10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Dealing with Sensemaking in the Classroom. Theory and Practicalities of History Teaching
Laura Elena Capita1, Carol Capita2
1Unit of Research in Education, Romania; 2University of Bucharest
Presenting Author: Capita, Laura Elena
The current presentation is following an initial research phase in which the perceptions of two groups of History teachers (experienced versus teachers in induction phase) concerning sense making (SM) in their activity was analysed. The topic of SM is relevant for many countries (Fitzgerald, M. S., Palincsar, A. S., 2019; Sakki, I., Pirttilä-Backman A.-M., 2019), considering the debate over the relation between contents and skills. Both commonalities and differences between the two groups of teachers were identified. One of the common points was that SM is important when designing teaching activities focused on the student learning. The topic is of interest in the Romanian setting also because the National Curriculum is supporting classroom applications of its provisions by promoting a new format for designing learning activities for students. The format is focused on identifying the steps taken by students when training for the development of the competences formulated in the National Curriculum. Following the previous research, teachers were asked to design learning activities that are relevant for the development of SM (e.g., explaining technical terms, learning a procedure or technique).
Research question
The focus of our research is the degree to which sensemaking is part of Romanian teachers’ rationale when reflecting on their own teaching practice. That is, if and how sensemaking – as a concept – becomes a tool for organising students’ learning experiences (in terms of selecting relevant historical content, teaching approaches, and assessment instruments). The second research question was to try to identify whether sensemaking in the teachers’ practice is dealt with in isolation or is linked with other concepts that act as a criterion for the selection of contents and teaching approaches. This approach follows the analysis proposed by Ketelaar and colleagues when analysing teacher professional experiences in relation to ownership, sensemaking, and agency (Ketelaar et alii, 2014).
Theoretical background
The first theoretical pillar is Shulman’s analysis of the various types of knowledge that are part of the teachers’ qualification (1986, 1987). The model was upgraded over time to include elements related to SM (e.g., as in Van Boxtel & Van Drie, 2008). The increase in the amount and diversity of knowledge that students, and teachers, have to cope with is among the significant factors that influence teaching. Moreover, teaching is always situated. Material conditions, cultural patterns, educational ethos, the way in which a subject is expected to be taught, all these have an influence on the way in which the teacher reflects on his/her classroom practice.
The second theoretical pillar is Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005: 409) and the process of making a discipline meaningful ‘sense-making’. Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Viewed as a significant process of organizing knowledge, SM becomes crucial in History teaching.
More than creating representations and ordering them in an explanatory sequence, sensemaking implies also that it enables the creation of links between pieces of information, and that these connections inform future action (to anticipate and act effectively).
The problem seems to be both practical and theoretical – to what degree competences (which are aimed much more at educational results that transcend individual school subjects) influence subject-related elements, such as understanding the processes of enquiry and historical concepts and whether this is more meaningful as parts (nodes) in a network of concepts or learned in isolation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research is based mainly on qualitative instruments (learning activities projects, students’ learning products, interviews). Given the relatively small number of participating teachers (11), a statistical approach was considered to be less than relevant. However, statistical data was used when analysing students’ learning products. Documentary research included the analysis of the National Curriculum, and the textbooks used by teachers participating in the research.
Data was collected from a number of teachers (experienced and in the induction phase) concerning their methods in designing learning activities, and the way in which they reflect on the efficiency of the proposed activities. The data include the analysis of the proposed learning activities (designed for 20-30 minutes of classroom teaching), the analysis of the results of the students’ activity, individual interviews with the teachers to explore the way in which they reflect on the experience and how they evaluate if the proposed activities have attained their intended outcome. For each category of information, a protocol of procedure was developed (including checklist for the design of the learning activities; quality criteria for students’ learning products; the transcript, coding, and analysis of the interviews with the teachers). The data was analysed in accordance with the two groups of teachers, and commonalities and differences were identified. The results were compared with international data available, and with the theoretical models developed over time concerning SM (e.g., from Van Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008 to Ketelaar et alii, 2014).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTeachers seemed interested in the use of sensemaking as a tool for organising learning experiences for their students. Sensemaking is also considered to be useful when selecting primary sources, using digital media, and when establishing links with the present, but also when combining different categories of knowledge during their teaching. In fact, the latter (sensemaking as a designing instrument) seems to be in the forefront of teachers’ considerations concerning the concept. We consider that this situation is also the result of the teachers balancing their beliefs about History as a field of knowledge and History as a school subject. Clear statements about their beliefs are in the background. Another interesting spin-off is that SM in isolation seems to loose its epistemic value. Interviews seem to indicate that teachers – at least History teachers – are more attuned to another important concept, that of powerful knowledge. One of the conclusions is that instead of focusing on individual concepts, teachers view their epistemic position as a network of concepts that organize their practice at epistemic level.
ReferencesFitzgerald, M. S., Palincsar, A. S. (2019). Teaching Practicies That Support Student Sensemaking Across Grades and Disciplines: A conceptual review. Review of Research in Education, 43(1)
Feucht, F. C., Brownlee, J. L. & Schraw, G. (2017). Moving Beyond Reflection: Reflexivity and Epistemic Cognition in Teaching and Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 52 (4), 234-241
Gericke, N., Hudson, B., Olin-Scheller, C. & Stolare, M. (2018). Powerful knowledge, transformations, and the need for empirical studies across school subjects. London Review of Education, 16(3), 428–444
Ketelaar, E., Koopman, M., Den Brok, P. J., Beijaard, D. & Boshuizen, P. A. (2014). Teachers’ learning experiences in relation to their ownership, sense-making and agency. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20(3), 314-337
Klein, G., Moon, B. & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making Sense of Sensemaking 1: Alternative Perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73. IEEE. 21. 70 - 73. 10.1109/MIS.2006.75
Sakki, I., Pirttilä-Backman A.-M. (2019). Aims in teaching history and their epistemic correlates: a study of history teachers in ten countries. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(1), 65-85
Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. In Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21
Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical Reasoning: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Students’ Reasoning about the Past. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 87–110.
van de Oudeweetering, K., Voogt, J. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first century competences: exploring dimensions for new curricula. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 116-133,
Vansledright, B. A., Hauver James, J. (2015). Constructing ideas about history in the classroom: The influence of competing forces on pedagogical decision making. Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constraints, 263-298
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Researching in Uncertain Times: Exploring the Potential of Actor-Network Theory in Teacher Education Research
Ruth Unsworth
York St John university, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Unsworth, Ruth
This theoretical paper explores the potential of actor-network theory and its later form as [NET] (in Latour's AIME project) in teacher education research. The political, environmental and economic uncertainty of our current time has implications for teacher education that are yet to be fully grasped. Perhaps as an effort to harness teacher education in the service of social stability, many national governments increasingly seek to define and standardise the work of teacher educators — their professionalism, knowledge, practices, behaviours and beliefs— through policy. These attempts are often challenged by research which offers a more holistic, dynamic and contextually divergent view of (teacher) education, inviting us to view the work of teachers and teacher educators as necessarily uncertain (Stronach et al., 2002), rooted in dynamism and difference through its relational formation within the cultures, societies and physical worlds of different collectives (Braun et al., 2011; Nespor 1994). Moreover, against a backdrop of normative universality effected by political globalisation rooted in capitalist ideals, an argument has been made for research contributing to negative universality based in social antagonism (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022): for researching teacher education from the perspective of the (uncertain, fluid) spaces outside of strong normative (policy and social) discourses (Rüsselbæk Hansen et al., forthcoming).
Building on the latter discourse, this paper sets out from the perspective of teacher education as a social construct and education as a discernible, yet fluid, mode of existence (Tummons, 2021). From this perspective is argued the value of ANT in its AIME form [NET] in teacher education research, as a way of coming to know education through description of all actors- normative and divergent- in its ongoing establishment, and the networked activity that holds them temporarily together. [NET] and AIME are explored in terms of the ontological and epistemological tenets by which they are characterised and the potential (and challenges) of these to the researcher of teacher education. The concept of reality as existing in a state of continuous performance and establishment offers researchers in uncertain times an approach that can encompass teacher education as a temporarily stabilised construct, explorable in terms of dynamism, fluidity and situationally dominant/ silenced/ co-opted differences (Unsworth, 2023).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTheoretical paper: towards an applied sensibility to data in teacher education research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
If we can a view the relational and discursive creation of situated iterations of teacher education, constituent actors and the interplay(s) between them, we can comprehend its creation and inform discussion of its future in a rapidly changing, uncertain world. As a relatively underused approach to the study of teacher education, ANT and AIME offer an alternative view of teacher education, in which the human and non-human hold equal importance and in which can be encompassed dynamism, fluidity and the ‘otherness’ which comes to light more frequently in times of increased social uncertainty.
ReferencesBraun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse, 32(4), 585–596.
Rüsselbæk Hansen, D., Heck, D., Sharpling, E., and McFlynn, P. (forthcoming) ' Resisting positive universal views of the OECD politics of teacher education: From the perspective of ‘negative’ universality'. In Eds. Magnussen, G., Phelan, A., Heimans, S., and Unsworth, R: Teacher Education and its Discontents: Politics, Knowledge and Ethics. Routledge.
Kapoor, I., & Zalloua, Z. (2022). Universal Politics. Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press.
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Harvard University Press.
Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in motion - Space, time and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management
Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S., & Warne, T. (2002). Towards an uncertain politics of professionalism: teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of education policy, 17(1), 109-138.
Tummons, J. (2021). Ontological pluralism, modes of existence, and actor-network theory: Upgrading Latour with Latour. Social Epistemology, 35(1), 1-11.
Unsworth, R. (2023). A new mode of control: an actor–network theory account of effects of power and agency in establishing education policy. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1-15.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
To Promote Tolerance of Ambiguity in Sustainability Education
Elke Poterpin1, Tamara Katschnig2, Angela Forstner-Ebhart3, Christian Schroll4
1PH Wien, Austria; 2KPH Wien, Austria; 3HAUP Wien, Austria; 4HAUP Wien, Austria
Presenting Author: Katschnig, Tamara
Sustainable education requires cognitive processes in which learners, as constructors of their learning reality, relate implicit ideas of facts to the knowledge of others. Kattmann (2005, p. 60) describes this process as "conceptual reconstruction", which causes changes to previous cognitive concepts through a "reflexive abstraction" (Weinberger, 2017, p.10). In this context, Schneidewind (2018) speaks of the development of a "transformative literacy", to be understood as the development of skills in order to capture the dimensions and context of change dynamics and to implement them in contributions to sustainable development.
The didactic concept of green pedagogy makes it possible to promote the transformation of individual ideas and the further development of the scope of action of learners to be able to deal with uncertainties or unfamiliar, ambivalent situations. It focuses on the connection between essential parameters when designing learning environments in the context of sustainable education (Forstner-Ebhart & Linder, 2020).
Different socialization backgrounds and living environments of the learners lead to a high degree of diversity among the individuals in a school class or learning group. Different interests, skills and perspectives of the learners form the framework for cooperation and collaboration in flexible teaching. Paseka et al. (2018) formulate contingency as a special pedagogical challenge for teachers. If diversity of perspectives, dissent and deviations are used in a way that is effective for learning, the teacher rewards diversity management. Learners are then enabled to learn. Teachers thus show prudence and empathy when adapting a learning environment to the respective situation and group dynamics.
With this theoretical background, teachers are faced with the challenge of dealing with transformations, uncertainties and unmanageable ambiguities in the teaching and learning processes. It requires the development of resilient controllability for challenging and unforeseeable circumstances and the ability to adapt flexibly in order not to counteract unexpected situations with devaluation or rejection. Dealing with ambiguity therefore requires self-reflection as a core skill, which makes it possible to become aware of unpredictable and ambiguous experiences and develop them further.
The construct of ambiguity tolerance was introduced by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) and derived from Rosenzweig's (1938) construct of frustration tolerance. People with high levels of such tolerance are averse to ambiguous or unexpected stimuli, feel threatened by them and uncomfortable with them. Today, the construct of ambiguity is based on multidimensionality (Radant & Dalbert, 2006). It is interesting to note that when the concept was further developed, people with ambiguity tolerance were defined as those who showed an explicit need for and aspiration towards ambiguity (Reis, 1996, p. 7). Reis developed a scale to measure this construct: The final form then consisted of fiveareas, the evaluation and interpretation of which are described in the manual for the inventory for measuring ambiguity tolerance (IMA): problems that appear unsolvable (PR), social conflict acceptance (SK), parental image (EB), role stereotypes (RS) and openness to new experiences (OE) (Reis, 1996, p. 35f).
Aspects related to ambiguity, such as emotional stability, enjoyment of life, optimism, energy, curiosity, openness to new things and the ability to change perspectives are also included in the resilience concept (Leppert et al., 2008). Resilience is of particular importance as a key competence for the healthy coping with challenging uncertainties, strong changes in short periods of time and unmanageable ambiguities. Therefore, these aspects must be taken up in corresponding concepts of teacher training. The research question therefore is the following: to what extent do student teachers allow ambiguity, accept openness, use divergent thinking, develop creative solutions and are willing to include these aspects in their lesson plans?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe theoretical considerations presented initiated a research project at three teacher-training colleges in Austria (period 2020-2024).The aim of the project is the development of a valid measuring instrument for surveying the personality construct of ambiguity tolerance in student teachers. This is seen as a basic dispositional dimension for teachers of sustainability education. Ambiguity tolerance is understood as a tendency to perceive contradictions, inconsistencies or ambiguous information in all its complexity and to evaluate it positively (e.g. Reis, 1996; Müller-Christ & Weßling, 2007; Radant & Dalbert, 2006). The areas of ambiguity are extracted quantitatively from existing concepts and also collected in more detail in a qualitative process based on a cross-case analysis according to Creswell (2007).
Various multidimensional scales can be used to develop an empirical measuring instrument for assessing the degree of ambiguity tolerance. Reis (1996): Inventory for measuring tolerance to ambiguity (IMA), Radant & Dalbert (2006), Schlink & Walther (2007): German short scale for assessing the need for cognitive closure (NCC).
A text vignette is used as a qualitative element to capture facets of the respondents' tolerance for ambiguity. This describes a problem situation from everyday school life that is intended to provoke insecurity and stress. When constructing the text, we ensured that the situation is compact, realistic, and concrete, but not too specific, that it can be grasped quickly even by first-year students, that several behavioral variants are permitted, and that the answers formulated can be compared (Paseka & Hinzke, 2014, p. 52).
The pretest took place in March 2021 with students from the participating universities of teacher education and the University of Vienna (N = 149).
The questionnaire was then factor-analytically evaluated using SPSS and comprised 80 items for the pretest, the statements of which were assessed in six-level answer categories (from “does not apply at all” to “applies very much”). The statement that applies to the test person is to be ticked for each item. Five areas of ambiguity (subscales for certain areas of life) are differentiated. The questionnaire is evaluated in several steps. After repeated analysis, some items were deleted; the final measurement instrument consists of sociodemographic data and five consistent scales for a total of 59 items, with reliabilities being satisfactory. The computer-assisted evaluation of the qualitative data (vignette) using MAXQDA was carried out inductively in the sense of a paraphrasing and summarizing qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSome results of the pretest are presented below. This was mainly used for scale formation, but there were also some interesting results here as well. The four dimensions of ambiguity can be established very satisfactorily with reference to factor analysis. The validity of the measuring instrument for the construct ambiguity tolerance is given and the scales can be used accordingly in the main test.
After the first review of the answers to the vignette, obvious peculiarities, passages that appeared essential and ideas for evaluation were recorded and transformed. After generalization and bundling, four categories were formed across all cases. By evaluating this casevignette, rough distinctions can be made regarding ambiguity. However, the four dimensions of ambiguity, which emerged from the factor analysis of the quantitative survey, cannot be explicitly and sufficiently contrasted.
Therefore, for the main test, four specified case vignettes were constructed covering the categories of openness, social security, problem awareness and dealing with routine. These vignettes should be checked deductively on a case-by-case basis. The open questions challenge the respondents to write down hypothetical subsequent actions. Thus, each dimension can be recorded in its form (Paseka & Hinzke, 2014, p. 60). Results will be presented at the conference.
The aim of this project is to develop a valid, reliable, and objective measuring instrument for the assessment of the personal characteristic of ambiguity tolerance, which can be used in the training of student teachers as a basis for self-reflection. The results of the main survey (2021/22) are intended to provide a basis for critical awareness-raising and further methodological and didactic considerations beyond green pedagogy. Dealing with ambiguity is an opportunity for teacher education to stimulate personal development and professionalization. Learners can be encouraged to question attitudes and behaviour by self-reflectively examining concepts from divergent perspectives and provoking friction surfaces.
ReferencesArnold, R., Schüßler, I. (2003) (Hrsg.). Ermöglichungsdidaktik. Erwachsenenpädagogische Grundlagen und Erfahrungen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five traditions (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Forstner-Ebhart, A., Linder, W. (2020). Changing the mindset – Anforderungen an Lernsettings für berufsbildende Schulen. (S. 237 – 247). In C. Sippl, E. Rauscher & M. Scheuch (Hrsg.), Das Anthropozän lernen und lehren. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Forstner-Ebhart, A., Katschnig, T., Poterpin, E. & Schroll, C. (2022). Zur Förderung von Ambiguitätstoleranz in der Nachhaltigkeitsbildung. R&E-Source, Sonderausgabe 22. Verfügbar unter https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2022.iS22.a1039. [9.8.2023].
Forstner-Ebhart, A., Katschnig, T., Poterpin, E. & Schroll, C. (2024). Zum unerfüllbaren Wunsch nach Eindeutigkeit - Ambiguitätstoleranz in der Lehrer*innenbildung. Zeitschrift Erziehung & Unterricht 1-2/2024 ,18-26.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable: Interrelationships Between Perception and Personality: a Symposium, Pt. 1. Inst. of Child Welfare.
Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (3., überarbeitete Auflage). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Leppert K., Koch B., Brähler E., Strauß B. (2008). Die Resilienzskala (RS) – Überprüfung der Langform RS-25 und einer Kurzform RS-13. In Klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation 2, 226–243.
Müller-Christ, G. & Weßling, G. (2007). Widerspruchsbewältigung, Ambivalenz- und Ambiguitätstoleranz. Eine modellhafte Verknüpfung. In: G. Müller-Christ, L. Arndt & Ehnert, I. (Hrsg.), Nachhaltigkeit und Widersprüche. Eine Managementperspektive (S. 179–198). Hamburg: Lit-Verlag.
Paseka, A., Hinzke, J-H. (2014). Fallvignetten, Dilemmainterviews und dokumentarische Methode: Chancen und Grenzen für die Erfassung von Lehrerprofessionalität. In Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 7(1), 46–63.
Paseka, A., Keller-Schneider, M., Combe, A. (2018). Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für pädagogisches Handeln. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Radant, M., Dalbert, C. (2006). Dimensionen der Komplexitätstoleranz: Ergebnisse einer Synopse von Persönlichkeitskonstrukten. Vortrag gehalten auf dem 45. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Nürnberg.
Reis, J. (1996). Inventar zur Messung der Ambiguitätstoleranz (IMA). Manual. Heidelberg: Asanger.
Rosenzweig, S. (1938). Frustration as an experimental problem. VI. General outline of frustration. Character & Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies. , 7, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1938.tb02285.x.
Schlink, S., Walther, E. (2007). Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit. In Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie (38)3, 153–161.
Schneidewind, U, (2018). Die große Transformation. Eine Einführung in die Kunst gesellschaftlichen Wandels. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Schratz, M., Schrittesser, I. (2012). Kompetenzorientierung in der Lehrerbildung. In F. Sauerland, F. Uhl (Hrsg.), Selbständige Schule: Hintergrundwissen und Empfehlungen für die eigenverantwortliche Schule und Lehrerbildung (S. 107–122). Köln: Wolters Kluwer.
|
