You are here:

Approximations in English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice
ARTICLE

, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States ; , New York University, United States ; , University of Virginia, United States

TATE Volume 81, Number 1, ISSN 0742-051X Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Recent research highlights the importance of providing teacher candidates with opportunities to approximate practice. Less attention focuses on tools teacher educators use within and surrounding approximations to focus candidates’ attention on features of practice. This multi-case study investigates how three teacher educators use different approximations in ways that strategically reduce the complexity of learning to teach and scaffold the development of practice. Data indicate teacher educators capitalized on four tools that scaffolded and shaped approximations into spaces for co-constructing shared understandings of practice. These tools include: instructional activities, representations of practice, planning templates, and specified texts and instructional goals.

Citation

Schutz, K.M., Danielson, K.A. & Cohen, J. (2019). Approximations in English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 81(1), 100-111. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 25, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies on March 28, 2019. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.004

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alston, C.L., Danielson, K.A., Dutro, E., & Cartun, A. (2018). Does a discussion by any other name sound the same?: Teaching discussion in three ELA methods courses. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), pp. 225-238.
  2. Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F.M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), pp. 497-511.
  3. Barker, L.M. (2016). Invoking Viola Spolin: Improvisational theater, side-coaching, and leading discussion. English Journal, 105(5), pp. 23-28.
  4. Benedict-Chambers, A. (2016). Using tools to promote novice teacher noticing of science teaching practices in post-rehearsal discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, pp. 28-44.
  5. Brinton, D., & Holten, C. (1997). Into, through, and beyond: A framework to develop content- based material. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), pp. 10-17.
  6. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), pp. 141-178.
  7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), pp. 46-53.
  8. Davis, E.A. (2018). Practice-based elementary science teacher education. Opportunities to learn in teacher education programs Santiago: Catholic University Editions.
  9. Davis, E.A., Kloser, M., Wells, A., Windschitl, M., Carlson, J., & Marino, J.C. (2017). Teaching the practice of leading sense-making discussions in science: Science teacher educators using rehearsals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), pp. 275-293.
  10. Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction, pp. 205-242. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
  11. Ericsson, K.A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. The pursuit of excellence in education, pp. 21-55. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  12. Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., & Lord, S. (2015). Investigating the potential of guided practice with an enactment tool for supporting adaptive performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), pp. 461-497.
  13. Ghousseini, H., & Herbst, P. (2016). Pedagogies of practice and opportunities to learn about classroom mathematics discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(1), pp. 79-103.
  14. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. The Teachers College Record, 111(9), pp. 2055-2100.
  15. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), pp. 184-205.
  16. Janssen, F., Grossman, P., & Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and recomposition in practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, pp. 137-146.
  17. Kavanagh, S.S., Monte-Sano, C., Reisman, A., Fogo, B., Cipparone, P., & Jay, L. (2017). Approximating discussions in history: Investigating the pedagogical dilemmas that arise within approximations of discussion facilitation. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
  18. Kazemi, E., Lampert, M., & Franke, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teacher's ability to enact ambitious instruction. Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia Palmerston North, NZ: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
  19. Kraft, M.A., & Papay, J.P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), pp. 476-500.
  20. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. Instructional explanations in the disciplines, pp. 129-141. Boston, MA: Springer.
  21. Lampert, M., Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A., Beasley, H., (2013). Keeping it complex. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), pp. 226-243.
  22. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers' and teacher educators' learning in and for practice. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), pp. 491-509.
  23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guided to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  25. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, pp. 261-290.
  27. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), pp. 117-175.
  28. Schutz, K.M., & Danielson, K.A. (2016). December). What do teacher educators do and why do they do it?. Presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN.
  29. Schutz, K.M., Grossman, P., & Shaughnessy, M. (2018). Approximations of practice in teacher education. Teaching core practices in teacher education Boston, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
  30. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References