10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Research on Diversity Competence in Teacher Education
Sigrun Soensthagen1, Ann-Cathrin Faldet2
1Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences; 2Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences
Presenting Author: Soensthagen, Sigrun;
Faldet, Ann-Cathrin
Inclusive education is considered a human right for all children, not just students with disabilities or other ‘special needs’ (Davis et al., 2020; UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD], 2016). Based on the idea of ‘a school for all’, schools have acquired an increasingly heterogeneous student group. In order to accommodate students’ right to develop their learning potential, regardless of the conditions, broad teacher competence is needed in schools, including pedagogical and special pedagogical competence (Faldet, Knudsmoen & Nes, 2017).
Ainscow, Booth and Dyson (2006) point to two different approaches to inclusion that are common in schools. One takes a broad educational perspective on policy and practice and regards diversity as a basis for inclusion processes. The purpose of this is to develop a broader understanding of the need for diversity competence in teacher training, with the intention to safeguard student diversity in a school for all. The second approach has a narrow special needs education perspective. This approach takes children with special needs or impaired functioning as its starting point, where attitudes, ideas and practice are often linked to individual or categorical perspectives, and the focus is on the individual difficulties or injuries (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006). From this individual or categorical perspective, students are given the responsibility for the school’s challenges related to inclusive education (Bachmann and Haug, 2006).
Booth and Ainscow (2001) state that the central qualities of inclusive education are the recognition of diversity, perceived belonging and the feeling of being a natural part of the community (see also CRPD, 2016; Slee, 2019). According to UNESCO (2017), inclusion is the at the core of an education system that sees student diversity as an opportunity to democratise education. A key point in UNESCO’s (2017) guide is that the school’s practice should support all students’ participation and learning, and adaptation of teaching content and working methods is a necessity in inclusive schools to ensure that students achieve the best possible learning outcomes (UNESCO, 1994). To achieve the goal of inclusive education, the European Agency (2012) believes that teachers must work in a professional community.
Norwegian teacher education has recently gone through a reform from a four-year bachelor’s degree to a five-year master’s programme (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research [NMER], 2017), placing greater emphasis on research by including the requirement of an independent research-based master’s thesis to qualify as a teacher. Currently, many European teacher education programmes require or offer training in research in teacher education (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019). Both Norwegian and international educational researchers emphasise that there is a need for more research on teacher education, especially on student teachers (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Strand & Kvernbekk, 2009).
The purpose of this study is to discuss the importance of diversity competence in teacher education, as teachers must follow the principle of inclusion both in their basic professional education and in their continuing professional practice (UNESCO, 2017). The research question is as follows: How do student teachers experience that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant for meeting a diverse group of pupils?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAlthough it is common to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, new digital methods offer increased opportunities to combine quantitative logic and qualitative methods in digital research (Blaikie & Priest, 2019; Whiting & Pritchard, 2020). This has led to the ability to obtain both qualitative and quantitative empirical data through a digital web form from students in teacher education. The web form has been developed in connection with the national evaluation system and consists of a standardised form with questions that can be adapted for various subjects. We also made some adjustments to the web form to illuminate this study’s research questions.
In Norway, pedagogy is a compulsory subject in teacher education, but it is optional to choose a specialisation in professionally oriented pedagogy. The informants in this study have chosen this specialisation in professionally oriented pedagogy in their third academic year. The data were collected from four student cohorts in the period 2019–2022. In total, 134 students completed the web form.
The challenge with this type of anonymous data collection it that it does not provide the opportunity to go back to the informants for additional information. Thus, to obtain a richer database, we elected to conduct focus group interviews with selected students on this subject. A focus group interview consists of a group of individuals who have been chosen because they have something to offer to the research topic. It is a collective, relational and dynamic method where the researcher looks at statements, dialogue and interaction between the participants. It is a qualitative method where several people discuss a topic with a researcher, who leads and moderates the discussion (Barbour & Flick, 2007). Data are created and negotiated through interaction between the participants, which stimulates ideas, thoughts and opinions.
The data were analysed using an inductive analytical approach, which is common in thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and finding patterns that are significant in the collected data, guided by the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2019).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings indicate that all 134 students who responded to the evaluation expressed that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant to the ability to work with a diverse group of students. Many students states that the subject should be compulsory for all students in teacher education: ‘It’s very strange that this subject isn’t compulsory for teacher training’; ‘I feel that everyone should have this subject’. Others referred to its relevance: ‘This subject is hugely relevant because it is about the diversity of pupils we will meet as teachers’; ‘I feel that everything we have learned in this subject is very relevant’.
When we asked the students the extent to which they are able to use knowledge from the subject in their practical training, they all answered that they could link it together: ‘I have connected much of the theory with experiences and situations that have occurred in practice, and that I can experience later’; ‘I think much of this can be used and continued in practice. Especially when it comes to the teaching plan and how to adapt for an inclusive learning environment’. Another confirms this further: ‘This is a very relevant subject, with a practical angle’.
Regarding the question of the extent to which students can link their experiences from practice to the teaching and learning outcomes, there was some disagreement among the students. Some expressed that they should be linked even more closely: ‘I think we have too little insight into practical teaching’; ‘We get little experience with special education and adapted training in practice’. However, some students expressed the opposite: ‘I can relate much of what I have seen in practice to things we have learned about in this subject’. These findings indicate that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant for meeting a diverse group of pupils.
ReferencesAinscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge.
Bachmann, K. & Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpasset opplæring. Høgskulen i Volda.
Barbour, R. & Flick, U. (2007). Doing focus groups. SAGE.
Blaikie, & Priest, J. (2019). Designing Social Research. Polity Press.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE), England.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
Davis, J., Gillet-Swan, J., Graham, L. & Malaquias, C. (2020). Inclusive education as a human right. I L. Graham (Red.) Inclusive education for the 21st century. Theory, Policy and Practice (s. 79–99). Routledge.
European Agency. (2012). Teacher education for inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.
Faldet, A. C., Knudsmoen, H. & Nes, K. (2017). Spesialpedagogikkens plass i lærerutdanningen–med Hamar som eksempel. Oplandske Bokforlag
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 184 –205
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research [NMER]. 2017. Teacher Education 2025: National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d0c1da83bce94e2da21d5f631bbae817/kd_teacher-education-2025_uu.pdf
Shulman. L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(9), 909–922.
Strand, T. & Kvernbekk, T. (2009). Assessing the quality of educational research: The case of Norway. In Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education (261-277). Brill.
Tomlinson. S. (2012). The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 267–286.
UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. General comment No. 4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427.locale=en
UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. https://www.european-agency.org/news/guide-ensuring-inclusion-and-equity-education
Whiting, R. & Pritchard, K. (2020). Collecting Qualitative Data Using Digital Methods. SAGE
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Neurocognitive Understanding of Learning: A Role of Educational Neuroscience in Teacher Training.
Yasin Arslan, Rebecca Gordon, Andy Tolmie
Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL IOE - Faculty of Education and Society, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Arslan, Yasin
Teachers in the UK must complete a degree and an Initial Teacher Training (ITT) programme to gain Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Broadly, these programmes train teachers to understand the curriculum, plan, structure and teach lessons, use assessment, and manage behaviour. In addition to teachers' existing knowledge and teaching skills, there is increasing evidence that an understanding of the brain systems and processes involved in learning can assist and influence teachers in developing optimal teaching practices (Brick et al., 2021; Howard-Jones et al., 2020). This is particularly pertinent for those who work with children with Special Educational Needs to better understand their special needs (Thomas et al., 2019). However, there is no formal requirement for teachers to train in this area, and ITT programmes provide very little content related to this (Privitera, 2021; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2017).
Educational neuroscience is the formal field of research investigating the interplay between neurocognitive systems and processes that underpin learning and educational practice (Feiler & Stabio, 2018). There is evidence that a better understanding of this interplay can help teachers improve teaching practice (Schwartz et al., 2019). If included as part of the curriculum for ITT programmes, it could provide teachers with the knowledge they require to understand the neurocognitive systems and processes involved in learning. This in turn could inform their teaching practice for typically developing children, but also for SEN groups (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2017). This is important because there is evidence that this current knowledge gap might be leaving teachers less aware of ways they can engage with and understand the research evidence to optimise their teaching. This can result in the application of unscientific teaching methods to their classrooms (Tardif et al., 2015).
Additionally, this lack of understanding might leave them susceptible to belief in ‘neuromyths’ (Arslan et al., 2022; Privitera, 2021). Neuromyths are misconceptions and misunderstandings about the brain and are found to be prevalent and persistent in various educational settings (Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021), including SEN contexts (Gini et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2017). In order to mitigate this, teachers require specific skills to evaluate and digest research evidence to be able to critically evaluate it. Factors influencing teachers’ understanding of educational neuroscience have been examined, but the results are mixed for these factors. This is because studies in the literature generally examine neuromyth and neuro-fact scores separately.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe current research used a novel approach to systematically examine to what degree teachers do and do not understand evidence from educational neuroscience. To achieve this, eighteen neuromyths and eighteen neuro-facts were used, and teachers were asked to rate the likelihood that they were true using a 5-point Likert scale. For each participant, the neuro-fact scores were subtracted from the neuromyths scores, with more positive scores indicating greater differentiation, thus, a greater level of understanding of educational neuroscience. Years of teaching experience and exposure to training in educational neuroscience were measured as the predictors of performance on the questionnaire. There were two main hypotheses: 1) that years of teaching experience would be negatively correlated with teachers’ understanding of educational neuroscience; 2) that exposure to formal educational neuroscience training would be linked to better understating of educational neuroscience.
Understanding of educational neuroscience did not correlate with years of teaching experience (r = 0.04, N = 368, p = 0.41). In terms of exposure to educational neuroscience training, teachers who had received formal educational neuroscience training (e.g., university degree), showed better understanding of educational neuroscience compared to those who had received CPD training, read blogs and magazines or received no exposure at all. This finding highlights the benefit of formal educational neuroscience training for teachers in better enabling them to judge the veracity of statements related to the learning sciences. This finding also indicates that informal exposure to educational neuroscience training (e.g., via CPD or from blogs) fails to increase teachers’ ability to discriminate neuromyths from neuro-facts. One likely explanation is that such materials do not require evaluation and review by experts in specific fields (i.e., ‘peer-review’ Lee et al., 2013).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings from this study highlight the potential contribution of educational neuroscience training to teachers’ level of understanding evidence, especially SEN-related evidence from educational neuroscience. However, such training should be structured and delivered in a formal fashion, for instance, through ITT programmes.
ReferencesArslan, Y., Gordon, R., & Tolmie, A. (2022). Teachers’ understanding of neuromyths: A role for educational neuroscience in teacher training. Impact, 16. https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/teachers-understanding-of-neuromyths-a-role-for-educational-neuroscience-in-teacher-training/
Brick, K., Cooper, J. L., Mason, L., Faeflen, S., Monmia, J., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2021). Tiered Neuroscience and Mental Health Professional Development in Liberia Improves Teacher Self-Efficacy, Self-Responsibility, and Motivation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 664730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.664730
Feiler, J. B., & Stabio, M. E. (2018). Three pillars of educational neuroscience from three decades of literature. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 13, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2018.11.001
Gini, S., Knowland, V., Thomas, M. S. C., & Van Herwegen, J. (2021). Neuromyths About Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Misconceptions by Educators and the General Public. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12303
Howard-Jones, P., Jay, T., & Galeano, L. (2020). Professional Development on the Science of Learning and teachers’ Performative Thinking—A Pilot Study. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12254
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314
Papadatou-Pastou, M., Haliou, E., & Vlachos, F. (2017). Brain Knowledge and the Prevalence of Neuromyths among Prospective Teachers in Greece. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00804
Privitera, A. J. (2021). A scoping review of research on neuroscience training for teachers. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 24, 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100157
Schwartz, M. S., Hinesley, V., Chang, Z., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2019). Neuroscience knowledge enriches pedagogical choices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.002
Tardif, E., Doudin, P.-A., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths Among Teachers and Student Teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12070
Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2019). Annual Research Review: Educational neuroscience: progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12973
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2017). Delphi Panel on Mind, Brain, and Education 2016 RESULTS. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14259.22560
Torrijos-Muelas, M., González-Víllora, S., & Bodoque-Osma, A. R. (2021). The Persistence of Neuromyths in the Educational Settings: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 591923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591923
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
The Impact of Cooperative Learning on Social Cohesion
Maria Teresa Segués Morral, Gemma Riera Romero, Carles Rodrigo Gabernet
University of Vic, Spain
Presenting Author: Segués Morral, Maria Teresa;
Riera Romero, Gemma
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, is a global action plan to end poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change. When it was adopted in September 2015, the international community recognised that the development of education around the world would be key to the success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Education is an indispensable tool for realising the aspirations contained in the 2030 Agenda not only because it is a goal in itself (SDG 4: Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning) but also because it contributes to other SDGs. Developing strategies to promote inclusive education thus becomes one of the challenges of pedagogical innovation today. In this research we ask whether cooperative learning is a valid pedagogical approach for the development of attitudes and skills aligned with inclusion.
The Research Group on Attention to Diversity (UVic-UCC) investigates the impact of cooperative learning on the processes of cohesion, equity, and inclusion. The group has developed the Cooperate to Learn, Learn to Cooperate (CLLC) programme to implement cooperative learning in schools (Pujolàs, 2008; Pujolàs et al. 2013; Riera, 2010; Soldevila, 2015; Riera et al. 2022). Its formulation was influenced by the contributions of Johnson and Johnson (2016) on the instructional use of cooperative teams, the cooperative instructional strategies proposed by Kagan and Kagan (2009) and the teaching methods devised by Slavin (2012, 2015). Based on these, Pujolàs describes cooperative learning as the didactic use of small heterogeneous teams of students within a classroom, through activities structured in such a way as to ensure the equal participation of all team members and simultaneous interactions between them, in order to learn -each to the extent of their possibilities- the curricular content and to learn as a team (Pujolàs, 2008). A similar line of integration of the different components of cooperative learning has been proposed by Jacobs and Renaldya (2019).
The Programme proposes three areas of intervention:
Area A. Actions linked to the cohesion of the class group in general and of the teams in particular.
Area B. Actions characterised by using teams as a resource for pupils to learn by cooperating.
Area C. Actions aimed at helping pupils learn to cooperate in teams.
This paper focuses only on Area A. Five dimensions are identified:
D1. Consensus in joint decision-making (Gilles, 2006; Le, Janssen and Wubbels, 2018).
D2. Mutual knowledge and positive friendship between students (Buljubašić Kuzmanović, 2009; Dzemic and Kristiansen 2019).
D3. Inclusion of students who face more barriers to participation and learning (Pujolàs, et al., 2013; Torrego and Monge, 2019; Muntaner and Forteza, 2021).
D4. Awareness of teamwork (Angus and Hughes, 2017; Martinelli and Raykov, 2021).
D5. Promotion of the values underpinning cooperation (Coll et al., 1999; Lafont et al, 2017).
The resources for developing these are the dynamics of cohesion that make it possible to promote a vision of teamwork as an opportunity for the cognitive, social, and affective development of all students. These aims are in line with Slavin's (1995) model where cohesion feeds back into the team's objectives and with Ashman and Gillies' (2013) proposal on the need to teach social skills to students so that they can take advantage of cooperative learning situations.
To answer our research question, we set out 3 objectives:
1. To find out how schools evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on group cohesion.
2. To identify how members of the educational community define group cohesion.
3. To analyse teachers' perceptions of the development of cohesion dynamics and their impact on cohesion.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study opts for a methodological approach of a qualitative nature situated in the interpretive paradigm (Erickson, 1982). This paradigm encompasses a set of approaches to observational research that focuses on the construction of meanings and the social life of human beings, recognising the need for a detailed understanding of the specific practices under investigation.
For the research presented here, we have selected through a convenience sampling, 6 schools out of a sample of 55. The selected schools teach pre-school, primary and/or secondary education in different regions of Spain (Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Galicia, and Basque Country). All of them have gone through the three-year training process offered by the Programme and have consolidated it in their schools. The 6 schools are part of the Kelidon Cooperative Learning Network.
In accordance with the research objectives, four data collection instruments were used:
1. Semi-structured interview with the school's Cooperative Learning Committee. 1 committee per school (composed of 4-5 teachers of different grades).
2. Focus group of teachers. A group of 4-5 teachers from different educational stages who apply CL in their classes per school.
3. Focus group of pupils with at least 2 years of experience in CL. 3-4 focus groups per school consisting of 4-5 pupils from different grades are recorded.
4. Semi-structured interviews with 5 families of different class groups per school.
Each school, through the management team, proposes the participants according to the objectives of the research. They were asked to be as heterogeneous and representative of the school's diversity as possible. Informed consent is obtained from all participants.
Data are audio-recorded, and data are collected during interviews and focus groups for later transcription and analysis. In accordance with the purposes of the study, a thematic analysis of the transcribed data is conducted. Categories are identified based on the relative meaning of each transcribed text fragment (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Willig, 2013). Coding is collaborative between researchers on 100% of the data, with doubtful cases resolved by agreement based on the reliability of the analysis (Yin, 2009). Final protocols are consulted whenever necessary to guide the data analysis work. The triangulation of techniques and informants, increases the validity and quality of the analyses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConcerning Objective 1 To find out how schools evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on group cohesion, the results indicate that it is high or very high in all five dimensions. The lowest score corresponds to D3: Inclusion of pupils who encounter more barriers to participation and learning.
Concerning Objective 2 To identify how members of the educational community define group cohesion, the analyses aim to identify the indicators that members of the educational community use to define cohesion. The results can be related to each dimension:
D1
- Interpersonal communication for decision-making
- Valuing and respecting the contributions of others
- Understanding that knowledge is enriched by the input of others
- Perception that organising as a team is important for success
D2
- Development of empathy
- Improvement of coexistence
- Development of self-concept, self-esteem and feeling of self-efficacy and competence
D3
- Acceptance of individual differences
- Preparing pupils to work together
D4
- Positive expectations towards learning
- Increasing intrinsic motivation
D5
- Team awareness
- Development of self judgement based on others
- Positive appraisal of help
- Conflict resolution and emotional regulation
- Listening skills
Concerning Objective 3 To analyse teachers' perceptions of the development of cohesive dynamics and their impact on cohesion The results indicate that:
- They require sharing goals with students
- They help teachers to get to know pupils.
- Improve mutual relationships
- They require coordination of teachers in their planning.
- They lead to reflection on teaching performance before, during and after implementation.
The results show that CL is an effective pedagogical approach to promote cohesion, inclusion and equity in schools. Informants point to key elements of the programme, as well as some challenges. The research reinforces the need for evidence of inclusion-focused programmes that contribute to the development of inclusive and quality education. Rethinking educational innovation in this direction is essential to contribute to the SDGs.
ReferencesAngus, R.L., & Hughes, T. (2017). School Climate, Connectedness and Academic Achievement: Examining Positive Impacts from High School Mentoring Services.
Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 4, 69-84
Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (2013). Collaborative learning for diverse learners. In C. E. HmeloSilver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. Donnell (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 297–313). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group
Buljubašić Kuzmanović, V. (2009). “Kooperativno Učenje kao Indikator Kvalitete Odgoja i Obrazovanja [Cooperative Learning as an Indicator of Educational Quality].” Life and School: Journal for the Theory and Practice of Education 55 (21). 50–57.
Dzemidzic Kristiansen, S., Burner, S., & Johnsen, B. H. (2019). Face-to-face Promotive Interaction Leading to Successful Cooperative Learning: A Review Study. Cogent Education, 6(1)
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271–287.
Jacobs, G. M., & Renaldya, W. A. (2019). Student centered cooperative learning: Linking concepts in education to promote student learning. Springer Nature.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2016). Cooperative learning and teaching citizenship in democracies. International Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 162–177.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. Kagan Publishing
Lafont, L., Rivière, C., Darnis, F., & Legrain, P. (2017). How to structure group work? Conditions of efficacy and methodological considerations in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 327–338.
Le, H., Janssen, J. & Wubbels, T. (2018) Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal Education, 48 (1), 103-122.
Martinelli, V., & Raykov, M. (2021). Evaluation of the Georgia Elementary School Climate Survey for elementary school children. International Journal of Emotional Education, 13(2), 59-79.
Pujolàs, P. (2008). 9 ideas clave. Aprendizaje cooperativo. Graó.
Riera, G., Segués, M.T., & Lago, J. R. (2022). Cooperative Learning as an Instrument for Inclusion: Theoretical References and Context. In J. Collet, M. Naranjo, & J. Soldevila-Pérez (Eds.) Global Inclusive Education. Lessons from Spain. (pp. 33-46). Springer.
Slavin, R. E. (2012). Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In S. Graham (Ed.), APA handbook of educational psychology (pp. 1–30). American Psychological Association.
Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools, education 3–13. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 5–14.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Deliberative Communication in Negotiations of doing Education – A study of Educators in Teacher Education for Early Childhood Education
Emelie Nilsson
Malmö University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Nilsson, Emelie
This paper concerns a doctoral project focusing on educators’ cultural conceptions of the student within teacher education for early childhood education (TEECE) at a Swedish University. As a part of the project this specific paper explores how educators do education through negotiations in the processes of planning, discussing and constructing the different parts of the TEECE, focusing on the role of deliberative communication in these processes. As an educator in higher education (HE) in general and professional (teacher) education in particular, one can speak of limitations for the possibilities of educating autonomous future professionals, when instrumental rationality is highly valued (Ball & Olmedo, 2013; Bornemark, 2018; Biesta, 2011). HE and teacher education are commonly considered to be limited by a neoliberal governance which limits educators’ possibilities for educating future professional teachers (Lenz Taguchi, 2005; Levinsson, Norlund & Beach, 2020). The neoliberal governance is criticized and problematized, not least in relation to give the students space to be and act (Ibid.). Based on this, educators have a complex role to navigate this landscape of different interests of what HE is and could be.
Habermas theory of democracy (Habermas, 1996a; 1996b) is an important departure point for the project. Based on this theory, the necessity of communicative action, deliberative democracy and the concepts of private and public good (Dyrdal Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2020) is put in the foreground. Communicative action is expressed as a necessity to underline the subjects’ part in a democratic society (Carlheden, 2002) and one can say that this is a theory in which the private and public sphere is linked together. It means that the private autonomy and the public are each other's prerequisite (Ibid.). Based on this theoretical perspective, the paper focuses on the educators in the process of planning, discussing and constructing the TEECE, and discusses what good education is and could be in HE and TEECE. Englund (2008) and Dyrdal Solbrekke & Surgue (2020) argue for the need of HE to be that public spere where deliberation is an aim and where public debate is desirable.
In this paper, autonomy is an important concept when understanding educators’ role as subjects at universities. One fundamental aspect for understanding how education is done and discussed among the informants/educators is that “[f]reedom is rather something that needs to be realized in a social community” [my translation] (Carlheden, 2002:50). Deliberative communication (Englund, 2006) is recognizable for its focus on for pluralistic communication including “[…] listening, deliberating, seeking arguments and valuing, coupled to a collective and cooperative endeavor to find values and norms which everyone can accept, at the same time as pluralism is acknowledged.” (Englund, 2008:103). This concept makes it possible to explore how educators handle their autonomy when doing education and if there is room for deliberative communication. The concept also underlines educators’ autonomy in the organization of TEECE.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA five-month long critical ethnography (CE) was completed at one university hosting TEECE. The ethnographic fieldwork was carried out in various collegial contexts among a group of educators and their everyday, formal and informal work. The fieldwork includes observations of collegial settings, for example, teacher team meetings related to courses or the program as a whole; conversations with educators, both formal and informal; group discussions; documents and policy documents such as education plans, course plans and study guides; websites, where the TEECE programs are presented at different universities. Which situations and settings to focus on in the observations was quite quickly identified due to the researcher’s experience from the field. In parallel with observations and informal conversations, conversations of a more formal nature were carried out. Primarily, field notes were used to collect empirical material, but it also includes recordings from the formal conversations and written reflections submitted to me based on group discussions among the informants.
In the field of CE there are different traditions and ideas on what CE entails (se for example Tomas, 1993;Carspecken,1996;Willis & Tondman, 2000; Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021;Madison, 2011). However, one common idea is that CE enables the researcher to study power as an obvious part of all social relations. The ambition is to undress this power and power imbalance in order to question the power relations, contribute to change and adopt an emancipatory interest of knowledge (Habermas, 1996a; Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008). The aim for me as a researcher in this project was to take part in the environment and the language at the field of study. The informants and their interactions were of interest as well as the rhythm of the field itself. Observation of the field can be seen as a prerequisite in ethnographically oriented studies (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019;Coffey, 2018; Crang & Cook, 2007) where the culture is in focus and CE enables the researcher to take an active part in the field and to question what can be perceived as culturally accepted norms. In parallel to this active role, the informants were continuously invited to contribute to the creation of the empirical material. The material was not collected but rather created together with and in interaction with the field (Ibid.). The researcher's role as well as the informants, has thus been important in the construction of the collected material (Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021; Tomas, 1993; Willis & Trondman, 2000).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt the time of writing this abstract the analysis is not fully completed but is intended to be, by the time for the presentation. However, preliminary results shows that educators are balancing their right for good working conditions with their pedagogical intentions, in favor of their own needs and working conditions. The educators negotiate what kind of requirements and perspective they can, should and wish to have in relation to for example policy documents and different kinds of IT-systems. This is probably the most common context when deliberative communication appears. Other aspects that are discussed, but not at all in that extent, are pedagogical visions, intentions and or strategies. The results also shows that different circumstances condition what kind of communication becomes possible. Deliberative communication is not always possible due to time where for example, deadlines and bureaucratic praxis are in the foreground. For example, the need to be careful with one's own time and one's own energy is very prominent and frequently used. And it is something that they argue from when they express limitations in relation to time. On a general level, the results show how educators’ room for action and their possibilities for deliberative communication, are two main factors that condition how educators do education and how they negotiate the education they are working with. The results will contribute a perspective on how and in what way educators’ autonomy and room for action appears in their doing of education and when navigating what HE is and could be.
ReferencesAlvesson, Mats & Sköldberg, Kaj (2008). Tolkning och reflektion: vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod (2:a uppl.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Ball, Stephen J & Olmedo, Antonio (2013) Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities, Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 85-96.
Beach, Dennis, & Vigo-Arrazola, Maria Begoña (2021). Critical Ethnographies of Education and for Social and Educational Transformation: A Meta-Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(6), 677–688.
Biesta, Gert (2011). God utbildning i mätningens tidevarv. (1. uppl.) Stockholm: Liber.
Bornemark, Jonna (2018). Det omätbaras renässans: en uppgörelse med pedanternas världsherravälde. Första upplagan Stockholm: Volante.
Carlheden, Mikael (2002) Fostran till frihet - Skolans demokratiska värdegrund ur ett habermasianskt perspektiv. Utbildning & Demokrati 2002, 11(3), 43-72.
Carspecken, Francis Phil (1996) Critical Ethnography in Educational Research, A Theoretical and Practical Guide, London: Routledge.
Dyrdal Solbrekke, Tone & Sugrue, Ciaran (2020) Leading higher education as and for public good: Rekindling education as praxis. London: Routledge.
Englund, Tomas (2006) Deliberative communication: a pragmatist proposal, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520.
Englund, Thomas (2008) The university as an encounter for deliberative communication, Creating cultural citizenship and professional responsibility. Utbildning & Demokrati 2008, 17(2), 97–114
Habermas, Jürgen (1996a). Kommunikativt handlande: texter om språk, rationalitet och samhälle. (2. uppl.) Göteborg: Daidalos.
Habermas, Jürgen (1996b). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. London: Polity
Levinsson Magnus, Norlund Anita & Beach Dennis (2020) Teacher Educators in Neoliberal Times: A Phenomenological Self-Study. Phenomenology & Practice, 14(1), 7-23.
Madison, D. Soyini (2011). Critical ethnography, method, ethics, and performance. SAGE
Taguchi, Hillevi Lenz (2005). Getting personal: how early childhood teacher education troubles students' and teacher educators' identities regarding subjectivity and feminism. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(3), 244-255.
Thomas, Jim (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.
|
