moral reasoning. Something about this assignment brought
us all to make some kind of public statement about why we teach—what
is of worth in our curriculum plans. (JT, Curriculum Reflection, 5/96)
In addition to these ways in which the assignment positioned students to speak

with colleagues and thus reveal their goals, it also required that they include a
91
Anna E.Richert
pedagogical rationale or justification for every step of their written plan. This
requirement, incidentally, met with the same resistance initially to that of the mixed
group collaboration. The students reported that the requirement that they justify
what they intended to do was difficult (both in terms of what they decided to teach
and how they intended to teach it). The process involved laborious conversations
that required them to articulate their beliefs about what students need to know and
why, what school is for, how they plan to teach children from backgrounds very
different from their own, and so forth. Not only did the teachers need to consider
these factors for themselves, the structure of the assignment placed them in the
position of needing to articulate those beliefs to their colleagues. Given the multiple
perspectives inherent in any group of teachers—especially one that is mixed by
both grade level and subject area—conflicts arose. While I understood the challenge
these conversations entail, I found their reaction surprising given the lateness in
the term, and capability I knew the students had for accomplishing the task. Their
resistance indicated to me that thinking about what they are doing in relationship
to why they are doing it is not part of the typical discourse of the profession. ‘I
really struggled a lot with the lesson plan’, one student reported, ‘with thinking
about why of everything’ (Janan, Curriculum Reflection 5/96). In reflecting on the
process further, this same student stepped back one layer more when she asked
subsequently, ‘Why was it hard for me?’ Another reported, ‘When I first received
my rough draft with all of your “why”s and “what is the connection between”s, I
felt somewhat overwhelmed’ (Joanna, Curriculum Reflection 5/96). Overwhelmed
and discouraged according to Virginia whose comments lend insight to the process:
When I first got back my first draft of my lesson plan, I was a little
discouraged—what are all these notes and questions, did I do it right?
And then I really appreciated, though it was difficult to get started, the
processes involved in justifying my lesson. I think oftentimes we have
these notions of what we must teach according to standards, and what we
think will be ‘fun’ and engaging. But we fail to really think about why we
want it to be fun and engaging; or why it might be important that our
lessons adhere to ‘standards’. I often think a lot about the methods and
not as often about the reasons. This seems to relate to our many discussions
about knowing where we are going when we are teaching…what does it
matter what they (my students) produce? But, in fact, it matters very much.
And here, it also becomes a moral issue. Why do we want to teach about
change, (for example) why should this concept spiral throughout the
curriculum? I think the members of my group really believe in the moral
imperative we have as teachers to teach children how to identify and
understand change, to see their role as both observers and participants in
change, and also to help them find the tools to enable them to be agents of
change. (Virginia, Curriculum Project, 5/96)
Interestingly, Virginia’s group selected the concept of ‘change’ around which to

focus its curriculum work. My questions of her during the assignment began by
92
probing for her pedagogical rationale about teaching the concept of change in the
first place. I asked her what about change she intended to teach and why, and why
she would teach it as her plan indicated she would. Given the culture of school
where such questions are seldom asked, my queries indicated to Virginia that perhaps
she was not doing the work ‘right’. Like many of her student teaching colleagues,
until she was in the position of responding either to me or to her curriculum partners
about the purposes and consequences of her work, she did not recognize the
importance of probing herself more deeply about the content she teaches, and the
methods by which she chooses to do so. The coupled facts that this assignment
occurred late in the Spring of a year-long credential program, and the students
found both working with colleagues and justifying their work difficult, underscore
the importance of this type of questioning in teacher education. I found that even
in my own class, which was constructed to teach the value of reflective practice
and eschew the notion of ‘one right answer’, the traditional standard of ‘getting it
right’ prevailed. The Curriculum Project provided the students the opportunity to
talk with colleagues about what they hoped to accomplish and why, as well as plan
with them how they might go about accomplishing their goals. They were required
to ask questions, search for answers, struggle with conflicting points of view, provide
evidence from the field, and justify their work. Such opportunities are critical for
undoing the culture of isolation in teaching, and building a culture that supports an
agenda of change.
Concluding Thoughts
Learning to teach is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. These times of

tremendous change make the challenge of learning to teach more complex still,
and the challenge of teaching teachers one step beyond that. Teachers must be
prepared with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be learners in the context
of school. By learning this, novices can come to act with intent in their own
classrooms and schools. In their multifaceted quest, they can learn to join with
colleagues (other teachers, administrators, parents, etc.) to define and direct a larger
school and change agenda as well. This challenge we face is two-fold: we must
prepare teachers for excellent practice in schools as they are and, at the same time,
we must also prepare them to engage in conversation and school practice as they
believe it ought to be. This is today’s challenge. It is for today’s teachers and
teacher educators, and for tomorrow’s children.
References
BELENKEY, M., CLINCHY, B., GOLDBERGER, N. and TARULE, J. (1986) Women’s

Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self Voice and Mind, New York, Basic Books.
BROWN, J.S., COLLINS, A. and DUGUID, P. (1989) ‘Situated cognition and the culture
of learning’, Educational Researcher, 18, 1, pp. 32–42.
93
Anna E.Richert
BRUNER, J. (1977) The Process of Education, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1993) ‘Refraining the school reform agenda: Developing
capacity for school transformation’, Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 10, pp. 753–61.
FINE, M. (1993) ‘(Ap)parent involvement: Reflections of parents, power, and urban public
schools’, Teachers College Record, 94, 4, pp. 682–709.
FULLAN, M. (1993) Change Forces, New York, Falmer Press.
GROSSMAN, P.L. (1990) The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher
Education, New York, Teachers College Press.
GROSSMAN, P.L. and RICHERT, A.E. (1996) ‘Building capacity and commitment for
leadership in preservice teacher education’, Journal of School Leadership, 6, 2, pp.
202–10.
HAWKINS, D. (1974) ‘I, thou, and it’, The Informed Vision, New York, Agathon Press, pp.
49–62.
JACKSON, P.W. (1986) The Practice of Teaching, New York, Teachers College Press.
LIEBERMAN, A. (1995) ‘Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning’, Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 8, pp. 591–6.
MEIER, D. (1995) The Power of Their Ideas, Boston, Beacon Press.
MURRAY, J. (1994) ‘A response’, Teachers College Record, 96, 2, pp. 174–82.
SARASON, S.B. (1993) The Case for Change: Rethinking the Preparation of Educators,
San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
SCHÖN, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, New York, Basic Books.
SHULMAN, L.S. (1986) ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’,
Educational Researcher, 15, 2, pp. 4–14.
SHULMAN, L.S. and CARY, N.B. (1987) ‘Psychology and the limitations of individual
rationality: Implications for the study of reasoning and civility’, Review of Educational
Research, 54, 4, pp. 501–24.
WILSON, S.M., SHULMAN, L.S. and RICHERT, A.E. (1987) ‘150 different ways of
knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching’, in CALDERHEAD, J.E. Exploring
Teachers’ Thinking, London, Cassell Press, pp. 104–22.
94
7 Learning to Teach Prospective Teachers to
Teach Mathematics: The Struggles of a
Beginning Teacher Educator
Cynthia Nicol
Introduction
‘I was kind of anxious but also excited about taking this course’, said Kendra after
the fifth class of our elementary mathematics methods course. ‘But now I don’t
see how any of this relates to what we need to know—you’re not listening to us!’
she stated with contempt. Kendra, like many prospective teachers in my methods
course, expected to learn what and how to teach mathematics. She entered the
course assuming it would help her learn all the mathematics she needed to know as
well as how she should go about teaching it to students. She was not prepared for,
nor did she expect that learning to teach would involve investigating teaching.
‘After all’, she wrote in her journal, ‘we as beginning teachers need to know about
the math and how to teach it before we can start hypothesizing, exploring, and
understanding students or teaching’.
Teacher educators in mathematics education face inherent dilemmas, tensions,
and challenges in preparing teachers for life in classrooms as they are now and in
preparing teachers for life in classrooms as they might be. Prospective teachers
themselves are successful graduates of schools as they are now with mathematics
classrooms that more often than not tend to focus on the learning and application
of routine procedural skills. Visions for how mathematics classrooms might be,
depicted in the various reform documents (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM), 1989, 1991), portray teachers developing learning
environments and activities which encourage their students’ mathematical inquiry,
understanding, and sense-making. Balancing the worlds of what is and what might
be in teaching education is an activity fraught with difficulties and challenges.
The challenges of the teacher educator are further intensified by prospective
teachers’ desire and need to get through the course, have a ‘successful’ practicum,
obtain a teaching position, and function in existing school cultures. Encouraging
prospective teachers to view the teaching of mathematics differently from how
they once learned it, from how their sponsor teacher may teach it, from how their
students will most likely have learned it, and from how other teachers in their
future school may teach it, is a tremendous challenge for teacher education in
general, and for a beginning teacher educator in particular.
95
Cynthia Nicol
This is a story of my experience, the tensions, dilemmas, and challenges I face

as I attempt to teach prospective teachers to teach mathematics for understanding.
I work from the premise of teaching as inquiry in a mathematics methods course to
future elementary teachers. Although I entered the university classroom with seven
years of experience teaching mathematics from Grade 8 though Grade 12, I was
not prepared for the challenges I met. Lampert (1985) and others (Katz and Raths,
1992; Ball, 1993; Cuban, 1992) suggest such tensions and dilemmas of teach ing
are more manageable than solvable. As teachers we hold conflicting purposes which
tend to give rise to these pedagogical problems and, in attempting to work within
these dilemmas, we are often not able to make choices but instead deliberate about
alternatives. The idea of thinking of teaching as managing tensions and dilemmas
provides me with a way of highlighting, discussing, and analyzing some of the
issues and concerns that arise as I attempt to teach prospective elementary teachers
to teach mathematics.
In this story I recount, reflect upon, and analyze my experience through three
tensions or dilemmas: choosing and using worthwhile pedagogical tasks; listening
for, listening to, and listening with; and researching teaching or teaching researching.
These tensions emerged through my attempts to teach prospective teachers in ways
which value inquiry—ways that might help my students make sense of things for
themselves, help them gain the skill, knowledge, and confidence that they have the
resources to investigate their own practice and that of others, and help them take
the risk to share ideas and develop defensible reasons for particular standpoints in
a public forum.
Teaching as Inquiry
I view teaching as both inquiry and learning. One of my goals is to provide

opportunities for prospective teachers to see and feel teaching as a form of inquiry
and as a continual learning experience. As teacher educators we, too, participate in
that inquiry and in the continuous learning cycle. Instead of the teacher education
model in which theoretical propositions, advice, and techniques are provided in a
how-to, top-down manner, or as a ‘bag of pedagogical tricks’ (Wineburg, 1991, p.
277) I choose to take a stance similar to Jean McNiff s (1993) by encouraging
prospective teachers ‘to be critical of personal practice, and use [their] deepened
insights to move forward’ (p. 20). Following McNiff (1993), I felt teacher education
should help to prepare prospective teachers to learn and inquire rather than help to
prepare them to be taught. I wanted my prospective teachers to gain skill and
confidence in investigating how their personal and professional conduct affects
learners and how their own understanding of what it means to know, learn, and
construct mathematical ideas influences who they are as teachers of mathematics.
My intent is for my pre-service teachers to become willing and able to reflect
and inquire about the purposes and consequences of their actions as teachers, and
to develop habits of mind that might be needed for personal growth and professional
development. This means learning about and participating in an inquiry into their
96
Learning to Teach Prospective Teachers to Teach Mathematics
own understandings of mathematics and students’ understanding of mathematics,

as well as the discipline of mathematics and the teaching of mathematics.
Prospective teachers enter teacher education programs with a wealth of
knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning as experienced students in the
schools they have attended. They have formed beliefs about schooling, teaching,
learning, students, and mathematics. This ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie,
1975, p. 61) has led them to develop ideas and beliefs about teaching and learning
that are generally consistent with the ways in which a subject is ‘typically’ taught.
In a growing body of literature, researchers have described teachers’ beliefs as lay
theories (Knowles and Holt-Reynolds, 1991), images (Calderhead and Robson,
1991), webs (McDiarmid, 1990), and folkways (Buchmann, 1987). This research
on beliefs about teaching learned through schooling and life experiences suggest
that such beliefs are well-formed, powerful, and often resistant to change
(Buchmann, 1991; Gore and Zeichner, 1991).
Communicating principles of professional practice to prospective teachers is
therefore quite unlike that involved in most other professions (Feiman-Nemser
and Buchmann, 1986). Prospective teachers enter teacher education with ideas
and beliefs about what counts as ‘good’ or ‘right’ or ‘poor’ mathematics teaching.
They come to their mathematics methods classes with clear images and
preconceptions of teaching and learning mathematics.
As long-time students with a view of teaching from only the student’s
perspective, prospective teachers often consider teaching as a technical endeavor.
As students they often do not see, nor become involved in, the conscious decision-
making, deliberating, managing of dilemmas, and reflecting that is involved in
preparing, enacting, and assessing teaching practices. ‘They are not’, as Lortie
(1975) states, ‘privy to the teacher’s private intentions and personal reflections on
classroom events…they are not pressed to place the teacher’s actions in a
pedagogically-oriented framework’ (p. 62). As a result prospective teachers have
developed powerful lay-theories (Holt-Reynolds, 1994), theories based on personal
history which are often tacit and taken for granted, about mathematics, learners,
schools, and pedagogical practices.
I have therefore sought to develop a pedagogy of teacher education that seri
ously attempts to address the prior beliefs that prospective teachers bring with
them to the course by expanding teachers’ visions of what is desirable and what
might be possible in teaching mathematics. The pedagogical challenge for me
then has been to develop instructional moves, activities, tasks, and problems which
will encourage and open prospective teachers to asking questions, analyzing, taking
new perspectives, and considering alternatives as well as developing defensible
arguments for teaching practices that move beyond their personal experiences of
studenting—that is, to develop a reflective stance, one of critique and inquiry. But
the challenge is also for me to do this in a way which authentically represents the
nature of teaching, its inherent uncertainty and complexity.
In attempts to address these challenges I teach from a perspective of teaching as
inquiry. I attempt to construct and model a pedagogy of inquiry which parallels
the pedagogy of mathematics instruction envisioned in reform documents. Just as
97
Cynthia Nicol
the reform documents portray students investigating worthwhile mathematical

problems in which they invent, conjecture, and reason about various mathematical
concepts in a community of learners, I want my prospective teachers to be
investigating genuine pedagogical problems through which they might develop
reasoned arguments about the problems and dilemmas of practice. However, this
is no simple task.
Emerging Struggles of a Beginning Teacher Educator
In researching my own practice and the developing thinking of prospective teachers,

I video-tape all class sessions and record in a journal my own thinking and
deliberations in preparing for, and in reflecting upon, my teaching. With permission,
prospective teachers’ journals and course work are photocopied, and prospective
teachers are interviewed both informally throughout the course and more formally
at the beginning and end of the course. This chapter draws on data from my teaching
in 1995, in which I collaboratively taught the course with two colleagues.
Choosing and Using Worthwhile Pedagogical Tasks
The question of what might, or could, be considered worthwhile beginning activities

for prospective teachers is a topic of continuing debate for me. My desire to develop,
adapt, or select tasks that would be both mathematically and pedagogically rich is
a challenge. I want tasks that provide opportunities for prospective teachers to re-
visit and extend their previous understandings of mathematics and to consider new
possibilities for teaching mathematics. But I want activities that are inviting rather
than overwhelming, open-ended rather than closed, and ones that help me learn as
much about the prospective teachers, in these beginning classes, as they help the
prospective teachers learn about themselves. I want our tasks to be both the focus
of our inquiry and the springboard for further inquiry. This is similar to what
Lampert (1990) speaks about in choosing problems for her fifth-grade mathematics
students. She writes, ‘At the beginning of a unit, when we were switching to a new
topic, the problem we started with was chosen for its potential to expose a wide
range of students’ thinking about a bit of mathematics, to make explicit and public
what they could do and how they understand’ (p. 39).
Such pedagogical reasoning for a teacher of mathematics requires some
knowledge of mathematics, of students as learners, and of how students learn
mathematics (Shulman, 1987). In writing of her experiences and pedagogical
reasoning as a teacher of mathematics to Grade 3 students, Ball (1990a) suggests
that teachers need to have a ‘bifocal perspective—perceiving the mathematics
through the mind of the learner while perceiving the mind of the learner through
the mathematics’ (p. 2). In a similar way I feel that I need multiple perspectives in
thinking about the kinds of activities that might engage prospective teachers in
mathematical and pedagogical inquiry. But rather than a dual perspective I often
98
feel as though I am working through three or four perspectives. In deciding what

tasks to select I need to consider both the mathematical and pedagogical aspects of
a problem through both the minds of the prospective teachers and their prospective
students.
I anticipate that many prospective teachers enter the class with somewhat limited
understandings of the mathematics they may be expected to teach. I expect that,
for some areas of the elementary mathematics curriculum, my students’
understandings will be procedurally strong but conceptually weak. I also anticipate
that many experienced school mathematics in a traditional form of telling and
doing rather than through inquiry.
The beginning classes I feel are extremely important. I want our beginning to
be gentle, yet somewhat disturbing. I want to challenge my prospective teachers’
ideas about what might be possible in teaching mathematics. I want to ‘stir things
up’ but not so rapidly that they begin to fall apart. I want to, as Ball (1990b) notes,
help our students reinterpret their past experiences and to use their experiences as
trajectories for further learning. Hence, I need a rich problem. But what is a rich
beginning problem for investigation?
To develop an activity that would engage the students in both mathematical and
pedagogical investigation, that would pique the students’ curiosity—again, no easy
task. An excerpt from my journal provides some sense of the challenge and desire
I felt in my deliberations in trying to select a good activity.
It seems to be so difficult and frustrating to find good pedagogical

problems—or even construct good ones. I could go out and video-tape
one of Karen’s1 classes again and gather her students’ work—we could
use that to initiate some discussion—but that will take time as usual.
There are books and books of math problems that can be used as a
resource for teachers—why don’t we have books of students’ responses
to problems and maybe teachers’ interpretations of students’ work that
we could use as problems for beginning teachers to investigate? (Cynthia,
journal, 10/02/94)
This excerpt from my journal depicts my early thoughts and deliberations and my
frustration with the lack of resources offered to teacher educators. I continued to
think about what to do for our second class.
I want something interactive. Something that would set us up for some

genuine pedagogical investigations—one where we could together, the
pTs and us, explore, ask questions, inquire about, think deeply about some
aspect of teaching math—or trying to get at a student’s understanding of
something. Using written work or video seems to still put us, as instructors,
in control—maybe it gives the impression that we’ve already had a chance
to analyze it—since we’ve selected the piece. If we had an activity where
we were all investigating it together—would that make it more genuine?
More genuine for us, as instructors, in the sense that we would be exploring
99
Cynthia Nicol
with our preservice teachers? And if we were exploring together—would

that help to set an environment in the spirit of collaborative inquiry—
where we could use each other’s insight and knowledge to help us make
sense of something? (Cynthia, journal, 10/04/94)
The activity that I, in working with my colleagues, constructed and used was an
activity we called the Monster Problem. There are three parts to this activity which
span three consecutive classes. In the first part prospective teachers participate as
learners of mathematics engaging in mathematical inquiry. In the second part they
observe and investigate myself and my colleagues as we work with a small group
of students on the same problem. In the third part of this activity prospective teachers
work individually with two Grade 6/7 students investigating teaching and learning.
Throughout the activity they are encouraged to write about their thoughts, decisions,
and feelings in their journals. In preparation for the first part of the activity they
are asked to work on the following problem:
The Monster Problem:2

Three tired and hungry monsters went to sleep with a bag of cookies. One
monster woke up, ate 1/3 of the cookies, then went back to sleep.
Later a second monster woke up and ate 1/3 of the remaining cookies,
then went back to sleep.
Finally, the third monster woke up and ate 1/3 of the remaining cookies.
When she was finished there were 8 cookies left.
How many cookies were in the bag originally?
Prospective teachers were asked to try the problem themselves, to consider how
students might solve the problem and what they might need to solve it, and to
think about how a teacher might engage students in a discussion through the
problem. At the beginning of the first class, our prospective teachers were asked to
share their own solutions to the Monster Problem with each other in a whole-class
setting. They were keen to be told whether or not they had done the problem
correctly, and they were annoyed when I did not readily do so. I expect and
encourage them to explain and justify their solutions and some are frustrated with
my questions:
Why did you think that is the answer?

Why do you think that way of doing the problem is better than another
way?
Could you think of another way to try it?
Some become aware of their limited understanding of the problem and many find
it difficult to accept that there could be more than one acceptable way to solve it.
In solving the problem, the use of a particular formula or equation, or doing the
problem backwards by constructing an algebraic expression of the form 2 X =
3
8 is common. Many believe it to be too difficult for students to solve:
100
There is no way I think a Grade 5 student will be able to solve this problem;
it took me almost half an hour to solve it myself. (Corrine)
I eventually solved it but it’s not in a really mathematical way—I just

guessed, did it by guessing and I’m still not sure why it works out. How
could a student get it? (Kendra)
The second part of this activity moves prospective teachers into being observers
and investigators of teaching and learning. After they have discussed their own
solution strategies and solutions to the Monster Problem, four Grade 5 students
are invited into the classroom. The Grade 5 students speak openly about what they
like and dislike about math, what they find interesting and difficult, and how they
most often work on math in their classroom. The prospective teachers sit in small
groups observing, taking notes, and listening. They focus on the various kinds of
questions asked by the students and the teacher, the ways in which the students
interact with each other and the teacher, and the various ways in which the students
approach the problem, their thinking, and what they are doing and saying. In about
45 minutes of work, the Grade 5 students are satisfied that the number of cookies
in the bag originally was twenty-seven. The prospective teachers then ask their
own questions of the students but some do not ask any questions at all because, ‘If
I were one of those students I would just die if someone asked me a question.’
During the next class we discuss and analyze the teaching and learning that
occurred with the Grade 5 students. In this case, my colleague Andrea, as facilitator
of the discussion with the Grade 5 students, shared her thinking, the decisions she
made and why, and how she felt at certain times while working with the students.
Andrea spoke about her decision to build the mathematical discussion around the
students’ ideas, to value their thinking and to get a sense of what the students were
thinking. The strong views expressed by the prospective teachers in their journals
as they reflected on the session with Grade 5 students were surprising.
What is the value of guessing?…[it] wasn’t productive and led to

frustration [for the students]… It is time to stop and reteach a concept or
redefine the activity when the students resort to random guessing with no
sense of meaning. (Kendra, journal, 01/06/95)
Although I think this method [trial and error] was useful, I think it is too
time-consuming. The students should have been shown how to figure this
problem out without guessing. Didn’t you want the students to get the
answer? (Janet, journal, 01/08/95)
The students should have been taken through the problem step-by-step. I
don’t think they got much out of if. (Kathy, journal, 01/06/95)
There is really only one way to solve the Monster Problem—going

backwards. (Ken, journal, 01/06/95)
101
Cynthia Nicol
Wasn’t the problem too difficult?… The students didn’t understand it…it
took too long. (Jill, journal, 01/06/95)
I was surprised that the students made it through the problem as far as
they did. (Tanis, journal, 01/08/95)
This problem was not within the students ZPD [Zone of Proximal
Development]. We as teachers were wrong in presenting these students
with a challenge which they could not meet. (Kendra, journal, 01/06/95)
As these comments were made in the journals, I responded to them by asking

questions that I hoped would help them to develop defensible reasons for their
claims: ‘What did you see or hear that made you feel that the students were
frustrated?’ ‘How do you know that students didn’t “get anything out of the
problem”?’ ‘What questions might you ask the students to help you learn more
about what you think they learned?’ But many viewed these questions as somewhat
overwhelming and not very helpful. Many did not respond to the questions asked,
either in class or in their journals.
The third part of the Monster Problem activity involves the prospective teachers
as teachers. For the next class, our fourth class together, we meet at a local school
and work with a class of Grade 6 and Grade 7 students using the Monster Problem
as a context to investigate students’ understanding of fractions. An excerpt from
my journal retells the story.
I welcomed the group of students and paired each student with one of the
fourteen preservice teachers. Within seconds the room was filled with talk.
I was pleased. Things seemed to be working. I moved around the room
listening to bits of conversations. I noticed a number of people were
beginning the interview with a set of warm-up questions. ‘Do you like
math?’ I overheard Terrie ask the student she was working with. ‘Honestly?’
she asked again as if she didn’t believe it when he had answered yes. ‘What
are you doing in math right now?’ asked Tanis of her student. ‘Fractions’,
replied the student. ‘Oh, great’ responded Tanis and then moved on to a
question about the use of calculators in math class. ‘Could you try to double
128?’ I overheard Alissa ask her student. ‘256’, said the student. ‘Okay’,
said Alissa ‘you’ve got that, we don’t need to do any more of those’. And
she moved on to try some fraction questions.
I noticed that each preservice teacher and his/her student partner were
engaged in conversation. From a distance things seemed to be moving
smoothly. Yet, as I listened to bits of the various…they seemed to be asking
questions of the students but not doing anything with their responses….
As I stood watching the activity, I wondered how I might respond to
what I saw. If this were a mathematics class with pairs of students working
on a math problem then I would not hesitate to enter a conversation with
a pair—to pose questions and challenge ideas. But this was not a math
102
class, it was a group of preservice teachers working one-on-one with

students. And it was their first meeting. How could I enter a conversation
and not disturb the relationship that they were working to establish? There
was nothing I could do but watch. I overheard pieces of student responses
which offered possibilities or openings for investigation into student
thinking only to be passed over, missed, or ignored. I longed to gently
pose a question to a student as a way of helping a preservice teacher open
a door to understanding more about her or his student’s thinking. But I
said nothing. (Cynthia, journal, 01/13/95)
The prospective teachers were quite pleased with their visit to the school and with
the opportunity to work with, as one person put it ‘real kids’. They spoke after the
session about the difficulty they had in trying to listen to the students, ‘to resist the
temptation to tell the students the answer when they didn’t understand’. They spoke
about the range in ability and effort that they noticed between Grade 6 and Grade
7 students and between students in the same grade. Some were surprised when, in
certain cases, a Grade 6 student was able to solve the Monster Problem while a
Grade 7 student was not. They spoke about the struggle they felt in their roles as
both teachers and investigators:
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to show these students a strategy? Am I

more concerned about their discovery? I do feel, however, that once the
students complete their discovery a strategy should be shown to them
because often their discovery method can be a fluke if they get the correct
answer. (Janet, 01/13/95)
Some wrote descriptions of their conversations, others wrote about their

interpretations of the students’ understandings, while others also included their
developing ideas of students’ sense-making and their own role in developing student
understanding. Prospective teachers’ overall reaction to the Monster Problem
activity over the three classes was positive. They spoke about being able to discuss
and share their interpretations with each other about doing the problem and about
their findings in working with students. They spoke of a difference in knowing
how to do a problem and understanding it in a way that helps someone else
understand it. Some wondered when they might have suggested or told too much
or told too little in working with the students. Overall the Monster Problem activity
was a worthwhile task from the prospective teachers’ perspective. The beginning
classes were great, interesting, and exciting. As Lauren states:
It is neat to have the freedom of expression in a math class of all places….

This class is the least structured, most open, most cooperative we have. I
was certainly expecting more ‘sit down and do these problems’ sort of
atmosphere. (Lauren, journal, 01/13/95)
But I wonder how worthwhile this activity was? On the one hand the activity gave
me insight into these prospective teachers’ ideas, beliefs, and understandings of
103
Cynthia Nicol
Lauren Journal 01/13/1995 Cynthia’s Written Response 01/16/95
I found that I was able to pick up on things

that the kids were saying and build upon them
to find out what they were thinking. For
example, Mia (Gr, 7) explained to me her How did she explain to you that what she had
perception of 1/4. drawn represented 1/4th? Is it 1/4th? Of what?
What is the whole?
Two things tipped me off that something was

not quite right. First, she wouldn’t (or rather
didn’t want to) draw a pie as I’d asked; instead
she asked if she could draw circles. Now, this
is fine, but I wondered why. Next her
explanation that one of four of something
seemed vague.
I probed her by asking her if this was 1/4. Good, to see you explore her thinking. You’ve
moved her to think about one-fourth from a
discrete model to a region model. This is
complex—it involves thinking about the
denominators and the numerators and their
relationship as well as what it is a fraction of.
What did you ask her next? What does her
comment ‘it is less but still one-fourth’ seem to
indicate to you?
I wonder how she would respond to a question
represented using the discrete model that had
pieces which were not the same size. Like a
group of four people who were different sizes.
Would one person represent 1/4th of the
She said ‘Yah, it is. it is less but still one number of people or would it depend on how
fourth.’ big that person was? Or, I wonder how she
would represent one-fourth of a group of eight
people?
Is the Monster problem based on a discrete or
region model of fractions?
The more I think about it the more what When is 1/4 the same as one out of four
she said makes sense. It is one out of 4 things?
things. Sure, that one thing is not the
same size as the others. But it is still ONE
OUT OF FOUR. I see now that I could
have gone into I’m interested in learning more about what
whole and Mia would have definitely you are thinking here. How do you think
responded as she seemed fixated on this would help Mia—or challenge her
writing everything in equations. understanding of one-fourth—or be
responsive to her thinking? Doesn’t it really
depend on one whole what? Would that
equation also work for the four circles she
drew?
Figure 7.1: Lauren’s journal and Cynthia’s response
104
mathematics and mathematics teaching. The activity was designed to challenge

prospective teachers’ assumptions of what might be involved in knowing, doing,
and teaching mathematics. For some the activity did this; for others, engagement in
the problem seemed to strengthen their previous beliefs. For example, interactions
with the Grade 6/7 students were described as ‘frustrating’ and ‘unproductive’. In
these situations the prospective teachers reported that the students were not able to
solve the problem and they were not able to help them solve it. In thinking about
how they would work with a different student ‘next time’, common strategies of
making the problem easier, more clear, and presented in a more step-by-step manner
were offered. These suggestions often contradicted their espoused beliefs that they
would like to offer problems that would encourage student thinking and understanding.
In the end I had to give him the solution because I didn’t want him to
leave without the answer… I tried to remain impartial and let students
try the problems on their own—but it was frustrating for them and for
me. I had to give encouragement and ideas or they would have simply
given up… Next time I’ll break the problem down into simpler steps
and I’ll re-word it. There is a great deal of improvement for me. (Ken,
journal, 01/12/95)
How worthwhile is the activity if it seems to encourage prospective teachers to fall

back on familiar routines or to substantiate old ideas and beliefs?
In addition, the activity challenged prospective teachers’ ideas of mathematics
and what mathematics might be needed to teach for understanding. But it also seemed
to cause some to question their own confidence and ability to teach mathematics.
Reconsidering their own beliefs about mathematics and about teaching and learning
mathematics made some even less confident in their ability to teach math than when
they first entered the course. Kendra wrote, ‘It’s hard to explain, but I am really
worried that my own math skills are so weak that I won’t know when a [student’s]
solution is rational or not’ (Kendra, journal, 01/11/95). Then later, ‘I’m feeling really
frustrated with the course; we need to be spending more time on learning the
mathematics if we are expected to be able to teach it differently!’ (Kendra, journal,
01/18/95). Could an activity, such as the Monster Problem be considered as worthwhile
if it promotes such disabling feelings for some prospective teachers? To challenge
their underlying beliefs and ideas is risky if there is nothing offered in its place. How
might I select or design tasks that both enable my students’ confidence and their
competence?
Listening for and Listening to
For our third class, one of the activities we worked on was the Horse Problem.
The Horse Problem:3

A man bought a horse for $50.
105
Cynthia Nicol
He sold it for $60.

Then he bought the horse for $70.
He sold it again for $80.
What was the financial outcome?
In previous years I have given this problem to both pre-service teachers and
elementary school students. In most cases, the problem has generated a number of
possible answers and stimulated some lively discussions. My plan was to use this
problem as a way of modelling the kind of teaching we valued by having our
preservice teachers share their ideas and solution strategies in both small group
and whole-class settings. I wanted the students, as future teachers, to participate in
communicating their thinking to others while marshalling together sound
justifications and, at the same time, participate in listening to others’ solutions
while trying to make sense of alternative points of view. I was hoping that this
problem would provide further opportunities for our students to examine and assess
their own assumptions about what and how mathematics could be taught. I retell
pieces of the story here:4
I began by handing out a copy of the problem to everyone and asked that
they try it first individually and then in their small groups.
I moved around the room as some groups quickly became loud as they
argued about the answers. Some began to act out the problem, others
were surprisingly quiet. One group near the wall agreed within a couple
of minutes that 20 was the answer. I suggested they explore various
possible solution strategies for an answer of 20 and then mentioned that
they were welcome to move around the room to explore what other groups
were thinking.
After about ten minutes, I interrupted the class. ‘Um, how about we,
uh,’ I said ‘share our answers right now and then we’ll look at the possible
solution strategies, or how we got them afterwards.’
A teaching colleague, Maggie, recorded the different answers on the
white board at the back as the preservice teachers called them out:
$20 ahead
break even
up $10
$30 ahead
I was pleased that there were at least four solutions—there would be more
room for debate with a range of possible solutions. Maggie had written
down the responses in the order she had heard them. $20 ahead seemed to
be one that a number of people accepted so I decided to begin the
discussion from the bottom of the list.
Gary and Dan explained that, ‘If you look at the intention of the problem’
then $30 ‘would be potentially what he could have made’. There was a
106
hum of talk as everyone considered what Gary and Dan were suggesting.
There were a couple of questions, then Ann Martin offered her solution.
Beth spoke quietly; the room was still, ‘Okay, a man bought a horse
for $50, and he sells it for $60, so that’s where he gets his $10 profit. But
then he had to buy the horse for $70, so that $10 he has to add to that
transaction cancels out the original profit of $10. Then he made $10 back
when he sells it for $80.’ She laughed nervously with this final statement.
Again there was a bit of talk among the prospective teachers as they
considered Beth’s solution. I heard someone quietly say ‘That’s
interesting’ and someone else say ‘That doesn’t make sense.’ I looked
around the room waiting for someone to respond. Alissa said ‘But it didn’t
cost him anything to put $10 in—you’re assuming the cost—like, I thought
of that assumption as well, but if there were two different horses and he
made his investment: $50 for the first one and $70 for the second one
regardless.’
I asked if it made a difference whether or not there were two different
horses or whether that should matter to the outcome of the problem.
Then Carole, a mature age student with a strong math background,
spoke. I had noticed how other people in the class valued and sought her
opinion when solving various math problems. ‘I think, to counteract that
line is, um, you have no money you go to the bank, you borrow $50, you
take the $50, you buy the horse.’ She spoke clearly and confidently using
her hands to move imaginary money from one place on the table to another.
Everyone listened. Then, you sell the horse, you get $60, you go back to
the bank, you give them the $50, you have $10. Now you want to buy the
horse again, it’s going to cost you $70, you’ve only got $10, you go to the
bank, you borrow $60, you take the $60, the $10, you give it to the person
to get the horse. You get the horse, you go to sell it, you have $80, you go
back to the bank, you give $60 and you’re left with $20.’
A number of people applauded. But her response seemed so clear and
easy to follow—so convincing that it made the consideration of any other
possibility for an answer, other than $20, unlikely. No one was offering a
counter argument to Carole’s solution strategy. The group had certainly
benefited from Carole’s explanation but it now seemed as it closed down
the conversation rather than open it up. We had just begun; it was too
early to finish. I paused, wondering how to respond, hoping that someone
might suggest an alternate solution. I decided to try to focus the discussion
back on the other possible answers listed on the whiteboard.
‘Are there any other ideas on how we could make $10?’ There was no
response. ‘Okay, how about breaking even?’
A couple of students offered their solution strategy for breaking even.
They spent some time answering questions from the group as people tried
to understand how it might be possible to break even. But there was no
passionate debate; it was as if people had accepted that ‘making $20’ was
the solution and they were only entertaining other solutions out of politeness.
107
Cynthia Nicol
‘I just have a question’, asked Dan, moving the discussion toward

thinking about how this problem could be used with students. ‘My feeling
is that—I know when I was a student, there were times when I felt really
strongly that my answer was correct but it wasn’t in the sense of what the
actual—I mean—the way I came around to it made sense to me but it
wasn’t maybe the correct way. But then I remember having a really hard
time believing the other way was the right way. And my way, maybe,
wasn’t right, but it wasn’t, let’s say the proper way of looking at the
question. And what I’m asking is—if you have a student like that, how do
you—how do you try to convince them?’
The question was wonderful. That was exactly the point of this problem,
to help them think about how they might help someone else to reconsider
their answer in a responsive and respectful manner. I wondered how to
respond. I wanted to learn what others thought. How did they perceive
the role of the teacher? What would they do in a similar situation?
Dan continued. ‘Do you know what I mean? Like, maybe you’re
looking at in a fraction and the—kids are looking at the Monster cookie
question. And you talk about—they came up with a thing and they
really thought that’s the way it works. But then we know the answer is
27. But if they came up with a way and they’re really convinced that’s,
uh, what it is. You know what I mean it gets very difficult to explain to
that student that perhaps it isn’t that way and you should convince
them that they shouldn’t look at it in that sense? Do you know what I
mean? I mean, I know myself the way I look at it might be one way.
But if a student was looking at it and really felt strongly that that was
the proper way, I think it would be really difficult to get them to think
about the other way.’
I wanted, instead, to have us think about our own experience with this
task and how that might help us address Dan’s question of convincing.
What are the difficulties, and challenges of teaching by being respectful
of students’ ideas, mathematics, and the prescribed curriculum? My reason
for working with the Horse Problem was to provide opportunities for the
prospective teachers to experience, and think about, how they might listen
and respond to others who have alternative explanations. But the problem
did not ignite much debate over the various solutions. It did not do what
I had expected it would. I couldn’t think of a way to address Dan’s question
through our class experience to help him answer his own question.
The Horse Problem has become an activity that is part of my teaching repertoire. I
have worked with many different groups of people, including prospective teachers
and elementary school students, and the problem has, in all cases, generated
interesting and lively discussion. I have come to expect that within a group there
will generally be a range of at least three or four different answers to the problem.
In discussing the various answers people see, feel, and hear what it might be like to
try to understand a solution strategy other than their own, a skill teachers need as
108
they attempt to understand and make sense of their students’ work. They also
experience what it might be like to communicate a solution strategy to those who
may not see the problem as they see it. Through the problem and its discussion,
prospective teachers begin to accept that communicating their ideas involves more
than just repeating their strategy over and over; they must also listen to others, to
try to make sense of what it is that others do or do not see in their explanation.
They begin to learn to question, listen, and respond.
Ironically, however, I think the Horse Problem did not generate the kind of
discussion and debate I had anticipated this time with this group of prospective
teachers because I was not listening, or rather I was listening differently. In spite
of my desire to help prospective teachers learn to question, listen, and respond to
each other during and through the Horse Problem, my listening for what I
anticipated seemed to subvert any listening to what the prospective teachers were
offering. I had left the class feeling discouraged and disappointed that the problem
did not go as planned, feeling that there was little meaningful discussion or
interesting ideas offered. I had interpreted the discussion on convincing, as raised
by Dan’s question, as evidence that the prospective teachers were not ‘seeing’
the value of the problem that I saw and the value that others who had worked on
the problem had also seen.
However, instead of trying to understand what might be at the heart of the issue
of Dan’s question of convincing, I attempt to convince him that, had he and others
experienced the problem the way I had hoped they would, he would be able to
answer his own question. If the class was unable to experience the problem as I
had hoped then perhaps telling them about how others experienced it might help.
I then asked a series of questions which, I notice now, seem intent on leading the
class to thinking of the value of the problem in the same way as I did.
So what would be the point of giving this kind of problem to kids? Is it to

lead them to, or direct them to an answer, that’s 20? Or is there something
else going on here that we would like to try to bring out? (Cynthia, class
transcript, 01/11/95)
Hidden behind my statement and the questions that followed are my values and
assumptions for how mathematics might be taught and why. But I do not make
these explicit. The questions I ask do not invite others in the class to inquire into
the basis of my statements or the worth of the problem. I do not pose these questions
as a way to understand what others in the class may be thinking or to understand
their interpretations. Instead, I seem to be intent on having them conclude what it
is I want them to see. Perhaps Linda notices this in my comments and decides to
take on the challenge with her strong remarks:
I think that’s [justifying] a good aspect. But the fact of the matter is when
they hit Grade 12, and writing their Math 12 exam, the examiners aren’t
going to care whether or not they can justify their answer or not. If it’s
right they’ll get the mark, if it’s wrong they won’t. So I think it’s really
109
Cynthia Nicol
good for them to explain what they are doing but they also have to see if
they did it wrong, why the right way worked, and why that’s the right
way. (Linda, class transcript, 01/11/95)
Here, Linda seems to accept the challenge to defend her ideas. She does not inquire
into the basis underlying the comments and questions I ask. And I do not inquire
more about her understanding of justify. But I did feel challenged and defensive. I
took her statements, perhaps due to the tone in which they are asked, as an attack
on my efforts and the ideas presented. I chose not to respond to her comments, and
I did not make public my silent questions which focused on understanding the
meaning behind her comments. Instead I sought to defend my position once again
later in the discussion.
Carole addressed the class with a comment referring to a suggestion made by
Clint5, that students can act out the problem with play money to test the validity of
their answers.
But using manipulatives, I thought, is not necessarily what convinces students.
And I was confused over Carole’s use of correct way of thinking and correct answer.
There are some ways of thinking that are not correct. But I do not respond with an
inquiry into what Carole is thinking or with the intent at unpacking her ideas.
Instead once again I chose to defend and respond by telling.
I was contradicting myself, and I mentioned that convincing comes through
discussion and debate, not with the teacher telling how it should be done, yet that
is exactly what I did as I attempted to convince the members of the class to think
about learning and teaching mathematics differently. I resorted to telling what
they should do because I had no other resources. I attempted to defend the value of
the Horse Problem both for elementary students and for our class. Therefore, rather
than creating the collaborative learning environment that I had intended, I helped
to establish a behavioral world (Schön, 1987) that locked us into defending our
own ideas rather than exploring each other’s ideas.
In her journal after this class (01/11/95) Carole wrote:
On leaving today’s class I reflected on what I had learned during the

preceding minutes. Two things stood out. The first was the comment by
Clint that you always let the children role play their solutions so that they
know the correct answer and if appropriate see that different strategies can
lead to the correct solution. The second area that stands out were the general
approaches to interacting with children outlined by Helen Kelly [a guest
speaker]. What did we spend the majority of our time on? The Horse
Problem. I then asked why? It was at this stage I began to have problems.
This course is a methods course in teaching math to elementary
students. How does the horse problem help me become a better teacher?
I don’t think it did. The problem itself was too simple to promote any
meaningful discussion on approaches and that could be used to solve it.
Thus, no teaching techniques were developed. Similarly, for someone
who may not feel comfortable with the content of the elementary math
110
curriculum there was insufficient substance in this problem to improve

their knowledge…
I’m interested in reading your comments on this and also what you
expected our students to have learnt from the horse problem. My
observation of your class composition is that you have the same range of
abilities that exist in many elementary school classrooms: how are you
going to meet the needs of your individual learners? How will we as
teachers be able to translate what you do in this classroom to our own
classrooms so that we meet the needs of all our learners?
Here begins an interesting learning bind (Schön, 1987) that Carole and I form. I
would like to draw attention to the ways in which I responded to Carole and how
such response continued to strengthen the bind I now see that we had formed.
When I read Carole’s journal for the first time I was struck by a couple of things.
I perceived her comments as a direct challenge to my competence and although
I seemed somewhat concerned that I was not gaining the insight into Carole’s
experience my main concern seemed to be with the feelings that her journal entry
brought forth for me. In a learning bind Schön (1987) states that the participants
interact in a behavioral world of defensiveness and self-protection. Within this
world each participant perceives the other person as the defensive agent whose
goal it is to win.
In Carole’s journal my responses to her comments sought to defend my own
position and belief not only in the Horse Problem but also in the value of engaging
students in mathematical discussion. I tried to impose my way of seeing on Carole
rather than try to learn more about her ways of seeing. From the tone of her writing
I inferred that her reactions were negative. Yet, I was quite dissatisfied with the
discussion and outcome of the Horse Problem activity, just as she was.
Why did I feel the need to defend the problem and invite confrontation rather
than respond in a way that might allow Carole entry into my own questions and
frustrations with the problem? I could have reminded Carole that she was welcome
to read my journal entry written after the Horse Problem class. I could have
shared with her my concerns with the lack of discussion, my frustration at not
knowing how to respond, and my surprise and disappointment that the activity
didn’t do what I had hoped or expected it would. But in so doing I would have
made myself vulnerable, my mistakes exposed, my credibility questioned. We
each suppressed feelings that might give the other an invitation to inquiry, an
invitation that might allow for the exploration of ideas rather than the defending
of positions. We had formed a learning bind that was to become stronger as the
course progressed. And such a learning bind, notes Schön (1987), prevents any
sort of reciprocal reflection-in-action between the participants; it is a ‘process of
systematic miscommunication’ (p. 126).
Breaking out of this learning bind requires individuals to listen to each other
rather than listening for the achievement of their own objectives and agendas.
However, I do not think that listening for my own agenda is totally inappropriate.
Listening for what we expect might happen provides us with a framework through
111
Cynthia Nicol
which to interpret events. As a teacher with desired goals and intentions I listen for
the various mathematical concepts and ideas that my students are required to know
and understand. But at the same time I want to listen to and attend to students’
experience. A focus only on listening for makes it difficult to listen to students’
experiences, to focus on the meaning of the experience from the students’
perspective, and to act upon events that are unanticipated. Listening for affects
what the teacher finds as valuable information. A focus on only listening to may
make it difficult to interpret students’ experiences. Listening to means shedding
preconceived agendas, being responsive and attending to what students say and
do. Listening/or involves listening for worthwhile subject-matter content within
educational goals and intentions. The challenge remains for me as I struggle to
remain suspended and attentive on a fine balance between accomplishing my own
teaching goals and experiencing teaching from prospective teachers’ eyes.
Researching Teaching and Teaching Researching
As a teacher educator learning to teach prospective teachers and to research my

practice I would like prospective teachers to become researchers of their own practice.
This means I need to think more about teaching researching, that is, I need to think
more about the ways in which I might help prospective teachers research their practice.
Researching my own practice is one way in which I might convey to students what
the process might entail and what might be learned from engaging in the practice of
researching. Researching my practice while helping prospective teachers research
their own practice has raised a number of issues for me.
My decision to teach prospective teachers did not come easily. Although I have
experience as a high school teacher I felt there was much I needed to know about
teaching before I could possibly help others learn about it as well. And although I
was considered a ‘good’ teacher by my students, my colleagues, and my district I
did not feel that being a ‘good’ teacher would, or should, necessarily imply that I
would be able to help others prepare for the world of teaching.
For me, teaching prospective teachers seemed to imply that I needed to be an
expert—an expert in research on students’ thinking and ways of making sense in
all mathematics content areas, an expert in thinking about what mathematics students
should be taught, an expert in the use and critique of various instructional strategies,
and an expert in reflecting upon and thinking about teaching practice. As a practicing
teacher I did not consider myself an expert in mathematics or in teaching
mathematics. I considered myself one who was continually learning about
mathematics, playing with mathematics, and sharing my uncertainties and puzzles
with my students. Some of my mathematics students have said how much they
have learned during those times when we would work together to solve a problem
that was new to us all. But in teaching mathematics over years I had built up a
rapport and trust with my students. I had many of the same students in Grade 12 as
I had in Grade 8 and I often had the opportunity to teach all the siblings of one
family. Students knew me and believed in me, if not by personal experience, by
112
reputation. I was able to build trust in my students to engage in difficult challenging

work; I was able to maintain credibility while at the same time establish some
authenticity to what I did not know about mathematics and about teaching
mathematics.
Teaching prospective teachers was different. The more I have studied, the more
I have begun to understand and appreciate the complexity and uncertainty involved
in teaching. I wondered then how I might establish a credible but authentic practice
in teaching prospective teachers. What gives me the right or authority to teach a
methods course? What might prepare me to teach prospective teachers? I see them
for only two 1–1/2-hour sessions a week for ten short weeks. I have very large
classes and the prospective teachers have very high expectations. They have claimed
that they expect, among other things, to be taught by someone who is either a
practicing teacher or a university professor, not by a graduate student who is
officially between but in neither of these two worlds. Just being a graduate student
reduced my credibility in prospective teachers’ eyes. It was an indication that I
was neither a ‘real teacher’ nor a ‘real professor’.
Researching my practice as a teacher educator also weakened my credibility.
Researching my teaching was an indication to some prospective teachers that I did
not have the necessary expertise and knowledge needed to teach a methods course;
I had not yet figured it out enough to be teaching it. The fact that this was the first
time I had taught the course in this way and that I wanted to investigate the teaching
and learning that occurred was evidence for some prospective teachers to doubt
my ability to teach in this context. I had thought that researching my own practice
provided opportunities for communicating teaching in an authentic manner, as a
complex and uncertain endeavor. But researching my teaching was an indication
for some prospective teachers that I did not know enough about teaching to be
teaching about teaching. My striving to be authentic, to communicate teaching as
a complex process in which there is much we do not know, reduced my credibility.
I had hoped that we would be able to use excerpts from either my teaching or
the prospective teacher’s teaching, as they worked with the Grade 6/7 students one
hour a week, as springboards for the investigation of teaching. In this way I wanted
to help prospective teachers learn more about investigating teaching and about
investigating their own practice. I had envisioned a community of learners,
exploring, inquiring and trying to make sense of various teaching episodes that
occurred. I wanted collaboration in which prospective teachers and I could explore
together problems, issues, and puzzles that arose from their experiences with their
students and our experiences together as a class. I had hoped that such collaboration
would help generate genuine pedagogical problems worthy of our investigation.
And to some extent it did. When prospective teachers wrote about a pedagogical
problem or something they found puzzling, I sometimes responded by investigating
the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies being discussed in the context of the
problem that arose. But for many prospective teachers this was unsettling.
There was an expectation from some that as a teacher educator I should focus
the course on the best ideas and techniques for how to teach students to teach
mathematics as defined by what works in the schools and by that in the research
113
Cynthia Nicol
literature. Some prospective teachers considered it to be my job to ‘show us…

what we [prospective teachers] are supposed to be teaching and how we should
teach…we want to know what works’ (Kendra, 01/18/95). ‘You need to tell us,
from your experience what works…what are some activities and ideas that work
in the classroom’ (Carole, 05/16/95). I could understand their desires and concerns.
They had not yet had any field experience and they had practicums for which to
prepare. And I was in a position to offer them what I had learned from both my
teaching experience and my studies as a graduate teacher. But I wondered how I
might share with them my experiences, the knowledge and skills I have developed
about teaching, but at the same time work with them to investigate teaching. How
might I renegotiate prospective teachers’ conception of expertise of myself as a
teacher and for themselves as future teachers? And how might I represent teaching
in a way that is authentic to the practice of teaching, to portray the messiness, the
unknown, the incompleteness, and the uncertainty of teaching, yet build and
maintain credibility, authenticity, and collaboration within my practice?
The Challenge of Teaching about Teaching
As a beginning teacher educator I have faced difficult intellectual challenges. The

challenges I recount here have grown out of my attempts to help prospective teachers
create and re-create an inquiry mathematics tradition (Richards, 1991; NCTM,
1989, 1991) in their future classrooms. I have struggled to select and use worthwhile
mathematical and pedagogical activities—tasks that help prospective teachers
reinterpret their previous experiences while both building their confidence and
competence. I have thought hard about both listening for my goals and intentions
in prospective teachers’ work and listening to the understandings and sense
prospective teachers are making of their experiences in the course. I have struggled
with establishing a credible yet authentic and collaborative practice.
Teaching prospective teachers by being both inside and outside practice and
research is difficult. I have sought to bring them both the inside and the outside of
mathematics and teaching practice. That is, I have sought to help them become
participants of mathematics within an inquiry community by participating in the
‘doing’ of mathematics while moving to the outside to reflect upon and analyze
their work as learners. I have also worked to bring prospective teachers both inside
and outside the practice of teaching by attempting to work with them to investigate
teaching.
But being both inside practice and research is messy, risky, complex, and
exhausting work that takes time, energy, and courage. It involves managing multiple
tensions and dilemmas within a moral framework of trying to decide the ‘right’
course of action in a particular context, with a particular group of students, at a
particular moment in time. Sometimes these tensions can encourage the
development of understanding, but sometimes they can become sources of anxiety
and uncertainty. However, they invariably involve making difficult choices which
are central to teaching practice (Ball and Wilson, 1996). Framing a practice around
114
the managing of tensions and dilemmas rather than the solving of problems can
help reduce developing feelings of guilt and attributing difficulties to personal
limitations. As Cuban (1992) notes ‘refraining and managing dilemmas are art
forms, filled with doubt but at least free of corrosive guilt’ (p. 8). To know that as
students of teaching we will encounter dilemmas that need to be managed, rather
than problems that need to be solved, suggests a different context for our work,
one that invites prospective teachers and teacher educators to both research and
engage in practice in working toward figuring out better ways to manage difficult
situations.
My purpose in sharing my story is to offer insights to others who might also be
entering, or reconsidering their role, in teacher education.6 As teacher educators
we face problematic situations and dilemmas in the complex environment of the
university classroom. Sharing our stories or narratives as cases of teaching and
learning to teach prospective teachers provides us with opportunities to reflect
upon and deepen our own understandings of teaching and learning, to grow and to
change both personally and professionally. In this chapter I have shared my stories,
inviting public scrutiny of my thoughts and actions, as a way of initiating discussion
and broadening our understanding of what is involved in learning to teach
prospective teachers.
Notes
1 All teacher, prospective teacher, and student names referred to in this paper are
pseudonyms.
2 From Watson, J. (1988). Three hungry men and strategies for problem solving. For the
learning of mathematics, 8, 3, 20–26. The problem in this article was written with hungry
men eating apples.
3 From Marilyn Burns (1987), A Collection of Match Lessons: From Grades 3 through 5,
New Rochell, NY, Math Solution Publications.
4 This story is reconstructed from the video-tape of the class, transcriptions of that tape,
my journal and prospective teachers’ journals.
5 Clint is a mathematician in the university mathematics department who regularly visited
our class.
6 Cynthia acknowledges the help and support to her research made possible through a
Canadian National Research Grant (SSHRC).
References
BALL, D. (1990a) ‘Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing representational contexts in

teaching fractions’, ERIC Document ED 324226.
BALL, D. (1990b) ‘Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of
a preservice methods course’, For the Learning of Mathematics, 10, 2, pp. 10–16.
BALL, D. (1993) ‘With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary
school mathematics’, Elementary School Journal, 93, 4, pp. 373–97.
BALL, D. and WILSON, S. (1996) ‘Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the
moral and the intellectual’, American Education Research Journal, 33, 1, pp. 155–92.
115
Cynthia Nicol
BUCHMANN, M. (1987) ‘Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by’, Oxford
Review of Education, 13, 2, pp. 151–64.
BUCHMANN, M. (1991) ‘Making new or making do: An inconclusive argument about
teaching’, American Journal of Education, 99, 3, pp. 279–97.
CALDERHEAD, J. and ROBSON, M. (1991) ‘Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early
conceptions of classroom practice’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1, pp. 1–8.
CUBAN, L. (1992) ‘Managing dilemmas while building professional communities’,
Educational Research, 21, 1, pp. 4–11.
FEIMEN-NEMSER, S. and BUCHMANN, M. (1986) ‘Pitfalls of experience in teacher
preparation’, in RATHS, J. and KATZ, L. (Eds) Advances in Teacher Education, Volume
2, Norwood, NJ, Ablex, pp. 61–74.
GORE, J. and ZEICHNER, K. (1991) ‘Action research and reflective teaching in preservice
teacher education: A case study from the United States’, Teaching and Teacher Education,
7, 2, pp. 119–36.
HOLT-REYNOLDS, D. (1994) ‘Learning teaching, teaching teachers’, Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans,
LA, April.
KATZ, L. and RATHS, J. (1992) ‘Six dilemmas in teacher education’, Journal of Teacher
Education, 43, 5, pp. 376–85.
KNOWLES, G. and HOLT-REYNOLDS, D. (1991) ‘Shaping pedagogies through personal
histories in preservice teacher education’, Teacher College Record, 93, 1, pp. 87–113.
LAMPERT, M. (1985) ‘How do teachers manage to teach: Perspectives on problems in
practice’, Harvard Educational Review, 55, 2, pp. 178–94.
LAMPERT, M. (1990) ‘When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the
answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching’, American Educational Research Journal,
27, 1, pp. 29–63.
LORTIE, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
McDIARMID, W. (1990) ‘Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during an early field
experience: A quixotic undertaking?’, Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3, pp. 12–20.
McNIFF, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach, London, Routledge.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS (1989) Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS (1991) Professional
Standards for Teaching Mathematics, Reston, VA.
RICHARDS, J. (1991) ‘Mathematical discussions’, in VON GLASERSFELD, E. (Ed)
Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer,
pp. 13–51.
SCHÖN, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching
and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
SHULMAN, L. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1, pp. 1–21.
WINEBURG, S. (1991) ‘A case of pedagogical failure—My own’, Journal of Teacher
Education, 42, 4, pp. 273–80.
116
8 Teaching and Learning in Teacher
Education: Who is Carrying the Ball?
Peter Chin
Introduction
As teacher educators, we encourage our pre-service teachers to become more aware,

and articulate of, their own professional knowledge so that they can better
understand and improve their own teaching (Connelly and Clandinin, 1988; Schön,
1983). We should expect no less from ourselves. As such, this chapter describes
how and why I ‘practice what I preach’ by focusing on elements of my own
professional knowledge as a teacher educator. I begin by articulating some
significant experiences that have informed my beliefs about teaching and learning
within the teacher education context. Then I highlight certain ways that these beliefs
are ‘lived’ within my work with pre-service teachers. Finally, I provide evidence
that my teacher education practices make a difference to those I teach.
Knowing Ourselves
I begin the secondary science curriculum methods courses by explaining to my

preservice teachers that ‘before we can understand others, we need to understand
ourselves, and our views of teaching, learning, and science’. This is intended to
initiate the process of coming to understand how one’s philosophy of teaching has
been informed by the deeply embedded images, models, and conceptions of
teaching from one’s own experiences as a learner (Brookfield, 1995). It also
reinforces the important dialectical relationship between teaching and learning,
where each component informs and is informed by the other. More specifically,
understanding how one learns may help that person to understand why he or she
holds certain perspectives about teaching. Conversely, understanding how one
teaches helps that person to gain a better understanding of how such teaching
impacts on students’ learning. As a teacher and a learner, I constantly look for the
powerful parallels between what I do in my classroom work with pre-service
teachers, and what I encourage them to do in their classroom work with pupils.
These parallels in teaching and learning are interwoven into the fabric of my work
as a teacher educator, although one can catch glimpses of this thread as I share the
sense that I have made of my immediate past.
117
Peter Chin
Where do I begin to look at my own professional development as a beginning

teacher educator? Where was the starting point? As a recent (three years) appointee
to Queen’s University, I am acutely aware of the fact that I have received little
direct preparation for my new teaching responsibilities. As I reflect on my
experiences as a science teacher and graduate student, it becomes obvious that
these have played a major role in informing my practice as a teacher educator. It is
within these settings that my perspective on teacher education has been articulated,
critiqued, and practiced. Although what follows is somewhat chronological, I
develop this section of the paper using Brookfield’s (1995) four critically reflective
lenses: autobiography, our students’ eyes, our colleagues’ experiences, and
theoretical literature. Each lens casts a certain image about who I am as a teacher
educator, and the composite of these multiple perspectives yields a product that
has more clarity and depth than can be gained by one lens alone.
Autobiography
Within the context of learning about teacher education, my ‘apprenticeship of

observation’ (Lortie, 1975) began as a pre-service teacher at the University of
Calgary. The most memorable and significant course in the program was secondary
science methods taught by Doug Roberts, my first mentor in science teacher
education. The course focused on issues related to the nature of science and how
we can understand our science teaching by critically analyzing transcripts of our
lessons. Importantly, much of the course was discussion-based so that we were
encouraged to voice our emerging understandings about science teaching. Unlike
some of my frustrated classmates who were expecting a panacea to their pre-
practicum worries about the unknown (i.e., a course that centred around ‘practical’
aspects of science teaching such as demonstrations and labs), I was comfortable
with the focus on establishing frameworks for understanding science teaching. I
saw these frameworks for understanding as useful for the long term, since I was
confident that the practicum and my early years of teaching would more than
make up for any lack of practical activities. Establishing frameworks for
understanding and utilizing open discussions around issues of teaching and learning
now plays a central role within my own science methods teaching. I also realized
that the pre-practicum concerns of the class had to be addressed to some extent.
Otherwise, as I had seen first-hand, people can become so distressed by the absence
of the message they expect that they tune out the message being put forward. As
discussed later, I see this as a balancing act of trying to address both immediate
and long-term goals.
Understanding my own practice was a central theme during the early years of
my teaching career, because of three salient and related experiences. First, while I
was still student teaching, I agreed to be the ‘subject’ of a clinical supervision
cycle being conducted by a graduate student. The research entailed a series of
interviews centred around self-identifying issues that I found problematic in my
teaching, and my subsequent attempts to make improvements in those areas (see
118
Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education
Kilbourn, 1990). From that study, I could see the value of recording, discussing,
and analyzing my teaching in order to improve it. Throughout my five years of
teaching high school science, I found value in occasionally audiotaping a lesson
and doing a mental analysis of it.
Second, in the year I was hired as a teacher, the Alberta government was
implementing an internship program (which was later dropped due to budget cuts).
Although there was great variation in how interns were used in schools, my own
experience consisted of being assigned to a high school science department and
having a slightly reduced teaching load. As well, being in the internship program
entailed a department commitment to support and monitor my progress and growth.
By the end of the year, my teaching had been observed and debriefed by seven
science teachers, one assistant principal, and two researchers from Alberta Education
(who were assessing the program). By virtue of so many opportunities to discuss
my teaching, continuous analysis of my own teaching was internalized as an integral
part of being a teacher.
Third, during my second year of science teaching, I took a graduate course with
Jean Clandinin. Here I was introduced to the value of ‘storying’ critical incidents
that stood out in my teaching experiences and then weaving these stories into a
broader personal narrative. I soon realized that the result of this process was
something quite different from the kind of knowledge I had been exposed to in my
pre-service program. My narrative centred around the metaphor of ‘teacher as
coach’ and the end product represented my personal image of teaching and learning
and captured the essence of my ‘lived experience’. I still appreciate the importance
of creating a setting for writing about one’s views of teaching and learning and in
developing the broader view that a personal narrative can convey. I also recognize
that the depth and clarity of one’s narrative can be enhanced by drawing data from
other sources (such as students, colleagues, and the literature) rather than relying
solely on personal critical incidents.
Our Students’ Eyes
Improving my classroom practice was a primary focus during my five years in the
high school classroom. In addition to analyzing my own teaching, I also had my
students fill out informal course evaluations to find out from them what they did
and did not like about my teaching. Much of their feedback confirmed my own
dissatisfaction with the apparent content overload within several of the senior year
courses. I recognized the need to cover the curriculum, especially when a
government examination awaited the students at the end of the course, but there
was too much emphasis on my telling, and their memorizing.
In order to create a setting where the students could take a more active role in
their learning, I found it helpful to give out typed notes containing the material.
Thus, instead of spending time copying notes, we used the class time to discuss the
concepts and to enrich our understanding of the material. In order to make the
handouts more consistent with active learning, I often left spaces where they were
119
Peter Chin
expected to answer synthesis questions about the subject matter or to write in their
understanding of a topic that was discussed in class. In certain units, I would break
up the class into groups where each group would focus on a particular topic and
then share its work with the other groups. As well, many of the courses I taught
contained one independent unit where the students used a study guide that
encouraged them to work through the material on their own.
One result of this iterative process of improving my teaching through the
feedback I was receiving from my students was that I was progressively doing less
of the telling and they were becoming more active in their learning. Using the
analogy of a ball, where the ball represents the ‘mental work’ of understanding the
subject matter, my teaching was aimed at getting the students to carry the ball.
Through the study guides that I developed for the independent units, emphasis
was also placed on encouraging the students to monitor their own learning so they
could better appreciate what and how they learned. This approach is similar to the
development of students’ metacognitive abilities as documented in an Australian
initiative, the PEEL project, which aims to improve the quality of teaching and
learning (Baird and Mitchell, 1987; Baird and Northfield, 1992).
Our Colleagues’ Experiences
My first opportunity to work as a teacher educator was with a group of elementary

pre-service teachers, and I was offered the opportunity to team teach two sections
of the course with Dougal MacDonald, a doctoral student in the same department.
Dougal and I spent countless hours in joint planning before each lesson as well as
debriefing after each lesson. These activities served as powerful catalysts for
reflecting on our views of teacher education and on the effectiveness of our
classroom practice. Specifically, in the process of planning our lessons, each of us
was forced to articulate rationales for wanting to do certain things. Through the
process of negotiating a curriculum we examined our personal views of what
constituted sound science education experiences for our pre-service teachers. The
debriefing of lessons was also important because we were able to purposefully
critique our sessions to improve our practice. It is not often that teachers or teacher
educators have opportunities to have a ‘critical friend’ observe so many of one’s
lessons (Chin and MacDonald, 1994).
Early in our planning, Dougal recalled the adage that, ‘If you give people fish,
they can eat for a day, but if you teach them to fish, they can eat for a lifetime.’ This
statement has been a powerful beacon in my teaching because it signifies the balance
that I continually try to achieve in my role as a teacher educator. For me, the adage
captures the tension between the short-term and long-term needs of preservice
teachers. As a teacher educator I feel that I have an obligation to allay some of their
pre-practicum concerns, but I also believe that I have a mandate to prepare them for
long-term goals aimed at reflective professional growth. This is not a situation of
‘either/or’—it must be both. I do want pre-service teachers to learn how to fish for
themselves, but I also recognize that their more immediate concerns are for some
120
fish of their own (practical strategies and materials they can use right away). When I
cast the analogy onto my own pre-service program, I realize at once that one cannot
engage fully in teaching pre-service teachers how to fish if they are preoccupied
with the hunger pangs from their empty stomachs. Thus I see my own role as one in
which I am endeavoring to teach people to fish, but also trying to give them enough
fish so that in the interim they do not go hungry. The ongoing struggle becomes a
constant search for ways of concomitantly achieving both goals.
Our fruitful efforts from team teaching have been helpful in my professional
relationships at Queen’s where, due to course scheduling arrangements, I work
closely with my colleague Tom Russell. Within our consecutive program, both of
us teach sections of the same course, and within our Queen’s-Waterloo program
we deliver a joint science program to a common group of pre-service teachers. By
necessity, we need to keep each other informed about what we are doing in our
individual courses. This arrangement serves as an ongoing context for supporting
each other in articulating and critiquing our teacher education practices. Both the
individual and collective senses that we have made of our practice serve as useful
foci for the ongoing improvement of our own teaching (Chin and Russell, 1996;
Featherstone, Chin and Russell, 1996). Our efforts were enhanced during the Fall
of 1995 when John Loughran, while on sabbatical from Monash, was a participant
observer in all the classes Tom and I taught.
I recognize these collegial relationships as opportunities through which I have
come to better understand my own practice through shared experiences with
colleagues. I believe that the most powerful kind of learning—both in the classroom
with pupils, and in the staff room with colleagues—occurs when all participants are
drawing from the same shared experiences. Within these collegial relationships, we
have had many supportive and validating discussions centred around instances where
we shared similar impressions about the particular class in which we both participated.
Perhaps more valuable have been the discussions that focused on classroom instances
in which our perceptions of the same events were quite different. These instances
forced us to articulate our reasons for teaching the way we do, and demanded
supporting evidence from the actions and reactions of the learners. In any case, forging
opportunities to have shared teaching experiences as teacher educators creates both
context and catalyst for better understanding our own practice.
Theoretical Literature
An important aspect of teaching about teaching is the knowledge of a broad range

of theoretical literature that has implications for science teaching and teacher
education. The two strongest and mutually informing influences on my teacher
education practice have been constructivist views of learning and Donald Schön’s
(1983) work in reflective practice. Generally, constructivist views of learning assume
that knowledge is personally constructed, socially mediated, and inherently situated.
The three premises of constructivism have resonated within my own view of
teacher education. I recognize that pre-service teachers cannot merely be ‘told’ what
121
Peter Chin
I want them to learn. Rather, they must be provided with opportunities to ‘experience’
and make sense of what it is that I am trying to help them understand. I try to create
a safe atmosphere so that they feel comfortable talking and writing about how they
are making sense of the issues of teaching and learning in which we engage. In
addition to the shared experiences of the science methods course, I also make attempts
to draw upon their classroom experiences as teachers and learners, because
understanding these experiences is pivotal to their personal professional development.
Perhaps the most difficult time within the methods course is the first five weeks of
classes prior to the pre-service teachers’ first practicum round. As mentioned earlier,
I try to attend to their pre-teaching concerns but their lack of recent experience of
teaching always makes it frustrating. For example, when dealing with classroom
management, I usually suggest to the class that the practice of having students raise
their hands to answer a question (rather than allowing them to call out answers) is
helpful in keeping classroom order. During the classroom visits that I make while
they are on their practicum placements, I often have the feeling that my suggestion
has fallen on deaf ears. When the issue of controlling the noise level of the class
comes up during the debriefing session, I often repeat my suggestion to the pre-
service teacher. In most instances the preservice teacher is appreciative of the helpful
suggestion and states that he or she will work on it. While I can never resist the
opportunity to remind them that I had mentioned this prior to the practicum, I believe
that the second instance is actually the first time that the point registers for them. For
me, this example of the inherent situatedness of learning to teach is best captured by
Schön’s (1983) tenet that one cannot tell others what they need to know, and that
new teachers will only recognize their needs when they are immersed within the
practice of what it is they are trying to learn.
Schön’s depiction of the importance of one’s experiences within the action
setting dovetails nicely into Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog’s (1982) assertions
specific to a particular approach to teaching from a constructivist perspective of
learning. These authors contend that, within the context of conceptual change
science teaching, instruction should be planned in such a way that students become
dissatisfied with their existing conception of a phenomenon and then recognize
that the scientific conception being taught is intelligible, plausible, and fruitful in
a variety of new situations. In my work with pre-service teachers I have them
participate in carefully designed in-class activities that draw upon their shared
experiences as teachers and learners as a first step toward them articulating their
own dissatisfactions with ways in which they experience teaching and learning.
Even if pre-service teachers recognize the intelligibility, plausibility, and potential
fruit-fulness of the teaching approaches I advocate in the science methods course,
my efforts are fruitless unless they are personally dissatisfied with some facets of
their current conception of teaching. As a parallel to my own ‘indirect’ learning as
a teacher educator, perhaps my role can best be described as providing pre-service
teachers with experiences and opportunities as the professional development context
in which their perspectives on teaching can be articulated, critiqued, and practiced.
The four critically reflective lenses outlined in this section are intended to convey
some of the significant experiences within my life history that inform my current
122
practice as a teacher educator. Using frameworks for understanding to reflect on

and critique my own practice continues to be important in my own growth as a
teacher. This is done by listening to my students and by working with critical
friends. As a former high school teacher and now, as a teacher educator, I continue
to look for ways in which class members can ‘carry the ball’ in order to meet both
the short-term and long-term goals in their teaching and learning. I have come to
believe that learning about teaching best occurs through shared experiences and
critical discussions. In this way individuals can increase their awareness of their
own growth as a teacher as they critique the views of teaching and learning they
hope to put into practice in their own teaching settings.
How Beliefs Inform Practice
Although it is important for each of us to articulate our core beliefs about teaching
and learning, Brookfield (1995) also suggests that we should explicitly communicate
these to our classes through the course outline. What follows is my first attempt to
articulate these core beliefs in a ‘jargon-free’ summary for my preservice teachers
in the B.Ed, program in which I teach.
My core beliefs about teaching and learning:
• Learning to articulate, question, and understand our beliefs about teaching

and learning is the first step to improving our practice.
• Personal understanding is enhanced through writing about and discussing
our beliefs with others.
• Learning about teaching and learning occurs best when we are placed in
a context where we are teachers and students. Experiencing something is
far more helpful than being told.
• Monitoring and understanding how we teach and how we learn is important
to our professional growth.
• Our teaching is improved by listening to ourselves, our colleagues, and
our pupils.
• The classroom is better when students take a more active role in their
learning.
• The instructor’s role is to facilitate and guide these teaching and learning
experiences.
• Teaching this class in a way that is consistent with the way I suggest that
you teach your class is an important goal in my own teaching.
A session discussant’s statement, at a recent conference, that ‘teacher education is

all about learning how to see’ captures the essence of what I am trying to do in my
curriculum methods classroom. I am attempting to help my pre-service teachers
‘see’ their own philosophy of teaching and learning, how they can learn through
discussions and activities with their peers, how they can improve their teaching
through self-analysis and by listening to their pupils, and how educational research
123
Peter Chin
can enhance their practice. This notion of ‘seeing’ relates well to the image of
critically reflective lenses and again illustrates the importance of understanding
the difference between telling and teaching.
It would be impossible to outline the specifics of how my core beliefs about
teaching and learning are translated into all facets of my curriculum methods
classroom practice. Thus, consistent with my core beliefs, I instead highlight four
salient activities important in my teaching in the B.Ed, program. These are helping
preservice teachers to:
1 examine their views of teaching, learning, and science;

2 reflect on their teaching;
3 recognize the value of using teaching strategies for enhancing
understanding; and
4 develop their skills in unit presentation and planning.
Examining Our Views
Early in the course we spend several lessons exploring our views of teaching,
learning, and science. Drawing on an activity that I saw as a teaching assistant at
the University of British Columbia, I distribute a sheet with several common
metaphors of teaching and have the pre-service teachers write about the ones that
resonate with them. Later, we discuss their chosen metaphors in small groups and
then in a whole-class discussion. Within these discussions it becomes obvious that
their views of teaching and learning are influenced by memorable images of certain
teachers (good and bad) from their past. What we also quickly realize is that,
although one metaphor is not appropriate for everyone, an understanding and
acceptance of the rationale for choosing a particular metaphor emerges through
listening to others. From this, they begin to compile a list of the features of good
teaching and good learning, and throughout the year, we return to these lists to
provide an opportunity to review, add to, and clarify them.
In our exploration of our views of teaching it is also important to examine our
views of science because, as Wideen et al. (1992) argued, how we view science
influences what and how we teach science in our schools. Using a series of
statements about science (Bell, 1993) the pre-service teachers’ views of science
are challenged within both small-group and whole-class discussions. The energetic
conversations progress through a series of teacher-led, open-ended science
demonstrations as we reconcile and review our original ideas and thinking.
Reflecting on Their Teaching
Personal growth in one’s teaching comes from improving one’s skills at self-
monitoring and self-analysis. My efforts to encourage self-monitoring centre around
encouraging the pre-service teachers to articulate their concerns about their teaching
124
and to monitor their learning and growth as a teacher. On the first day of class I
have each person write down their three main concerns about teaching, and just
before their first three-week practicum I ask them to tell me how these concerns
have or have not been met. On their return from the first practicum I have them
write down three things that they want to do better and three things that they want
to understand better about their teaching. This serves as a focus for my teaching
and their professional growth and, as in the case of examining their views, we
return to their lists prior to the two subsequent practicum experiences in order to
clarify the areas in which they want to improve. As well, after each practicum I ask
them to reconsider their lists and to change them as necessary.
I encourage self-analysis through a lesson analysis assignment that requires
them to audio-tape a lesson during one of the practicum experiences. The
assignment, which is done while back on campus, entails transcribing a 30-minute
portion of the lesson and then answering a series of questions that focus on the
‘pedagogical moves’ of the lesson and providing evidence about the success of the
lesson. I make it clear that my purpose is to assist them in improving the quality of
their analyzes and not to judge the quality of the lessons. An extension of this
develops when they analyze their teaching through a critique of a video-tape of
their in-class science demonstrations. Many pre-service teachers state that they
intend to repeat this exercise during their teaching careers. It would certainly be
interesting to investigate such analysis during their teaching careers.
Enhancing Student Understanding
The importance of getting students to carry the ball is something that I encourage
my pre-service teachers to engage in with their pupils. The PEEL project’s (Baird
and Mitchell, 1987; Baird and Northfield, 1992) descriptions and explanations of
its efforts to enhance student understanding are singularly helpful to me in achieving
this, particularly through documentation of their teaching strategies. To get my
pre-service teachers to carry the ball, we work with some of these teaching strategies
through a jigsaw activity. The class is divided into groups of four, and each group
is given a sheet that describes, in minimal detail, how a particular teaching strategy
works. The group is then responsible for learning how the strategy works by
determining the subject matter to employ as a content-based vehicle for teaching
the strategy to the rest of us. This is an independent activity that extends over some
time, and at the completion we debrief the activity and highlight significant issues
in both the teaching and the learning for each teaching strategy.
This structured episode encompasses many of my core beliefs about teaching
and learning. First, the pre-service teachers take a very active role in the teaching
and the learning associated with the strategies. Second, the groups need to socially
mediate their understanding of how the strategy works. Third, the jigsaw activity
illustrates how we can learn from each other. Finally, the activity establishes a
setting where at some point each class member is a teacher and a learner. In our
debriefing session, I start by asking the teachers (i.e., the group that presented the
125
Peter Chin
strategy) to discuss the significant features that they considered in the planning
and delivery of the strategy. This is followed by inviting the learners (i.e., those
learning the strategy) to share the significant features of their learning through use
of the strategy. Thus we expose some sense of the reasoning behind how the
strategies were interpreted by teachers, the factors that affected what subject matter
to select, and the rationale behind the pedagogical moves that each group used to
teach the strategy to the rest of the class. In addition, we are also able to discuss the
impact that each strategy and its delivery had on us as learners. The end result is
that the quality of our learning as prospective science teachers is far superior to
what could be achieved had I formally ‘taught’ the strategies to them. More
importantly, the activity encourages us to monitor our own understanding of the
strategy, our teaching, and students’ learning throughout the process.
Unit Planning and Presenting
The unit planning and presentation course component involves pairs of pre-service
teachers designing a curriculum unit and then presenting this to the class to engage
them in some of the learning activities contained in the unit. It is up to each pair to
discuss and negotiate both the substance of its curriculum unit and the structure of its
class presentation. It is my intention that pairing the pre-service teachers creates a
team-teaching situation where each person must articulate his or her rationales for
the sequence of the topics and the selection of appropriate pupil learning activities.
The tangible products of this course component are obvious and are seen as
valuable teaching resources that are helpful to any beginning teacher. The learning
about teaching that can occur throughout the process of developing the units is
less obvious. By preparing the units in pairs, groups must negotiate the curriculum
and articulate their rationales for why they propose to teach the subject matter in
that way. In most cases, groups also select some student activities that are specifically
aimed at enhancing student understanding. Again, it is necessary for each group to
provide their rationales for why they selected certain strategies rather than others,
and they need to articulate the rationale for their approach to teaching the strategy.
Although much of this explication is assumed to be occurring between the partners,
there are instances where such explanations are explicitly requested during my
monitoring of the unit development, and through class questioning during
presentations. Next year, I hope to improve the monitoring of the learning and
understanding during the process of unit planning by scheduling specific meeting
times with each group, and by having a mid-point peer critique where each group
will read and react to another group’s unit.
Listening to Their Voices
How do I know that my particular stance to teacher education makes a difference?

It would be ideal to revisit the pre-service teachers a few years down the road in
126
their own classrooms, to determine what facets of their classroom practice were
influenced by the approach taken in the curriculum methods course. The evidence
that I can provide to illustrate that my classroom practices (and the beliefs that
underpin them) have a positive influence on the pre-service teachers in my charge
appears in their own words and actions. As mentioned earlier, I teach a science
curriculum methods course both in our regular program, which involves two terms
of instruction with nine weeks of practicum scattered throughout, and in our joint
program with the University of Waterloo, in which the pre-service teachers attend
one term of education courses immediately after a sixteen-week teaching placement.
The impact of the recent and relevant classroom experience of the Queen’s-Waterloo
pre-service teachers greatly enhances what can be done in a science curriculum
course (Chin and Russell, 1996). Because of the exceptional nature of that unique
program I limit my evidence to data from those in my regular program course.
I have two sources of data in which the pre-service teachers’ own words can
speak for themselves. One source is the open-ended response section of our standard
faculty teaching evaluation forms. The second source of data is provided by two
Fall term writing activities where I ask the class members to write down statements
about what they perceive to be the purpose of my teaching approach. To provide a
structure for the selected comments that follow, I revisit my core beliefs about
teaching and learning. Basically, these beliefs centre around the importance of:
• understanding our own beliefs about teaching and learning;

• writing and discussing;
• learning by doing; and
• monitoring our teaching and learning.
What follows is a series of selected pre-service teachers’ comments under each of

these categories.
Understanding Our Beliefs
• Thought-provoking stuff was great.

• A guided discovery of our own teaching strengths.
• Peter’s approach leads to a lot of open class discussions which I appreciate.
This forces us to really think about our views about how science should
be taught.
• His approach seems to be to have us reflect on our own personal teaching
style/teaching philosophy.
Writing and Discussing
• There was a lot of student input and a lot of sharing of knowledge between
peers.
127
Peter Chin
• The class was encouraged to carry discussions where we thought they

needed to go, i.e., what we thought we needed to know.
• Many excellent group discussions,
• He has illustrated how effectively things can be learned/taught in informal
class-led discussions.
Learning by Doing
• He is trying to guide and motivate us to finding the answer(s) and often

the question(s) from the students themselves.
• I think Peter is trying to model everything he is trying to teach us. We also
get to practice running the class and working on our own teaching styles
through participation in the class. We are both learners and professionals
in development at the same time.
• Peter tries not to get involved in too much of the teaching. I think he
wants us to teach one another.
• The knowledge and skills gained in this class are from active participation.
Monitoring Our Teaching and Learning
• Material covered was geared to make us think about why we are doing it,
as well as what we are doing.
• When activities are being done we can ask ourselves how we would do it
if we were running the show,
• We are leading more and becoming more aware.
• I find that you guide or prompt the class more than you specifically
instruct us.
The authors of these comments do seem to recognize what it is that I am trying to

attain through my particular teaching approach. As well, several of the comments
convey a normative sense that appears to be supportive of the direction taken in
my science methods course. For others, the teaching approach was recognized but
not necessarily fully appreciated, as illustrated by the following comments:
• Too often he asked the students what should be taught and I for one would
consider myself arrogant to answer such a request.
• I think Peter did a wonderful job with the course as it was laid out but it
certainly wasn’t what I expected or maybe needed.
These comments suggest that, for some class members, the balance of fish and
fishing that I offer still leaves them frustrated. Comments such as these continue to
push me forward in search of ways to address their concerns without undermining
or contradicting the core beliefs that I hold as a teacher educator.
128
To indicate how teacher candidates embrace the idea of ‘carrying the ball’, I
highlight several instances where the actions of the various class members can
be seen as confirming evidence that they are attempting to ‘live’ this approach to
learning. Volunteers from my class participate in events such as National
Chemistry Week activities and judging science fairs in local schools. The majority
of my class also attends the conference of the Ontario Science Teachers
Association. When one person started a class newsletter about secondary science
teaching, several other class members contributed articles (ranging from teaching
strategies and lab demonstrations to cartoons appropriate for use in the science
classroom). Finally, all of the class members pooled their curriculum units with
those developed by people in other courses and the entire collection was placed
on the science teaching link of the faculty’s world wide web home page (http://
educ.queensu.ca).
Conclusion
As I reflect upon the core beliefs that I have about what I stand for as a teacher
educator, it becomes clear that I advocate the importance of articulating, critiquing,
and understanding one’s beliefs about teaching and learning. These beliefs serve
as the foundation that informs practice as a teacher designs curriculum for students.
Finally, the importance of establishing frameworks for understanding so that one
can monitor the effectiveness of one’s teaching leads to an iterative process of
professional development and the improvement of one’s teaching. These same
core beliefs about my role as a teacher educator are mirrored in this chapter as I
apply these beliefs to my own role as a learner.
This chapter surfaces my own beliefs about teaching and learning, illustrates
how these beliefs are conveyed within my practice, and assesses elements of the
effectiveness of this teaching. The samples of the class members’ written responses
and the descriptive instances of their visible actions suggest that my approach to
teacher education, which encourages the pre-service teachers to be reflective and
active participants in their professional development, does indeed make a difference.
The data suggest that most members of the class are comfortable with teaching
that encourages them to carry the ball in their teaching and learning, and that is
exactly what I think they need to learn to do if they are to enhance learning for
understanding by their own students.
References
BAIRD, J.R. and MITCHELL, I. (1987) Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning:
An Australian Case Study—The Peel Project, Melbourne, Monash University Printery.
BAIRD, J.R. and NORTHFIELD, J.R. (1992) Learning from the PEEL Experience,
Melbourne, Monash University Printery.
BELL, B. (1993) Taking into Account Students’ Thinking: A Teacher Development Guide,
Hamilton, NZ, Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research.
129
Peter Chin
BROOKFIELD, S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, San Francisco, Jossey-

Bass Publishers.
CHIN, P. and MACDONALD, D. (1994) ‘Team teaching elementary science methods:
Potential payoffs and possible problems’, Educational Insights, 2, pp. 15–23.
CHIN, P. and RUSSELL, T. (1996) ‘Reforming teacher education: Making sense of our past
to inform our future’, Teacher Education Quarterly, 23, 3, pp. 55–68.
CONNELLY, M. and CLANDININ, J. (1988) Teachers as Curriculum Planners: Narratives
of Experience, Toronto, OISE Press.
FEATHERSTONE, D., CHIN, P. and RUSSELL, T. (1996, April) ‘Extending professional
trialogue: Self-study across the teaching spectrum’, Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
KILBOURN, B. (1990) Constructive Feedback: Learning the Art, Toronto, OISE Press.
LORTIE, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
POSNER, G., STRIKE, K., HEWSON, P. and GERTZOG, W. (1982) ‘Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change’, Science Education, 66,
2, pp. 211–27.
York, Basic Books.
WlDEEN, M., MACKlNNON, A., O’SHEA, T., WlLD, R., SHAPSON, S., DAY, E., PYE,
I., MOON, B., CUSACK, S., CHIN, P. and PYE, K. (1992) British Columbia Assessment
of Science 1991 Technical Report IV: Context for Science Component, Victoria, Ministry
of Education, Multiculturalism and Human Rights of British Columbia.
130
Section 3
Rethinking Teacher Educators’ Roles

and Practice
9 Learning about Learning in the Context
of a Science Methods Course 1
Garry Hoban
Introduction
Darling-Hammond (1995) contends that an ‘understanding of learners and learn

ing…is the most neglected aspect of teacher preparation in this country’ (p. 13).
Referring to the USA, she explains that teacher education emphasizes trainee teach
ers developing an understanding of subject matter and instructional strategies, but
does not provide a sufficient grounding in student learning. The consequence is
that teaching, especially in secondary schools, is often driven by a prescriptive
curric ulum which rarely takes into account students’ prior knowledge and
experiences. She argues that if teacher education places more emphasis on pre-
service teachers developing an understanding of learning, then they will develop a
‘greater com mand of both content and pedagogy in order to create and manage
students’ learn ing’ (1995, p. 14).
So in what ways do pre-service teachers currently learn about learning? In many
teacher education courses, research findings on student learning are presented to pre-
service teachers in lectures or they are provided with educational literature to read as
the basis for discussion in subsequent tutorials. There are, however, two limitations
that restrict opportunities for pre-service teachers to develop a broad understanding of
student learning if only research articles are used. The first lim itation relates to
assumptions that underpin the discipline upon which the research is based. For example,
many studies on student learning over the last fifteen years support a constructivist
perspective emphasizing the influence of an individual’s prior understanding on the
way meaning is constructed. This perspective is grounded in the discipline of psychology
that is underpinned by the assumption that the individual is the unit of analysis (Cobb,
1994). Hence, studies on student learning often focus on the prior beliefs of individuals
and how this personal understand ing influences subsequent learning (Bell, 1981; Driver,
1983; Driver, Guesne, and Tiberghien, 1985; Driver and Oldham, 1986; Erickson,
1979; Faire and Cosgrove, 1988; Gunstone, 1990; Osborne and Wittrock, 1983; Osborne
and Freyberg, 1985; von Glaserfield, 1989). This focus on the individual, however,
ignores the influence of contextual factors such as the social and cultural conditions
that support an individual’s learning.
In contrast, other studies on learning are often based on a sociocultural per
spective emphasizing the interdependence of the individual and the context (Rogoff,
133
Garry Hoban
1993). This perspective is grounded in the discipline of sociology that is underpinned

by the assumption that the unit of analysis is the individual-in-social-action (Cobb,
1994). This assumption suggests that learning by individuals cannot be separated
from the context and emphasizes social and cultural interactions that influence
learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The influence of context on learning has been
demonstrated in many different settings such as apprentices learning to become
tailors (Lave, 1988), children learning to cost and sell candy (Saxe, 1988), dairy
workers learning to stack and count milk crates (Scribner, 1986), women learning
to become midwives (Lave and Wenger, 1991), and bookmakers learning to
formulate betting odds for horse races (Ceci and Liken, 1986). This type of learning
in a real context is purposeful and holistic, such that the learner has some control
over what and how they are learning. Hence, studies based on a sociocultural
perspective focus on the social engagement of individuals as they participate in
various activities, but often ignore the influence of an individual’s prior knowledge
that is emphasized by a constructivist perspective.
An issue for teacher educators to consider is how and when to use research
articles in pre-service teacher education courses. For instance, if an instructor relies
only on articles based on a constructivist perspective, then pre-service teachers
may acquire a narrow understanding of learning and not gain an appreciation of
influential social, political, and cultural factors. Conversely, if an instructor only
uses research articles based on a sociocultural perspective, then pre-service teachers
may not gain an understanding of personal influences such as prior knowledge on
student learning. Hence, a possible consequence in exclusively using research
articles supporting one perspective on learning, constructivist or sociocultural, is
the complaint from some teachers that what is promoted in research articles does
not match the complexity of a real classroom because opportunities for student
learning are related to many different influences—individual, social, cultural, and
political (Hoban, 1996). In comparing the differences between sociocultural and
constructivist perspectives on learning, Cobb (1994) recently argued that both
perspectives should be considered in discussions about learning and are
complementary as ‘one perspective constitutes the background against which the
other comes to the fore’ (p. 18). It should be noted, however, that some current
research articles on student learning reflect a broader approach coupling both
individual and social influences such as situated cognition (Brown, Collins, and
Duguig, 1989; Hennessy, 1993), and social constructivism (Driver, Asoko, Leach,
and Scott, 1995; Prawat, 1995; Prawat and Floden, 1994).
A second limitation in exclusively using research articles in teacher education
courses, whether they are underpinned by a constructivist or sociocultural
perspective, is that they present decontextualized knowledge for pre-service
teachers. In this respect, formal knowledge presented in a lecture or a research
article has been generated by educational researchers using an extended process of
reading relevant literature, gathering data from a setting, and finally analyzing as
well as synthesizing the data into a research article. Hence, providing pre-service
teachers with edu cational literature to read is expecting them to understand the
product of a long term investigation without being involved in the process of
134
Learning about Learning in the Context of a Science Methods Course
generating the findings. Furthermore, these articles use an academic genre for
publication in research journals which assume prior knowledge of reference articles
cited and often use educational jargon that pre-service teachers may not be familiar
with. This method of instruction is similar to the way some secondary science
teachers present isolated facts to school students when the students have not
participated in the process of knowledge construction and so teachers expect them
to ‘arrive without having travelled’ (Barnes, 1976, p. 118).
There is, however, another way for pre-service teachers to learn about learning—
by studying their own experiences in their teacher education courses. Munby and
Russell (1994) emphasize pre-service teachers’ ‘authority of experience’ that
highlights the importance of their reflection on their instruction in schools. Why
not also encourage pre-service teachers to value and analyze their experiences as
learners in teacher education classes? Methods courses are supposed to assist
preservice teachers to ‘learn about teaching’ so these experiences can be used as a
context to generate an understanding of their own learning. The purpose of this
chapter is to outline a teaching strategy that I explored to assist pre-service teachers
to use their own experiences from their methods course as a context to reflect and
analyze not only what, but also how they did or did not learn. Baird (1992) has
argued that teachers need to be metacognitive and become more aware of their
practice in classrooms to inform their pedagogical decisions. Pre-service teachers
also should be encouraged to be metacognitive and become more aware of how
they learn in teacher education courses with the intention of informing their decision-
making as they construct their personal pedagogies.
Procedure
This chapter outlines how eighty-five pre-service elementary teachers monitored

and analyzed their own learning on a weekly basis throughout a thirteen-week
science methods course that I taught in 1994. The pre-service teachers were in the
second year of a three-year Bachelor of Teaching degree at a university in Australia.
They had three contact hours each week in the form of a fifty minute group lecture
and a two hour hands-on practical session2 with twenty-one pre-service teachers in
each class. The weekly practical classes commenced with an activity to elicit
students’ prior knowledge/experiences about a topic followed by hands-on
investigations focusing on a particular science concept. The class concluded with
a discussion to clarify any concerns raised by the pre-service students that may
have arisen during their investigations. The lectures in the subject mainly focused
on content suitable to provide pre-service teachers with background knowledge
for topics in elementary science classes.
The pre-service teachers used a journal to critique my teaching each week by
recording and reflecting upon their positive and negative learning experiences during
the practical class. They were asked to write about two aspects: to document what
they learnt in terms of the content of the class instruction, as well as how they were
learning to monitor and analyze the processes involved. To address the latter aspect,
135
Garry Hoban
the pre-service teachers were asked to document factors that enhanced their learning
by identifying ‘ways that helped them to learn’ as well as factors that inhibited
their learning or ‘ways that did not help them to learn’. Most of the pre-service
teachers found this self-monitoring of learning to be a new experience, and so it
was important to discuss these issues, using examples, in class. In addition, aspects
about their own learning were regularly discussed throughout the course in the
lectures and the practical classes. At the end of the course I evaluated the usefulness
of this teaching strategy by asking the pre-service teachers to write a one page
anonymous report to address the following questions:
One of the aims of this course has been for you to develop a self-awareness
about how you learn or do not learn.
1 Did you develop a self-awareness about ways that help you to learn or
ways that do not help you to learn in this course? If you did can you
describe these ways?
2 If you did develop this self-awareness, has this had any impact on the
way you think you would teach science to elementary children?
In addition two pre-service teachers volunteered to participate in an informal

conversational interview (Patton, 1990) to discuss their experiences in the course.
The next part provides a pre-service teacher’s view on this procedure of monitoring
and analyzing her learning experiences from her science methods course.
Carolyn’s View of Analyzing Her Learning in a Teacher

Education Course
As a student in the second year of a three year education degree in which

one’s academic ability and perception of a lecturer’s point of view enables
one to do well, the prospect of openly writing about my ideas appeared
quite daunting. In fact, it took a good deal of time and effort on the behalf
of our lecturer requesting honesty before I, and many of my colleagues,
felt comfortable in doing so. Even so, there still remained the entrenched
mistrust of the lecturer’s true motives. For once rather than being taught
what was accepted thinking, I was being encouraged to think for myself—
what a novel approach! By not immediately launching into the documented
literature of various theorists and so adapting my thoughts to their thinking
(out of respect for their expertise in their field), I found that the weekly
documentation of my positive and negative learning experiences provided
me with a basis from which I was able to further develop original ideas
about my own learning. This was different from some other educational
classes in which lecturers informed us about documented educational
theory which we were expected to learn.
At first documenting my own learning was a different experience. This
is not to say that until this moment in time I had never thought about how
136
I learn, but rather this work gave me an opportunity to monitor and analyze
my learning in a systematic way. This resulted in giving me a better insight
into the complexities of learning and an appreciation for the various
learning styles of others. I found that the weekly documentation of my
positive and negative learning experiences provided me with a basis for
developing my personal ideas that were original and not contrived to
address university assessment tasks. As a result, I have come to a deeper,
more personal understanding of the role the individual plays in influencing
their environment, and how the environment influences an individual’s
level of learning. This knowledge leads me to an understanding that
learning is cyclic[al] having a spiralling effect from which prior knowledge
is drawn, added to, and drawn again.
There were several strengths to this approach to learning being
heightened self awareness, increased self-esteem, motivation, and the
development of strategies which will assist me in a multitude of life
situations, not just those connected with teaching science. Through this
heightened self-awareness I am able to target those learning strategies
that work best for me whilst also developing an adaptability to learning
situations in which I do not learn as well. For example, by analyzing my
learning I realized that I learn best when I have some prior knowledge
about a topic while I find pure discovery learning difficult, particularly
when my prior knowledge is limited. This ability to understand my
metacognition has increased my self-esteem and motivation and has added
some maturity to the teaching strategies that I would use in a classroom.
Although I developed a positive attitude and gained self-esteem as I
analyzed my own learning, there are some disadvantages. I can see how
there is a possibility of a less than positive appraisal of one’s learning abilities.
For example, if a student has a negative attitude and a poor self-esteem
about his or her learning, then it is a real possibility that these negative
feelings may be incorporated into other investigations. This may lead to
reinforcement of their negative attitude and as such they may be left believing
that their analysis has only proved just how incompetent they really are and
so a state of learnt helplessness may become increasingly apparent. This
would lead to lower self-esteem and motivation. Also the lack of life
experiences for some may make the task of metacognition difficult in that
their store of knowledge and understanding is limited by the extent of what
they have previously experienced.
In summarizing, it has only been through the ongoing documentation
and analysis of my own learning that I have come to more deeply appreciate
the complexity of my own and other’s learning. Analyzing my own
learning in the science methods class has been extremely worthwhile and
necessary for my ongoing development as a trainee teacher. As a future
teacher it is my responsibility to be aware of and attuned to the ways in
which my students learn best. Through this understanding of learning I
will be better able to develop those strategies which will assist me in
137
Garry Hoban
catering for each student’s individuality while still allowing for social
interaction within the classroom.
Results
The results of this investigation will be presented in two sections—a summary of the
written data from the one page report completed by the eighty-five pre-service teachers
will be presented first followed by interview data from two of the preservice teachers.
Data from the Written Reports
Self-awareness about Ways That Help Learning

Eighty-one out of the eighty-five pre-service teachers wrote that they had developed
a self-awareness about their own learning as a result of the methods course. Although
I will not attempt to rank the importance of the twenty-two different ‘ways’
described, I believe that it is worthwhile to show the range of responses along with
the number of students who mentioned them in their reports. In all, the pre-service
teachers documented three sources of influences on their learning:
(1) personal influences;

(2) social influences; and
(3) influences related to the type of activities.
The variety of different responses is now described including the number of students
who mentioned such influences. Several ‘ways’ related to personal influences on
learning: experimenting with their own ideas (28), personal prior knowledge (19),
personal confidence to ‘have a go’, personal feelings (1), and personal motivation
(2). Other ‘ways’ related to social influences on their learning. Some of these
related to my teaching: teacher enthusiasm (9), teacher explanations (3), modelling
teaching techniques (4), and relationship with teacher (2). Other social influences
related to interactions with other students: group work (26), class discussions (23),
writing in journal (16), and watching other students (1). A third influence was the
type of activity that the students had been involved in: theory in lectures (7),
interesting topics (17), hands-on activities (18); friendly classroom environment
(10), enjoyable activities (9), time to reflect (7), trial and error (13), follow-up
readings (3), and variety of activities (3).
The range of student responses was quite broad which is not surprising, as they
were asked to monitor any influence on their learning. To get a better sense of
what the students described, I have included five comments from the written reports
that show some insights into their own learning:
I have become more aware of the way I learn best and it will help when I
138
begin to teach students. I realized that I can do science, that it is not all
irrelevant formulas that don’t relate to anything. I have furthered my
thinking skills and have taken more risks in questioning and thinking.
The fact that we could learn independently helped me the most and trial
and error is always a great help.
I did develop ways or factors that helped me to learn. I learnt that learning
should be interesting, motivated and pupil oriented. For the first time I
realized that trial and error is a useful and appropriate method of discovery
and should be more emphasized and encouraged to be useful when
appropriate.
It helped me to discover that I do not learn very much when I am

completely bored by a topic, do not understand the topic, or do not have
any prior knowledge.
I think discussing the basic facts at the end of each lesson was a good idea
because by then we had seen the need to know more and try to understand
it better.
The experience of us teaching the class helped us to understand the ways

we learn. By applying teaching strategies you are better able to understand
the practicality of their use.
Self-awareness about Ways That Did Not Help Learning

Four of the eighty-five pre-service teachers wrote on their report that they did not
develop a self-awareness about their learning in the course. Comments from these
written reports are presented below. These comments show that this particular
teaching strategy did not suit all the pre-service students:
No—my self-awareness of the learning process had already been raised

by other subjects devoted to this topic namely psychology, English, and
learning to read. I thought this subject was a waste of time.
I hate group work! Time and time again I heard of one or two students in
a group of four get stuck with doing all the work. It is unfair and should
be changed. There is not enough work for a group of four to cover and
many parts of the work need or had to be done individually.
Sometimes I needed more structured guidance with hard topics like

electricity.
No, I did not become more aware of my learning and I did not like being
a guinea pig for your study.
139
Garry Hoban
Influence of Self-awareness on Views about Teaching Science and Technology

I was hoping that if the pre-service teachers did develop a self-awareness about
their own learning, that this may effect their views about teaching to elementary
children which was the reason for the second question on the written report. In all,
seventy-nine of the eighty-five pre-service teachers wrote positive comments to
address this question. However, six students did not respond to this question. There
were no negative responses. A selection of comments from the reports is provided
below. Several pre-service teachers commented on the value of reflecting on their
experiences to develop an understanding about learning:
Yes, I did develop an awareness of what helps me to learn including linking

the topic to prior knowledge, the importance of hands-on experiences to
see and test hypotheses ourselves, talking to fellow peers to help put
something into context or foreign language into our language, trial and
error and so forth. Doing the practicals helped me to understand this self-
awareness. We may have been told about it in lectures but it went in one
ear and out the other whereas having to assess each lesson ourselves and
writing about factors helped me to understand what you were saying.
Many ways of teaching have been shown. Thinking about it allows you to
become aware of what the factors were that seemed to help the children
the most. I’ve become aware that children need to discover things
themselves, have time to finish activities and ask lots of questions. Without
these factors I wouldn’t have really known where to start to teach science.
Yes, it helped me in developing a way I will teach science and technology.

I will let children have a go and try to work out their own ideas. I definitely
won’t just tell them facts and expect them to remember them, or write
notes on the board and get them to copy out masses of notes, as I know I
don’t learn this way and don’t enjoy it. So I want them to enjoy it.
Furthermore, three pre-service teachers commented on their negative experiences

whilst learning science in high school and how this methods course had changed
their views about teaching the subject:
Before doing this course I had a real phobia about science and a fear of
teaching it because I was under the impression that I had to know everything.
I have now come to realize that I don’t have to be a super brain to teach
science. It’s better if the children learn with me and I with them. This way
we can construct our own understandings in the topic and get more from it.
At high school I thought ‘science sucks’. I now enjoy science and feel
challenged by new ideas, I realize that I am still not 100 per cent confident
140
in this area but who is? I don’t plan to be an expert in science but I do plan
to teach children to the best of my ability and let them experience science
as it would be a shame to miss out as I did.
I had memories of teacher-oriented learning from high school and this is

how I imagined university science to be, only worse… In relation to
teaching science I have gained a new perspective on how and what to
teach in the classroom. I realize that children have much the same learning
experiences as I do and so when I teach I should ask myself, ‘Would I like
to learn this way? Would this be effective for me?’ I also have more
confidence about teaching science in the classroom.
Data from the written reports suggest that the majority of students believed that
the teaching strategy that I was exploring was beneficial and resulted in a better
understanding of their own learning. However, this belief, was not held by all
students and several reported that they did not benefit from monitoring their positive
and negative learning experiences.
Interview Data
At the end of the course I asked the pre-service teachers if any were willing to
share any particular experiences regarding this teaching strategy. Two of the students
volunteered and were interviewed individually using an informal conversational
interview (Patton, 1990). Key aspects from the interviews are now presented.
Gloria: Understanding Her Teaching

Gloria was 44 years old and enrolled as a mature age elementary student-teacher.
She had trained for two years (many years earlier) to be a secondary science teacher
at a teachers’ college and subsequently taught the subject for two years in a high
school. She described her teaching style at that time as, ‘I was the person at the
front who gave science lessons to the kids and they’d all write down what I said,
and then they’d write it, rehearse it and write it all back in the exams.’ She stated
that she taught science this way because it was the way she learnt science when she
was at school. She claimed that her initial teacher training to be a secondary teacher
did not change her view about science which had been based on how she was
taught in her own schooling:
It was a bit piecemeal, it was bits here and bits there and it didn’t seem to
flow and we weren’t challenged with much. It was a very rushed year, I
didn’t feel I was challenged to learn how to teach. We were just told,
‘Right this is the topic we’re going to teach and this is the content we
have to teach.’ I mean it’s probably not the way they taught it but that’s
the way it appeared to me, cause that’s the way I had learnt.
141
Garry Hoban
Gloria then had a long break from teaching and raised four children. Many years
later she returned to teaching high school science and she taught the same way as
she did at her first school. She did lots of practical work in her classes ‘because it
keeps the kids happy, they’re doing things and they enjoy it’. However, she always
made a point of making her students copy the right answer into their book at the
end of a practical class, ‘At the end of the practical] I would say, “Right, this is
what you should have had and if you didn’t have it write this from the board.”’
At age 44 she commenced her teacher training to be an elementary teacher and
was given an exemption from the first year of the degree due to her previous teacher
training. During the interview she discussed her experiences in my course and
stated that she had developed a better understanding about learning. In particular,
she stated that she began to appreciate learning by trial and error:
What I’ve really enjoyed and really learnt is the value of making mistakes
in learning. I know I’ve always understood that you’ve got to make
mistakes in learning, but I’ve never realized until this class how important
it is, to make a mistake and get something wrong and how much value
there is and how much learning there is, in that.
She explained that the component of the science methods course which helped her
to develop this understanding was analyzing her own learning:
The most powerful thing I think was each week in the practicals we had
to write down why did I learn in this class and why didn’t I learn, if I was
confused or if there was problem, why didn’t I learn, what were the
difficulties in that. I think that started me realizing that there were times
when, umm, not learning was more powerful than learning because then
you’d go away and you’d think about it and you’d talk about it with other
people and you’d sort of listen to others, what others said in the practical]
and, umm. Like the last one we did with light there was, we came up with
this really strange fog, we didn’t understand how come sometimes when
you mix colours they go black and sometimes they go white. There were
the three of us over there, we were in real confusion. But because of that,
now I understand it better because I’ve had to do a lot of reading and
questioning and I’m talking and I’ve learnt now. I never realized before
just how much value there is [in that].
Later in the interview she explained how monitoring her own learning influenced
her views about teaching. Asked whether her view about teaching science had
changed she replied:
Oh a lot. Lots of practical work, lots of time for kids to investigate and
play and to observe, times when they come together and each group shares
what they’ve found and the teacher then would draw it all together. But I
wouldn’t be a teacher saying, This is what we’re going to do today, this is
142
what I want you to learn, have a little play and I’ll tell you what I’ve
found’. I’d never do that again. I’d encourage kids to have a go, don’t
worry if you fail, don’t worry if you make a mistake, don’t worry if you
don’t make anything. But next time you can have another go and don’t do
it that way, do it a different way and find out, try and figure out how you
could have improved it. [I would] make sure that as a teacher I went
around to each group who were working and sort of give them helpful
little questions to make them think about what they could do better so
that they didn’t reach that point where they were completely lost. But not
be so worried if they didn’t make anything if they came out at the other
end and they hadn’t learnt what I wanted them to learn because they
probably learnt something different which was important to them, umm,
yeah. Making sure that learning is fun, I think I would have done that
anyway. But now I’ve got more idea of how that affects learning, I’ve got
more of an idea of the value of practical work and of talking together and
of working together in cooperative groups.
Data from the interview suggested that Gloria had gained a self-awareness about
her own learning during the methods course and that this had influenced her
views about teaching science. Moreover, I received feedback about my own
teaching from her during the interview. Apart from positive feedback, Gloria
suggested that there should be more emphasis in the course on discussing the
role of science in society.
Sue: Clearing the Block

Sue was 21 years old and in her second year as a trainee elementary teacher. She
hated science during her own high school education because it was ‘boring’ and
mainly taught in a didactic way from a textbook. She referred to experiments that
she did in high school in which she just followed the teacher’s instructions as a
‘transmission prac’ and how she prefers to experience learning herself:
I think you can’t have a transmission prac with that thing where you’ve
got the teacher as the source of learning. I think that sucks because that’s
basically what we had at school. And I just don’t know why they just
didn’t do more experiments because they’re bored, they get frustrated
with us, we’re frustrated with learning because it’s all from the book or
from the board. And we didn’t get to experience anything ourselves, so
we saw it as the teachers were pretty pathetic as well. But you know it
wasn’t something you looked forward to, it was just a bludge.
She stated that her past experience with science classes in high school had influenced
her to have ‘a phobia, a fear type thing’ towards the subject. At the beginning of
my course she had a practical class that focused on the topic of electricity and this
resulted in a negative learning experience for her. She had not actively participated
143
Garry Hoban
in some of the activities and wrote about this after the class in her journal to address
‘ways that did not help me to learn’. It was during her subsequent reflections
concerning her lack of learning that she began to realize that she had a ‘block’
towards science:
Remember we had that big talk after I had the electricity one that you did
and I didn’t do anything, I couldn’t understand anything. And it wasn’t
until I got home and did the write up and I thought, ‘Wait a minute, was I
really having a go?’ And I wasn’t because I just thought straight away,
cause, I like, with subjects like that I suppose I feel I need more guidance
like, and sometimes you kind of take a back step and basically work
through them ourselves. And most of the other people in the group in the
class know what they’re doing and I just couldn’t understand, like I mean
I know it’s basic about the electricity and everything but just the fact that
we’re using terminology that I didn’t feel comfortable with. I just, you
know, I didn’t want to get into it. And so I just told myself that science,
this was awful and I was bored and I didn’t want to do it and I couldn’t do
it. And so yeah, and when I got home I realized you know, I looked over
my notes and I had a bit of a talk to Di cause she did chemistry and
biology and she’s, you know, she’s still a bit the same as me with being
confident in science and she’s changed a bit. But she said, umm, you
know she explained a bit to me and I thought, ‘Gosh it’s not really that
hard’, and if I didn’t have this block, if I just got rid of this block in my
mind, you know what I mean, like what I’m trying to say?
Later in the interview she stated that she had never taught a science lesson on her
two previous practicum experiences because of her negative attitude towards the
subject developed in high school. However, as a result of analyzing why she was
not learning in my class, ‘the block has gone and I feel more confident and I can’t
wait to go on my next prac[ticum] and take a science lesson’. Asked about the
reason for this change she replied:
I’ve become more aware about the way I learn and I’ve realized that the
main thing is the way you feel about yourself and, um, not feeling that
you have any blocks. You know because the blocks that you have in your
mind stop you from learning. Because you know, once you’ve decided
that’s it, science sucks, it’s boring, it’s ridiculous, I don’t get anything
out of it so I’m not going to bother trying. And you don’t, it’s kind of
hard to push that aside. And on past prac[ticum]s I have never ever taken
a science lesson. I saw it as, well, I’ve never really seen a lot of science in
the primary schools and I used to view it as something that should only
be focused in the high school area. And now I just realize well, that’s just
such a waste. I mean there’s so much kids can learn and this is something
they will really enjoy, you know… There’s so much, everything’s hands-
on and, and it’s not just the teacher saying ‘Okay we’re going through
144
this work, we’re going to do this much.’ They actually can discover things
themselves, ‘Oh, look Miss, what I’ve found, you know. Look what
happens when I do this’ and you know and so on. And I won’t feel that I
have to know everything in science because obviously even the experts
can’t really be called experts because they don’t know everything about
everything.
During the interview Sue also gave me feedback about my teaching. Her initial
impression of the course was that I was lazy because I was not giving her information
and teaching science the way she expected it to be taught; like her high school
science teachers. This continued until she realized that I did not see myself as
simply giving her facts, but that I was hoping that she would become responsible
for her own learning:
You were slack, you weren’t doing anything, you weren’t giving us all
the knowledge…and then, I don’t know I just felt that I wasn’t learning
enough, I wasn’t being given enough information. But then I realized
that I was, I was discovering things for myself and I was enjoying it a lot
more than I would have if you sat there and just, you know.
The interview data suggest that Sue gained a better understanding of learning in
the methods course and she also provided me with some feedback on my teaching.
She told me that I should make my rationale clearer at the beginning of the course
to specify why I wanted the pre-service teachers to monitor their learning and to
take into account their prior perceptions about the subject from their secondary
school experiences.
Overview
Teachers have been labelled as ‘transmissive’ when they attempt to deliver facts
to students as passive learners in secondary school classrooms (Barnes and
Shemilt, 1974). Yet how different is it when teacher educators attempt to deliver
educational theory to trainee teachers as passive learners in teacher education
courses? In both situations formal knowledge, which has been generated by
professional researchers, is summarized for presentation by instructors and
delivered to students for their intended learning. But often this knowledge is
inert for the learners; with little personal meaning except to be repeated back to
the instructor in an examination or an assignment. It is no wonder that Lortie’s
(1975) ‘apprenticeship of observation’ suggests that ‘teachers teach as they are
taught’ persists in the 1990s (Sarason, 1990). The challenge for teacher educators,
I believe, is to bring theory to life and engage pre-service teachers as reflective
thinkers in the knowledge-generating process.
This study explains one way in which pre-service teachers can generate
understandings about learning by using their methods course as a context for
145
Garry Hoban
reflecting on their own learning experiences. The written reports showed that 95
per cent (81/85) of the pre-service teachers believed that they developed a self-
awareness about their learning and 93 per cent (79/85) commented on how this
self analysis informed their views about teaching elementary science. In these
reports, the pre-service teachers described twenty-two different ways that helped
them to learn in my course. These included four individual influences (prior
knowledge, personal motivation, personal feelings, and personal confidence) and
eight social influences—four from myself as the instructor (teacher explanations,
modelling of instructional techniques, relationship with the teacher, and teacher
enthusiasm) and four from other students (group work, class discussions, type of
activities, watching other students).
The interviews with Sue and Gloria also demonstrated the usefulness of this
teaching strategy. Sue’s story about her ‘mental block’ towards science is not unusual
among trainee elementary teachers. Most do not enter teacher training with a solid
knowledge base about science and many have negative attitudes about the subject
(Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1989). I believe that providing
them with large amounts of science content in courses is not the way to address this
difficulty. Instead, I believe that Sue’s story is evidence that getting trainee teachers
to develop an awareness of their beliefs is a useful procedure and this can be addressed
by having the pre-service teachers monitor their own learning. Gloria’s story provided
another window into a teacher’s beliefs. She described herself as a science teacher
who concentrated on giving students the ‘right answers’ because this is the way she
was taught at school (Lortie, 1975). Developing a self-awareness about her own
learning helped her to understand her previous teaching practice, and subsequently,
to change her view about herself as a teacher. I have also benefited from using the
teaching strategy in the methods course. I learnt that this strategy does not suit all
pre-service teachers and that not all students learn in the same way, but overall I was
pleased with the general response and would certainly try it again. However, as Sue
said, I need to be more explicit about my rationale for using this teaching strategy at
the beginning of the course and invite pre-service teachers to regularly discuss my
ways of teaching to inform their learning.
This self-analysis of learning provides a means for students to gain a better
understanding of how they learn, but it is important to extend their understandings
beyond what they have generated from reflecting on their own experiences. This,
I believe, is where formal educational theory has an important role. First, class
discussions about pre-service teachers’ learning were held to enable them to
share ideas and help me to realize that the way they learn is not the same for all
students. Furthermore, at times I introduced educational theory on student learning
but in context with the students’ discussions based on their own experiences.
This led to further discussions about the complexity of learning and the
inappropriateness of ‘recipe’ teaching approaches. Consequently, having engaged
in a continual process of reflecting on their own learning themselves, the trainee
teachers had an entry point into theoretical discussions about learning. Although
not a feature of this course, perhaps students could choose an area of interest
about learning to conduct some extended reading using educational literature.
146
Toward this purpose research articles on students learning can be used by pre-
service teachers to compare their own understandings based on their sustained
reflection in their teacher education course with findings about learning from
research conducted in other contexts.
There is also another spin off to using this teaching strategy—you are getting a
weekly evaluation of not only what you are teaching but also how you are teaching.
This is risky business; you are exposing yourself to criticism from your own students.
But how can you expect trainee teachers to take seriously your recommendations
about being a reflective teacher when you do not do it yourself? Loughran (1996)
has demonstrated the benefits to pre-service teachers of teacher educators modelling
reflective practice; this should be extended with preservice teachers evaluating the
instruction of their teacher educators in an ongoing way. I am not talking about
end of course evaluations, but a weekly critique as the basis for sustained reflection
by pre-service teachers. This process not only informs the learners about their
learning and the teacher about teaching, but can create a forum encouraging debate
concerning ideas about a real teaching-learning context—from their own methods
class! But this teaching strategy depends on developing a level of trust within the
class; you will know that this has been established when pre-service teachers are
prepared to discuss their negative as well as their positive learning experiences in
your course. Furthermore, many pre-service teachers commented throughout the
course that seeking their views about my teaching demonstrated that I valued their
opinion and that I was ‘practicing what I was preaching’. I think it is important
that we, as teacher educators, model procedures to establish a dialogue between
teachers and students to engage in ongoing discussions about the quality of teaching
and learning.
Notes
The author would like to thank Carolyn Buttriss who wrote the student’s perspective on the
procedure outlined in this chapter.
1 This chapter is based on a paper entitled ‘Generating Practical Knowledge about Teaching
and Learning’ that was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April 1995, San Francisco.
2 A practical session is a ‘lab’ that focuses on a hands-on investigation.
References
BAIRD, J.R. (1992) ‘Collaborative reflection, systematic enquiry, better teaching’, in

RUSSELL, T. and MUNBY, H. (Eds) Teachers and Teaching: From Classroom to
Reflection, London, Falmer Press, pp. 33–48.
BARNES, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum, Portsmouth, Heinemann.
BARNES, D. and SHEMILT, D. (1974) ‘Transmission and interpretation’, Education Review,
26, 3, pp. 213–28.
BELL, B.F. (1981) ‘When is an animal not an animal?’, Journal of Biological Education,
15, pp. 213–18.
147
Garry Hoban
BROWN, J.S., COLLINS, A. and DUGUID, P. (1989) ‘Situated cognition and the culture
of learning’, Educational Researcher, 18, 1, pp. 32–42.
CECI, S.J. and LIKEN, L.J. (1986) ‘Academic and non academic intelligence: An
experimental separation’, in STERNBERG, R.J. and WAGNER, R.K. (Eds) Practical
Intelligence: Nature and Origins of Competence in the Everyday World, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–42.
COBB, P. (1994) ‘Where is the mind?: Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development’, Educational Researcher, 23, 7, pp. 13–19.
DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1995) ‘Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher
development’, Teacher Education Quarterly, 22, 4, pp. 9–26.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING (1989) Discipline
Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science, Canberra, Australian
Government Publishing Service.
DRIVER, R. (1983) The Pupil as a Scientist, Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press.
DRIVER, R., ASOKO, H., LEACH, J. and SCOTT, P. (1995) ‘Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom: A theoretical perspective on pedagogy’, Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April
1995, San Francisco, CA.
DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E. and TIBERGHIEN, A. (Eds) (1985) Children’s Ideas in Science,
Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
DRIVER, R. and OLDHAM, V. (1986) ‘A constructivist approach to curriculum development
in science’, Studies in Science Education, 13, pp. 105–22.
ERICKSON, G.L. (1979) ‘Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature’, Science
Education, 63, 2, pp. 221–30.
FAIRE, J. and COSGROVE, M. (1988) Teaching Primary Science, Hamilton, New Zealand,
Waikato Education Centre.
FRANCIS, R. and HILL, D. (1993) ‘Developing conceptions of food and nutrition’, Research
in Science Education, 23, pp. 77–84.
GUNSTONE, R.F. (1990) ‘Children’s science: A decade of developments in constructivist
views of science teaching and learning’, The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36, 4,
pp. 9–19.
HENNESSY, S. (1993) ‘Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for
classroom learning’, Studies in Science Education, 22, pp. 1–41.
HOBAN, G. (1996) ‘A professional development model based on interrelated principles of
teacher learning’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.
LAVE, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
LAVE, J. and WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
LORTIE, D. (1975) School-teacher: A Sociological Study, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago
Press.
MUNBY, H. and RUSSELL, T. (1994) ‘The authority of experience in learning to teach:
Messages from a Physics Methods Course’, Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 2, pp.
86–95.
OSBORNE, R. and FREYBERG, P. (1985) Learning in Science: The Implications of
Children’s Science, Auckland, Heinemann.
OSBORNE, R. and WITTROCK, M.C. (1983) ‘Learning science: A generative process’,
Science Education, 67, 4, pp. 489–508.
PATTON, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Method, 2nd ed., Newbury
Park, CA, SAGE.
148
PRAWAT, R.S. (1995) ‘Misreading Dewey: Reform, projects, and the language game’,
Educational Researcher, 24, 7, pp. 13–22.
PRAWAT, R.S. and FLODEN, R.E. (1994) ‘Philosophical perspectives on constructivist
views of learning’, Educational Psychology, 29, 1, pp. 37–48.
ROGOFF. B. (1993) ‘Children’s guided participation and participatory appropriation in
sociocultural activity’, in WOZNIAK, R.H. and FISHER, K.W. (Eds) Development in
Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
SARASON, S. (1990) The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change
Course Before It Is Too Late?, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
SAXE, G.B. (1988) ‘Candy selling and math learning’, Educational Researcher, 17, 6, pp.
14–20.
SCRIBNER, S. (1986) ‘Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought’, in
STERNBERG, R.J. and WAGNER, R.K. (Eds) Practical Intelligence: Nature and
Origins of Competence in the Everyday World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 13–30.
VON GLASERFIELD, E. (1989) ‘Constructivism in education’, in HUSEN, T. and
POSTLETHWAITE, T.N. (Eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education, 1st ed.,
Supplementary Vol. 1., Oxford, Pergamon Press.
149
10 Teaching to Teach with Purpose and
Passion: Pedagogy for Reflective Practice
Introduction
This assignment was certainly an intense personal journey. As I began to

look at who I am as a teacher, who I am as a person also came into
consideration. My own personal psychotherapy. The most powerful
revelation was the depth to which reflection plays a part in growing. I
know that may seem like restating the obvious, but I can’t describe how
enlightened I feel. Maybe I wasn’t listening before. It’s just amazing how
you can know something but still not fully understand all its subtleties. It
certainly provides another lens for me as I consider how my students will
learn. I know now that I must incorporate reflection into my teaching.
Students need time to reflect on their own growth. Otherwise, will they
really know?1 (Carrie, former student)
Like Carrie, I worry about what my students know and whether or not they really
know it. Also like Carrie, I believe that engaging my students in the process of
reflection will make ‘full understanding’ more possible. But because my students
are future teachers and because I conceptualize reflection in teaching in a very
particular way, I would extend Carrie’s argument even further. According to my
definition, the reflective teacher is one who questions and examines, as much and
as often as possible, the reasons behind and the implications of her knowledge,
beliefs, and practices. She recognizes teaching as a moral and political act and,
therefore, tries always to teach with ‘tact’ (Van Manen, 1991), to interpret events
and ideas from multiple perspectives, particularly those of her students, to temper
her judgments, and to aim her efforts toward the enhancement of social justice.
Since I believe that reflection in teaching is not only a means for coming to know,
but also a means for monitoring the moral and ethical ramifications of that
knowledge, preparing my students to be reflective about their work is my primary
purpose as a teacher educator.
In my research I have found that those student teachers who are more reflective
than others tend to be guided by what I call ‘passionate creeds’ and are likely to
ask more ‘Why?’ questions (LaBoskey, 1994). I have also found that it is difficult,
though not impossible, to develop the skills and attitudes of reflective practice in
150
Teaching to Teach with Purpose and Passion
those student teachers for whom they are largely missing (LaBoskey, 1991; 1994).
Therefore, I design my program and my practice to be relentless in the modelling
of, and requirement for, purpose and passion in teaching. I try to have all of my
assignments and all of my activities provide opportunities for everyone, including
me, to examine, from a variety of perspectives, our beliefs, attitudes, reasons,
intentions, emotional reactions, and intellectual processing. We learn together how
to appreciate the complexity and live with the uncertainty as we construct and
reconstruct our belief systems.
In this chapter I describe the rationale behind my pedagogy. I also illustrate and
examine how this is played out in my own reflective practice by describing and
assessing one representative assignment—the portfolio and portfolio presentation
that are central requirements of the student teaching practicum.
The Portfolio Assignment
‘Context matters’, we tell our students. All educational endeavors take place within
a certain context that will influence and should, therefore, guide the choices teachers
make and the actions they take. I, too, am a teacher; thus, I, too, need to take
context into account when I design my curriculum and pedagogy. I have structured
my portfolio assignment for a particular group of students in a particular institution.
Consequently, in order for that assignment to be fully understood, I need to provide
information about my context.
My elementary credential program is actually one half of a K-12 program we
call Teachers for Tomorrow’s Schools. The other half is for those seeking a credential
in secondary Social Studies or English. We have two other credential programs at
Mills, one for secondary Math and Science teachers and another for elementary
credential candidates who wish to obtain an emphasis in early childhood education.
Each of the four programs is run by a tenured or tenure-track faculty member. The
four of us have virtually complete control over the design and operation of the
programs, and this includes teaching almost all of the courses, advising all of the
students, and supervising many of them. The four of us get along extremely well
and are compatible in terms of our philosophical and political orientations, and
thus it is relatively easy for us to create a cohesive program where most aspects
reinforce one another.
All of our programs are small; each cohort has an average of fifteen students
per year. The size allows us to develop personal relationships with all of our students.
It is a graduate program, so all of my students have completed a Bachelor’s degree,
usually at an institution other than Mills. About half are recent graduates and the
other half are moving into a second career. Many who choose Mills come because
of its location in Oakland, one of the most diverse cities in the United States. They
are interested in working with diverse populations and in making a difference in
the lives of children. They are usually aware of, and attracted to, the program goals
and principles.
The program lasts two years. By the end of the first academic year the students
151
have completed all of the requirements for a clear elementary credential and are
eligible to begin teaching. The second year is to occur within five years of completing
the credential. It is an evening program so that students can also be full-time teachers.
At the end of that year they receive a Masters in Education. During the entire
credential year, that first year, the students teach in the local schools in the mornings
and take courses at Mills in the afternoons. One of the courses they take throughout
the year is called the Student Teaching Seminar. My supervisors and I meet with
our students every week to discuss issues that arise from their student teaching
experiences and to build rapport within the group. The meeting is usually fairly
informal, though on occasion we have a more structured session on an area of
general concern. The portfolios are an assignment for this seminar.
The directions for the assignment are deceptively simple. I tell the students
about it during one of the first few seminars in the fall. My introductory remarks
go something like this:
One of the requirements of this seminar is the production and sharing of

a portfolio. At one of the last seminars in the second semester each of you
will share her portfolio with the group. It will not be graded—the only
requirement is that you do it. The purpose of the portfolio is to give you
an opportunity to represent yourself as teacher—who you are and what
you believe and value most at that point in your career. You may or may
not wish to use it in the job interview process, but that is not the focus. At
different points throughout the year we will talk more about it; at the
beginning of the second semester I will bring in some sample portfolios
of former students for you to see. One of the things you will notice then is
that they are all very different. There is no set format and there are no
particular requirements for content—those decisions are up to you.
However, I will say what it should not be—it should not be just a collection
of things you like. In your presentation you need to be able to justify
every item; you need to be able to tell us why it is in there and the reason
must be something other than ‘I liked it’ or ‘It was special to me’. Each
item ought to represent some belief about teaching that you have—some
value or goal. Many of the former students have put a statement of
philosophy up front which they then try to represent in the portfolio—
though probably not everything. One suggestion I have is to choose three
of your most important beliefs, values, or goals and try to represent those.
It should also not be just a documentation of what you did this year in
chronological order; it needs to be organized around ideas rather than
time. As I said, we will speak more about it as we go; please ask questions
at any time. One thing you do need to do right away is to begin to collect
things that you may want to use—examples of student work, copies of
papers you write for your courses, supervisor feedback sheets, journal
entries, great quotes from readings or colleagues, lesson plans you write,
notes you get from students or parents or your cooperating teachers. Try
to take photos—of your kids, of the room, of projects you have your
152
students do that are too big to fit in the portfolio. You don’t know at this
point what is going to be important and you don’t want to limit yourself
to what you have available in the second semester, so start collecting.
Now let’s answer any questions you may have at the moment.
And we go on to talk about it a bit further. I do, as I said, bring portfolios up on

different occasions throughout the year. Sometimes, just as a reminder to be
collecting and thinking. Sometimes it is a question-and-answer session and
sometimes we do a freewrite on ‘my philosophy of education’, which I tell them to
save and begin applying to their portfolio development. Early in the second semester
I do bring in samples of portfolios from previous students and I give them an
opportunity to review and discuss the samples. The students sign up for a
presentation time in one of two designated weeks in the last month of school. Each
student takes about fifteen minutes to share her portfolio with us and then we have
a chance to make comments and ask questions. It is a very warm, celebratory event
where refreshments are served, hugs are abundant, and tears are common.
So why do I do it this way? What makes me think that using this particular
portfolio design will help to foster and reveal reflection in my students? Why do I,
for instance, leave decisions as to the form and content of the portfolios up to the
students? Why do I tell them that each item in their portfolio must be justified on
the basis of their educational beliefs and values? In other words, what principles
and perceptions guide my practice? My reasons come from two sources—initially
and continually—from my definition of reflection—what I mean by it and why I
think it is important. Subsequently and continually, my reasons come from the
students via the portfolios they actually produce and their reactions to the process.
Rationale
First, I need to clarify my definition. It is similar to that originally formulated by

Dewey (1910) and modified by Zeichner and his colleagues (Gore and Zeichner,
1991; Zeichner and Tabachnick, 1991). In my words, reflective thinking is a constant
and ‘careful reconsideration of a teacher’s beliefs and actions in light of information
from current theory and practice, from feedback from the particular context, and
from speculation as to the moral and ethical consequences of their results’ (LaBoskey,
1994, p. 9). Using that definition, I have identified some criteria of reflective thinking
which I use in the design and evaluation of assignments and activities:
1 the teacher struggles with issues; she raises questions and expresses
uncertainty,
2 she exhibits a propensity to consider alternatives and reconsider
preconceptions,
3 she takes more of a long-term than a short-term view,
4 she shows primary concern for the needs of students—her decisions are
guided by student needs and interests,
153
5 she seems to be open to learning about both practical and theoretical

ideas—she is growth-oriented,
6 she sees herself as a facilitator of learning rather than as a transmitter of
knowledge,
7 she recognizes the complexity of the educational enterprise,
8 she demonstrates an awareness of the need for tentative conclusions and
multiple sources of feedback,
9 she considers the moral and ethical implications of her ideas and actions
with a particular focus on issues of justice and equity.
It is important to note that I do not feel that a person can be identified as either
wholly reflective or unreflective. What can be said is that some teachers reflect
more consistently about more issues within more situations than others. I have
called those student teachers on the ‘more’ side, Alert Novices, and those on the
‘lesser’ side, Commonsense Thinkers. In my research I have discovered certain
thought processes that seem to be characteristic of the Alert Novices (LaBoskey,
1994). First is the tendency to be guided by a strong belief, or what I call a
‘passionate creed’. Alert Novices tend to have a certain mission to accomplish in
their teaching. They may, for instance, be passionately committed to the
development of student voices or to the reduction of oppression.2 Alert Novices
are inclined to see the process of reflection as asking ‘Why?’: ‘Why am I teaching
what I am teaching in the way that I am teaching it?’ The question is directed to the
roots of problems and the meanings of ideas and actions.
My aim is to create a portfolio design that will help to foster these ways of
thinking, as I do with all other assignments and activities in the program—a factor
which greatly influenced my choice. I make the portfolio assignment so open-
ended in terms of both form and content in part because the portfolio is only one of
many assignments designed to foster reflection, most of which are more controlled
than this one, and because it is a culminating event the main purpose of which is to
provide an opportunity for the students to practice and make explicit the reflective
skills and attitudes they have been developing all year. In this way I can find out
what shows up and in what way. I can see if some of these characteristics of reflective
thinking which we have been working on throughout the year appear spontaneously.
But there is more. I ask the student teachers to have the process of portfolio
construction be guided by their educational philosophy—their most important
beliefs, values, and goals—because I want the exercise to help them in the
development and articulation of their ‘passionate creeds’. Furthermore, I have them
focus on justification during the selection and presentation of their materials because
I want them to attend to the ‘Why?’ questions with regard to their teaching.
Assessment
The initial design of my portfolio assignment was guided by my definition of

reflection and my conceptualization of the thought processes of Alert Novices. It
154
was also informed by my understanding of my institutional context—a context

where reflection is a centerpiece of the entire program. My decision to continue
with this design, with only minor adjustments, for four years now is due to the
outcomes of the assignment both in terms of the portfolios actually produced and
the reactions of the students to the process. All sets of portfolios my students have
created and shared have, with a few individual exceptions, seemed to achieve my
goals. They have exhibited many of the characteristics of reflective thinking I am
looking for; they have seemed to represent ‘passionate creeds’; and both their
form and content have been well-justified.
For the first two years that conclusion was based only upon informal impressions.
At that point I decided to undertake some ‘formal’ research that could confirm or
disconfirm my reactions and help to document the process for a larger audience. My
first step in this process was both rather unusual and rather risky—a participatory
research presentation to the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Since my portfolio assignment was designed in part as a culminating activity wherein
students might reveal the processes and attitudes of reflective thinking they had been
working on all year, an analysis of the products could make an important contribution
to program evaluation. I decided to explore the possibilities with the AERA audience
at an experimental session wherein we would all be researchers together. My students
came to the session on a voluntary basis (nine out of thirteen appeared) with their
newly constructed portfolios, only two of which I had ever seen before, and dispersed
themselves at various tables throughout the room. I opened the presentation with a
description of the program and the assignment. Then my students presented their
portfolios to the audience members at their tables in a way similar to that they would
use in our seminar. Next we came together as a whole and audience members shared
their impressions of what seemed to be important to these students—their values,
goals, and beliefs about teaching. I then presented my newly constructed portfolio to
everyone and the audience tried to discern from it my values, goals, and beliefs
about teaching which we subsequently compared with the list we had already
constructed from the student portfolios. To the audience there appeared to be a
considerable match between the values, goals, and beliefs about teaching, including
the meaning and importance of reflection, evident in the student teacher portfolios
and those represented in mine—a result that supported my decision to continue with
this particular portfolio design.
An additional benefit to the exercise, and one consistent with my beliefs about
teacher education, was my participation in the doing of one of their central
assignments. On one level my portfolio and portfolio construction process can
serve as a model to both current and future students. I wish to note here that by
‘model’ I do not mean ‘prototype’, a dangerous confusion to be guarded against
whenever a teacher provides an example. Therefore, when I do share it, I am very
explicit about the challenges I faced in the development process and about the
questions and dilemmas that remain for me. I also emphasize the point that the
format utilized is only one of an infinite number of possibilities. Given the diversity
of form and content that has continued to appear in the student portfolios, I believe
the message has certainly been understood and ‘taken up’.
155
On another and even more important level, my experiencing of the portfolio

development process has allowed me to better understand, empathize with and,
thus, facilitate the students’ negotiation of the task. I think it does, and should, give
me more credibility with them when I talk about the challenges they might face
and give suggestions for ways they might try to manage such difficulties. I believe
that as a constructivist teacher educator I need to do as much as I can to understand
the world from my students’ perspective. Direct participation in the tasks I assign
them is one way to do that.
Having given some attention to an examination of the actual products, I wanted
to gather information about the students’ reactions to the process. I sent a
questionnaire to all members of the two most recent graduating classes. The
questions I asked were as follows:
1 Describe the process through which you went in developing your portfolio
in as much detail as possible, e.g., time frame, strategy, choice of format
(what and why), etc.
2 Have you used your portfolio at all outside of the seminar context? If so,
how and what is your reaction to that use (was it useful, effective, etc.)?
3 What do you think the purpose of the portfolios was?
4 What, if anything, do you think you learned in the process of creating the
portfolio? In what specific ways do you think it was helpful or not helpful
to you in terms of your teaching and/or your thinking about your teaching?
Do you feel differently about it now than you did at the time and, if so,
how? Comment separately on your reactions to the sharing of your
portfolio in the seminar. Consider both the sharing of your portfolio and
the listening to others. How did you feel about it at the time, and how do
you feel about it now? Do you think the sharing process added or subtracted
anything in particular in terms of your learning from the experience?
Please explain.
5 In many other programs that use portfolios there is both more specificity
in terms of content and structure and more guidance in the creation
process. Would you like to see more of either included in our program?
If not, why not? And, if so, what suggestions for improvement might
you make?
6 Do you think your experience of the portfolio would have been at all
different if it had been graded or formally evaluated in some way? Please
explain.
7 Any other thoughts or comments on the topic you would like to make that
you haven’t already had the opportunity to make, including just general
reactions, please do so here.
Thirty per cent of the graduates returned the questionnaire. The overall reaction to
the portfolio assignment was very positive. An analysis of their comments gave
me insight into both how and whether reflection had been involved in the process.
I was also able to ascertain which features of the assignment seemed to facilitate
156
reflective thinking and in what ways. One category of responses that most surprised
me had to do with the processes they went through in developing their portfolios.
I had expected that most of them would write their philosophies, as we had done
once or twice in seminars, and then choose artifacts to represent those ideas; that
was the suggestion for the procedure I had given them. However, instead, several
came from the opposite direction; they used the materials they had been collecting
to help them formulate or at least articulate more clearly their beliefs about teaching,
as one graduate’s response to the first question exemplifies:
I spent about four weeks actually putting my portfolio together. I spent

about four months thinking about it. I decided I wanted my portfolio to
look professional for interviews and, of course, to reflect my values and
who I am as a teacher. I spent a long time reviewing reading material and
text I highlighted throughout the year,…I put post-its on pages with quotes
and ideas that really stuck out for me. Themes began to emerge. I chose a
paper I wrote that I felt reflected my thinking process and growth, and fit
into one of the themes. I looked at my photos from my classroom
experiences over and over, and pulled out photos that fit into my themes.
I asked people’s advice in choosing between photos. I pulled out lesson
plans, student work, etc. This all helped me to come up with ‘my
philosophies’ that I wanted to run systematically through the portfolio.
In cases like these the portfolio served as a quintessential culminating experience.

The students reviewed everything they had done over the course of the year to
determine what they had learned and what it might mean for them as teachers.
This same person, in response to the question about what she had learned, said, ‘I
learned that I really learned a lot during the year! The portfolio was a chance to
reflect on what is important to me, as well as a chance to express who I am as a
teacher…. The portfolio helped me to synthesize what is specifically important to
me—although, of course, it does not contain everything that is….’
Another graduate, when responding to question 3 about purpose, said, ‘I have
come to the conclusion that the portfolio is a tool for teachers to use to formulate
a teaching philosophy.’ To question 4 she then replied, ‘I learned the importance
of having a teaching philosophy. Walking into a classroom without a sense of your
own goals and objectives is somehow like attempting to work as a carpenter with
no blueprints or direction. Somehow a teaching philosophy allayed some of the
fear in approaching a classroom of thirty or more students.’ In a subsequent phone
call to me she reconfirmed and expanded upon her belief in the value of the portfolio
experience; she said that she had ‘used it often’ during her first few months of
teaching to help her resolve problems and make curricular decisions.
This latter declaration is representative of another pleasant surprise in the data—
the number of graduates who referred to an ongoing use of the portfolio for reflection
both individually and with other teachers at their schools. I would like to quote one
new teacher’s responses to questions one and two here because they speak so well
to both findings—the contribution of the process of portfolio construction to the
157
development of a teaching philosophy or passionate creed and an ongoing

engagement with the portfolio as a means of fostering reflection:
1 I started collecting writing samples, pictures and students’ work as soon

as we were asked to do so. At first I didn’t know what it was all for, and I
didn’t think it was important to know. At that time I was very excited
about seeing students’ work and figuring out the way they learn. As a
student teacher it all seemed so interesting and this was a fantastic way to
get into the minds of sixth graders. During my second semester 1 was
equally intrigued by first graders, and by collecting work from students I
was able to see where they were in their development and thus adjust to
this new age group.
I did not follow any specific guideline when collecting samples, I picked
stuff because I liked it. I am still working on my portfolio so it was never
quite finished. I was forced to give it some sort of shape due to graduation
date, but I never really felt I was done….
As far as the format was concerned, I selected four very broad areas
which I thought were fundamental to a child’s education and I placed
them in a binder. This was the most difficult part, as I was having difficulty
selecting things I thought important. At first I thought I could explain
what was important based on the student teaching experience alone. Soon
I found out that in order to explain my choices I needed to include my
culture and my own beliefs. I became aware of the difficulties of separating
myself from my profession and that was a profound discovery.
I placed everything in a binder because it is easy to add to it or subtract
from it as I see fit. So far I have changed it twice—the first time after our
AERA presentation, the second time after my first ‘real’ teaching
experience last summer. So it has become a way of assessing my growth
as a teacher. I don’t know if that is what you had in mind when you
assigned this project, but it has helped me in making my way through
these past few months.
2 Yes, I have used it to talk to other teachers at my school. As a first year

teacher there were occasions when I felt intimidated by more experienced
teachers when discussing ‘education’ or children. The portfolio is a
‘friendly’ way to talk about ideas. So far I have only found two other
teachers who have done this type of portfolio—some say it’s too labor-
intensive and that there is little time for reflection!!!
This set of findings suggests to me that the portfolio as I designed it contributed to

the formulation and articulation of ‘passionate creeds’ not only during, but beyond
the teacher education program. The portfolio structure may be particularly well-
suited to serve as an ongoing reflective tool because its potential for fluidity is
greater than a typical term paper, for instance.
But the portfolio did not work this well for all students. Ironically, a response
158
from one of the new teachers for whom it did work provided me with a clue as to
why it might not have for others. She answered question 3 about purpose this way,
‘As I said in the first part, I don’t know exactly what the intent of the portfolio was.
I don’t think it is important to know…or is it? For me it has become a way of
assessing my own growth as a teacher, and a way to reflect on my teaching. Since
my school doesn’t have a forum in which teachers can come together to discuss
our profession, this has become my way of doing it.’ She thought that she didn’t
understand the purpose, (not that I advocate that as a good thing) but it worked
well for her anyway because on an implicit level she not only understood it, she
embraced it. One of the two respondents for whom the portfolio did not seem to
work did not appear to understand the task and did not really do it right. The other,
though she understood it, she never really, in her words, ‘bought-in’. These two
seem to be representative of the two types of Commonsense Thinkers I identified
in my previous research—those who have trouble with the procedures of reflective
thinking and those who can do it, but have an attitude or emotion that interferes
with the execution (LaBoskey, 1994). Such outcomes imply that we need to consider
having different interventions for different students. We can not expect one
assignment or one form of an assignment to work for all. I had hoped the open-
endedness would be enough to accommodate the differences, but for these two at
least, this was not the case. Therefore, I may need to consider providing more
individualized instruction and guidance to certain students, but only to some,
because most considered the freedom of design to be a definite asset.
Eighty per cent of the respondents felt that there should not be more specificity
with regard to content or structure as these replies to question number 5 illustrate:
‘No! I thought the individuality was vital to the power of the process.’; ‘I appreciated
the “discovery” that resulted from having a less directed or structured portfolio. I
was allowed to uncover what my specific needs were and thus transform them into
the creation of my portfolio.’; ‘I liked the openness of it—I think it led to a greater
diversity of portfolios. I’d hate to see some sort of formula. I think when you leave
it more open, it allows people to include what is the most important to them.’ This
favourable sentiment was even shared by some who felt they usually functioned
better with more structure. The open-ended nature of the portfolio assignment did
seem to offer most respondents the opportunity to further develop and express
their passionate creeds.
Many of those using portfolios in the educational field today are using them as
a form of evaluation (Bird, 1990; Shulman, 1988; Wolf, 1991). I made a deliberate
decision not to grade or otherwise formally evaluate the portfolios in any way. I
provide no written comments and few verbal, though I do sometimes ask why a
certain item was included, if the student hasn’t made it clear to me, or give specific
feedback as to what a student did particularly well. Such statements usually make
explicit one or more of the identifying features of reflective thinking. My main
reason for not grading the portfolios was that I did not have to. If I had my way, I
would not give any grades in the credential program; prospective teachers ought to
do what they do because they are intrinsically motivated to be the best teachers
they can be, not because they want an A. I did not evaluate in other ways due to the
159
ambience of the activity; as a culminating, festive, and poignant event, I did not
feel it appropriate to criticize at that moment. Though I had my reasons for using
only informal evaluation, I wanted to find out how my students felt.
Again 80 per cent of my respondents would not have wanted their portfolios
graded, mainly because they thought the anticipation of grades would have
interfered with the process and restricted the product. One said in response to
the question about grading, ‘Formal evaluations definitely scare me. I don’t think
I would have included some personal things about myself if my portfolio was
going to be evaluated in some way.’ Another said, ‘The portfolio is required, but
it is for us. I don’t think there is any way to grade or judge them—it would be
disastrous to do so.’
There were two former students who felt that the portfolios should be graded,
but not in their current form. They both felt the assignment would need to be more
structured with regard to both process and product if grades were to be assigned.
Specifications would need to be given for what to include and, most importantly,
the evaluation criteria would need to be explicitly identified and made available
from the outset—a position with which I tend to agree. But greater standardization
would reduce the open-endedness of the project—the very feature that seemed to
contribute so much to its reflective power. Thus, both the positive and negative
attitudes toward grading seemed to support my decision against it, though for slightly
different reasons.
One final set of issues raised by these questionnaires has to do with the potential
role of this portfolio assignment in helping my students learn to ask ‘Why?’
questions. One teacher replied to the question about what she had learned from the
process as follows: ‘I was put in a position to re-examine my beliefs about teaching
because I had to choose what to include and what not to. It made me think, “These
lessons are close to my ideal and if they’re good enough to put in my portfolio,
then I should be working hard to make all my teaching that way.” I feel differently
now because I now see the real value of it. I’ll be honest—two years ago, part of
me was probably thinking, “Oh, another assignment. I bet I’ll never look at this
again”; but now I know that I’ll continue to use it and learn from it and update it to
see my growth as a teacher.’ Another said this: ‘In the process of creating a portfolio
I learned to ask the important questions about becoming a teacher…for me…at
this point in my career. Specifically, it helped me to clarify my beliefs about
education. In my situation, the process of discarding and adding ideas strengthened
my ability to be more explicit about what I wanted to say.’ Her response to the
question about specificity continued with this train of thought: ‘I like the fact that
there is not a lot of structure in the process of creating the portfolios. We had the
freedom and responsibility to determine the things we felt were important. This
process of “figuring out” the important things and questions is very similar to the
process we have to go through each day as teachers. What are the important things
in “X” and “Y” concepts? Why should I teach this now and not later? Constant
questioning…. In creating our portfolios I think we were gently introduced to this
kind of questioning. I’m grateful for the experience.’
These responses seemed to suggest, as I had hoped they would, that the students
160
were attending to the process at least as much as they were to the product. Too
often, I think, the focus of both those who create portfolios and those who view
and perhaps judge them is on the superficial glitz and glamour of the object
produced. But reflection is an ongoing process, not a final product. My portfolio
design appears to encourage the reflective deliberation and justification I hope my
students will continue to use throughout their teaching careers.
Conclusion
I have found that reflective teachers tend to be guided by ‘passionate creeds’. My

passionate creed is that educators need to be thoughtful about their work, which
means that they must question assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, avoid
judgments, recognize complexity, and be primarily concerned with the needs of
their students. The central mission of my practice is to help student teachers de
velop the skills and attitudes of reflective thinking. I designed the portfolio assign
ment to maximize its potential for contributing to the achievement of this goal.
1 The open-endedness allows students to engage the material in a personal

way and to construct their own knowledge in the process.
2 The focus on an expression of personal beliefs and values encourages the
development and sharing of passionate creeds.
3 The requirement for an ideological and theoretical justification of every
item obliges the students to ask and answer ‘Why?’ questions.
4 The relatively fluid nature of the portfolio structure and the emphasis on
process over product helps students to understand reflection as an ongoing
undertaking and gives them a mechanism for doing so.
My research also suggests that reflective teachers ask ‘Why?’ questions, such as
‘Why am I teaching what I am teaching in the way that I am teaching it?’ In order
to answer such questions, teachers not only need to consider their theoretical
perspectives, but they also need to examine carefully the feedback they get from
the context. They must be able to answer the question, ‘How do I know that what
I am doing is making a difference—is accomplishing what I hoped it would?’
Both the portfolios themselves and the questionnaire responses seem to suggest
that many of my students are using the portfolios to both practice and display
reflective thinking.
Finally, reflective teachers need to consider the moral and ethical implications
of what they do. They are obliged to do so because education is about intervent ion
in the lives of children for the purpose of giving each of them the chance to dwell
in an equitable and just society. Maxine Greene (1978) is ‘convinced that, if teachers
are to initiate young people into an ethical existence, they themselves must attend
more fully than they normally have to their own lives and its requirements; they
have to break with the mechanical life, to overcome their own submergence in the
habitual, even in what they conceive to be the virtuous, and ask the “Why?” with
161
which learning and moral reasoning begin’ (p. 46). The portfolio assignment, as I
have designed it, seems to fit Greene’s criteria for an experience with the potential
of preparing teachers ‘to initiate young people into an ethical existence’—at least
for these student teachers at this time.
Because I have also found, as have others (Baratz-Snowden, 1995; Gore and
Zeichner, 1991), that reflection is not easily acquired or practiced, I recognize that
no single assignment, no matter how well-designed, will suffice. An accumulation
of interventions guided by the same goals and principles is what matters and the
turning point may come via different means for different students. For Carrie it
came with an assignment she was responding to in the opening paragraph of this
chapter—an assignment given over halfway through the credential program year.
She acknowledges that she had learned about reflection before but had not fully
understood it until then. She suggests that she may not have listened in the past,
but I believe that her breakthrough is due to the fact that she was indeed listening
and doing all along. The accumulation of her previous experiences, including
multiple opportunities to engage in reflection in a variety of ways, is what made it
possible for her to come to understand and use it on a more authentic level in that
assignment.
I was once asked by a reviewer if reflectivity ought to be a goal for all teachers
(LaBoskey, 1993). The presumption seemed to be that because it was so difficult for
many to achieve, it might be an unreasonable educational aim. A colleague in a
current in-service project asked me the same question just the other day. My response
both then and now is ‘Yes!’, ‘Yes!’ and ‘Absolutely, yes!’ All students deserve teachers
who are primarily guided by student needs and interests and who are both willing
and able to construct and examine their practice in conscientious, principled, and
judicious ways. I design my portfolio assignment and the rest of my curriculum and
instruction as I do because I owe it to the children to try… and try again.
Notes
1 This comment was made by a former student, Carrie (a pseudonym), in a free write
response to one of her course assignments.
2 These examples summarize the passionate creeds of two of the Alert Novices in a previous
study (LaBoskey, 1994).
References
BARATZ-SNOWEDEN, J. (1995) ‘Towards a coherent vision of teacher development’,

Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, April, 1995.
BIRD, T. (1990) ‘The schoolteacher’s portfolio: An essay on possibilities’, in MILLMAN,
J. and DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (Eds) The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation:
Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp.
241–56.
DEWEY, J. (1910) How We Think, Boston, D.C. Heath and Co.
162
GORE, J.M. and ZEICHNER, K.M. (1991) ‘Action research and reflective teaching in
preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 7, 2, pp. 119–36.
GREENE, M. (1978) Landscapes of learning, New York, Teachers College Press.
LABOSKEY, V.K. (1991) ‘Case studies of two teachers in a reflective teacher education
program: How do you know?’, Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago. April, 1991.
LABOSKEY, V.K. (1993) ‘Why reflection in teacher education?’, Teacher Education
Quarterly, 20, 1, pp. 9–12.
LABOSKEY, V.K. (1994) Development of Reflective Practice, New York, Teachers College
Press.
SHULMAN, L.S. (1988) ‘A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a
period of reform’, Educational Leadership, 46, 3, pp. 36–41.
VAN MANEN, M. (1991) The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness,
Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
WOLF, K.P. (1991) ‘The schoolteacher’s portfolio: Issues in design, implementation, and
evaluation’, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 2, pp. 129–36.
ZEICHNER, K.M. and TABACHNICK, B.R. (1991) ‘Reflections on reflective teaching’,
in TABACHNICK, B.R. and ZEICHNER, K.M. (Eds) Issues and Practices in Inquiry-
oriented Teacher Education, London, Falmer Press, pp. 1–21.
163
11 Advisor as Coach
Anthony Clarke
Introduction
This chapter begins with two autobiographical accounts that set the stage for the
ensuing discussion of the significance of the teacher educator as practicum advisor
to a beginning teacher. The first account describes my own experiences as a student
teacher, ‘surviving’ on my own with the benign neglect of my advisors. The second
account describes my earliest experiences as a young teacher receiving new teachers
into my own classroom. With these two accounts as background, the remainder of
the chapter argues for the importance of a number of criteria related to advisors
acting as coaches for the development of understandings of teaching.
Has Anyone Seen My Advisor?
The day of my first lesson on practicum arrived. A group of Grade 1 children were
escorted out to the playground where I had neatly arranged various pieces of equipment
I wanted to use during the lesson. I was a little surprised when it took five minutes to
organize the children into a straight line. While I was doing this, I noticed that one
child’s shoelaces had come undone, and I quickly bent down to tie them. When I stood
up, the straight line I had worked so hard to organize had all but disappeared as the
children had begun to wander off and explore the equipment that I had laid out on the
ground. Ten minutes later, after a quick warm-up activity, I moved to the main segment
of my lesson: skipping. It was at this point my lesson completely fell apart. In the next
few minutes I was to learn what I suspect most early childhood teachers already know:
young children can’t skip! I was quickly forced to abandon my elaborate lesson plan
and, noticing that one child had started to make letters of the alphabet on the ground
with her rope, instructed the other children to also see how many different letters of the
alphabet they could form. We spent the remainder of the lesson practicing letters and
spelling words like ‘cat’ and ‘dog’ with the ropes. So much for my skipping lesson! If
somebody had checked my lesson plan, perhaps the inappropriateness of the activities
that I had planned would have been pointed out to me.
Of the four student teachers assigned to South Creek Elementary,1 had quickly
been identified as the physical education (PE) specialist and assigned to several
PE classes. I was keen to share my lesson plans with the staff but, as I was regarded
as the PE ‘expert’, most staff felt that they had very little to offer me. As a result,
164
Advisor as Coach
my lesson plans were rarely scrutinized by the school advisors.2 Indeed, very few
teachers actually saw me teach. It was winter in Melbourne and the teachers would
bring their pupils out to the courtyard and then disappear back to the warmth of the
staff room. My faculty advisor observed my teaching on only one occasion during
the four-week practicum and noted that, due to the large number of student teachers
he was required to supervise, he would be unable to visit me again.
My next practicum assignment was at Highton Grammar School, an exclusive
and private grade 8–12 school for boys. I was required to go to the school one day
a week throughout the year and to complete three three-week teaching practica,
one at the end of each term. The school had two gymnasiums, a swimming pool, a
weight room, several playing fields, tennis courts, a judo room, and a well-equipped
sports storeroom, etc. Accordingly, the students seemed to have access to a range
of sports equipment that I had not seen in other schools. For example, during a
cricket unit in PE, a number of the students wore expensive spiked cricket boots of
the type usually worn only by competitive cricketers in weekend matches. I also
noticed that the boys were very outspoken and at times quite brazen during the PE
classes. In one class, I noticed the boys deliberately puncturing the cricket bats
with their spiked boots.
My school advisor for this practicum was a sheet metal worker with a one-year
teaching certificate. He had been hired because the school hoped to improve its
standing in the inter-school basketball competitions. This gentleman was a
successful state league basketball player and had been given the responsibility for
developing basketball within the school. To this day, I am not sure that my school
advisor knew what a lesson plan was; I never saw him with one or even refer to
one. He certainly did not ask me for one during the time I was at Highton Grammar.
In fact, he rarely observed more than the first ten minutes of any class that I taught
and knew little of what actually went on in those lessons. For example, one day I
was teaching football during PE and asked the boys to form a semi-circle at one
end of the field in readiness for my next instruction. The boys, who just wanted to
kick the footballs backwards and forwards to each other rather than practice specific
drills, refused to comply with my request. The situation deteriorated to the point
where they decided to stage a protest and walked off the field and sat in the pavilion
at the opposite end of the ground. I was fortunate in that the groundsman, who was
well known and liked by the boys, saw what was happening and persuaded the
boys to return to my class before the bell went to signal the end of the lesson. My
sponsor teacher saw none of this, although he did notice the large muddy football
print on the back of my windcheater where one student had ‘accidentally’ punted
the ball during the early part of the lesson!
My faculty advisor for this practicum visited the school on two occasions, each
time unannounced. The first was a twenty-five-minute visit: fifteen minutes at the
end of a lesson followed by a ten-minute conversation after the lesson. The second
visit occurred on a rainy July day. The bad weather forced us to combine three
concurrent PE classes for team games in the gymnasium. My faculty advisor
appeared at the door for five minutes and left before I had a chance to talk to him.
My third teaching practicum was at Yarra Bridge Technical School. I arrived
165
Anthony Clarke
when the school was in the middle of a long and very messy industrial strike
involving the ancillary and cleaning staff. The teachers were working-to-rule in
support of the striking workers. The physical environment within the school was
considered to be a health risk and therefore sections of the building were closed
down and classes were transferred to the local community centre adjacent to the
school. My school advisor was a political activist and was caught up in the strike
action and associated meetings with union and school administration officials.
Unfortunately, his activities cut considerably into the time available for us to discuss
the mathematics classes I had been assigned to teach at Yarra Bridge.
My classroom in the community center was the exercise room. My Grade 10
students sat on small benches arranged between the various pieces of fitness equipment
to enable the best possible view of the small portable chalkboard that was supported
by two chairs and propped up against the only wall space free of equipment.
Unfortunately, the space against which the chalkboard was leaning was covered in a
dazzling array of sport posters depicting young men and women shooting baskets,
scoring goals, paddling rapids, climbing mountains, throwing javelins, etc. An
experienced teacher might have been able to take advantage of this unusual
environment and use it to motivate the students to explore mathematical principles
related to physical movement (i.e., a kinematics approach) but, for a student teacher
with a limited repertoire of ideas and a less-than-stellar set of practicum experiences,
this was an extremely challenging environment in which to ‘learn how to teach’.
My faculty advisor visited on only one occasion early in the practicum, prior to
the move to the community center, and apparently felt that my teaching was
satisfactory and did not require further observation. She, like my school advisor,
did not witness the chaos that occurred during several of my lessons in the exercise
room as the students continually messed about on, and fiddled with, the exercise
equipment rather than attending to my teaching of mathematics instruction. I
received a passing grade, although upon what this was based was never made clear
to me by either of my advisors.
If my practicum experiences were indicative of the contribution that advisors
make to the process of ‘learning to teach’ then one might conclude that learning on
practicum was by trial and error and something that occurred largely in the absence
of an advisor. At the conclusion of my Yarra Bridge practicum, I decided that if I ever
was to be a practicum advisor then I would attempt to facilitate my student teacher’s
professional development in more substantive ways than I had experienced during
my own practica. But my decision on how to work with student teachers could easily
have gone the other way. I might have decided to model my advisory practice on the
practices of my own practicum advisors, therefore perpetuating the ‘sink-or-swim’
model that had been so much a part of my own ‘learning to teach’ experiences.
Asleep at the Switch
The year after my Yarra Bridge practicum I secured a full-time teaching position at
Aramis Park High School, a new school that had just enrolled its grade 10 class
166
Advisor as Coach
and was to enrol its senior classes in the following years. Once again I found
myself designated as the PE specialist. The school had no gymnasium, and the
outdoor facilities included an oval and a large paddock. There was one other PE
teacher at Aramis when I arrived and we both shared a staff room with the History/
Geography teachers. They were a very friendly group, and were occasionally given
to practical jokes, especially with first year teachers. For instance, I would often
organize the equipment needed for a lesson, perhaps a couple of crates of volley-
balls, and leave them sitting inside the staff room door while I went outside to
meet my class and take attendance, only to find that when I returned, the crates
would be upturned and the balls scattered throughout the room. Understandably, I
didn’t take much notice when my name went up on the board to volunteer as a
practicum advisor. Just another joke! Needless to say I was a little surprised when,
on the Wednesday before an introductory practicum for student teachers at Aramis
High, a young man knocked on the History/Geography staff room door and asked
to speak to ‘Mr Clarke’, his practicum advisor. This was my first year of teaching
and here was my first student teacher.
As the practicum unfolded, my work with that student teacher was to be one of
the most rewarding experiences of my teaching career. The student teacher and I
planned, experimented, co-taught classes, and critiqued each other’s practice
throughout the practicum. I found myself not so much reporting on the work of
the student teacher during our weekly meetings and conferences but inquiring into
teaching practice with him. Indeed, so powerful was this experience that I chose to
regularly sponsor student teachers on practicum.
The school system in which I was working had a three-term school year and the
various universities sent their student teachers out in different terms. I sponsored
two and sometimes three student teachers each year for practica ranging from
three to nine weeks in length. Over an eleven-year period I worked with more than
twenty students with teaching abilities ranging from those who were absolutely
brilliant to those who had failed previous practica and were completing a
supplementary practicum at my school. This posed many interesting challenges as
an advisor and gave me an extraordinary opportunity to explore and experiment
with a range of advisory styles.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of my work as a practicum advisor was that
I was never offered any formal or informal opportunity to examine the role I was
playing in the practicum setting. When I consider that the students with whom I
was working were to be the next generation of teachers in our school system, the
absence of any professional development for school advisors borders on negligence
by those responsible for the direction of teacher education in that jurisdiction.
Certainly, I was given the various student-teaching handbooks from the univer
sities, and the faculty advisors who did visit the school provided examples of a few
different advisory styles, but essentially what I learned about advising was what I
constructed by myself when I interacted with the student teachers after they arrived
on practicum.
Equally astounding is that this situation was largely reflected in the university’s
recruiting process for faculty advisors when I was first appointed to that role. The
167
Anthony Clarke
principal criterion was previous experience as a school advisor, although this was
waived for some appointees. Further, although a professional development course
was offered, a number of faculty advisors paid lip-service to this requirement and
avoided the classes when possible. (In fact I know of some who attended only one
class and then absented themselves from the remainder.) I had some sympathy
with those who adopted this attitude, as the course was the single most disappointing
class that I attended while in graduate school. The course provided a very technical
and rational view of advising. Class members were presented with a list of tasks to
be learned, focusing largely on the activities of the student teacher and only
peripherally examining in any critical way the activities of advisors in practicum
settings. As an experienced school advisor, I found the material and substance of
this course to be virtually useless in terms of exploring and preparing advisors for
the educative function that exemplary advisors regularly play in practicum settings.
Taken together, my preparatory experiences for both school and faculty advising
might lead one to believe that practicum advising:
• requires very little preparation, (i.e., it is a fairly straight forward task);

• is a task that anyone can do, (i.e., regardless of selection criteria or course
preparation, any teacher can perform that task); and
• requires no ongoing support, (i.e., once you have worked with your first
student teacher, then you know all that you need to know about the task).
Sadly, these common beliefs could not be further from the truth, particularly as
more and more faculties of education are changing their field experience in
preservice teacher education to a single extended practicum placement in contrast
to two or three shorter placements with different advisors. With the extended
practicum format, if a student teacher is assigned to an ineffective or uninvolved
advisor, then that student’s professional development as a teacher can be severely
handicapped. Given that our student teachers are going to be our future colleagues
in the teaching profession, every attempt should be made to ensure that practicum
advisors are not only the very best people available for that task but well prepared
to undertake that task.
Practicum Advisor as Teacher Educator
A review of literature reveals that advisor preparation is beginning to be taken

more seriously in some institutions, with professional development activities ranging
from distributed workshops (Browne, 1992; McIntyre and Killian, 1987), to
semester courses (Johnston, Galluzzo, and Kottkamp, 1986) and, in one or two
instances, extended graduate work (Garland and Shippy, 1991; Wolfe, Schewel,
and Bickham, 1989). Unfortunately, the literature also indicates that many programs
focus primarily on the activities of the student teacher in the practicum setting as
opposed to the activities of the advisor in those settings. One reason for this fixation
is the way that the work of practicum advisors has been, and in many instances
168
Advisor as Coach
continues to be, conceptualized in teacher education. To illustrate this more fully,

consider the continuum depicted in Figure 11.1.
Figure 11.1: Alternative conceptions of the work of practicum advisors
This continuum helps me understand my own experiences as a student teacher

on practicum and suggests alternative possibilities for thinking about the work of
practicum advisors. There are a variety of other points and, indeed, other ways to
think about this continuum but I confine my comments to three points along the
continuum and the notion of engagement between student teacher and advisor in
the practicum setting.
Perhaps one of the oldest conceptions, and one more directly related to the
work of school advisors, is advisor as classroom placeholder. An advisor who acts
as a classroom placeholder is a teacher who gets a student teacher to take his or her
place in the classroom and then exits to the staff room for the remainder of the
practicum. I have certainly witnessed this approach to practicum advising and
have had colleagues who believe this is the most appropriate form of field experience
for student teachers. For some advisors, this is the way that they learned to teach
on practicum, and they were simply ‘teaching as they were taught’. The level of
engagement with the student teacher is minimal when advisors hold this conception
of their role in practicum settings. Fortunately, this ‘absentee landowner’ conception
is quite rare but nonetheless is an indication of life at one end of the continuum.
I would like to move some distance along the continuum to what is perhaps the
most common conception of the work of practicum advisors today, advisor as
supervisor of practica. This conception is promoted in a number of universities
and is often the way that practicum advisors view their work with student teachers.
In short, their function is to ‘oversee’ the work of student teachers on practicum.
Implicit in this supervisory role is an assumption that much of what the student
needs to know about teaching is acquired prior to the practicum and that all the
student teacher needs to do is to put that knowledge into practice under the
supervision of an advisor. This particular conception has a strong connotation of a
technical rational view of professional development: knowledge is in the academy,
practice is in the field, and it is a one-way street from the first to the second. The
level of engagement with the student teacher is considerably increased in this
169
Anthony Clarke
conception but unfortunately is quite uni-dimensional in nature: the role of the

advisor is to observe, document, and report.
I would like to contrast these two conceptions with one that I believe is far more
appropriate for the work that advisors do and, especially given the growing number
of school/university partnerships that are being reported in the literature, the role
advisors are increasingly expected to play in practicum settings: namely, advisor
as teacher educator. In my work as a school and faculty advisor, the educative
function has always been the most important element of that role. Practicum advisors
are teacher educators. And to be a teacher educator in a practicum setting demands
a level of engagement with a student teacher that far exceeds that demonstrated by
other conceptions, for example, supervisors of practica. Advisor as teacher educator
is not a task for the faint-hearted. It is not a job for those who want to have a rest
from the classroom. It is not a job for those who want an easy term at the university.
It is not a job for those who have a hundred and one other commitments in their
professional lives. In short, this is not a job for everyone! If you elect or agree to be
a practicum advisor, you are committing yourself to a level of engagement that
demands all the skills of an educator, and then some. It is a role that requires
advisors to be knowledgeable and conversant with the field of teacher education
and the issues that pertain to that field.
I argue that practicum advisors are teacher educators in much the same way as
many university faculty claim to be teacher educators. Obviously, this is an important
point for me. The concept of practicum advisor as teacher educator should become
the main referent for any discussion of the role that advisors play in practicum
settings. This is even more important when we consider that it is practicum advisors
who, by all accounts (Glickman and Bey, 1990; Guyton, 1989), have the most
influence on the next generation of teachers in our schools.
Teacher Educator as Coach
Four years ago I was asked to teach a course for new school and faculty advisors.
The course had been offered for a number of years at the University of British
Columbia and was underpinned by a clinical supervision model of practicum advising.
This is a very powerful model with much to offer new advisors. Unfortunately, clinical
supervision tends to be interpreted in a variety of ways. For example, Hunter (1984)
and Joyce and Showers (1982) have used it as a form of technological intervention
specifically aimed at enhancing teacher effectiveness. In contrast, Kilbourn (1982)
emphasizes autonomy, evidence, and continuity within a clinical supervision model
to ensure reflection and understanding, a practice that is more faithful to Cogan
(1973) and Goldhammer’s (1969) original vision of clinical supervision. Still,
Kilbourn’s approach is more the exception than the rule, and in my experience many
advisors tend to imbue clinical supervision with positivist notions of standardization,
quality control and homogenization of pedagogy, the medical metaphor ‘ “clinical”
connoting something in need of careful diagnosis and a prescribed course of action
toward improved “health”’ (May and Zimpher, 1986, p. 88).
170
Advisor as Coach
Figure 11.2: A stereotypical view of coaching
Note: ADAM © Brian Bassett. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS

SYNDICATE. All rights reserved.
Further, as I have indicated earlier, the notion of ‘supervision’ does not capture
for me the nature of the work that I believe good advisors engage in on a daily
basis with student teachers on practicum. In searching for some way to capture the
sense of what it is that school advisors do as teacher educators, I find the notion of
coaching to be particularly useful.
First I wish to dispel a stereotypical image of coaching where the coach is the
person who stands on the sidelines berating his or her players, arm thrust out,
finger pointed at the player in error, calling the next play, etc. (Figure 11.2). This
image of coaching is often portrayed in the media, but it is not how I conceive of
coaching nor is it, in my experience, how many coaches perceive their work in
coaching environments.
My notion of coaching draws on two sources: the work of Donald Schön (1983,
1987), and my own experiences as competitor and coach in Olympic gymnastics.
Schön is well known for his work on reflective practice. Less known perhaps is his
work on coaching with respect to introducing beginners to the world of professional
practice. Schön’s work coincides with the emphasis on engagement between ‘coach’
and ‘learner’ that I suggest is the essence of teacher educator as coach where ‘the
coach’s legitimacy does not depend on his scholarly attainments or proficiency as
a lecturer but on the artistry of his coaching practice’ (Schön, 1987, p. 310). My
own initial experience in coaching is Olympic gymnastics; the coaching takes place
in the immediacy of the action setting in amongst the magnesium chalk and
gymnastic equipment, working side-by-side with individual gymnasts exploring
new options, experimenting with new repertoires, acting as a sounding board for
171
Anthony Clarke
alternative practices, bringing to bear resources not readily available to the gymnast,
and so on.
This notion of coaching that I have begun to relate, and which stands in sharp
contrast to the stereotypical view of coaching portrayed in the media, resonates in
different ways for different people. For example, a woman with whom I was recently
sharing this notion likened the intimate and interactive relationship between coach
and gymnast/student teacher to her experiences with a labor coach during the
preparation for, and delivery of, her children.
There are at least six ways in which my work as a coach of gymnasts and
student teachers are linked:
• my work is set in the immediacy of the action setting;

• I work side-by-side with the person being coached, (not from afar);
• I am a co-investigator in to the practice that is being learned (and not
given to the sink or swim method of learning a new competence);
• it is important that I know when to watch, listen, speak, or act and that I
am able to distinguish between the value of these at different times for the
person being coached;
• I am an inquirer into my own practice as a coach and actively seek
opportunities to inform that practice; and
• in seeking to analyze the particularities of practice, I am attentive to detail
and not given to a reliance on an approach that is often referred to as
technical problem solving (if this is problem ‘A’, the solution always is
‘A’, if this is problem ‘B’ the solution is always ‘B’, etc.).
In short, good coaching practice is thoughtful, deliberate, and inquisitive. I recall

watching an inexperienced coach working with a young gymnast in an attempt to
improve her round-off (a cartwheel-like action that precedes a series of backward
tumbling movements). The coach could see that something was wrong with the
round-off and, in an attempt to help the gymnast improve the movement, encouraged
the girl to reach up with her arms during the rebound phase at the end of the
movement (one of the most common ‘coaching tips’ heard in gymnasiums in
relation to this movement). Unfortunately, the problem lay in the hurdle step that
the gymnast used to initiate the movement and not in the concluding phase of the
movement. For twenty-five minutes the coach continued to instruct the gymnast to
reach up with her arms at the end of the round-off with little or no improvement to
her execution of that movement. The coach’s inability to analyze the gymnast’s
practice was detrimental to the girl’s performance of this particular activity. Ideally,
the coach should have engaged the gymnast in a conversation about the particulars
of the activity and the context in which the activity occurred (i.e., the movements
that preceded and were to follow the activity). The conversation should also have
been an opportunity for the coach to explore her own practice, to think critically
about how this instance was similar to, and different from, past instances that she
had encountered and its relationship to her own understanding of the particular
activity and the gymnast who was performing it.
172
Advisor as Coach
The links I suggest above between these two coaching contexts, student teaching
and Olympic gymnastics, do not represent an exhaustive list of possible connections.
Nor am I trying to suggest that there is an isomorphic relationship between coaching
practices in the two settings: clearly the parallel between the coaching gymnasts
and student teachers breaks down at some point. But the five aspects I have
articulated above are central to my coaching practice, be it of student teachers or
competitive gymnasts.
My concept of coaching as it pertains to teacher education differs from two
earlier uses of that term in the teacher education literature. The first use is in the
context of peer coaching (Joyce and Showers, 1982) where the outcomes of the
process are deliberately reciprocal in nature and essentially technical in substance
(Hargreaves and Dawe, 1990). In contrast, I argue that the concept of ‘coaching’
implies a level of expertise and experience on the part of the coach that is distinctly
different to the person who is being coached. Further, I believe coaching to be a
highly interactive and reflective activity, and not just a technical pursuit. The second
use of coaching in the teacher education literature occurs in the context of cognitive
coaching (Costa and Garmston, 1994), where a distinct line is drawn between
thought (cognition) and action (practice). While there is much to recommend in
this body of work, I find the distinction between thought and action to be quite
artificial. Drawing on the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), among others, I believe
that thought and action are mutually constitutive. Indeed, that thought is embedded
in action, and that the separation of the two distorts the legitimacy and artistry that
is the essence of good coaching practice.
Coaching is a highly interactive endeavor between advisor and student teacher
and, in my experience, is one of the most taxing, exhausting, challenging activities
I have ever undertaken. I never cease to be amazed by advisors at both the school
and faculty level who tell me that they have taken on student teacher advising
because they need time out from the hectic pace of their regular duties. Done
properly, advising is a totally consuming activity. A recent experience with a student
teacher named Mathew comes to mind.
Coaching Mathew
I was Mathew’s faculty advisor, and in conjunction with his school advisor, had
written two interim reports indicating that Mathew was ‘at risk’ in terms of
successfully completing his thirteen-week practicum. Mathew needed to
demonstrate significant improvement in specific areas within a designated period
of time to avoid removal from the practicum and from the teacher education program
in which he was enrolled. Grade 9 classes were the most problematic for Mathew.
He was unable to establish any sort of presence as the teacher in the classroom at
this grade level. As a result, leadership in the classroom came from three or four of
the rowdier students who quickly co-opted several other students in what was fast
becoming an all-out rebellion during Mathew’s Grade 9 lessons. Even when I was
present during these lessons, the student unrest showed no signs of abating.
173
Anthony Clarke
Wednesday of the fifth week on practicum was particularly disastrous. One of

the grade 9 classes had become so unruly that Mathew’s school advisor, who had
been sitting in a workroom adjacent to the classroom, had to intervene. He stopped
the class, brought the pupils back to order, and taught the remainder of the lesson
for Mathew. On days that I did not formally visit Mathew’s classroom, I would
drop by after school to see how things were going. This particular Wednesday was
one such day. Mathew and I retreated to the grade 9 classroom to discuss the day’s
events. Unfortunately Mathew’s advisor was unable to join us due to prior
commitments at the school board office. I did not envy Mathew having to face the
grade 9 students the next morning. I remember my own struggles with similar
classes, both as a student teacher and as a practicing teacher; I often felt I was
dangling over the edge of a cliff, holding on with just my fingertips, only to glance
up and see the pupils standing at the cliff’s edge about to stomp on my fingers!
What should I do as Mathew’s advisor? I could provide him with a list of things
to help with his classroom practice, for example: review his expectations with the
students and be more rigorous in implementing the consequences for student failure
to meet those expectations, move difficult students to separate parts of the room,
introduce work contracts for the more intransigent students, reduce early ‘off-
task’ behavior by having a daily question written on the board for the students to
complete when they entered the room; increase student activity and reduce ‘teacher
talk’ during lesson segments, provide clear instructions for students to follow during
transitions between lesson segments, ensure that the bell at the end of the class is
not the signal for dismissal, and so on. I was tempted to pursue this approach but as
some of these issues had already been raised by Mathew’s school advisor with
little improvement in Mathew’s classroom practice, an alternative approach was
required.
As we pondered the day’s activities, Mathew began to lay out the lesson content
and topic area that he hoped to introduce the following day. I wanted to suggest
that there were more significant issues to be addressed at this point but felt that it
was important for him to approach the problem in his own way. There was no
doubt in my mind that of all the topics in the year 9 curriculum, the one that
Mathew hoped to introduce to the Grade 9 students the next morning was the most
boring, dull, and uninteresting topic I could imagine at that level. I had visions of
Mathew’s school advisor once again having to intervene and take over the class. I
wanted to suggest changing the topic altogether and selecting one that would
potentially be of greater interest to the students (in the hope that pupil behavior
might be moderated by their interest in the topic). Once again, I felt that it was
important for Mathew to explore his own ideas in preparation for the next day
rather than ‘giving’ him the lesson plan that I thought would work with the Grade
9 students. We spent the next hour and a half working and reworking the lesson
plan. I regularly sought clarification and explanation from Mathew about his
intended outcomes and how he felt these were going to be achieved with the plans
he was suggesting. At times, we role-played some possible scenarios that might
eventuate from the activities planned and listed the sorts of things that Mathew
might draw upon in response to the students’ reactions. Together we examined a
174
Advisor as Coach
number of different resources, with quick excursions to the library and the staff
room for additional materials. As the lesson took shape, we examined the individual
lesson elements both from Mathew’s point of view and from what we thought
would be the pupils’. Together we considered each element in terms of its intellectual
level and associated pupil activity.
As the various elements of the lesson began to fall into place, Mathew explored
more earnestly the nature of his relationship with the pupils. He had tried to be
firm with the students early in the practicum but that had failed. He had tried to be
friendly but that had also failed. Mathew wondered if at the outset of the lesson he
should have an open conversation with the students about the difficulty he was
facing with his Grade 9 classes, seeking suggestions from them about ways that he
might improve his teaching practice. This was not an approach I would have
suggested, nor was it an approach that I thought would work with these students
(particularly given the events of that morning). As we explored the strengths and
weaknesses of some alternative approaches, Mathew decided to opt for the open
conversation approach; as he noted, ‘things couldn’t get much worse’ and drastic
measures were required if he was going to survive the practicum (at this point he
wasn’t worried about passing his practicum but just surviving with his pride intact).
I wondered how much sleep Mathew was going to get that night.
I was feeling quite exhausted after working with Mathew that afternoon. As I
reflected upon my interaction with him, it struck me that this was the first time that
we had actually worked through a complete lesson plan together—a practice that
as a faculty advisor had been increasingly absent from my work with student
teachers (perhaps due to the pattern of weekly visits that are often tied to specific
lesson observations, my interactions tended to focus on classroom practices as
opposed to pedagogical decision-making during lesson preparation). We had worked
in great detail through the design and content for the lesson. I realized that, through
the series of questions we pursued and the judgments we made, I had in effect
been modelling for Mathew the sort of pedagogical struggles that teachers engage
in as they plan both for the management of pupils and for the management of the
intellectual discourse in the classroom (Shulman, 1987).
We had spent over two hours planning and talking about Mathew’s grade 9
classes for the next morning. While it would be impossible to spend this amount of
time with all student teachers on a regular basis, my work with Mathew that
afternoon reminded me that practicum advising is more than just supervising; it is
more than just the clinical presentation of classroom observation data. Mathew
and I had worked side-by-side, examining his, and in many ways my own,
understanding of classroom practice: lesson content, theme objectives, unit plans,
discourse patterns, management strategies, pedagogical approaches, pupil
differences, and so on. Although sorely tempted, I avoided offering Mathew quick-
fix technical solutions (or the ‘the hands up at the end of the gymnastic movement’
approach). Rather, together we sought to understand Mathew’s teaching practice
from his perspective, in much the same way that Mathew had begun to explore his
pupils’ learning from their perspective. In short, this session contained the key
elements of coaching practice outlined earlier: working in the immediacy of the
175
Anthony Clarke
action setting; working side-by-side; co-investigating the practice to be learned;

knowing when to watch, listen, speak, or act; inquiring into my own practice; and
seeking to analyze the particularities of practice.
Mathew invited me to the first of his two grade 9 classes the next morning (a
brave move considering my position as evaluator of Mathew’s teaching). To my
surprise, Mathew’s conversation with the grade 9 students was one of the most
extraordinary events I have witnessed as a practicum advisor. The students were
exceedingly blunt with Mathew about his teaching practice but the conversation
never strayed from a respectful exchange between pupil and teacher. The tone
established and set in the negotiations that occurred at the beginning of that class
set the tone for an entirely different practicum experience for Mathew. Certainly,
as the practicum progressed, there were days when he still struggled with the
vagaries of teaching grade 9 students, but those struggles never approached the
same crisis level he faced on the Wednesday of his fifth week of his practicum.3
My work with Mathew on that day was an important lesson to me as an advisor—
the value of attending to the student teacher’s agenda—and underscored the value
of the coaching approach in working with student teachers.
Advisor as coach plays itself out in different ways in different settings. For
example, if pupils are at risk as a result of a student teacher’s planned lesson (e.g.,
crossing a busy road during an orienteering exercise during a PE or Geography
lesson) then the discourse practice that I have articulated in the instance of ‘Coaching
Mathew’ might demand stronger intervention at the outset to ensure the safety of
the pupils during the preparation and enactment of the lesson. Still, the skills and
abilities demanded of coaching student teachers brings to bear a critical examination
of the advisor role that is rarely considered in the professional development of
advisors for practicum environments. In the course that I currently teach for school
and faculty advisors, the notion of coaching is central to the exploration of the
advisor role. This concept is explored in a self-directed coaching practicum that
each participant undertakes during the course (see Clarke, 1995).
Three Steps: Professionally Ready, Carefully Selected,

Continually Supported
Given the complexity and the demands of the practicum advisor role, and given
that student teachers consistently report that the practicum is the most influential
component of their teacher education programs (Blakey, Everett-Turner, Massing
and Scott, 1988; Wideen, Holborn and Desrosiers, 1987), it is incumbent upon
those responsible for the professional development of student teachers to ensure
that all advisors are:
• professionally ready, that is, advisors wishing to work with student

teachers are provided with professional development opportunities that
prepare them for that role and clearly outline what is expected of them
in that role;
176
Advisor as Coach
• carefully selected from those who have completed the initial professional
development program; and
• continually supported as they undertake their role as advisors (we should
not abandon them once the student teacher arrives, or after they have had
their first student teacher).
These three points are in direct contrast to my early observations of the way in
which schools and universities seem to regard the work of practicum advisors. If
practicum advisors are to be considered teacher educators and their work is to
encompass the six elements of coaching outlined above, then these three steps are
essential to ensuring exemplary advisory practice for teachers and faculty members
working with student teachers in practicum settings. If we choose to ignore these
steps, then we perpetuate the unevenness of advisor performance that I experienced
as a student teacher and have witnessed on several occasions in my work with
school and faculty advisors over the past twenty years.
Many problems stemming from the appointment of suitable advisors arise
because the first two steps are reversed. This is akin to handing out a licence to
drive a car before the recipient has attended any form of driver instruction. Worse
still, in teacher education we often omit the first step altogether. If the first step is
missing, we are then forced to work on the assumption that any teacher or faculty
member will automatically be a good practicum advisor. Good gymnasts do not
automatically make good gymnastic coaches. Good soccer players do not
necessarily make good soccer coaches. It seems folly to me to assume that the
same principle does not hold in teacher education. All the good will in the world
and a willingness to volunteer one’s time to the task of advising does not ensure
that good or even adequate advising will take place. The mere fact that I might be
proficient in a particular area does not necessarily ensure that I am able to coach
someone else who is learning to become proficient in that area. In teacher education,
are we prepared to allow ‘professional readiness’ to mean ‘anyone who wants to
volunteer’ for the task of practicum advising? I believe the answer is ‘No’. Rather,
the role of advisor as coach demands that we thoroughly prepare teachers and
faculty members for their work with student teachers. Having provided the
opportunity for professional development as an advisor, we should then carefully
select participants who we consider most suitable for the task (e.g., in the course I
currently teach for advisors, the self-directed coaching practicum and the case
study materials submitted as part of that process provide an indicator of the state
of readiness of advisors for their work with student teachers in practicum settings).
The selection of practicum advisors is undoubtedly one of the most intractable
issues in the area of pre-service teacher education. Recently, I was invited to a
meeting of school advisors where it was brought to the attention of the group
that one of the student teachers in that school had noted that the head of the
department to which he was assigned commented that ‘student teachers were
more trouble than they were worth’. The student teacher’s purpose in raising the
issue was not to criticize the program but to find out what he and his fellow
student teachers might do to be the least possible inconvenience to their advisors
177
Anthony Clarke
while on practicum. Needless to say, the advisors at the meeting were quite
surprised, especially as all advisors working with student teachers had volunteered
for that task. The group of teachers (including a school administrator) noted that
too often universities send a request to the school for names of those wishing to
act as practicum advisors and the principal puts a blank sheet of paper on the
staff room notice board calling for interested teachers. Staff members then add
their names to the list and the principal sends the list back to the university.
While this is not how advisor selection works in all settings, I have found this to
be a very common practice in many settings, and volunteerism is often the easiest
way to address the selection problem. Over the years there have been various
attempts to address the selection issue, but given the conception of advisor as
teacher educator and the attendant notion of coaching outlined in this chapter, a
need for a review of the selection process for advisors at both the school and
university level is clearly indicated.
I envision the possibility of advisors, both school and faculty, belonging to a
designated group, for example a region-based ‘College of Teacher Educators’, and
that group serving as the pool from which advisors are selected to work with student
teachers. Membership in the group would require evidence of professional
development commensurate with the work of teacher educators in practicum settings
and of regular upgrading of one’s knowledge to remain current with the literature
in the field of teacher education.4
Turning briefly to the notion of upgrading or ongoing professional development
for school advisors, I think that it can safely be said that this is virtually nonexistent
in most settings. In those jurisdictions where some ongoing professional
development is available, it is often piecemeal and infrequent: a couple of half-day
workshops at most. The briefer the time period provided for ongoing professional
development, the more likely it is to be technical in nature (and in some jurisdictions
with which I am familiar, completely administrative in nature with an emphasis on
filling in and filing student teacher reports). This technical emphasis is often
exemplified in many ‘clinical supervision’ workshops that abound today.
Unfortunately, ongoing professional development support that focuses solely on
supervisory exercises rarely asks advisors to scrutinize their own activities to the
same extent as it asks advisors to scrutinize the work of their student teachers. It
would be illuminating, for example, as part of an ongoing professional development
program, to ask advisors to record, categorize, and analyze the types of questions
they ask of their student teachers.
Conclusion
I believe we need to reconceptualize the way we think about the role of practicum
advisors. I suggest that the notion of teacher educator is a far more appropriate
conceptualization than those currently in use in teacher education. Further, the
notion of coaching has much to offer in terms of capturing the level of engagement
that we expect of advisors as they work with student teachers. The advisor as
178
Advisor as Coach
coach notion also provides a useful heuristic for explicating the relationship between
advisor and student teacher in practicum settings. I have argued that there are
certain principles that are common to exemplary coaching practice in site-based
educational settings and that these are worthy of consideration in our work with
student teachers. Finally, our modus operandi as we prepare sites for student
teaching practica should be to ensure that advisors are professionally ready, carefully
selected, and provided with ongoing support for their work with student teachers.
Each of these points is important if the work of practicum advisors is to feature
more significantly than is currently the case in our discussion of, and contribution
to, pre-service teacher education.
For me, the role of practicum advisor is critical in complementing and extending
the professional development opportunities that we provide for beginning teachers
in practicum settings. Unfortunately, it is a role that is often overlooked and
undervalued in conversations about pedagogical practices in teacher education.
Writing this chapter has enabled me to articulate the strategies that I use in my
work with student teachers. I look forward to continuing this conversation with
other advisors and hope that the ideas presented here act as an impetus for both
critique and further exploration of our work in practicum settings.
Notes
1 Pseudonyms are used for all schools, teachers, faculty members, and student teachers.
2 Throughout this paper the term ‘school advisor’ is used to refer to school teachers who
work with student teachers in practicum settings. The term ‘faculty advisor’ is used to
refer to university faculty who work with student teachers in practicum settings. When
the term ‘practicum advisor’ is used it refers to both school and faculty advisors who
work with student teachers in practicum settings.
3 Mathew has since gone on to full time employment in a school district as a specialist
teacher for behaviorally difficult students. He conducts small classes with eight to ten
students who voluntarily withdraw themselves from regular classrooms, and he works
with them to develop strategies to enable gradual integration back into regular classroom
environments.
4 Networks such as these exist already in regional mentorship programs (e.g., in the
Richmond School District in British Columbia, Canada) and could serve as a model for
practicum advisor networks.
References
BLAKEY, J., EVERETT-TURNER, L., MASSING, C. and SCOTT, N. (1988) ‘The many
faces of beginning teachers’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Education, Windsor, Ontario.
BROWNE, C. (1992) ‘Classroom teacher as teacher educators’, Action in Teacher Education,
14, 2, pp. 30–7.
CLARKE, A. (1995) ‘Becoming a teacher educator: A coaching practicum for co-operating
teachers’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, April, 1995.
COGAN, M. (1973) Clinical Supervision, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
179
Anthony Clarke
COSTA, A. and GARMSTON, R. (1994) Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance

Schools, Norwood, MA, Christopher Gordon Publishers.
GARLAND, C. and SHIPPY, V. (1991) ‘Improving the student teaching context: A research
based program for school advisors’, Action in Teacher Education, 13, 1, pp. 37–41.
GLICKMAN, G. and BEY, T. (1990) ‘Supervision’, in Houston, R. (Ed) Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education, New York, Macmillan, pp. 549–66.
GOLDHAMMER, R. (1969) Clinical Supervision, New York, Holt Reinhart and Winston.
GUYTON, E. (1989) ‘Guidelines for developing educational programs for cooperating
teachers’, Action in Teacher Education, 11, 3, pp. 54–8.
HARGREAVES, A. and DAWE, R. (1990) ‘Paths of professional development: Contrived
collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching’, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 6, 3, pp. 227–41.
HUNTER, M. (1984) ‘Knowing, teaching, and supervising’, in HOSFORD, P. (Ed) Using
What We Know about Teaching, Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
JOHNSTON, C., GALLUZZO, G. and KOTTKAMP, R. (1986) ‘The effects of training in
trans actional analysis on supervisory interpersonal communication’, Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association, San Franscisco.
JOYCE, B. and SHOWERS, B. (1982) ‘The coaching of teaching’, Educational Leadership,
40, 1, pp. 7–10.
KILBOURN, B. (1982) ‘Linda: A case study in clinical supervision’, Canadian Journal of
Education, 7, 3, pp. 1–24.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
MAY, W. and ZIMPHER, N. (1986) ‘An examination of three theoretical perspectives on
supervision’, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1, 2, pp. 83–99.
McINTYRE, D. and KILLIAN, J. (1987) ‘The influence of supervisory training for school
advisors on preservice teachers’ development during early field experiences’, The Journal
of Educational Research, 80, 5, pp. 277–82.
SCHÖN, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New
York, Basic Books.
SCHÖN, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching
and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
SHULMAN, L. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard
WIDEEN, M., HOLBORN, P. and DESROSIERS, M. (1987) ‘A critical review of a decade
of Canadian research on teacher education’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Association of Educational Research, Washington, D.C. April, 1987.
WOLFE, D., SCHEWEL, R. and BICKHAM, E. (1989) ‘A gateway to collaboration:
Lynchburg’s Clinical Faculty Program’, Action in Teacher Education, 11, 2, pp. 66–70.
180
Section 4
Conversations about Teacher Education

12 Obligations to Unseen Children
The Arizona Group: Karen Guilfoyle,

Mary Lynn Hamilton, and Stefinee Pinnegar
Introduction
This chapter reveals through dialogue our shared and divergent views about
becoming teachers of teachers. These views have emerged as we have studied our
experience in the various institutions where we have practiced as teacher educators.
We usually represent our collaborative work with the moniker, the Arizona Group,
and then list our names alphabetically. We call ourselves the Arizona Group because
we began our formal education as teacher educators at the University of Arizona
together during the mid-1980s, and have been close friends and colleagues ever
since. Peg Placier is the fourth member of the Arizona Group, but time commitments
precluded her official involvement in the writing of this chapter. Her voice is with
us as we write.
We share many things as a group. First, we all began as teachers. In our teaching
experience, we worked with a diversity of students. We found their academic records
seldom reflected the intelligence, wit, or creativity we observed in our interactions
with them. We struggled to teach ourselves how to teach these students. We think
it was our desire to learn better or more about how to teach that led us to the
College of Education at the University of Arizona. Second, we share an interest in
the use of qualitative methodology in the study of education. Third, in our teaching
of future teachers we are committed to model the kind of work we expect from
them. Fourth, we constantly examine our own practices as teacher educators and
the implications of our own teaching for our students’ teaching.
Within this shared framework, we have different interests, and different themes
emerge in our work. Karen Guilfoyle is centrally committed to creating university
classrooms based in a whole language philosophy of teaching as a strategy for
educating teachers whose classrooms will more clearly meet the needs of all learners.
The learning journey including the processes of learning, the negotiation of multiple
roles, and feminism are often themes in her work. Mary Lynn Hamilton is committed
to creating teaching experiences that prompt students to recognize their own beliefs
about teaching and learning and the negative and positive elements of those beliefs.
She speaks of ‘bringing them to the point of choice’. In her work, she frequently
focuses on cultural models, the tacit messages of classroom environment and routine,
and issues of equity and diversity. Stefinee Pinnegar is committed to creating
classroom tasks that build upon the beliefs and tacit theories of students in settings
183
Karen Guilfoyle, Mary Lynn Hamilton, and Stefinee Pinnegar
that capture experience to enable future teachers to bring the theoretical to the
practical from the beginning of their teacher education experience. She has an
interest in tacit knowledge and the development of community.
We accept social constructivism as the most accurate representation of how learning
occurs and we believe in the fundamental nature of a person’s beliefs in shaping her
or him as a teacher. We are concerned, therefore, about the connections of theory,
experience, and practice for our students’ development. We feel an obligation not
just to our students but to the students our students will teach. Our chapter, then,
presents an analytic representation of these themes through the e-mail conversations
we shared as we discussed our views in an attempt to respond to the five issues
suggested by John and Tom as a possible framework for this text. The issues were:
• why you teach teachers the way you do and how you know it makes a
difference;
• the principles that underpin your practice;
• the purpose behind your teaching;
• the way(s) we model what we ‘preach’; and
• our approaches to teaching about teaching.
When we completed our final conversations, Stefinee organized the messages and
sorted them according to the themes. She then edited the messages and organized
them to present a coherent and integrated representation of the e-mail conversation
contained in the original messages. In her organization of the messages she attempted
to capture our critique of each other’s comments and to maintain the informality and
‘flow’ of the conversational tone. We saw this as a ‘distanced’ conversation which
included not just e-mail, but telephone and fax as well. The e-mail dialogue attempts
to capture and maintain the spirit of this distanced quality of our conversation.
We see this chapter as a representation of our analysis of ourselves as teacher
educators: how we came to be the way we are, the principles that underlie our
practice, our purposes in teaching our students and our obligations to the students
of our students. Our dialogue has been edited around the following themes: social
constructivism in the education of teachers; beliefs; resistance; development;
relationships among theory, belief, practice, and experience; community; and obliga
tions to unseen students. In the dialogue we include some of the extraneous details
that we feel help to capture the quality of the distanced conversation as we
experienced it. Although we did not provide official citations as we wrote, our
reference list cites all works mentioned in our messages to each other.
Social Constructivism in the Education of Teachers
From: [email protected]
Throughout all of our texts, our use of reflection and the role it plays in our teaching
is mentioned again and again. I think it played a powerful role in our teaching
184
Obligations to Unseen Children
ourselves to teach—it is central. I also see another important piece to that process.
Along with reflection and self-study, my collaboration with you and others has
pushed my teaching/learning. While collaborating with my students is helpful in
extending my understanding, the insights I gain from sharing my inquiry with
colleagues are very important. Our interchange over the past few days and returning
to the texts of other inquirers in teacher education is pushing my thinking much
further than my ritual personal reflection at the end of the semester. The questions
that have been posed and the issues discussed help me to re-view the semester in
additional ways. Talk is so powerful in learning.
Karen, addressing the category you have labelled reflection, self-study, and
collaborative inquiry, this fits right into the theme of social constructivism. These
are the tools of the social constructivist. I always imagine myself as an archaeologist
on a very important site—using toothbrushes and fancy tools to uncover what is
really there. I look very carefully at myself and encourage others to do the same. I
also realize that I am the lead archaeologist and I must explicitly model how to do
the excavation for my students. My students like to hear how I struggle with issues
because it relieves them to know they aren’t the only ones.
I want to begin by responding to Karen. I think all three of us as well as Peggy hold
social constructivism as a basic tenet of our beliefs about learning. However, we
may have slightly different versions or emphases. Like me, you also use both
Vygotsky and Piaget. From Piaget what is most important to me are his ideas of
how change occurs. The idea that once we adapt and come to look at the world in
new ways, so that it becomes part of our basic organization, is critical in working
with people whose beliefs you hope will develop. The concepts of assimilation
and accommodation are visible in our students’ thinking as we try to move them.
First they try to find ways to have what we are saying really be what they already
believe. As we give them more and more disconfirming evidence they arrive at a
time when they must accommodate. Mary Lynn has talked about bringing students
to the point of choice. This is where that is for me.
Vygotsky is more helpful than Piaget because he has more to say about the
process of change. His concept of the zone of proximal development is vital. Our
students come to us with differing talents and at different points in their own
development. His idea of the more capable other and the stages of development
are helpful to me. Two of the most influential ideas from Vygotsky in my thinking
are his notion that an important developmental move is the ability to make the
simultaneous sequential: to tell a coherent story about an immediate situation.
Reflective teachers can usually tell more than one story and provide both alternative
185
and conflicting interpretations of each story. The second is Vygotsky’s observation

of children’s need to talk and talk and talk in very repetitive ways about incidents
to make this transition. I am becoming sadly concerned about the lack of opportunity
for students to truly talk to us. My friend Arthur King once told me, ‘I do not know
what I know until I say it’. This means to me that my students need more and more
chances to say what they know.
Finally, Piaget’s idea of formal operational thinking points to the fact that students
can construct and reconstruct experiences in their heads. They can replay a
classroom experience or imagine it differently—incredible potential for plumbing
their own thinking about past experience. I began thinking of this when I read
Schön’s (1983) chapter on Petra, the architect student. With her teacher she drew
the site, destroyed it, created it again. The design and redesign worked like
construction, demolition, reconstruction. Is this sort of what you are doing, Mary
Lynn, as you push your students in their thinking by providing a demolition and
reconstruction of the evidence they present?
From: Hamilton @ kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
‘Culture has you before you have it.’ J. Garrison began his AERA presentation with
that this year. He is right. Social constructivism. Yes, I am a social constructivist. I
thought everyone was! I come to social constructivism from a sociological/
anthropological perspective. So, for example, I am most influenced by Berger and
Luckman’s early text as well as the work of Holland and Eisenhart and other
anthropologists who look at the ways that we see our world and the ways our world
creates us. I am always nudging my students to realize their places in the world. That
means that we must do intense introspection, we must learn how to reflect, and we
must be willing to tell the truth—as we see it—about experiences we have. So, for
example, when a student says to me that he or she does not feel privileged, we probe
that—what experiences did that person have/not have? What makes them up? I think
that probing beliefs is an important part of the social constructivism stuff.
I have really not read much of the Piagetian perspective and I have read some of
Vygotsky. I would say that I stumbled into alignment with their ideas rather than
making a conscious choice. [Stefinee—Here it is. This is where the experience
comes before the theoretical knowing]—even though the theoretical work could
back it up. I do think that much of my understanding works that way.
Also, as Stefinee suggested, I advocate that my students deconstruct their world
to understand it so they can reconstruct it from a more conscious perspective. Can
I stop them from reconstructing a racist world? No. But I can make them more
conscious of the incongruities in their lives, if they are there.
It follows then, and fits here, that ‘teaching ourselves to teach’ is important to
consider because I believe that everything is social—the developmental learning-
to-teach process is just another part. They have to put their ideas together. I can
provide them with things to think about, but they live with themselves and they are
inside their heads. What do you think?
186
I do see all of us using a social constructivist framework. Framework is how I do

see it. I think where we differ is in the methods we use, but even then I would see
our goals being the same because we all believe in the value of students construct
ing their own meaning. Discovering their own connections. Tobin says in one paper
that if we say people who lecture are not social constructivist then we are treating
it as a method not a philosophy. I see social constructivism being a philosophy that
supports certain kinds of theories about learning and development, and practice/
methods being the way we put them into practice.
While Vygotsky speaks a lot about the power of talk, I also see my under standing
of language and how it supports learning, thinking, and literacy devel opment as
likewise grounded in whole language which has a lot of Dewey in it. Talk, for me,
is the issue, but I do not think it needs to be repetitive. Actually, in whole language,
that marks the difference between modelling and demonstrations. Teachers
demonstrate and students take from that demonstration what connects with them
at that time and place. There is no one-to-one correspondence between teaching
and learning. Learners need to practice, but each time that practice is different,
rather than repetitive, because they change, and the context changes.
I have been moving away from Piaget’s stages as I have read research that shows
that they do not cut across cultures. Instead, I have been playing with the concept of
experience. Where learners are is relational to the experiences they have had rather
than the stages they are moving through. I do see patterns in people’s experiences
but I also see learners who move through experience and construct meaning from it
that does not fit the pattern. As a teacher, this means I need to focus on each learner
and his/her journey. There is no one way to practice a philosophy, although I do
believe that there are basic tenets which do run through practices that are based on
this philosophy and that they might be the threads we focus on.
Talk—I actually think that as students move into new experiences like student
teaching and sometimes their initial observation experiences, they have a great
need to talk, and talk, and talk about what they are experiencing. They go on and
on and on. When I say ‘repetitive’, I do not mean the same story over and over
again—although it might be that. I mean that, in trying to understand what they are
experi encing and turn it into a narrative they can live, students seem to need more
space and time to talk about it than any context provides. My students talk about
how their spouses and room mates say to them, ‘I do not want to hear one more
word about your teaching.’ This is what I am talking about. The only people who
seem willing to listen are others going through this experience. But Frank in the
Wounded Storyteller talks about the importance of shaping narratives of experience
into ways of acting in the world. Therefore, people willing to truly listen to the talk
and question it can shape the tale and the teller. I think I’m not present enough
187
during this time. I think we all agree that social constructivism, beliefs, and resistance
are integrative themes. As a result, one part of walking our talk involves how we
respond to students. I think my views about what social constructivism means are
not the same as Peter McLaren’s, for example. I think he particularly discounts the
cultural heritage and diversity among white students. We also should not assume
that it is only race, class, or gender issues that elicit our students’ resistance.
I really like the idea of inquiry, reflection, etc. as the tools of the social
constructivist, especially in learning. So if we want to create teachers whose practice
I expect to develop far beyond mine, we know that if we help them use the tools it
will free them from us in their learning. One of my beliefs about the role of the
teacher is that the true teacher works constantly to become obsolete in the
experiences of the students, so that the students necessarily, and hopefully, move
beyond me. They get what I have to give for them and then they do not need me
any more. I expect that helping my students link with each other, as more capable
others, is also a part of guaranteeing that they will continue to learn beyond me.
My strong efforts to create a community of learners to support my social
constructivist views could also demonstrate the power of learning together. I often
talk to my students about the need to find someone in their school to talk to. Maybe
I need to talk more about the value this holds. For the past few semesters, I have
presented theories/philosophy of whole language and social constructivism,
involved the students in activities organized around these theories, and had them
develop classroom activities that reflected these theories. For many this is hard.
Using my understand ing of social constructivism, I believe that this happens because
they have limited experience to connect to—they have not been in social
constructivism classrooms at any level. It is still difficult for them to understand
that they can learn from reflecting on their own learning. Next semester, I am
going to introduce the various philosophies of learning and development so that
we have a common language. Then I am going to introduce activities and, after the
theories are embedded, then we will discuss and explore their reactions.
One of the things I do is have them enact ideas or conceptions through role playing,
through art, through posing. Then their beliefs become very visible and the
contradictions reside in the presentation and not necessarily in the students.
Beliefs
I never really wanted to get involved with beliefs. They seemed so complex and
188
not practical. I ignored the literature for a while but as a teacher educator, researcher,
and staff developer, I found I could not discuss issues, ideas, without first grounding
them in beliefs. Making changes seems to be associated with first becoming aware
of our beliefs. Beliefs are sometimes difficult in methods courses because it is hard
for beginners to see how beliefs connect with how they teach; hence statements of
the kind, ‘Why are we wasting time on them?’
Belief is entwined in theory is entwined in philosophy and so on, Philosophy, theory,

belief—walking our talk, living our beliefs, etc. Thomas Green talks about beliefs
and philosophies in his The Activities of Teaching, a book upon which Fenstermacher
based some of his work. Green is also the inspiration for Gary Fenstermacher’s
practical argument ideas. Anyway, Green talks about core beliefs and secondary
beliefs. Core beliefs are those that mostly will not change and mostly remain very
hidden from consciousness. The secondary beliefs can be in contradiction to the
core beliefs, but, as humans, we compartmentalize very well and are often able to
ignore the contradictions. So what I try to do is stay as aware as I can of my varying
beliefs and consciously align them wherever possible. When we do not walk our
talk, often it is a conflict between primary (core) and secondary beliefs. For example,
I believe deeply in democracy and I am willing to stand up and defend it whenever I
can. However, regarding [my son] Jesse, I want him to receive as much special attention
as possible, so I consider him more equal than others. A contradiction? Yes.
Justification? Well, I do not know for sure, but in this situation my beliefs about my
child and his care definitely outweigh my beliefs about democracy. Importantly, this
rule does not apply to anyone else. I will defend everyone else’s right to attentive
education, but I will do whatever I can—even put Jesse in the gifted program—if I
think it will get him special attention. And that is not bearing out my belief in
democracy. So, I am compartmentalizing my various beliefs. Is that good? No, I do
not think so, but I do it anyway. I discuss the contradictory nature of this with my
students to demonstrate the complexity of beliefs. I think burn-out occurs when we
become routinized and automatic. To work against that, we must be reflective and
interested in looking deeply into our experience.
As I have mentioned before, it was Giroux who opened that door. I did not really
know what would happen but it made sense. Making our beliefs more visible helps
us to critique them in a variety of ways. Uncovering my own beliefs and reflecting
on inconsistencies between my beliefs and practice has been very powerful in
helping me walk my talk.
In several texts I have read, the issue of practice not matching beliefs has been
discussed. I think uncovering beliefs is one way to reduce the resistance. Sometimes,
189
we do not know why we resist. Once we become aware of the source of our
resistance, it is easier to critique it. I think this is hard for students as they feel they
already have so little to guide them they do not want to let go of what they do have.
I continually tell students that they know a lot more about teaching than they think
they do. Then, I try to think of activities that can help make this visible to them. I think
much of it goes back to the transmission model they have been so immersed in. Being
responsible for their own learning, their own questions, their own level of involvement,
that is what we need to think about. Extrinsic motivation, grades, and the authority of
the teacher have been the drive behind their learning. Learning to take control of their
own learning or teaching themselves to teach seems almost impossible to some of
them. Again, because of their experience, I think they see learning/teaching as an
individual experience, something they feel they will have to do alone.
I still have much to learn about how to teach beginning teachers. I have not
heard enough stories from the beginning teacher. Now that I kind of have my
classroom figured out, I need to learn more about my students’ classrooms. I am
still learning how to use my framework to support my students. Through reading,
talking, reflecting, and self-study, I more fully understand my framework. I am
learning from listening to myself teach about how the different theories work.
A central principle that underlies all our work as teacher educators is our recognition
of the power of beliefs. Part of that recognition means that in our teaching of
future teachers we know that we will need to respond to their beliefs. Through a
social constructivist stance, I think we respect and accept our students and their
beliefs—even when we do not agree—because we know that we cannot change
their beliefs, but we also know that they can choose to change their beliefs. Another
part of this principle, or at least my response to it, is the recognition that we want
students to recognize and know what their beliefs are. I am not out to change all of
my students’ beliefs or even all of any one student’s beliefs. In most cases there is
much that is fundamental in the thinking of my students that I value and that I want
them to maintain. A central purpose of my teaching of teachers is helping them see
what they know and think, and what they can build on from their experience and
belief as they grow as teachers.
Karen, I noted your comment, ‘transforming student beliefs’. I suppose that

comment caught me up short. Do you really want to transform their thoughts? Can
you do that? Can we do that? When I hear language like that, I become concerned
because I do not really think we can transform thought but we can take them up to
the choice. Sometimes, maybe, we can offer people possibilities but they have to
make the choice. I also think that opens us up for too much disappointment and we
190
never know what will happen in their futures. I keep in mind the work I did with
Richardson and Fenstermacher. They were definitely going to change peoples’
minds, but the mind is the student’s/teacher’s social construction and the student’s/
teacher’s beliefs. Can we make them change? Why would they think our ideas are
the correct ideas?
I have come to the point where I think that bringing them to the point of
choice is my job; beyond that belongs to them, and if I can do that, I am satisfied.
When my students were upset last summer by classroom discussions, I became
upset because I thought they were closed-minded. I knew they probably wouldn’t
change, but at least I could present alternatives in a reasonable fashion. Some of
the students still come up to me and talk about how their thinking changed as a
result of the class. Did I transform them? No. If they did change, they changed
themselves.
Yes, I too have come to realize that I cannot transform anyone’s beliefs just as I
cannot empower anyone. Lather has written well about the issues of resistance and
how we interpret resistance. But I still present a transformative model of what I
believe would support learning for all students. I think a social constructivist model
provides a more effective frame for accommodating the history, culture, etc, learners
bring to the classroom. I challenge students to rethink and review their schooling
experience. I have them read texts about learners who did not succeed in the
classroom. I do ask that they learn about the view of learning/teaching I am
presenting so they can make an informed decision about how they want to teach
and what is at stake with each model.
But I think I need to be honest. When one teaches using a transformative model,
some students see this as making them change their views because of the authority
they have always given the teacher and the difference in power they see between
students and teachers. I agree with you, Mary Lynn: I feel I am responsible for
presenting another way to ‘look at’ teaching, offering them choices, but I cannot
make the choice for them. We never really know exactly how our work influences
their thinking. It takes a lot of thinking to make choices that are not congruent with
current beliefs. It takes a lot of courage. As Paul Heckman (in a personal
communication) says, change in schools takes at least five years. I think for some
teachers many things must happen in order to review their teaching. I have come to
understand that experience is one of the keys because my experience had led me to
believe that there needed to be changes in the classroom.
Actually, I do not think it is hard to change all beliefs, just those beliefs that are
core to us. We change tastes and beliefs about how to do things with some ease
191
because we are quite able to compartmentalize many beliefs. I often ask my students,
‘What do you think about this or that?’ ‘How do you know whether or not that is
true?’ ‘What is your evidence?’ I will also not hesitate to challenge them, but only
after the ground rules are set.
I also feel that ‘will’ is an important part of change. This is not new, but the point
I want to make is that I believe a ‘will’ to be different can lead to fundamental
changes in world view. I just do not think it happens very often and I think that our
lifelong experience may continue to play havoc with the reconstruction. One of
the problems we constantly confront in our work with teaching teachers is that we
can never do this work alone. We have collaborators we often disagree with who
are central to this process—our colleagues on campus and in the public schools.
Our students become teachers in settings removed from our immediate support
and influence. We work in settings where at best we share common ideas about
learning and becoming a teacher and at worst where our beliefs about teaching and
learning and our commitment to student development is completely at odds. We
are not the only part of our students’ learning experiences. I feel a constant
responsibility to work with this larger arena.
I believe that people have the right to their own beliefs, and they deserve respect
and acceptance even when I do not agree. I do not like to be marginalized for my
beliefs. I do not like to work in circumstances where everyone is striving to change
my beliefs, particularly when I do not feel accepted and I do not trust them. My
brother, the construction worker, has a totally different belief system. As I struggle
to understand the world from his perspective, I constantly gain new tools for
understanding my world and for teaching my students. Not that I assume his beliefs,
but I see how my action is interpreted by his belief.
Just as our students are limited in their ability to learn from us by the past
experiences they have had, and their own beliefs which emerged from their
experience, we are limited as well. My belief in the importance of creating
community can be debilitating if I have a notion that communities must operate on
consensus.
Resistance
We should talk about resistance, then, because in many ways it has been part of
our discussion. First, I must acknowledge that resistance is hard to deal with for
me. Importantly, though, I must acknowledge that resistance is hard because I
want those people to believe me and change their minds. However, since I know
that will not happen, I have long given that up as a goal. In my classes, I simply
192
want my students to be open-minded enough to consider the alternatives. From a

beliefs perspective, once people become conscious of their beliefs, they can choose
to change these or not. So, if they are open-minded enough to consider my ideas,
I have to be open-minded enough to appreciate our differences in opinions. For
example, last summer I had an amazing class of graduate students in a Foundations
course. I had approximately twenty students, with a smattering of very, very vocal
conservatives. By my estimation, the ideas in the class so threatened the students
that some of them turned ugly from time-to-time, yelling in class, calling my house
in tears, and threatening me with eternal damnation. All of this was hard to take,
because I took it personally. When they attacked, I thought they were attacking
me. Instead, they were grappling with their own beliefs and ideas. In retrospect, I
think the students learned a lot of things—their language developed, their ideas
expanded, and their ways of thinking broadened. Even the most vocal of the students
called me the last day of class to say that there had been a misunderstanding on
his/her part and that he/she was sorry for the outbursts in class. Interestingly, I
received very high reviews from these students on a university survey, ranking me
as an excellent teacher.
So, from my perspective, resistance can be hard to respond to in a positive
fashion, but when I remember that my goal is open-mindedness, not changing
everyone to think like me, I am more successful. What is also true is that their
resistance is a function of their personal histories—and I really work on stirring
that pot—and I must be ready to handle the results. (Of course, that does not mean
I have to like it!)
Over the past six years, I have continually asked myself why I teach the way I
teach. Why do I challenge my students to review their beliefs about schooling and
how they address race, culture, class, and gender? I think it would be less stressful
for the students if, instead, I organized my practice to more closely match their
past experiences. Practicing a critical, whole language, social constructivist’s view
of learning/teaching creates tension and resistance in my classroom as students
have had limited experience with that learning environment.
Think of the journey. We must assess ourselves and our students. This Spring in
my Foundations graduate class I had them write a synthesis paper rather than a
portfolio. In it, they discussed what they had learned. Then in class we discussed
the class and their teaching and my teaching. Over and over, as they discussed my
teaching, they talked about the modelling and the critical thinking—how it was
not comfortable to be pushed in a variety of ways and how they appreciated it.
Assessment is difficult to face some days, but necessary.
193
I think the issue of pain is one I struggle with. Learning is change. Piaget talks
about disequilibrium when learning is taking place. New ideas and rethinking
experience and beliefs create this feeling. Our students perhaps are seldom faced
with ‘real’ learning so they do not know how to deal with the disequilibrium and
take it out on us. Most were good students and did not have to struggle. Why
should they have to struggle with ideas now. I know how to best run a classroom.
Or do they? I think it was the book, Teachers as Intellectuals, by Giroux, that first
introduced me to the ideas of putting pre-service teachers in the position of making
visible their beliefs and theories about learning and teaching. It is very difficult to
determine what you believe in and why. It is also very difficult to change your
beliefs. I am often asking them to think about doing that in order to teach all
learners in the classroom.
I want to move into other kinds of resistance that I experience. I often have
problems with students who walk in on the first day of class and because of the
syllabus, my authority as a female teacher, my manner—whatever—they want
to argue and argue and be disruptive in the class but it is not always connected to
their beliefs about the content of the course. I have had most of these experiences
with men. For whatever reason they have felt threatened by me. I am finally
learning to try to respond to their feeling of threat and powerlessness privately
with them rather than continually confronting it in the classroom. I call them in
to listen to them, to simply explore what they are thinking. This usually gives me
ideas of how we might make the class a better experience for them and for
everyone else.
What I have come to struggle with in my own experiences with resistance is
how they reflect the students’ feelings of being threatened or being betrayed or
being made to be less than they are. As I begin to think about it this way, and as I
listen to students talk with me privately, I get better ideas about how to proceed. I
think in classrooms students have to trust the teacher. For meaningful learning to
occur students need to feel that what the teacher asks for is worthwhile. I think this
happens at a very personal level. My students look at me, and something I say or
do, or my personal ethos, or aura, causes them to trust me. They see me as
trustworthy. I must be trustworthy for them. The most disruptive thing to the learning
process is when a student who initially trusted me feels betrayed when I break
trust with them. But like Mary Lynn said about imposition, I do not control this,
my students do. I can only try to understand it and try to make it not happen and
respond quickly when it does. In contrast, I have to accept my students where they
are if I am to teach them. If I want to teach students, I must accept them and they
must feel that from me.
194
I would like my students to transform their thinking, but I cannot make them.
When I have a student who is conservative, I respect the difference and I keep
trying to present alternatives. When a student resists, I attempt to respond to them
as I responded to students when I taught high school. I look at their needs, I talk to
them about alternatives. Yes, I want to shake them, but that will not work and it
definitely will not change their ideas.
I think that I respectfully push my students to think about new ideas—if they
will—and I hope that they will consider alternatives. Further, I see change as a
natural process that is only painful when we resist it. Nothing remains the same:
we are always changing. If they feel pain, it is, perhaps, because they are at the
end, engaged in an intellectual act. Sometimes the feelings of exhilaration and
excitement can be confused with pain when the unknown is involved. Frankly, I
find the idea appealing.
If you want to create change, I think you must make students familiar with their
beliefs and notions. They must understand where they came from in order to see
where they are going. Before I talk about theories and philosophies, I have my
students talk to me about their own theories and philosophies. Then, once they are
aware of those, they can begin to compare in an explicit way what they like/ do not
like about what they read.
Of course our perspectives differ. We have had different lives. And so, when it
comes to resistance, we each respond differently. I think that the issue of dominant
culture could be carried over into teacher education. For example, we, as teacher
educators, are the dominant culture. We think we know something and sometimes
the students treat us as if we know everything, with all of the privileges. If we then
think about the notion of needing to resist what you do not have, no wonder our
students resist. Then if you add to that the notion that the students thought they
knew something because they have always been in school, the situation is ripe for
resistance.
Regarding imposition—if you think about it, we all impose our ideas on others.
Some are more privileged than others. We all want to tell our stories and have our
stories heard. Of course, we must be responsible for the power and privilege that
we have, but there is always a power imbalance. As teachers we must offer students
the tools to address marginalization and other related issues, but to some degree
we could almost paralyze ourselves by trying too hard.
The tension between these issues in the teaching of teachers pushes my thinking
continuously. How to walk your talk, feel passionate and committed to your beliefs,
and create a learning environment that respects the beliefs of all participants? For
some, it creates resistance.
195
I think there are several developmental tasks for beginning teachers. One is seeing
themselves as a teacher—taking on the mantle of teacher and being comfortable
with the responsibility and authority of that role. Last semester I had my students
prepare five minute lessons and then we got together and talked aloud about those
lessons. One of the students had a strong, relaxed classroom presence, but something
bothered me about her interaction with her peers. I finally realized that, while she
was comfortable presenting to the class, she mostly wanted to be a student not a
teacher. As you both say, our students lack experience as teachers. I agree with
Diane Holt-Reynolds that what they carry in their head is an image of themselves
as teacher. This is a non-specific image. This image of themselves as a teacher is
the image they are pursuing in their development. When what we teach connects
to that image, supports it, or connects to truths about their own learning as students,
this is when they pay attention. The image is usually nebulous. As Bob Bullough
points out, the more complex and comprehensive that image or metaphor, the more
likely the student is to be successful. Holt-Reynolds suggests that connecting to
our students’ experience as learners is the surest way to get them to learn the new
things about teaching we want them to learn.
Another developmental task is what Tom Russell calls ‘the content turn’. It is
the move from being a learner and knowing a subject to a transformation of what
we know as a student to enabling another student to learn. One of my student
teachers said to me, ‘I know how to write leads (newspaper). I know what a good
lead looks like. In my student teaching, I’m having trouble taking what I know
about leads and turning it into activities that will help my students write leads.’
The move to curriculum is difficult.
Another developmental task is moving from being a friend in relationship to being
a teacher in relationship. In their relationships with their friends, my students expect
support. In their relationships with students, they must provide the support, and they
must constantly strive to act for the long-term well-being of the child. Even during
student teaching there is someone around who partially carries this responsibility. As a
beginning teacher I thought of this as realizing ‘I am the adult here.’ In my interactions
with students, with teachers, and with parents, I realized that no matter how immature
or difficult, my major responsibility was to the learning and potential of the child and
that I had to act mature. This is a difficult move. My students want to be kind.
Experience is a key to a teacher’s development. This is true for both the pre-service
teacher and the teacher educator. As we gather experience and compare information
among experiences, we decide what we like/do not like, what works/does not work.
I also think that there is a shift from self-centredness toward an altruistic perspective.
I do think that in 1969 Frances Fuller had it right. And I think her ideas fit with
teacher educators as well. Remember in our initial development we talked about
196
similar issues, and certainly Ardra Cole and Gary Knowles talked about having a
similar experience.
How do I respond to that? My goal with my students as well as myself is
reflection. I want my students to understand reflection and I want them to engage
in reflective practice. I want that for myself as well. The more conscious we are
about what we do, the more likely we are to change what we do, hopefully in the
direction that best serves students.
Development
Everything I do is an attempt to respond to the development of my students. Some

of the strategies/structures I use to facilitate students’ learning about learning/
teaching are reflection, text set studies, field experience grade-level groups, study
group, inquiry groups to explore personal interests and concerns, self-assessment,
assigned activities to conduct in field experience, and student presentations. This
semester, I also turned opening/closing of class over to the students. I organize the
content of the course around three or four themes. I weave the pedagogical, social,
and political together in exploring concepts. I share the assessment process with
the students. They are responsible for maintaining a Learning Log over the semester;
they write reflections and self-assessments critiquing both content and process. I
do this to demonstrate another way to do teaching and support learning. I do it
because I hope to transform the classrooms of students they will be teaching and
open the learning environment for all students and voices.
Just as the students are on a journey, so are we and we need to assess it. I keep my
own portfolio of a class to help me do this. I know you do extensive journaling and
write a letter to your students which assesses the semester you have shared. I am
just struck here by the collision of our experience and theirs.
What I have questioned in my work is that I often do things with students because
of experience that emerged in my first or second year of teaching—but then I
wonder if there are things that I ought to be doing that are even antithetical to my
current belief about teaching teachers that would be in better harmony with the
current development of my students and would lead to stronger development across
their lives as teachers or even increase the length of their lives as teachers? I am
just not sure yet. I worry often about ‘knowing what is best’. Do I really?
197
This is a journey. I am still learning how to use my framework to support the

students in my classroom and how to teach teachers. Through reading, talking,
reflecting, and self-study, I more fully understand my framework.
I like what Mary Lynn said about experience before theory. That is exactly what I
think one of the relationships between theory and experience is. We come to
understand something through experience or even through other theory and then
we find theories that provide additional explanation. Therefore, I try to design
classroom tasks that link to or develop experience. I try to capture public school
experience not just in the schools but in the things that I ask students to do. I try to
be clear about my purposes in my assignments. I have some evidence that what I
do works. During my curriculum assignment where my students are put into faculties
and attempt to develop integrated curriculum, my students get into arguments about
their subject matter and their students. Finally, someone reminds them, This is just
an assignment.’ I want my assignments to ‘feel real’ to my students. I want what I
do with them to ‘feel’ like it is practical and has purpose directly related to what
they will do as teachers. This is hard.
I talked earlier about Stefinee’s concept of ‘making visible the practice in her
classroom’ (I think she got it from Loughran, 1996). I call this modelling. I model
an idea or a way of being and talk to them about it, trying to make my actions and
my beliefs about my actions more visible. I sometimes draw attention to my
successes or failures as a teacher so we can talk about that. I ask them what worked,
what did not, etc. kinds of questions. This, then, sets down the foundation for the
times that they might model their own teaching strategies in the classroom. So, I
attempt to live my principles in public and entwine my principles with my practice.
I want my students to realize how powerful and influential their roles are as teachers.
They have the world at the touch of their fingers. I want them to realize and become
responsible for that.
The Theory-Practice Relationship
For me philosophy (particularly if I embrace it) and theory are intertwined with
belief. But I think—and this is where the relationship between theory, experience
198
and practice becomes important—our philosophy emerges in our practice. It guides

us in the selection of what we do with students. Our ways of being become routinized
and automatic have within their purposes both functionalism and our beliefs.
Experience and theory, if we articulate them, can be used to expand our practice
because as they interact with each other we embrace more strongly some habitual
practices and work like demons to eradicate others. It is in the practices that our
experiences and our theories (beliefs/philosophy) are evident. Our immediate
practice is also our experience. The differentiation I try to make is that practice is
constructed with others, and therefore we never control what emerges completely.
Our experience is what we experience in that practice.
I feel I am just beginning to understand the issues of pre-service teachers. I try to

listen to them carefully but, just as my words do not fit their experience, it is hard
for me to remember exactly how I felt as a new teacher. I know they want more
hands-on experience and to try out some of the ideas with children. I need to think
more about how to tie together their experiences as students and teachers.
I was just thinking about the importance of remembering how we felt. In the piece
we did for Tom and Fred’s book (Russell and Korthagen, 1995) I learned two
things that have transformed my thinking about what I am doing. One was from
Mary Lynn: she taught me that my students will teach themselves to be teachers,
just as I taught myself to be a teacher. I can help develop skills and prepare them
for some things, but they will be in their own context with challenges and blessings
unique to that context, and they are different from me—so their journey is their
own—they will teach themselves. Peggy taught me about looking at myself as a
beginning teacher (and therefore my students) with more loving eyes.
In my early days of trying to ‘teach myself to be a teacher’, I drew upon my

experience to figure things out. I knew that traditional strategies had failed miser
ably with these students of mine. So, I decided to talk with the students. I asked
them what they wanted to learn. I talked to them about what they already knew. I
implemented group work for assignments. Interestingly, now I can tie what I did
then with the current literature—the use of prior knowledge, the notion of the
student-directed classroom, the application of cooperative learning strategies—to
demonstrate sound teaching practice. But at the time, I really did not have that
knowledge. Then, I thought I was flying by the seat of my pants. Then, I thought I
199
was working overtime trying to figure out what would best interest my students.
Those were wild days!
Community
When I think about myself as a teacher, I feel there are several things that come
from my family background. The first of these is my commitment to community.
I was raised in a small southern Utah community. My ancestors on my mother’s
side settled that community. They were the leaders of the community. My parents
always made big purchases locally even when it cost more. This was a contribution
to community growth and stability. Sacrificing for the community and its
development has always been part of my ethos as a teacher. Mary Lynn’s comments
about her beginning as a teacher reveal how clearly her earliest decisions about
what to do as a teacher emerge in her current practice as a teacher educator, not as
a prototype for how all teachers should be but as a tool for promoting her students’
learning. My family background and my earliest experience are crucial in my current
work as a teacher educator.
Community! I think that is central to our teaching, an essential part of our beliefs
and maybe a reflection of feminist pedagogy and relational concerns. It is so much
a part of what we do, it almost doesn’t stand out because we see it is a given. But
even Georgia (my feminist colleague here at the university) often makes the
comment that ‘They don’t work at community like you do!’ I think she sees herself
as a social constructivist, does many group activities, yet does not focus on
community. I see community as being important for a variety of reasons. First as a
social constructivist, it seems to me you need a community to support your learning.
Community implies a caring for one another, a sense of collaboration, as risk-free
a learning environment as possible.
I think your example from your feminist colleague is a good one. She believes in
collaboration and it points to the ways that collaborative effort is different from
creating community. In collaborative efforts we can choose to only work with
those who agree with us; those who disagree are more difficult. Also, part of what
I see in our work is our commitment to those we are teaching and working with to
create communities where their experience will be valued. When I teach people to
do action research, I feel responsible that there be arenas where action research is
200
published. This is all a part of community. This is what the S-STEP SIG has always
been about. You mentioned you were giving the graduation speech at the high
school where your first kindergarten class was graduating: that is about constructing
community.
I am on a committee to address a study (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall, 1996)

called The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of
Women, published by the National Association for Women in Education. The
study focuses on the tensions of women teaching in academia. I just received my
copy in the mail so I’m not sure what it is all about but I do see it being an issue.
For me, in elementary education, it is especially interesting because many of my
students are women used to seeing men as the authority/expert. They ‘behave’
much better in the classes taught by men than they do in my classes. While they
say that my class is the only one they can gripe in, they give little thought to how
this affects me as a person. As women, we sometimes do not take care of each
other. Once in a while I talk to them about this. It often gets woven in with our
discussions on gender. Some women in my courses are not yet ready to address
these issues. I think Patty Lather’s chapter ‘Staying Dumb’ addresses this. My
philosophy student was highly insulted when I talked about a masculine view of
the world.
I think the issue with the philosophy students is more complex. I agree, I
conference outside the classroom. I had about five conferences with her. I think
she is a gifted student. She has been treated as a gifted student and been allowed to
work on her own. She saw no value in the community and her colleagues. She
often read when students gave presentations or worked in small groups. She had
not learned how to support others’ learning as well as her own. In my class, she
wanted to go to the library, study on her own, and turn in a paper at the end of the
semester. I suppose if content was my only purpose that might have worked. The
experience makes more visible how important I see community being not only to
learning in the college classroom but in the schools. Maybe our approach to gifted
students in the public schools creates other problems. What kind of a colleague
will she make? What kind of a learning environment will she organize. Actually,
she believes she is smarter than most elementary education students. What does
that mean?
This brings up another issue, our moral and ethical responsibility to the unseen
children. While we want to support the learning of all students in our teacher
education program, not all may make ‘good’ teachers. How does a teacher educator
address this issue? In addition, I do not believe trust is a one-way street. Trust can
only be built when both parties are willing to participate. Students as well as teachers
play a role in establishing trust. I probably would lean to the role of teacher
responsibility in trust but the student has to also play an active role in building that
relationship. What do you think?
201
Since I think learning is a form of repentance and causes pain, I also think it is
almost impossible to learn from someone you do not trust. But the trust can be in
their knowledge of the subject, in their opinion about me, in their consistency and
stability, in their acceptance of me as a learner.
This reminds me of how we should talk with our students. Maybe we are not giving
them enough power in our classrooms, even though we think we are. Maybe we are
being narrow-minded when we think we are so open? What do you think? I struggle
with this too and do not know the answers. I did talk with my students this semester
and last, and in two out of the three classes they say to keep doing it. That felt good.
In the other class, I need to give them more consideration for their experience or lack
of it. I think we need to do that in order to address issues of power and control
because those are critical issues at all levels. I certainly struggle with them.
I am still working on talk in my undergraduate class. I think it may have to do with

trust and feeling responsible for what they know which is something I have to let
go of. Turning over opening/closing of class has helped in sharing the talk. More
group work, activities that teach through doing, inquiry groups, text groups, etc.
also help. I think I learned more about this in my writing to you. Talk with experts
did not help us but talk with other beginners did. That must be true for our students
as well. I think that is why my research class went so well this year. I was doing it
with them. Our talk cuts across experience.
My students are the same as Karen’s: they appreciate the opportunity to talk. I value
it as well because it gives them an opportunity to listen to themselves in a conscious
fashion. I am not sure that talk cuts across experience. It gives voice to our experience
and makes us conscious of aspects of our experience that might not ordinarily have
voice. It helps us rethink our experience and add theoretical texture to it.
I believe that students need to talk and talk about new ideas. This is how an expert
can talk to students, and the students get to hear what the expert says in response to
202
the students’ stories. Vygotsky is the expert on his own theory. As I talk and talk
about it, I tell stories of my experience which do or do not support his theory; then
I come to understand it better and to understand better what it means in my context.
In 1978 Arthur King first told me learning was repentance. I thought it was, like,
‘Nazism is romanticism gone crazy’—like, who cares? But as I came to terms with
the way in which my teaching caused pain to my students in 1990, as I was writing
to you and teaching in Michigan, I slowly began to understand how learning is
repentance. The expert talk was superfluous but both experience and talk about it
led me to understand it better.
I also want to put into the hopper of this conversation something else. For me
the acceptance of divergent beliefs is a central part of the creation of a community.
That is central for my teaching—making safe places for all participants in a
community. In a learning community there is the added stipulation that the space
allows growth.
Beliefs and community: I think that the notion of ‘acceptance of divergent

beliefs’ is a part of community, and a successful community can be formed
and survive when people are willing to accept differences and not force one
view upon an opposing view. As a family, we try to understand the other
perspective in order to figure out where the other person was coming from. It
does not make you agree with them, but it helps in understanding the motivation
and the perspective.
Regarding finding someone to talk to—interesting. I think about my experience
here. I really have no one. I have few people that are interested in my ideas and so
I sometimes feel shrivelled up. But, I’ve managed to survive because I have
colleagues beyond the four walls. Doing it alone? That is hard, and what is harder
is that it makes me resistant to their notions. If they will not acknowledge my
voice, why should I acknowledge their voices? Why should I work with them?
Maybe that’s it! Students need to have their voices acknowledged, but how can we
do that and still teach the class? We would have to work with them on a more
intimate level.
Community: the feminist perspective is strong in our work. Although women
are not the only ones with community, we certainly find the notion of relations
very important. There is an idealistic aspect of what we are saying—trustworthiness,
acceptance, etc. Yes, all of that may be true, but we are not addressing completely
the power relations of the classroom. What about grades? What about classroom
ownership? It is a nice idea to put that aside, but they live in a world that does not
really put that aside. So, what happens? They enter fantasy land for an hour three
days a week. We propose alternatives, but they also deal with the real world and
community is important here. Without a community—a strong community—they
will not succeed. We have authority and we have power, and even when we try to
give it up, it is still there. That is why obligations are important.
203
Obligation to Unseen Children
What has become most clear to me is my belief that my students’ beliefs about
schooling, teaching, students, and their talents and skills, are the bedrock that
they will build on in moving from being a student to a teacher. I want my students
to consciously consider who they are as a teacher, what they bring to teaching
and how they can use the talents they have to develop as a teacher. I try to get
them to see what they need to develop and how what we are doing with them can
help in that process. As I listen to what Peggy said about looking at them with
more loving eyes and responding in that way to them, I hope they will look at
their future students with more loving eyes when those students confront them
face-to-face.
What I learned from Mary Lynn [that they will teach themselves to be teachers]
has given me increasing respect for their process and an understanding that, no
matter how coercive I might like to be, the power to become a teacher resides in
them. How they respond to their students will reside in part in the experiences we
share together. If our experiences lead them to embrace better teaching practices,
then I will meet my obligation to their students.
I also want my students to think about their own contexts because I believe they
must know themselves before they can make changes. I suppose this idea finally
surfaced in my work with Virginia Richardson and Gary Fenstermacher. Although
I had been thinking about these ideas before, I really developed these ideas clearly
during my dissertation work.
I teach teachers the way I do because my experience, my readings, and my
understandings suggest that people learn best this way. And how do I know it
makes a difference? In the long-term, I’m not sure that I know. But, in the short-
term, in class, I can see them developing their language and their understanding
and I can hear them discussing with me and each other what they learned.
It seems to me that all three of us are not wanting to teach teachers to maintain the
status quo. We have some ideas about what we envision the ‘perfect classroom’ to
be and I feel that we have that vision in our mind when we struggle with what to
present and support in our teacher education classrooms.
It seems that we are all trying to create more just and equitable learning
environments for all learners regardless of race, gender, class, or culture. Our beliefs
about how to do this are grounded in particular theories. I think one of the issues
204
that makes teaching teachers tough for us is that we are attempting to transform
thinking about teaching as well as prepare them for their future classrooms.
I had a particularly difficult time with a student this semester who had graduated
in Liberal Arts in the field of Philosophy. She has been taught that philosophies are
neutral and my belief in the social constructivist philosophy was wrong. She resisted
interacting in that framework. She did not want to come to class, complete the
assigned work, or read the assigned text. She did not believe in using T in her
papers and was very insulted when I challenged her to think in other than a masculine
view of the world. One day in class, she said, ‘If you believe in diversity, why can’t
I learn in whatever manner I want to?’ As a student, I suppose she could have. As
a teacher, I wanted her to explore other paradigms. I did give a lot of thought to her
question. I finally replied that it was a good question and I would continue to think
about it. If she were the only one that I was thinking about, it might not be an issue,
but it was her future students I was also concerned with. Interesting. Teaching
teachers adds complexity to our interactions.
But I think I need to be honest. When one preaches and teaches using a
transformative model, some students see this as making them change their views
because of the authority they have always given to the teacher and the difference in
power they see between students and teachers. Like Mary Lynn, I feel responsible
for presenting another way of looking at teaching, but I can not make the choice
for them.
In a methods class, I have the students talk about their experiences with different
methods and their beliefs about certain methods and ways to teach. If they ask why
we study these, I say that they motivate action and choices and they need to be
conscious of them in order to make the truly best choices for their students.
And that is where my obligations lie. Always, when I am talking with my
students, I am thinking about their future students. What would be best for them?
What do my students need to know in order to be best prepared for their future
students? I believe that having them understand their own histories and beliefs will
best prepare them. I also believe in introducing them to teaching strategies that are
different from their experiences in school, but I approach that with a lengthy
discussion about what worked/did not work for them in school.
Also at the front of my mind is that, in a case of emergency, we always return to
the ways we were taught. So, first I try to be a good model for innovation, and
second, I have them analyze the models with which they are most familiar. History,
background, context, experience—they are all important pieces for the preparation
of a teacher. If we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it. Method
and strategies are important, but you can be a racist using the inquiry method. So,
for me, you need to look behind the method. After my class, you may still be a
racist, but you will not be covert, and you will, hopefully, have seen the possibility
of another way to think about things.
205
One of the most difficult parts of being a teacher and now a teacher of teachers is
that I have to make judgments. Grades are hard. But there are also several places
where I decide whether students can proceed or not. For me there is an ongoing
tension in my practice with students. This is the commitment I feel to helping
my students succeed and have the opportunity to teach if they want, and the
obligation I feel to the students they will teach. I first began to notice this in a
very self-centred way. I found myself saying to students who were very difficult
in my class something I began to think of as the Teacher Educator’s Blessing:
May you have students just like you! But then I started focusing on the students
they would have.
I have tried to think hard about the implications of my practice with my students
for their practice with theirs. It relates to a very strong belief about my responsibility
as a teacher: to accept students where they are and hold them accountable for their
best at that level. Then, second, to constantly work to expand the level of best with
each student. It also relates to my discussion of personality and preparation. What
is it that I am preparing them for? What is it that I want them to take away from that
preparation? What are the implications for their work with their own students?
It also relates to the fact that our students will not always see in our teaching
what we wanted them to see. They will interpret our actions. They will incorporate
my practice into theirs just as I incorporated Mel Luthy’s methods of teaching
grammar and sentence analysis into my teaching of grammar and sentence analysis.
But just as Mel did not get to choose what I would incorporate in my practice, I do
not get to choose what my students will incorporate. So I think again and again
about the possible negative consequences of what my students and I do together.
I am committed to educating an army of committed and gifted teachers because
I think that is the only possible way to transform our society. The only thing we
could do that would be more powerful is to educate an army of committed and
gifted parents. In educating good teachers we are doing both.
To: [email protected]
When I decided to become a teacher educator, I did not think about what it would
mean in terms of academia. I thought about all the teachers I had observed and
worked with and the students in their classrooms. I wanted to be part of making
classrooms exciting, challenging, and meaningful, where all students were seen as
learners, where race, class, and gender were addressed. I found that helping
classroom teachers change after many years of routine practice was very difficult.
I thought it might be more effective to support teachers in developing these kinds
of classrooms before the ‘system’ got a hold on them. In thinking about teaching
college students, I always thought about the students they would be teaching rather
than them (pre-service teachers) as students.
I have had to rethink this assumption because they are students and teachers.
206
That is why being a teacher educator is complex. We are teaching on multiple

levels. On days when I have had an especially difficult time in the classroom, I
wonder if I want to continue. I think about becoming ‘normal’ and teaching like
everyone else does (well, for a minute or two). In reality, the thing that keeps me
centred is my obligation to the children in the classrooms my students will be
teaching.
Based on my experience and knowledge, I believe that the kinds of classrooms
I am promoting will make a difference for learners. I think they could be exciting
places for both teachers and learners. I believe that just and equitable classrooms
will support our democratic system. I think that learning to be a member of a
community has many implications. But I feel a deep commitment to the unseen
children our students will be teaching. It is often the ‘bottom line’ in my decision
making.
Conclusion
Our writings suggest that we are serious, reflective teacher educators who honor
the task of educating our students. Beyond acknowledging our approach to teacher
education, we demonstrate through our writings that living by our principles is
neither simple nor easy. Further, we assert a primary purpose for work is our concern
for future generations. The unseen children in the schools ignite our passion for
knowledge, our commitment to passion, and our desire to inspire future teachers.
We feel a moral obligation to the students of our students. The faces of our students’
future students haunt us when we see people we suspect are incompetent in our
teacher education programs, when our classroom practices seem to be less than
the best practice we know, when we respond to our students in ways that are
disrespectful, demeaning, condescending or limiting to our students in any way, or
when we require less than the best from our students. While we cannot control all
the experiences our students have during their education as teachers, we can control
our experiences with them. We aim for our interaction with our students to be
exemplary in the kinds of relationships we want them to have with their students.
Our understanding of the role of social constructivism and beliefs in the development
of teachers and our responses to our own beliefs and those of our students are tools
to help us meet the obligations we feel for the students of our students. We remember
with tenderness the students we taught before becoming teacher educators. We
remember the ways in which both our colleagues and ourselves fell short in
preparing our students to develop their complete potential. We take these lessons
seriously as we work to teach new generations to teach themselves to be teachers.
References
BERGER, P. and LUCKMAN, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, Garden City,
NJ, Doubleday.
207
BULLOUGH, R.V.JR., KNOWLES, J.G. and CROW, N.A. (1991) Emerging as a Teacher,
New York, Routledge.
DEWEY, J. (1963) Experience and Education, New York, Collier.
FENSTERMACHER, G.D. (1986) ‘Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects’, in
WITTROCK, M. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., New York, MacMillan
pp. 37–49.
FENSTERMACHER, G.D. (1994) ‘The place of practical argument in the education of
teachers’, in RICHARDSON, V. (Ed) Teacher Change and the Staff Development Process,
New York, Teachers College Press, pp. 23–42.
FRANK, A.W. (1995) The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics, Chicago, University
of Chicago Press.
FULLER, F. (1969) ‘Concerns for teachers: A developmental conceptualization’, American
Educational Research Journal, 6, 2, pp. 207–26.
GARRISON, J. (1996) ‘Deweyan approaches to dialogue across differences: A poetic of
transactional listening’, Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research, New York.
GIROUX, H.A. (1988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning,
Granby, MA, Bergin and Garvey.
GIROUX, H.A. and McLAREN, P. (1994) Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of
Cultural Studies, New York, Routledge.
GREEN, T. (1971) The Activities of Teaching, New York, McGraw Hill Book Company.
GREEN, T. (1976) ‘Teacher competence as practical rationality’, Educational Theory, 26,
3, pp. 249–58.
HOLLAND, D. and EISENHART, M. (1990) Educated in Romance: Women, Achievement,
and College Culture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
HOLT-REYNOLDS, D. (1994) ‘Starting with prospective teachers’ beliefs about
learning and self as learner: A teacher educators practical arguments’, Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.
KING, A.H. (1986) The Abundance of the Heart, Salt Lake City, UT, Bookcraft.
KNOWLES, J.G. and COLE, A. (1995) ‘Teacher educators reflecting on writing in practice’,
in RUSSELL, T. and KORTHAGEN, F. (Eds) Teachers Who Teach Teachers, Washington,
DC, Falmer Press, pp. 71–94.
LATHER, P.A. (1991) Getting Smart, New York, Routledge.
McLAREN, P. (1989) Critical Pedagogy, the State, and Cultural Struggle, Albany, NY,
SUNY Press.
RICHARDSON, V. (1989) ‘Practice and the improvement of research on teaching’, Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
RICHARDSON, V. (1994) Teacher Change and the Staff Development Process, New York,
Teachers College Press.
RUSSELL, T. (1997) ‘Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message’, in LOUGHRAN,
J.J. and RUSSELL, T.L. (Eds) Teaching about Teaching: Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy,
Washington, DC, Falmer Press.
RUSSELL, T. and KORTHAGEN, F. (1995) Teachers Who Teach Teachers: Reflections on
Teacher Education, London, Falmer Press.
SANDLER, B.R., SILVERBERG, L.A. and HALL, R.M. (1996) The Chilly Classroom
Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women, Washington, DC, National
Association for Women in Education.
208
York, Basic Books.
TOBIN, K. (1992) ‘Constructivist perspectives on educational research’, Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
209
13 Storming through Teacher Education:
Talk about Summerfest
Allan MacKinnon, Michael Cummings and

Kathryn Alexander
Introduction
‘Summerfest’ is the name of a two-week Summer enrichment program for gifted

elementary school children in the Burnaby School District of British Columbia,
Canada. Approximately one hundred 6–12-year-old children from the city of
Burnaby attend morning classes in science, technology, and the arts. Over the past
six years (1991–6) this program has been interwoven with a Summer semester
‘designs for learning’ course in the natural sciences at Simon Fraser University.
We regard this course as a ‘teaching studio’ in the sense that university instructors
and teacher education students who are enrolled in the course teach children
together. The early part of the semester is devoted to preparing lessons for the
children, and sessions on campus during and after Summerfest are spent studying
video-tapes of the lessons. Graduate students in science education and teaching
assistants who have taken the course in previous years participate in the preparation
and analysis of lessons. Thus the group of teachers involved in Summerfest consists
of individuals with varying experience and expertise in the teaching of science.
Our work in Summerfest has led to a number of insights about learning to
teach. In the main, we have developed a perspective on ‘learning to teach at the
elbows’ as a form of apprenticeship (MacKinnon, in press). The metaphor of
learning at the elbows focuses on aspects of practice—technique, manner, gesture,
disposition—that are shared through work together, and which mediate the process
of learning to teach. Our theoretical focus has been on a kind of ‘embodied knowing’
that could be characterized as tacit, unformulated, or even impossible to grasp
(Polanyi, 1958; Ryle, 1949; Schön, 1983; Taylor, 1991). We assert that the practice
of teaching is influenced by this type of knowledge and understanding, often
acquired unwittingly by novices at the elbows of their sponsor teachers. Thus we
are interested in socio-cultural elements of ‘situated learning’ (Lave and Wenger,
1991) that are frequently either missing in accounts of learning to teach or viewed
pejoratively as a form of socialization akin to indoctrination.
210
Storming through Teacher Education: Talk about Summerfest
Learning at the Elbows
We believe the metaphor of learning at the elbows helps to explain the development
of ‘teaching manner’ (Fenstermacher, 1992) in a way that might extend more
rational, mechanistic representations of learning in the professions. We claim that
teaching manner can be observed ‘rubbing off at the elbows’ in studio work as
though, in some of their actions, participants were chameleons of one another. In
our interactions with students of education, teachers, and graduate students, we
are compelled to use words such as ‘manner’ to describe elements of teaching
behaviour that are sometimes passed from one teacher to another. Although Schön
(1983, 1987) did attempt to deal with what he referred to as the ‘non-logical
processes’ taking place in reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, we see his
ideas about learning in the professions as having paved the way to a deeper,
contemporary discussion of socially embodied forms and communities of knowing
that have great influence on learning practices.
In our view, the daily conduct of teachers is shaped by the communities of
practice in which they have participated. While we agree with Schön’s ideas about
imitation being a highly constructive process, and with Aristotle when he writes of
‘mimesis’ as being foundational to learning in practical and productive human
activities, we submit there is more to be said about the influence of work at the
elbows on practices and identities that people appropriate through work together.
There are occasions when seasoned teachers are able to ‘see themselves’ in the
manner of their apprentices, when elements of style and character are passed on to
novice practitioners. But to describe learning at the elbows in this fashion goes
only part way; patterns of action form ‘texts’ that are not only ‘written’ and ‘read’,
but which also function in ‘writing’ the co-workers. What may seem at first to be
a simple gesture mimicked by a student may be the sign of a much larger
development in the way that person comes to see and hold himself or herself in
practice. Studio masters also acquire behaviors and traits of character found in
others—sometimes students—who make an impression on them. There are also
times when groups of students show in their practice how they have influenced
one another’s manner of working (MacKinnon and Grunau, 1994).
Although we believe the metaphor of learning at the elbows helps to draw out
important empirical claims about learning to teach, it does not provide a complete
framework for the improvement of teaching. Teacher education also requires the
engagement of novice teachers in a wide variety of literature and study in the so-
called foundations of education. Moreover, questions remain about the need to
correct mistakes made in a teaching studio, or to inject theory at appropriate
moments to enrich practice. In an attempt to understand these issues, MacKinnon
(in press) draws on eastern philosophy to represent the dialogical relationship
between apprenticeship and critical dialogue in learning to teach. He describes the
analysis sessions of Summerfest in terms of the multifaceted task of:
1 establishing an evidential base for discussing scientific ideas with children;

2 determining how they regard such evidence, what they know already and
211
Allan MacKinnon, Michael Cummings and Kathryn Alexander
are able to reason independently, and how they use new experiences and
information; and
3 investigating how the university students and instructors explore both their
own reasoning and that of the children.
MacKinnon argues that the historical relationship between Confucianism and

Taoism helps to gain a more holistic perspective on learning to teach through
forming and ‘retreating from’ routines in teaching behavior, largely through
ongoing, critical dialogue.
In this chapter we describe and illustrate the kind of critical dialogue about
Summerfest that has engaged us over the past few years. We claim that much of
our developing understanding of learning to teach is formed through our
conversations. In an attempt to flesh out this notion, we draw from a conversation
that took place immediately after the final class in the Summer of 1996, which we
tape-recorded for the purpose of writing this chapter. We hope it will be instructive
in terms of both the substance of our talk about learning to teach (vis-à-vis the
experiences of our teacher education students in Summerfest) and the kind of
perspectives and commitments each of us brings to our conversation. Our main
goal is to portray the importance of a continuing dialogue in developing
understandings of learning to teach. There are numerous occasions when our talk
raises perplexing difficulties related to the Summerfest experiences. Although it is
sometimes difficult to hear the critique of a good friend, the three voices in the
following excerpts work together in moving toward understanding our experiences
of learning to teach and teaching to learn.
Context
It will be helpful to provide some context surrounding the voices heard in the
following conversation. Allan is the professor of the course. Michael is a graduate
student of Allan’s and has been the teaching assistant in Summerfest for the past
four years. Kathryn is also a graduate student in education at SFU and, as Michael’s
partner, has been an interested bystander and participant in the debriefing
conversations about Summerfest through the duration of Allan and Michael’s
teaching partnership. Our conversations about Summerfest are intense and ongoing.
They reflect the often perplexing and rich challenges that arise in our informal, yet
serious, inquiry into the meaning of our lives as educators. We do not usually tape
our conversations, and we are somewhat at odds with presenting one of them here
in a form which tends to flatten and fix the meaning of our inquiry. This is because
we view our conversations, perspectives and understandings of learning to teach
as being in motion. The vitality of our talk comes as much from the friction among
our perspectives as it does from the negotiated consensus we sometimes experience.
The flow of ideas in the following conversation is accessible to readers without
much interruption and elaboration by the authors. We do, however, wish to make
certain analytic comments at intervals throughout the excerpt about the substance
212
and character of the dialogue. To set the stage, we begin at a point in our talk where
Allan is expressing concern about a group of three teacher education students’
understanding and representation of science principles underlying their unit of
study about ‘storms’. Having observed their teaching at Summerfest and their
accompanying unit plan assignment, his voice is one of frustration over what he
sees as a lack of effort and research on the part of the students to design teaching
approaches that would assist children in developing an understanding of storms.
Michael’s voice is typically one which is more empathic to the experience of being
a student, in terms both of the children who participate in Summerfest and of the
teacher education students. Further, Michael interprets the events of Summerfest
through the lens of his growing philosophical appreciation of experience-based
learning. Kathryn’s voice is one which provides critical commentary of social
reproduction in educational institutions. While she is more distant from the events
of Summerfest in the sense that she has not experienced face-to-face interactions
with participants, she has paid careful attention to various themes which emerged
in conversation throughout the term. Her point of view often interrupts the shared
beliefs of Allan and Michael, but usually leads to a broader, more critical awareness
of the matter of learning to teach.
Discussion
Allan I have questions about their understanding of storms. Yeah,

they don’t really involve questioning the causes of these
phenomena …rather, they emulate them.
Kathryn Well, in a sense what they’ve gone for is representations rather
than actual like…the water is supposed to represent air and…
Allan Right…So here is the big idea. This is a lesson titled Thunder
and Tracking Storms’. The big idea for the lesson is [read ing]:
‘Lightning causes air to heat up and explode. The explosion is
heard after the lightning strikes and is called thunder. The time
delay between lightning and thunder is used to track the
movement of the storm.’ Okay. Lightning causes air to heat up
and explode. Like where would that sound come from?
Michael Well it’s something probably that they might have read.
Kathryn Do you think they got hold of a bad book…a bad kid’s science
book?
Allan In a sense they are right because there is a huge…
Michael …there is expansion…and so perhaps they didn’t understand
that part and they sort of filled in by themselves…you know.
I know I read like that.
Allan But for me it’s almost the way the two sentences work
together. ‘Lightning causes the air to heat up and explode.
The explosion is heard after the lightning strikes and it is
called thunder.’
213
Kathryn …Um hmm.

Allan I wonder if they think the air takes a while to heat up and
explode.
Kathryn Yeah…There is a causality there. Is it the causality of the
language that worries you?
Allan Well, what bothers me…for some reason I think they don’t
really get it and they didn’t really research it carefully.
Kathryn You may be right. But is it in the language? Is it because they
have simplified the language?
Allan No, it’s because they have reduced the lesson to the following
…
Kathryn Okay.
Allan [reading] ‘Teaching Approach: The equipment you need is a
30 centimetre by 40 centimetre sheet of paper and cookie
sheets. The students will work in pairs and individually and
relate the thunder sound with cookie sheets and paper folding.
They will observe whether the distance between the observer
and the source affects the sound and apply these results to
our discussion about tracking storms.’
Michael Oh man, oh man!
Allan Okay that’s it…then…‘Learning Outcomes’, Okay? ‘Students
are expected to identify factors responsible for thunder.’
Michael Sorry, can you read that again?
Allan ‘Students are expected to identify factors responsible for
thunder.’ [continuing] ‘To know how to track a thunder storm.’
Michael Um hmm.
Allan ‘And to describe the key features of thunder.’
Kathryn Oh, that’s bizarre.
Allan And that’s not the only time that happens in this unit. Then
there’s the assessment…‘Students will be able to describe
the sequence of thunder and lightning.’
Kathryn Isn’t that strange. It’s almost like magic…it’s like a…kind
of…almost animated…
Allan [reading] ‘Students will be able to use the sequence of events
to explain how to track a storm.’
Kathryn Gosh…
Allan The thing about these statements is that they read like
objectives or learning outcomes. There could be a lot more
discussion about the kinds of strategies you would use to help
students understand thunder, lightning and storms. I could
pick another example if you’d like…
Michael So that’s one person. But three people are working on that
unit.
Allan [reading] ‘Eye of the hurricane’—another lesson. Grade level
5, big idea: ‘The hurricane is a vortex’…now before this they
214
have done bottles…‘it is circular in shape with winds flowing

around its centre. There is no wind in the vortex as dry air
sinks from the high pressure region.’ We could go to the
tornado lesson and find this bottle and this swirl of water, and
they then say—‘Oh see, that’s called a vortex.’ Well, as a
result of that, the kids are then able to say, ‘Oh well, we can
use this word “vortex”, if they didn’t know it already to
describe the shape of a tornado funnel. But they have no idea
why…
Michael Yeah and they don’t even…
Allan …or why a tornado funnel occurs—they are not given that
chance.
Kathryn It’s kind of like they’ve taken a consumer-based approach…
like my sense is…they’ve gone to Science World (a science
museum) or, you know, they have gone to Science and Nature
Company (a science store), or whatever, and they have taken
a consumer view of these representations. And from an adult
perspective where you make these metaphorical leaps into…
well it’s like…they haven’t done their research and they have
a kind of a lesson…but they have a real lack of appreciation
for children’s thinking.
Allan Yeah. Well that’s my attitude [toward the unit].
Kathryn But they also have a simplified notion…you know, on one
hand, a simplified or a lack of appreciation for children’s
sophistication and, on the other hand, a very simple
metaphorical, huh…script.
Michael But there aren’t even any links there and, uh…
Kathryn No links…
Allan Okay, here’s another one. So this is a lesson on a hurricane as
a vortex. Um, and they say [reading]: ‘The Equipment: The
students in pairs, each with two litre plastic bottles, duct tape,
food coloring, water, scissors, mixer, modelling clay and a
balloon. Attach modelling clay to one end of a piece of string.
Remove the bottom of one of the bottles and secure the bottles
together at the necks with balloon and tape. Place the string…’
So this is just the instructions of how to join these two bottles.
‘…Plug the plug and then try to suspend weight in the eye of
the vortex. Fill the bottle with coloured water and give it a
circular stir to start the spinning motion. Pull the plug and
then try to suspend the weight in the eye of the vortex.’
Okay, then they have a second experiment [reading]:
‘Movement of the air inside the hurricane: Full class experiment
using a large round tub or basin, water and ping-pong ball.’
And they say, ‘Fill the basin half full with water. With your
hand begin to swirl the water around in a counter-clockwise
215
direction. Remove your arm when the water is turning evenly.

Pour a glass full of water into the eye of the hurricane…’
Kathryn Hmmm.
Allan ‘…and observe. Place a ping-pong ball in the eye of the hur
ricane and observe.’
Michael So, pour a glass of water in and observe…
Allan Yeah. Okay, you go like this [demonstrating motion of
teacher]. Right, Okay. Just imagine this…you pour a glass of
water in…and observe…and then…you’re supposed to put a
ping-pong ball in…and it’s going stay there? [reading]
‘Students will be able to investigate the inside of the vortex
of a hurricane and infer why the eye of a hurricane is calm.
Assessment questions: What just happened? What can you
observe about the way in which the water is moving? Where
is the water moving the fastest? slowest?’
Michael So she’s talking about, um…I am imagining Al, that water is
moving around, I am thinking of eddies. I’ve done enough,
been on enough streams, walked up and down enough streams,
and you can have eddies, and then there’s…at the very centre
…there’s like a dead calm…not a dead calm, but like I imagine
it’s less and less…it’s like the centre of a record, right?
Allan Yeah.
Michael …and it’s never…you see like, the size of that vortex depends
on the size of the pan, and all that kind of stuff, right? And I
guess what they are talking about is that, out there, it is moving
faster than it is moving in here, and that is moving faster than
this…so I guess you could sort of intuit…and eventually you
get to a point where it’s…I am not sure they go far enough
with the argument.
Allan Well I think that is really interesting and I think it is really
useful, but, for me, the unit is not complete without an
explanation of why air masses move in the way they do to
create hurricanes. And, for me, you can’t understand that until
you really think about the spin of the earth.
Michael Uh huh…And how cold air moves, and how warm air rises…
Allan And how temperatures affect…
Michael …yeah, affects condensation…holding water…
Michael So you don’t see the connection between the water and the
hurricane, the eye of a hurricane?
Kathryn I think that there needs to be some, uh…I think that it would
give a child a very distorted notion of, um, movement of air.
If I say it is a metaphorical representation, it’s very incomplete,
and uh, but I know that it’s very visual, and it’s a very available
hands-on activity. But it contributes to a mythical
understanding of matter.
216
Allan Well I think it’s…interestingly complex, and I think that…

Kathryn But by simplifying it to this…
Allan …but by simplifying it to this they are…missing part of the
point. Now, I can appreciate what they are trying…and
Michael certainly has a richer appreciation of this than I do. I
can see what they are trying to do. But, for me, there is more
to be said. But then, you see, it’s interesting because I can
think about what they are doing with children and it is sort of
like, in part…‘Guess what is in the teacher’s head.’ And, in
part, they are not really teaching…the concepts I’m really
interested in. But, you see, nor am I teaching them…unless I
do it here in my comments…but it is almost too late…
Kathryn …teaching them the science, or teaching them how to…
Allan …well inviting them to think a little more deeply…
Kathryn …to think more deeply…
Allan So when they made their presentation…they showed their
video tonight and Michael was talking about me setting a
tone, but really I was interrupting them because I was
interested in what they understood about storms.
Kathryn Um hmm. But you were alerted to the fact that there was like
a lack of understanding.
Allan Well, in their written work. Their presentation was a little better.
Kathryn If…
Allan But their written is really poor.
Kathryn What about…now I don’t have the language for this, uh… in
your framework…but I would say understanding where their
knowledge base is…like where they are coming from is
important. And also…in a sense…I guess you could call it
their objective but I guess it is their motive. Like to say…‘Why
would you choose this?’ ‘What is it about this that excites
you or interests you?’ And, ‘What is it that you know or don’t
know that would invite you to learn more, in order to teach it
as a unit to children?’ Like, I’m thinking that it has commodity
value because of ‘Twister’ [recent blockbuster motion picture]
because of the…the availability of the materials. It’s a fairly
simple one to muster up. And if you didn’t have a background
in weather, or geography concepts, or climatology…that it
would appear to be available material for the unit. So it is
more like a performance in a sense than a representation of
their knowledge.
Michael But you know…they are coming to science…they are coming
to something…to a subject…to a course to want to study
science. Um, who knows why they went to weather. I mean
maybe it was the activity, maybe the bottle of the activity,
maybe it was something they read about the tornado activity
217
…it’s interesting…it would be interesting to know how they

came to create the unit, but they are actually doing the best
that they can…they are not…
Kathryn That is why I am saying…that’s why we don’t know their
background. Like here I am…English, you know English
major with an arts background and almost no science in my
entire education. So how would I approach it? Earlier in our
conversation you mentioned the Kinetic Molecular Theory.
Allan Yeah, because that would be…that would be one of the
theories that would allow you to understand storms. And also,
there was no discussion of the effects of wind currents created
by the spin of the earth.
Kathryn Yes, but, for you, these are very anchoring and important,
conceptually.
Allan Well, they are concepts that are useful time and time again to
think about events in science and to get down to a point where
you can actually understand what occurs. You know, you,
um…you do need to think about these events…and so here is
a wonderful opportunity to do that, but they missed it.
Kathryn Yeah, but did they know that they missed it?
Michael Where else, where would you find that? I mean is it
available…the Kinetic Molecular Theory? I mean if you went
through ten books would you be assured that you would find
it? Now, they are looking at kid’s books…
Allan Well if you turn to ‘weather’ in any elementary science book
you would find that. I mean…Now, true…I come out of this
tradition and that is just commonplace for me, and it’s not
commonplace for everybody, and I admit that. But, see this
assignment…I can…I can watch them work, and I spoke with
Doug who video-taped them and, you know…he and I talked
about it. And so I was able to form some understanding …I
saw it take place and I saw the kids react—you know, engage
or not engage in the activities…you know, and, by that time,
I am getting to know those kids too.
Michael Yeah, it seemed more like art activities…
Allan But not only that…I can take a look at what they have done
here…and then I’ve got seventeen, eighteen other units that I
can compare it with. And I can see that some groups worked
well together and other groups didn’t, and, in other groups
that didn’t work well, certain individuals worked beautifully,
and others…you know, I can tell all that stuff…
Michael But why would three people have, conceptually, almost the
same sort of lack of connection? Why would three people
have that? That’s really odd…that’s really odd.
Kathryn Because, I guess…
218
Michael …they shared…

Allan …and I am writing to the group [reading from remarks to
group]: ‘This activity is good for learning the name and shape
of the funnel of the tornado, but in what sense does it help to
understand how a tornado is formed. The cookie sheet activity
has a similar quality, leaving me somewhat at odds about how
the activity contributes to the understanding of storms.’
Michael Uh huh.
Allan And then…another comment for another activity. But you
almost can read this like the other [reading]: ‘Again the activity
is an emulation of a hurricane…and a worthy one on those
grounds, for it is interesting, after all, to notice the calm of
the eye. In this sense the activity is really good, but it doesn’t
contribute to the understanding of how hurricanes are formed,
how they are different from tornadoes, why air masses move
in the atmosphere the way they do, and so on. That may be in
your mind but it is not apparent to me.’
Kathryn Yeah, and it is not expressed in the curriculum. It is not
expressed in the conceptual…
Allan And so that is the end of the specific comments, and this is
my summary [reading]: ‘I like the unit very much, but find
that it focuses more on description and emulation than it does
on developing understanding. The activities are interesting,
for sure, but they could be more sciencey, if you know what I
mean. An approach based on the latter intention would focus
on heated air expansion, how it moves about as a mass, is
influenced by the rotation of the earth…things like that. Not
to worry too much about this, but I did want to point it out.’
And then in parentheses…‘I actually did get a better idea,
feel for your ideas during your presentation.’…which was
tonight… ‘The teaching approach, as I have pointed out, is
somewhat perfunctory for me and I have indicated where I
am curious how you will assist children in meeting the learning
goals. The activities are good and I hope I can convince you
to think about more investigative work in teaching approaches
for the kids. The grade for the assignment is B.’
Kathryn But you know part of it is group chemistry, but obviously
they did not do their work. And I think that is something that
we have been talking about in some sense—the going through
the motions of the student teacher experience of…you know
as if…simulating as if…you know you can manage the room
and get people to meet your objectives. But there is not
the…there is not enough attention sometimes placed on the
integrity of the educative experience. And that is what you
are picking up on. But what I’m picking up on in a sense that
219
has to do with, you know, receptivity, perception of your

audience…
Michael But also just exposure to the whole idea of thinking about
teaching that way.
Kathryn But I don’t think that people learn to have that…I think that
in fact that, if they start off like this, they are not going to
develop a deeper appreciation of children’s learning. I don’t
know.
Michael I don’t agree at all. No.
Kathryn I think that they would…you know…tend to…take a more
managerial approach…what they [children] look like, and are
they having a good time—if they look like they are
engaged…that’s good enough…
Michael But I’m thinking, though, you know about the…talking about
the whole idea of knowledge transfer. How do we teach? And
how do children learn? And how can we…um, how can they
develop an understanding of the eye of the storm, you know
…or that whirling mass? To understand…I mean it’s too
ludicrous to think that [referring to the bottle demonstration]…
Kathryn But then you have to actually back it up…
Michael And then you actually have to back it up…absolutely. Yeah
that’s right.
Kathryn And then in a sense make very sure that, although the eye of
the hurricane is like the middle of swirling water, it is not
that. Air and water…
Michael Yeah, two different things…
Kathryn Dealing with, you know, dealing with different manifestations
of matter…and that you just haven’t, because you can’t see
air, that you are doing this just as a representation. And that
you know, the notion of electricity and static, like you know,
lightning is not…like, does lightning heat up the air and boom,
it creates thunder? Is that really true? Is that really what
happens? And…did anyone get into the folk…the folk
understanding that you count seconds between the lightning
and thunder?
Michael No…it hasn’t been thought through. But what I find
interesting about it is that…when you talk about
constructivism… there is this idea that we hang onto our early
beliefs…that we have these…unfortunate word…native
notions…or early understandings and beliefs that we sort of
hang on to. I can relate to that…we have these ideas that we
remember as children having learned something…you create
an understanding for yourself that works. Somehow, your
conception works. And then you try that out in the world and
it works and then you come to a science program where you
220
are asked to write and think about that. You know…you are
bringing that notion…And somehow, even though you are
reading other stuff, that old notion is still alive.
Kathryn I know, but what they have done is they have reinforced that…
Michael Of course, of course they have reinforced that because they
know only that as the truth, you see…That is what is so
fascinating…that they are actually passing that on…yeah right
on. They are passing that on as teachers. But it is based on a
lack of real investigation of their own. But they are coming to
a course on science to look at that, themselves. You keep
on…you keep your old ideas…you just imprint everything,
your old idea on to the words…and that’s why it’s so difficult
to come to the subject as a graduate student because you are
continually coming to this place of non-understanding because
of the way you interpret the world. The way you see, the way
you have come to visualize things is often broken down.
The Nature of Learning to Teach
Michael delineates the contradictions of being a student in two distinct communities

of practice—one as a student teacher, the other as a graduate student. In the former
community there is more pressure to appear competent and knowledgeable in all
contexts. In the latter, one is continually examining one’s assumptions and beliefs.
Although student teachers are frequently encouraged to be reflective about their
practice in ‘journals’, simultaneously they are expected to perform in classrooms
where it would be devastating to suspend one’s judgment over subject-matter or a
decision that requires immediate action. This leads to a crucial dilemma about the
nature of learning to teach.
Although it is not fully elaborated upon in this particular conversation, one of
the troubling themes for Allan throughout the semester was the teacher education
students’ apparent resistance to critical talk and inquiry about the nature of children’s
learning at Summerfest. According to him, the teacher education students’ concerns
had more to do with gathering a repertoire of activities and a ‘bag of tricks’ for
science teaching. This feeling was especially troubling, given Allan’s emphasis on
modelling a critical analysis of teaching in his own handling of the children at
Summerfest, and in his debriefing sessions with Kathryn and Michael. Of course,
it is interesting and perplexing in itself that teacher education students have no
access to the ongoing dialogues that sustained both Michael and Allan throughout
the semester.
Kathryn’s concern is with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of teacher education that
forecloses on students’ deeper investigations and understandings of content areas
and children’s learning. She is well aware of the need for the appropriate conceptual
tools required for accomplished teaching, but acutely aware of the lack of conditions
and occasions for genuine and critical engagement in teacher education programs.
221
In particular, Kathryn conceptualizes this dilemma as the institutional mediation

of student teachers’ identity as knowers, given that the focus on teaching
competency, classroom management and mastery of content leaves little room for
ambiguity and exploration. This theme is brought out in the remaining excerpts of
the conversation, as the discussion turns to the issue of grading and assessing
students taking the Summerfest course.
Kathryn The thing that is interesting is this notion of good

conceptual models to work side by side with both a
scientific concept and a metaphor for the activity. And that
is kind of what you are asking your students to do. And
that is the pedagogical challenge…to take that and package
it in a way that is both… um…has complexity and
simplicity in it. I mean, you know, that can contain the
facts but be an appropriate model to facilitate learning or
understanding. I think that it comes down to one’s notion
of appreciation for the child. I guess from my ever-cynical
perspective about how people think of children, I feel that
they’ve often got a childish notion of what children are,
they have an almost simulated notion of children’s
understanding, and so they have misread their audience,
they have misread, um, you know, kids’ savvy. You know,
I am thinking back to my own brother…you know…when
he was six or seven years old, as soon as he was able to
read he was reading about protozoa, planets, dinosaurs,
minerals…and all those kinds of things. And children have
this great philosophical capacity; they think very deeply
about things. And yet they are so cooperative that they will
go for shallow understanding to cooperate with what’s
going on in the room, right?
Michael Yes, that’s right.
Kathryn That’s why they will foreclose on their intuitive wisdom, in
order to accommodate the structure in the room.
Allan Sometimes they won’t tolerate it.
Kathryn Yeah.
Allan And, we certainly had kids at Summerfest who gave me that
impression…that they didn’t tolerate any silly work.
Kathryn But, you see, they’re science camp kids, so they’ve got an
identity that is already formed, you know, that they are good
at this…or it’s okay for them. I am thinking of the time I was
a kid in elementary school. I don’t know if you had this
experience, but there was this whole series of films on science
concepts…things like weather. They were really entertaining
and fascinating films. And I remember sitting in a gym with,
you know, three hundred or something kids all day watching
222
four of these things in row. I still remember the stuff explaining

the, um, the water cycle, and another one on photosynthesis
[laughs]. The weird thing was that they had added animation
and Greek representations of what we used to think…‘and
now we think this
Allan Right, uh-huh.
Kathryn And I remember it was full of jokes and it was of very high
entertainment value. And I still carry these bizarre images of
what I think the cycle of water is, and what I think
photosynthesis is. They’re still with me to this very day.
Michael And in that cartoon form?
Kathryn In that cartoon form, right.
Michael And to some degree it works for you, right? I mean that gets
reinforced?
Kathryn Yeah. I mean…I guess you could say that is the constructivist
thing. That seems really interesting to me. Why do people
choose their units? It’s like you have got to have a hook in
…you know, some kind of passion or reason for choosing
something. So someone who says, ‘Oh yeah, we’ll do storms,
you know’, or ‘We’ll do dinosaurs…’ You know, without
having some real passion…
Allan Well, it could be something like that with those two bottles
(water vortex demonstration). A person could have seen it at
Science World or any number of places…those two bottles.
And you think, ‘Oh, that’s science.’
Kathryn Yep.
Allan ‘Oh well…what can I do with that? Gee…well, you know, I
could study storms
Michael Yeah.
Kathryn But you see, that is the difference between going from a real
interest in the phenomena…or going from a viable activity,
and scavenging activities.
Allan This whole idea…that um, we are grading. I sometimes think
that is where it comes from. In a way it is a manufactured
thing. I just want to have meaningful pedagogical relationships
with my students. But we put ourselves into this position where
we, you know…
Michael There has to be the assessment and the products.
Kathryn But the culture of this student teacher experience may not
lead to meaningful pedagogical relationships if they are
concerned about lesson plans. They can manufacture a
facsimile of that. And thus, in some sense, appease your
demands, and yet not know how to…
Michael You know…what is interesting, um, we are talking about this
unit on thunder and hurricanes and…I don’t know, I still think
223
it is only one or maybe two of them…the odd thing is that

there could be three teachers who would think like that, or
who would teach like that…it’s pretty ludicrous.
Allan Yeah…well I think it is quite intriguing.
Allan I think what I am trying to do kind of backfired. I am trying
to be more constructive.
Kathryn But constructiveness has to come from a position of critique.
Allan Being constructive and critique go hand-in-hand. But when I
say it has backfired, I mean that it’s really damaged people in
unanticipated ways. Ways that I would have never imagined
that hurt people deeply, you know, taking it personally, taking
it, in a very vulnerable state.
Kathryn How do you get around that, it just…
Allan Right. Not grading, but establishing…
Kathryn …like, a rapport—a trusting rapport…
Allan Yeah, well, it’s such a sensitive topic, that any shortcomings
I think I experience in my relations with students usually
revolve around…
Kathryn …grades?
Allan A lot of stress about grades and assignments. We keep them
busy…we definitely keep them busy with make-work projects.
Conclusion
For the time being, this last utterance rests as our substantive conclusion about the
nature of learning to teach. We would like to re-emphasize the importance we
place on our continuing critical dialogue in negotiating understandings about
learning to teach. If the conversation above concluded here, we might begin to see
the whole Summerfest experience as contributing to the maelstrom of teacher
education. The events of Summerfest and our conversations over the entire semester,
however, build on those of Summers past and anticipate those of Summers-to-
come, mutually resonating and informing each other in a way that we believe
leads to better and more just practice as teacher educators. Although partial and
ephemeral, this critical dialogue and negotiation is what sustains professional and
intellectual growth.
The metaphor learning to teach at the elbows puts forward claims about learning
to teach that focus on the development of ‘teaching manner’. Our particular interest
here is in characterizing and understanding aspects of teaching that seem to be
acquired, shared, mediated, and changed through teachers’ work together—a
shaping that we believe occurs initially through a kind of mimicry in the practice
setting and in many cases appears to take place independent of rational deliberation.
If so, how do we understand this kind of learning? How do we then represent our
work and knowledge as teacher educators? How do we understand the vulnerability
of our students and the necessity of their developing critical perspectives in their
224
practice? These questions are raised in a way that underscores the fragile interplay
between learning as socio-culturally-mediated activity and critical dialogue, both
in the initial preparation of teachers and in our own growth as teacher educators.
This rendering of teacher educators’ knowledge may differ from the usual
representations found in research literature, but we remain committed to the notion
that our knowledge and understanding resides in formation in such critical
conversations as that presented and discussed in this chapter.
References
FENSTERMACHER, G.D. (1992) ‘The concepts of method and manner in teaching,’ in

OSER, F.K., DICK, A. and PATRY, J.-L. (Eds) Effective and Responsible Teaching: The
New Synthesis (Ch. 7), San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
MACKINNON, A.M. (in press) ‘Learning to teach at the elbows: The Tao of teaching’,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 1.
MACKINNON, A.M. and GRUNAU, H. (1994) ‘Teacher development through reflection,
com– munity, and discourse’, in GRIMMETT, P.P. and NEUFELD, J. (Eds) The Struggle
for Authenticity: Teacher Development in a Changing Educational Context, New York,
Teachers College Press, pp. 165–92.
POLANYI, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press.
RYLE, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind, London, Hutchinson and Co.
SCHÖN, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think-in-action, New
York, Basic Books.
SCHÖN, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
TAYLOR, C. (1991) ‘The dialogical self’, in HILEY, D.R., BOHMAN, J.F. and
SHUSTERMAN, R. (Eds) The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture, Ithaca,
Cornell University Press, pp. 304–14.
TREMMEL, R. (1993) ‘Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education’, Harvard
225
Section 5
Conclusion
14 Becoming Passionate about
Teacher Education
Tom Russell
This concluding chapter of Teaching about Teaching: Purpose, Passion and

Pedagogy is intended for those who turn first to a book’s conclusion as well as for
those who have already examined the preceding chapters. By volunteering to prepare
the introductory chapter, my co-editor has given me the unique opportunity and
challenge of looking back and consolidating. When John and I approached the
contributors nine months ago, as John was completing his term as a visitor at
Queen’s University, we recognized this collection as more than a chance to express
our shared passion for the importance of pedagogy in teacher education. This
volume would also be a way to gather together a special community of teacher
educators who have become treasured professional colleagues. That they share
our passion for purpose and pedagogy is apparent in their responses to our invitation;
these chapters were produced in less than six months. One further statement serves
to express my personal assessment of the quality and significance of these
contributions: Although my retirement is still a decade away, I would be more than
content if this were my last professional publication. This collection issues an
important and, we hope, compelling invitation to teacher educators to enhance
their contributions to future generations of teachers and students by joining us in
becoming passionate about teacher education.
‘Passion’ is not a term readily associated with either teacher education or the
academic enterprise more generally, but we see it as an essential way of signalling
the work that lies before us. Teacher educators have developed and embraced many
important new ideas in the last two decades, yet new ideas are easily lost, diluted,
and marginalized when the overall framework of a teacher education program is
not modified to support them. This collection displays and celebrates the vitality
of teacher educators who see and accept the inherent challenges, contradictions
and dilemmas of teacher education, and who are working to ensure that significant
changes at the course level and personal level are extended into significant program-
level changes that permeate a teacher education community. We have come to see
‘passion’ as a term that should take its place beside terms such as ‘relevance’ and
‘rigour’ as we continue to improve the discipline of teacher education.
Pre-service teacher education programs face many dilemmas, and one central
dilemma involves the tension between preparing new teachers to succeed in schools
as they are and preparing new teachers to be welcome and support the changes that
229
Tom Russell
are on the horizon. With the best of intentions, teacher education programs run the
risks of asking new teachers to do some or all of the following:
• to ‘run before they walk’;

• to transform the teaching-learning relationship, even though schools and
universities have been unable to make that transformation;
• to rethink the content they teach as they also rethink the manner in which
they teach;
• to understand the difference between collecting others’ teaching resources
and learning to prepare one’s own;
• to reflect on teaching before they take charge of a classroom; and
• to write before they have anything to write about.
The contributors to this collection share a number of strategies for minimizing

these potentially frustrating elements of pre-service programs. They understand
that actions speak louder than words, and so they focus on the pedagogy they use
in their own classrooms. They understand that learning is a personal experience
and so they share their own learning with those they help to learn to teach. They
understand that reflection is inseparable from experience, and so they attend to
how people learn by doing. They understand that successful teaching depends on
a community of professionals in a school and so they foster learning communities
within their own classrooms.
After considering several approaches to preparing a closing chapter for this
collection, I settled on letting the authors speak for themselves. As I reviewed each
chapter to appreciate again its passion for pedagogy in teacher education, I searched
for a quotation that expressed a central theme. Others will certainly select different
quotations as their personal favourite, but the ones assembled here serve to remind
the reader of the journey just completed or, for those about to begin, to signal the
journey that lies ahead.
The chapters by Cynthia Nicol and Peter Chin show the remarkable intensity
and passion of the teacher educator in the early stages of work in this field, and
they provide rare access to the thought processes and sustaining rationales of
individuals committed to extracting sound principles from personal experience
and then enacting them in their pre-service classrooms.
1 Cynthia Nicol
Listening for what we expect might happen provides us with a framework through
which to interpret events. As a teacher with desired goals and intentions I listen for
the various mathematical concepts and ideas that my students are required to know
and understand. But at the same time I want to listen to and attend to students’
experience. A focus only on listening for makes it difficult to listen to students’
experiences, to focus on the meaning of the experience from the students’
perspective, and to act upon events that are unanticipated. Listening for affects
what the teacher finds as valuable information, while a focus on only listening to
may make it difficult to interpret students’ experiences. Listening to means shedding
230
Becoming Passionate about Teacher Education
preconceived agendas, being responsive and attending to what students say and
do. Listening for involves listening for worthwhile subject-matter content within
educational goals and intentions. The challenge remains for me as I struggle to
remain suspended and attentive on a fine balance between accomplishing my own
teaching goals and experiencing teaching from prospective teachers’ eyes.
2 Peter Chin
As I reflect upon the core beliefs that I have about what it is that I stand for as a
teacher educator, it becomes abundantly clear that I advocate the importance of
articulating, critiquing, and understanding one’s beliefs about teaching and learning.
These beliefs serve as the foundation that informs one’s practice as he or she designs
curriculum for students. Finally, the importance of establishing frameworks for
understanding so that one can monitor the effectiveness of one’s teaching leads to
an iterative process of professional development and the improvement of one’s
teaching. These same core beliefs that I have about my role as a teacher educator
have been mirrored in this chapter—as I have applied these beliefs to my own role
as a learner.
The chapters by Vicki LaBoskey and Anna Richert reveal the achievements that
become possible in a small, intense community such as Mills College, where a
unique program of pre-service teacher education has developed in the last decade.
3 Vicki LaBoskey
I design my program and my practice to be relentless in the modelling of, and
requirement for, purpose and passion in teaching. I try to have all of my assignments
and all of my activities provide opportunities for everyone, including me, to
examine, from a variety of perspectives, our beliefs, attitudes, reasons, intentions,
emotional reactions, and intellectual processing. We learn together how to appreciate
the complexity and live with the uncertainty as we construct and reconstruct our
belief systems.
4 Anna Richert
Perhaps the longest persistent challenge of teacher education is how to teach theory
and practice together in ways that promote the use of theory to illuminate practice,
and the use of practice to challenge and extend theory. These coupled practices are
the mainstay of reflective teaching, and therefore, the basis of inquiry-based teacher
education as I have been describing it in this chapter. Existing theory helps teachers
both frame and explore problems by helping them to ask pertinent questions, to
know which questions to ask, to examine data that will help them answer their
questions, and so forth. In a similar way, everyday practice challenges teachers to
examine theory by looking for confirming and discontinuing evidence, and to
construct new theory as a result of their reflective work. By definition, teachers
who approach their work in this reflective and inquiring way necessarily embrace
the uncertainty of the work of teaching because they do not take as given but as
problematic the conditions of school. They see their work as guided by a process
of coming to understand more fully what is, in order to determine what needs to be
231
Tom Russell
as the work proceeds. Understanding what is in relation to what might be, requires
these teachers to examine the purposes of the work of school in the first place. In
the process, they necessarily engage the moral questions of their work.
The chapters by Garry Hoban and Tony Clarke focus on aspects of teacher education
that are quite unique to the enterprise. Garry illustrates how his own classroom
becomes a model for the kinds of attention to ‘learning about learning’ that he
hopes will lead new teachers to see how much potential there is for genuine
innovation in the classroom. Tony uses his personal experiences as a student teacher
and as a new teacher receiving student teachers into his classroom to illustrate how
important it is to develop a coaching role during practicum placements.
5 Garry Hoban
There is, however, another spin off to using this teaching strategy—you are getting
a weekly evaluation of not only what you are teaching but also how you are teaching.
This is risky business—you are exposing yourself to criticism from your own
students. But how can you expect trainee teachers to take your recommendations
about being a reflective teacher seriously when you do not do it yourself.
Encouraging your own students to analyze their positive and negative teaching
experiences gives you the opportunity to discuss aspects about learning when
students are supposed to be doing it. By reading the students’ reflective journals I
realized that I should be more specific about the purpose of the class and provide
a more conducive learning environment. But this teaching method depends on
developing a level of trust within the class. You will know that this has been
established when pre-service teachers are prepared to discuss their negative as
well as their positive learning experiences in your class. Furthermore, many
preservice teachers commented throughout the course that seeking their views
about my teaching demonstrated that I valued their opinion and that I was ‘practicing
what I was preaching’. I think it is important that we, as teacher educators, model
procedures to establish a dialogue between teachers and students to engage in
discussions about the quality of teaching and learning.
6 Tony Clarke
I believe we need to conceptualize the way we think about the role of practicum
advisors. I suggest that the notion of teacher educator is a far more appropriate
conceptualization than those currently in use in teacher education. Further, the
notion of coaching has much to offer in terms of capturing the level of engagement
that we expect of advisors as they work with student teachers. The advisor as
coach notion also provides a useful heuristic for explicating the relationship between
advisor and student teacher in practicum settings. I have argued that there are
certain principles that are common to exemplary coaching practice in site-based
educational settings and that these are worthy of consideration in our work with
student teachers. Finally, our modus operandi as we prepare sites for student
teaching practica should be to ensure that advisors are professionally ready, carefully
selected, and provided with ongoing support for their work with student teachers.
Each of these points is important if the work of practicum advisors is to feature
232
more significantly than is currently the case in our discussion of, and contribution
to, pre-service teacher education.
Two chapters in this collection develop and convey their messages in the form
of conversations among three contributors. Allan MacKinnon, Michael Cummings
and Kathryn Alexander used a face-to-face conversation and my eyes were drawn
to the passage about ‘meaningful pedagogical relationships’. Karen Guilfoyle, Mary
Lynn Hamilton, and Stefinee Pinnegar used electronic mail for their conversation,
and my eyes were drawn to their summary.
7 Allan MacKinnon, Michael Cummings and Kathryn Alexander
Allan This whole idea that we are grading: I sometimes think that
is where it comes from. In a way it is a manufactured thing. I
just want to have meaningful pedagogical relationships with
my students. But we put ourselves into this position where
we, you know…
Michael There has to be the assessment and the products.
Kathryn But the culture of this student teacher experience may not
lead to meaningful pedagogical relationships if they are
concerned about lesson plans. They can manufacture a
facsimile of that. And thus, in some sense, appease your
demands, and yet not know how to…
8 Karen Guilfoyle, Mary Lynn Hamilton, and Stefinee Pinnegar

The unseen children in the schools ignite our passion for knowledge, our
commitment to passion, and our desire to inspire future teachers. We feel a moral
obligation to the students of our students. The faces of our students’ future students
haunt us when we see people we suspect are incompetent in our teacher education
programs, when our classroom practices seem to be less than the best practice we
know, when we respond to our students in ways that are disrespectful, demeaning,
condescending or limiting to our students in any way, or when we require less than
the best from our students. While we cannot control all the experiences our students
have during their education as teachers, we can control our experiences with them.
We aim for our interaction with our students to be exemplary in the kinds of
relationships we want them to have with their students. Our understanding of the
role of social constructivism and beliefs in the development of teachers and our
responses to our own beliefs and those of our students are tools to help us meet the
obligations we feel for the students of our students. We remember with tenderness
the students we taught before becoming teacher educators. We remember the ways
in which both our colleagues and ourselves fell short in preparing our students to
develop their complete potential. We take these lessons seriously as we work to
teach new generations to teach themselves to be teachers.
Continuing the pattern of grouping excerpts in pairs, I turn to the chapters by
Bob Bullough and by Jeff Northfield and Dick Gunstone. These teacher educators
233
Tom Russell
have many years of experience, and their contributions to this collection complement
those by individuals who are relatively new to the enterprise.
9 Bob Bullough
By necessity and by design, I have become a student of teaching and teacher
education. The work has become more interesting and challenging than I ever
imagined it could be, especially when I think back to when I was fleeing from it. I
am now convinced that the future of teacher education is dependent on the
willingness of teacher educators to practice theory and to theorize our practice and
to put the results of our efforts before a frequently hostile public. We must make a
compelling case that what we do has value.
10 Jeff Northfield and Richard Gunstone

Our personal learning has been long and difficult as in our teacher efforts we tended
to overestimate what we were able to tell teachers and underestimate the importance
of, and our ability in, providing conditions for teachers to be learners about teaching.
Our challenge has been to develop teacher education courses (both preservice and
in-service) in ways that reflect this developing insight, that it is teachers who have
to be learners, and then appreciate the nature of their knowledge.
Finally, for consistency, I accepted the potentially awkward challenge of selecting
passages from the editors’ own contributions to the collection.
11 John Loughran
This desire to be able to articulate my understanding about my pedagogy has become
increasingly important to me because I want my student-teachers’ learning to be
more than the absorption of propositions about teaching. If learning about teaching
is simply the absorption of a teacher educator’s pedagogical knowledge, then it
seems to me most likely that it will be learnt in a manner that encourages digestion
and regurgitation in practicum experiences then, more likely than not, rejected in
their own post-university teaching practice when the pervading influence of their
being assessed is removed. I want my student-teachers to be engaged in their
learning about teaching. I want them to consider their own developing practice
and to make informed decisions about their teaching, and I want this to be based
on an explicit ‘knowing about practice’ which they develop through their own
active and purposeful learning about teaching.
12 Tom Russell
I have found it useful to think in terms of getting our practices to catch up to what
we say and write, and to catch up to what we say we believe about teaching and
learning. It is also a matter of learning how to make our beliefs influence our
practices, recognizing all the while that the central matter is ‘listening to our
practices’ learning what words mean when we express them in our actions, and
learning what ideas do to the people we are teaching. These are major challenges
for experienced teachers and teacher educators. Those who are new to teaching
may not even see the issue, because they have not had access to the experiences of
234
teaching that are essential to understanding just how easy it is to separate actions
from beliefs and goals at the front of a classroom.
These are some of the ways in which we see pedagogy as central to the purpose
of teacher education, and passion as central to the manner in which teacher education
is conducted. We share our teaching and learning with new teachers as we also
develop teaching strategies and program structures that will engage new teachers.
Recognizing the power of experience, we attend as fully as possible to the impact
of new teachers’ experiences in school classrooms, but we also work to make our
own university classrooms settings that will extend their learning from experience.
235
Notes on Contributors
Kathryn Alexander is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Education at Simon

Fraser University. Her research interests explore the dynamics of documentary
texts and identity construction in institutions, and includes critical ethnography
and the politics of writing ‘up’ others.
Robert V.Bullough, Jr. is Professor of Educational Studies, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, Utah. His most recent books include the co-authored volumes, A
Teacher’s Journey, due out shortly with Teachers College Press, Becoming a Student
of Teaching: Methodologies for Exploring Self and School Context (1995) and, the
co-edited volume Teachers and Mentors (1996). His research focuses on teacher
education and development and curriculum studies.
Peter Chin is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s

University where he teaches in the area of science teacher education. His research
interests centre around the complexities of the practicum setting and the issues of
teaching and learning that affect the pre-service teachers and the school associates.
From a constructivist perspective he also focuses on metacognition, multicultural/
inclusive science, and issues within the philosophy of science.
Anthony Clarke was a secondary school teacher of mathematics, computer

science, and physical education, now specializing in the more general area of
the professional development of teachers and teacher educators. He is affiliated
with the Centre for the Study of Teacher Education at the University of British
Columbia. Current research interests focus on reflective practice in teacher
education, school/ university partnerships, and the work of school and university
advisors in the practicum.
Michael Cummings works as a teaching assistant and sessional instructor at

Simon Fraser University, where he is completing his Masters Degree in curriculum
studies. His thesis focuses on how children and teachers understand science
experiences.
Gary D.Fenstermacher is a philosopher of education currently serving as

Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Michigan. He is
formerly the Dean of the College of Education at the University of Arizona, and
Past President of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
His research interests include normative theories of teacher reasoning, and
educational policy analysis.
236
Karen Guilfoyle is an Associate Professor in Teacher Education at the Univeristy

of Idaho. Her field is literacy, language, and culture, and her research focuses on
learning and teaching using a critical social-constructivist framework.
Richard Gunstone is the Professor of Science and Technology Education in the

School of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Education, Monash University. He has
devoted a great deal of time and effort to pre-service teacher education and in
collaboration with Jeff Northfield developed and extended the ‘Stream 3’ science
teacher education program at Monash University from the late 1970s through to
the early 1990s.
Mary Lynn Hamilton, an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum

and Instruction at the University of Kansas, studies her own teaching practice and
encourages her students to do the same. She is currently the chair-elect of the Self-
Study of Teacher Education Practices SIG within the American Educational
Research Association. Mary Lynn recently spent time in Australia as visiting
Professor for the pre-service teacher education program in the School of Graduate
Studies, Faculty of Education, Monash University.
Garry Hoban is a lecturer in Science Education at Charles Sturt University in

Bathurst, Australia. His research interests focus on teacher professional development
and improving his own practice in teacher education. In both of these areas he is
exploring ways to access student data to improve teacher learning.
Vicki Kubler LaBoskey is an Associate Professor of Education at Mills College

in Oakland CA and Director of the elementary portion of their Teachers for
Tomorrow’s Schools Credential Program. Her current areas of interest are in
elementary pre-service education with a focus on reflective teaching and teaching
as a moral and political act. She is also interested in action research, portfolios,
and teacher educator self-study—and also new teacher support (teacher
development as a vehicle for school reform).
John Loughran is the Director of Pre-service Education and Professional

Development in the School of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Education, Monash
University, Australia. John teaches prospective science teachers in the Graduate
Diploma in Education and his research interests include reflective practice, teaching
and learning and science education. He has written extensively about learning to
teach (Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning
through Modelling, Falmer Press, 1996) and is an active member of the S-STEP
SIG within the American Educational Research Association.
Allan MacKinnon is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon

Fraser University, where he teaches in the area of science education. His interests
include the philosophy of science, teacher education, and the use of interactive
television and video technologies in science teacher development.
237
Cynthia Nicol is an experienced teacher, who, after teaching mathematics for

seven years in a remote coastal village of northern British Columbia, has moved to
Vancouver (BC) to further her study of teaching and learning mathematics. She is
currently a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia studying her
own practice of, and challenges associated with, teaching elementary prospective
teachers to teach mathematics for understanding. Her research interests also include
the learning of mathematics and learning to teach mathematics.
Jeff Northfield is a Professor of Education and Head of School at the Peninsula

Campus, Faculty of Education, Monash University. Jeff has been involved in
preservice teacher education throughout his academic career and recently returned
to school teaching for a year in order to genuinely pursue a purposeful way of
gaining ‘recent and relevant’ high school teaching experience. This return to school
also gave him a long awaited opportunity to practice what he preaches in teaching
and has led to the development of a book from this experience co-authored with
John Loughran; Opening the Classroom Door: Teacher, Learner, Researcher (1996,
Falmer Press).
Stefinee Pinnegar, born of pioneer stock and reared in the once small town of St.
George, Utah, has always been interested in examining the connections between
abstract ideas and concrete experience. Through her undergraduate education at
Dixie College, Southern Utah University, her teaching in Arizona and Indiana, her
graduate education at Brigham Young University and the University of Arizona,
she came to see these as the relationship of theory, experience, and practice.
Currently, as an Associate Professor of Teacher Education at Brigham Young
University, she works to create experiences with her students that develop and
investigate their learning concerning these relationships.
Anna E.Richert is an Associate Professor of Education at Mills College in Oakland,

CA and co-director of the Teachers for Tomorrow’s Schools. Her research continues
to focus on teacher learning; she is currently completing a longitudinal study on
teacher learning in the context of school change. Her co-authored book with Linda
Lambert, Karen Kent, Michelle Collay and Mary Dietz entitled Who Will Save Our
Schools: Teachers as Constructivist Leaders of Change, will appear in December
1996.
Tom Russell is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University,

Kingston, Ontario, where his teaching responsibilities include pre-service methods
courses in secondary science. He co-ordinates the Waterloo-Queen’s Science
Education Program, which provides extensive teaching experience both before
and after pre-service education courses.
238
Author Index
Aikin, W.M., 16 Fensham, P.J., 56

Alberty, H.A., 16 Fenstermacher, G.D., 27, 189, 211
Fine, M., 81
Baird, J.R., 42, 120, 125, 135 Frank, A.W., 187
Ball, D., 96, 98, 99, 114 Freire, P., 14, 16, 20
Baratz-Snowden, J., 162 Fullan, M., 75
Barnes, D., 40, 136, 145 Fuller, F., 68
Belenkey, M.B., 79
Bell, B., 49, 50, 54, 124, 133 Garland, C., 168
Berger, P., 186 Garrison, J., 186
Bird, T., 19, 90, 159 Gilbert, J., 49, 50, 54
Blakey, J., 176 Giroux, H.A., 189, 194
Bode, B.H., 16 Glickman, G., 170
Borrowman, M.L., 4 Goldhammer, R., 170
Brookfield, S., 117, 118, 123 Goodlad, J., xii, 16, 17, 20
Brown, J.S., 76, 134 Gore, J., 97, 153, 162
Browne, C., 168 Green, T., 189
Greene, M., 161
Bruner, J., 84
Griffiths, M., 20
Buchmann, M., 97
Grossman, P., 75
Bullough, R.V., 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27,
Gunstone, R.F., 133
29, 54, 196
Guyton, E., 170
Calderhead, J., 97 Habermas, J., 17
Ceci, S.J., 134 Hall, G., 50
Chin, P., 120, 121, 127 Halsall, N.D., 40
Clark, C., 114 Hargreaves, A., 8, 173
Clarke, A., 176 Hatton, E., 13, 20
Cobb, P., 133, 134 Hawkins, D., 85
Cogan, M., 170 Heckman, P., 191
Cole, A., 197 Hennessy, S., 134
Connelly, M., 117 Hoban, G., 134
Costa, A., 173 Hodson, B.L., 65
Cuban, L., 96, 115 Holland, D., 186
Hollingsworth, S., 40
Darling-Hammond, L., 75, 133 Holt, J., 37
Dewey, J., 15, 20, 63, 153, 187 Holt-Reynolds, D., 97, 196
Driver, R., 133, 134 Hunt, D., 20
Eisner, E., 20 Ireland, D., 40

Erickson, G.L., 133
Jackson, P.W., 89
Faire, J., 133 Johnston, C., 168
Farnham-Diggory, S., 54 Joyce, B., 170, 173
239
Author Index
Katz, L., 96 Posner, G., 122

Kessels, J.P.A.M., 48 Prawat, R.S., 134
Kilbourn, B., 118, 170
Klohr, P., 16 Richards, J., 114
Knowles, G., 97, 197 Richardson, V., 18, 191
Rogoff, B., 133
LaBoskey, V., 150, 151, 153, 154, 159, Russell, T.L., 42, 58, 196, 199
162 Ryle, G., 210
Lampert, M., 96, 98
Lanier, J.E., 9 Sandler, B.R., 201
Lather, P.A., 191, 201 Sarason, S., 75, 145
Lave, J., 134, 173, 210 Saxe, G.B., 134
Levinson, D.J., 13 Schön, D.A., 3, 39, 40, 44, 63, 81, 110,
Lieberman, A., 75 111, 117, 121, 122, 171, 186, 210,
Lortie, D., 22, 97, 118, 145, 146 211
Loughran, J.J., 3, 62, 63, 121, 147, 198 Scribner, S., 134
Shulman, L.S., 61, 65, 75, 82, 98, 159,
MacKinnon, A.M., 210, 211 175
May, W., 170 Smyth, J., 48
McDiarmid, W., 97 Spradley, J.P., 24
McIntyre, D., 168
McLaren, P., 188 Taylor, C., 210
McNiff, J., 40, 96
Meier, D., 74 van Manen, M., 5, 6, 19, 58, 150
Mitchell, I.J., 42, 59, 120, 125 von Glaserfield, E., 133
Munby, H., 8, 53, 135 Vygotsky, L.S., 185, 186
Murray, J., 5
Walker, J., 61
Northfield, J.R., 42, 120, 125 White, R.T., 58
Wideen, M., 124, 176
Osborne, R., 133 Wilson, S.M., 75
Wineburg, S., 96
Patton, M.Q., 136, 141 Wolf, K.P., 159
Piaget, J., 185, 187, 194 Wolfe, D., 168
Pinar, W., 18
Polanyi, M., 19, 210 Zeichner, K.M., 153
240
Subject Index
Action Research, 25, 40 Content, 133

Advisor, 164–6, 169, 170, 176 knowledge, 65
Alissa, 107 turn, 44, 196
Analogy, 120, 121 Context, 65, 66, 75, 88, 93, 102, 115, 118,
Andrea, 101 122, 123, 133, 135, 147, 151, 173,
Apprenticeship, 54, 97, 118, 134, 145, 210 187, 212, 221
Assessment, 57, 154, 223 Conversation, 81, 92
Attitude, 65, 144 Corrine, 101
Authority of experience, 39, 135 Credibility, 114
Autobiographical, 118, 164 Critical incidents, 119
Culture, 93, 193
Backtalk, 34, 42 Curriculum, 15, 84, 196, 231
Behaviour model, 54 assignment, 85
Beliefs, 17, 92, 105, 129, 184, 188, 189, hidden, 221
195, 203, 207 knowledge, 65
about learning, 127, 155, 157, 185 methods course, 127
about teaching and learning, 123 planning, 78, 126
systems, 151, 192, 231, 234 project, 77, 84, 87, 88, 90
Beth, 107 symposium, 84, 85
Cynthia, 109
Careers, 79 journal, 99, 103, 104
Carol, 89
Carole, 107, 110, 111, 114 Dan, 106, 108
Carolyn, 136 Debriefing, 66
Carrie, 150, 162 Decision-making, 97, 135
Case studies, 53 Development, 184, 196, 197
Challenge, 9, 61, 81, 98 model, 54
Change, 73, 74, 76, 92, 97, 192, 194, 195, Dilemma, 96, 97, 221, 222
206
Discourse, 67, 84, 175
Classroom, 67, 84, 193
Discover(y), 67, 103
environment, 138
ethnography, 24
experiences, 122 Education complexity of, 154
practice, 120 outcomes, 21
Coach(ing), 172, 173, 232 researchers, 134
Collaboration, 82, 86, 114 settings, 179
College of Teacher Educators, 178 theory, 145, 146
Community, 29, 73, 89, 184, 200, 203 Elementary
Complexities of teaching, 39, 114, 161 school students, 106, 110
Concept(ion), 78, 84, 119, 220, 221 science classes, 135
Concerns, 52, 200 teacher, 96, 142, 151
Confidence, 66, 114 English, 74, 83, 151, 218
Constructivism, 121, 122, 133, 134, 156, Evaluation, 160
185, 186, 188, 190, 193, 220 Experience(s), 63, 64, 67, 118, 140, 122
241
Subject Index
Feedback, 120, 154 active role in, 119, 123, 125

Feminist pedagogy, 183, 200, 203 as a teacher educator, 122
Field experience, 197 by doing, 66, 127, 128
Ford Teaching Project, 40 context, 76, 147, 201
Freedom of expression, 103 documenting own, 136
Frustration, 102 facilitator of, 154
from experience, 20, 68
Gary, 106 inhibited, 136
Generating meaning, 78 lack of, 144
Genevieve, 87, 88, 90 mathematics, 97
Gloria, 141, 143, 146 narrow understanding of, 134
Goals, 118 outcomes, 60, 214
Group work, 5, 57, 143 to teach, 41, 79, 93, 115, 122, 166, 221,
224
Hands-on investigations, 135
Life history, 19, 23
Hermeneutics, 16
Linda, 109
Heuristic, 178
Listening, 59, 109, 111, 123
Horse Problem, 105, 108, 110
for, 105, 109, 111, 230
Hurricane, 214, 215, 220
to their voices, 126
Ilana, 87, 88
Inquiry, 98, 99, 188, 197 Marginalization, 195
Instructional strategies, 112, 133 Martin, Ann, 107
Internship program, 119 Mathematics, 95, 97, 98, 99, 114, 230
Interpretive discussions, 5 Mathew, 173, 174
Iterative process, 120 Matt, 77, 79
Metacognition, 120, 137
Janan, 92 Metaphor Analysis, 23, 216
Janet journal, 101, 103 Mimesis, 211
Jigsaw activity, 57, 125 Model(ling), 62, 66, 155, 193, 198, 232
Journal, 95, 98, 99, 135, 221 teaching and learning approaches, 49,
Jill, 102 54, 138
Karen, 99 Monster Problem, 100, 101, 102
Kathy, 101 Moral and ethical
Ken, 101, 105 dilemmas, action, question, 17, 79,
Kendra, 95, 101, 105, 114 83
Tanis, 102 imperative, 77
implications, 161
King, Arthur, 186, 203 obligation, 207
Knowing/Knowledge, 76, 79, 114, 117,
210 Narratives, 115
about teaching and learning, 51
acquiring new, 75 Passionate creeds, 161
construction, 135 Pedagogical challenge, 97, 222
existing, 61, 134, 140 choices, 86, 91, 126
nature of, 234 content knowledge, 61, 65
representation of, 217 justification, 90
significance of, 49 knowledge, 58, 64, 234
Krall, Flo, 15 purpose, 62
reasoning, 63, 86, 98
Learning, 8, 49, 111, 126, 196, 219
tasks, 96
about learning, 21, 66, 232
turn, 44
about teaching, 6, 49, 58, 61, 63, 65,
66 Pedagogues, 9
242

Teaching About Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching About Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching About Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching about Teaching

Teaching about Teaching:

John Loughran and Tom Russell

The Falmer Press

© J.Loughran and T.Russell, 1997

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published in 1997

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British

ISBN 0-203-45447-2 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-76271-1 (Adobe eReader Format)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available

Jacket design by Caroline Archer

Foreword by Gary D.Fenstermacher viii

Chapter 1 An Introduction to Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy 3

Section 1: Principles and Practices Which Shape Teaching

Chapter 2 Practicing Theory and Theorizing Practice in Teacher

Chapter 3 Teaching Teachers: How I Teach IS the Message 32

Chapter 4 Teacher Education as a Process of Developing Teacher

Chapter 5 Teaching about Teaching: Principles and Practice 57

Section 2: Challenges in Teaching and Learning about Teaching 71

Chapter 6 Teaching Teachers for the Challenge of Change 73

Chapter 7 Learning to Teach Prospective Teachers to Teach

Chapter 8 Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education: Who is

Section 3: Rethinking Teacher Educators’ Roles and Practice 131

Chapter 9 Learning about Learning in the Context of a Science

Chapter 10 Teaching to Teach with Purpose and Passion: Pedagogy

Chapter 11 Advisor as Coach 164

Section 4: Conversations about Teacher Education 181

Chapter 12 Obligations to Unseen Children 183

Chapter 13 Storming through Teacher Education: Talk about

Section 5: Conclusion 227

Chapter 14 Becoming Passionate about Teacher Education 229

Notes on Contributors 236

Author Index 239

Subject Index 241

John Loughran and Tom Russell

In these times, it is much in vogue to speak of silenced voices. The reference is

reflection must always be about something in particular before we can assess it as

as I attended my first classes. As it became clearer to me what this activity called

the usual academic trappings: departments, journals, associations, ‘invisible

• student teachers’ needs and concerns in their transition from student to

As we regularly revisited different aspects of practice, we began to recognize an

engaged in our learning. To question our understanding. We’re certainly

The First Lesson

Because the Teacher Says

Notice, of course, that Dick’s response failed to take Mary’s position as an

their involvement in pre-service education to be important in shaping the purpose,

Principles and Practices Which Shape

Robert V.Bullough, Jr.

I never intended to be a teacher. I was not called to teach. Growing up my father

paddies. Like many others of my generation, I became increasingly disillusioned

in advance, and, ignoring Dewey’s profound discussion of the relationship of

in research institutions, problems I came to know well. Within universities the

Private Theories and Principles

Personal identity can be brought to self-awareness through narrative self-

Coles reminds us is ‘“I behold”, as in what we see when we go to the theatre’

The following set of principles arise from my experience and underpin my

1 Teacher identity—what beginning teachers believe about teaching and