Conference Agenda

Our education is continuously confronted with the challenges and opportunities of the rapidly changing society. Whether these changes concern technological developments, varying political landscapes, economic fluctuations, or global pandemics and war, they bring uncertainties to our students, teachers, teacher educators and other stakeholders in education. To aptly train teachers for their increasingly difficult teaching task, Fenstermacher (1986) already pointed out that the development of sound reasoning is vital in teacher education. More recently, Loughran (2019) described the importance of overtly articulating teachers’ pedagogical reasoning for teachers’ professionalism.

Teachers’ reasoning or pedagogical reasoning is broadly defined as the why underlying teachers’ educational practice. Research studying pedagogical reasoning therefore reveals the underlying thinking of teachers when making decisions during their teaching. The concept was originally described by Shulman (1987) as the pedagogical reasoning and action (PR&A) process where content knowledge (CK) is transformed to teachable elements. Through this process, the individual teacher uses as well as builds their professional knowledge. Since then, research has taken different perspectives towards this complex concept and investigated it in a variety of contexts, using a variety of conceptualisations and operationalizations.

In this symposium, we’ll take you through three recent papers involving pedagogical reasoning within varying contexts to highlight the importance yet complexity of the concept. First, a scoping review on the conceptualizations of pedagogical reasoning in publications between 2000 and July 2023 will be discussed by Lotte Schreuders (PhD Candidate, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Next, Ottavia Trevisan (PostDoc, University of Padova, Italy) and Anneke Smits (Professor, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands) will present their work on different qualities of preservice teachers’ pedagogical reasoning when confronting the complexity of the job through their internships. Finally, Bram Cabbeke (PhD candidate, University of Ghent, Belgium) will focus on the importance of PR in the context of technology integration by presenting a study focused on exploring how and when pre-service teachers adopt PR when collaboratively designing ICT-rich curriculum materials.

During the symposium, we wish to inform fellow researchers about the importance of pedagogical reasoning in education, especially in these times of uncertainty. We hope to inspire them to give more attention to this concept and join us in our quest to gain more insight into teachers’ PR.

One way to gain a better understanding of teachers’ everyday practice is by studying teachers’ pedagogical reasoning (PR). Studying PR, or the thinking that underpins teachers’ practice, provides insights into the why underlying teachers’ informed decisions. The concept was originally described by Shulman (1987) as pedagogical reasoning and action (PR&A), a process where content knowledge (CK) is transformed to teachable elements through a cyclic process involving six steps: (1) comprehension, (2) transformation, (3) instruction, (4) evaluation, (5) reflection and (6) new comprehension. Since then, the concept of pedagogical reasoning has been used by many researchers in various research fields and educational contexts resulting in varying conceptualisations. In an attempt to untangle the current conceptual unclarity, this scoping review aims to provide a synthesis of the various conceptualisations of PR in literature between 2000 and 2023. A systematic search across four online databases (ERIC, PsychInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection) yielded 1,026 results on July 4th, 2023. After deduplication, the remaining publications (n = 549) were subjected to a title and abstract scan. Publications had to meet the following five criteria to be subjected to a full-text screening: (1) the publication was published between 2000 and on July 4th, 2023; (2) the publication appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) the publication was written in English; (4) the publication had an explicit focus on professional or pedagogical reasoning and; (5) the publication focused on the professional or pedagogical reasoning of pre- and/or in-service teachers. From the remaining 148 publications, we were able to retrieve 146 which were subjected to a full-text screening. Here, a sixth inclusion criteria was applied to assess the relevance of the publications, namely: (6) the publication conceptualizes pedagogical reasoning. During a preliminary analysis of the remaining 92 articles, we identified two main theoretical perspectives. The first stream defines PR as a cyclic process where teachers use knowledge to make a decision, reflect on the outcomes and expand their knowledge. With that, this stream often follows or builds upon the original work by Shulman (1987). The second stream separates reasoning from decision-making in their definitions and focus on the content, depth, or richness of PR. For example, the values to explain teachers’ favorite technology tools or the depth of reasoning required to stimulate students’ mathematical reasoning. During the symposium, we’ll discuss these theoretical perspectives, their differences, and implications for research in detail.

Andrews-Larson, C., Johnson, E., Peterson, V., & Keller, R. (2021). Doing math with mathematicians to support pedagogical reasoning about inquiry-oriented instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09450-3 Gotwalt, E. S. (2023). Putting the purpose in practice: Practice-based pedagogies for supporting teachers’ pedagogical reasoning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103975 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.009 Holmberg, J., Fransson, G., & Fors, U. (2018). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and reframing of practice in digital contexts. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2017-0084 Hughes, J. E., Cheah, Y. H., Shi, Y., & Hsiao, K. H. (2020). Preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical reasoning underlying their most-valued technology-supported instructional activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12425 Kavanagh, S. S., Conrad, J., & Dagogo-Jack, S. (2020). From rote to reasoned: Examining the role of pedagogical reasoning in practice-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102991 Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: the foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 25(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294 Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1).

This study targets the connection between preservice teachers' pedagogical reasoning quality and early indicators of reality shock during their field internships. Teachers' pedagogical reasoning (PR&A) refers to their ability to make informed decisions about instructional strategies, content selection, and classroom management based on their knowledge, beliefs, and understanding of educational theory. It plays a crucial role in shaping their teaching practices and can greatly impact instruction effectiveness. We investigate this process when it first emerges in future teachers: at the time of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs. Reality shock refers to the disorientation and stress experienced by newly qualified teachers when they face the stark contrast between their teaching expectations and the actual challenges they encounter in the classroom. We argue that early indicators of reality shock are already visible in the late stages of ITE when preservice teachers perform field internships. Field-based internships within ITE aim to bridge the theory-practice gap and potentially mitigate reality shock while fostering high-quality pedagogical reasoning in future teachers. Nevertheless, a gap remains in understanding the relationship between preservice teachers' PR&A quality and their experiences of reality shock precursors during internships. The research aims to elucidate these connections. The overarching goal is to provide insights into how preservice teachers' PR&A quality correlates with their experiences of tension during internships. This will serve as a potential indicator of teaching quality and susceptibility to reality shock as they transition into the profession. By identifying and addressing this relationship, ITE institutes can refine their programs to better prepare future teachers. This will improve retention rates and teaching quality as teachers navigate demanding early career years. Utilizing a qualitative methodology with convenience sampling (N=38), the study delves into preservice teachers' interpretations and descriptions of recent teaching experiences during their internships. The research uses a PR&A normative framework to appraise preservice teachers' reasoning quality through the dimensions of core concepts of the professions and pedagogical orientations. Four distinct pedagogical reasoning quality profiles were identified: Naïve, Emerging, Evolving, and Substantiated. Each of these PR&A quality profiles displays different signs of reality shock precursors, as well as different coping strategies. The study underscores the need to customize ITE programs, addressing specifically the link between pedagogical reasoning development and reality-shock precursors. Developing awareness of reality-shock precursors and reasoning skills among preservice teachers could help them navigate the challenges of the early-career "survival stage".

Blömeke, S., Hoth, J., Döhrmann, M., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2015). Teacher change during induction: Development of beginning primary teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and performance. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9619-4 Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., & Zijlstra, B. J. H. (2022). The development of the relationship between professional identity tensions and teacher identity: A quantitative longitudinal study among Dutch primary student teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75, 101199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101199 Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294 Kvam, E. K., Roness, D., Ulvik, M., & Helleve, I. (2023). Newly qualified teachers: Tensions between needing support and being a resource. A qualitative study of newly qualified teachers in Norwegian upper secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 127, 104090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104090 Trevisan, O., & Smits, A. (2023). Probing the quality of preservice teachers’ pedagogical reasoning & action (PR&A) in internships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103983

The rapidly changing educational landscape, characterized by superdiverse classrooms and rapid technological advancements, has underscored the imperative for teachers to attain adequate digital competences. Regarding this, the European DigCompEdu framework serves as an example of these growing digital competency demands. However, preparing student-teachers for technology integration is a complex endeavor, as students should learn that integrating technology in practice goes beyond the mere addition of a tool into an existing teaching activity, but requires making informed decisions about technology based on sound pedagogical reasoning (PR). However, little is known about students’ adoption of PR during their technology integration efforts. During this symposium, we wish to present a study focused on exploring the technology-related PR that student-teachers adopt when collaboratively designing ICT-rich learning materials. A 10-week Teacher-Design-Team intervention was implemented at a Flemish teacher training institute during the academic year of 2021-2022. The intervention consisted of 7 sessions of 3-4 hours each (an introductory lesson, 5 design sessions, and a microteaching). Grouped in design teams of 3/4 students (N = 23), students designed ICT-rich curriculum solutions for authentic pedagogical problems experienced by an in-service mathematics teacher (context: secondary school). Throughout the sessions, design teams explored and determined which tools to use, brainstormed solutions, designed and developed materials, and tested, evaluated, and revised their materials. A qualitative case study approach was employed to analyze the design talk of three design teams. In total, 56,5 hours of audio data were transcribed and analyzed. With the design talk of the TDT as the unit of analysis, this study applied three phases of coding: (a) identifying the design activity in which a technology-related design discussion (TRDD) emerged (analysis, design, develop, implement or evaluation); (b) discerning what type of reasoning was at the basis of a TRDD (pedagogical, practical, or external); and (c) coding the level of inquiry present in the TRDDs (no-depth; sharing ideas; collaborative). At ECER, we aim to showcase how and when students engaged in PR. Overall, findings indicate that students engage in PR, but that the extent and depth of students’ PR in TRDDs (1) varies between design sessions and activities and (2) is often short-circuited by decision-making based on pragmatic or external reasons. The findings and implications of this study will inform (teacher) educators and researchers about the importance of PR in the context of technology integration.

Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers and Education, 130 (November 2018), 81–93. Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 77–95 Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). Digital Competence of Educators. Edited by Yves Punie.