Productive pedagogies : is it an intelligible language for preservice teachers?

Australian teacher educators and teachers have become increasingly familiar with the notion of ‘Productive Pedagogies’, itself the product of longitudinal research on school reform recently undertaken in Queensland, Australia (Lingard et al., 2001a, , 2001b) . One of its strengths has been its efficacy for in-service teachers to use as a language to talk about their pedagogical work and hence a way of reclaiming some of the ground on what constitutes good teaching. In part, this can be attributed to the numerous observations of teachers’ classroom practice that informed the construction of Productive Pedagogies (PPs). That is, many teachers understand these as naming what ‘good’ teachers have always done. In this paper the value of PPs as a metalanguage for developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether PPs is a language that is intelligible for pre-service teachers without access to this prior teacher knowledge or whether its elements and dimensions merely constitute an isolated vocabulary. A case study of four pre-service teachers provides the context for this exploration and its empirical data. Drawing on their fieldwork observations of teaching practice, voiced in the language of PPs, the paper argues that PPs language is indeed useful in the development of pre-service teachers’ understanding of teaching, particularly in assisting them to name evidence of teachers’ recognition of and engagement with difference.

Boys, productive pedagogies and social justice

The issue of boys' education continues to dominate the gender agenda in Australian Education. Whilst concerned with the direction much of this debate has taken, we recognise that there are issues for some boys stemming from the ways in which certain masculinities have been valorised within the various communities that different boys inhabit. This paper will draw on a range of voices from schools to stress the importance of providing boys with curricula, pedagogies and assessment tasks that provide them with opportunities to explore and critically analyse their personal experiences of what it means to be 'masculine'. We argue that such an approach to boys' education has to avoid treating boys as 'disadvantaged' and instead has to be cognisant of the complexities surrounding gendered relations of power operating within boys' various communities. We suggest that the productive pedagogies framework provides an avenue through which such an approach to boys' education can be taken up in schools. We are mindful, however, that the gender just enactment of this pedagogical framework requires that teachers draw on key threshold knowledges about gender, masculinity and schooling. We present some of these knowledges and demonstrate their imperative in moving beyond reinscription to transformation of the gendered relations that constrain boys' and girls' schooling experiences.

Productive pedagogies: a redefined methodology for analysing quality teacher practice

This paper identifies the ways in which the Productive Pedagogies framework has been refined as a research tool for evaluating classroom practice within a current study into issues of school reform in Queensland. Initially emerging from the landmark Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (1998–2001), the Productive Pedagogies has been taken up widely in Australia and internationally as both a research tool and metalanguage to support teachers to critically reflect on their practice. In this paper, following a brief description of the model’s four dimensions, we detail how we have addressed some methodological concerns in using and modifying the framework for the present study. In response to critiques by other researchers and debates within our own research team, we justify our use of the framework. To these ends, we present a refined methodology that addresses the importance of pedagogical process, substantiates the inclusion of particular items within the framework, supports a critical approach to issues of difference, includes students’ perspectives and recognises the significance of content knowledge in the assessment of quality pedagogy.

Pedagogies and critical reflection: key understandings for transformative gender justice

It is widely acknowledged that quality pedagogy is central to improving the educational outcomes of all students. In improving the social and academic outcomes of boys, and more specifically disengaged boys, the productive pedagogies model has been presented as a way forward. In terms of drawing on this model in socially just ways; to facilitate a broadening, rather than reinscribing of boys' narrow constructions of gender identity, this paper illustrates the imperative of teachers interacting with key feminist understandings of masculinity. Organized around the four dimensions of productive pedagogy, the paper draws on ( predominantly Australian-based) seminal work in the sphere of masculinities and schooling to discuss key strategies and initiatives for improving boys' educational outcomes. Against this backdrop, the paper demonstrates the importance of two principle understandings. The first relates to teachers understanding masculinity through feminist lenses, as constructed, regulated and maintained through inequitable social processes and the second relates to teachers understanding pedagogy as critical and transformative practice. These understandings are presented as vital to enabling gender justice.

Beyond the habits of punishing, criticising and nagging : fostering respectful and socially just student relations using critical pedagogies

This chapter presents a pedagogical approach to fostering respectful and inclusive student relations. Rather than a narrow focus on managing or controlling students, this approach enables a broad and located view of student behaviour that seeks to develop and extend students' understandings of themselves and others. A key premise here is that many 'misbehaviours' in classrooms are associated with issues of identity and power and, in particular, the ways in which conventional classrooms and teacher-student relations tend to render students with little power or agency. Acting out or against this positioning as a means of asserting a sense of power or legitimacy is often at the root of disruptive or harmful behaviours. Thus, it is contended here that beginning to transform such behaviours necessitates an environment where students are accorded a voice and where they are supported to reflect critically on issues of power and identity in connected and meaningful ways. The chapter explores these issues with reference to the practices of 'Rachel', the deputy principal of a working-class secondary school in Queensland. Her practice is theorised drawing on the Productive Pedagogies model - a model designed as a meta-language for teachers to reflect on ways that they can integrate social justice issues within, rather than separate to, the pedagogical process. Given that boys continue to perpetuate the lion's share of disciplinary transgressions in schools, the focus in this chapter is on issues of masculinity.

Redistribution, recognition and representation: working against pedagogies of indifference

This paper reports on an Australian government-commissioned research study that documented classroom pedagogies in 24 Queensland schools. The research created the model of ‘productive pedagogies’, which conjoined what Nancy Fraser calls a politics of redistribution, recognition and representation. In this model pedagogies are differentiated to support the role of schooling as a positional good, a good in itself, and a good towards the betterment of the broader social world. In contrast with the model’s intentions, the pedagogies mapped in the study’s classrooms lacked differentiation; indeed, they reflected ‘pedagogies of indifference’ and were seen as producing and legitimising social inequalities. The paper theorises the redistributive, recognitive and representative justice possibilities of ‘productive pedagogies’ towards more equitable outcomes for marginalised students. The paper justifies its reprising of this research in light of the contemporary policy emphasis on teaching quality, the reductive impact on pedagogies of high-stakes testing, and the context of growing inequality which limits the potential effects of schools and teacher pedagogies.

Virtual vignettes and pedagogical potentials : Insights into a virtual schooling service

-

Alternative schooling programs for at risk youth : three case studies

This thesis develops a critical realist explanatory critique of alternative schooling programs for youth at risk taking place at three case study sites. Throughout the thesis the author pursues the question, \Are alternative provisions of schooling working academically and socially for youth at risk?. The academic lens targets literacy learning and associated pedagogies. Social outcomes are posited as positive social behaviours and continued engagement in learning. A four phased analysis, drawing on critical realism, interpretive and subject specific theories is used to elicit explanations for the research question. An overall framework is a critical realist methodology as set out by Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobsen and Karlsson (2002, p. 129). Consequently phase one describes the phenomena of alternative schooling programs taking place at three case study sites. This is reported first as staff narratives that are resolved into imaginable historical causal components of \generative events., \prior schooling structures., \models of alternative schooling., \purpose., \individual agency., and \relations with linked community organisations.. Then transcendental questions are posed about each component using retroduction to uncover structures, underlying mechanisms and powers, and individual agency. In the second phase the researcher uses modified grounded theory methodology to theoretically redescribe causal categories related to a \needed different teaching and administrative approach. that emerged from the previous critique. A transcendental question is then applied to this redescription. The research phenomena are again theoretically redescribed in the third phase, this time using three theoretically based constructs associated with literacy and literacy pedagogies; the NRS, the 4 Resources Model, and Productive Pedagogies. This redescription is again questioned in terms of its core or \necessary. components. The fourth phase makes an explanatory critique by comparing and critiquing all previous explanations, recontextualising them in a wider macro reality of alternative schooling. Through this critical realist explanatory critiquing process, a response emerges not only to whether alternative provisions of schooling are working, but also how they are working, and how they are not working, with realistically based implications for future improvement.

Supervising practice based research

Practice based research appears to have emerged within several Higher Education agendas including the professional doctorates and the teacher as researcher. One way of thinking about this methodological approach is to consider its research paradigm – a practice based epistemology, and from this perspective to consider what special application to research supervision the paradigm invites. Within a “supervision as pedagogy” agenda these applications can be considered as pedagogies. This paper has been written in the style of practice based research, drawing on the author’s own experiences of supervising students undertaking practice based research. It adopts a position that research supervision is pedagogy and draws on the model of ‘Productive Pedagogies” to articulate strategies to help novice research students develop a research proposal.

Making use of pedagogic models as reflective catalysts for investigating pedagogic practice

The notion of pedagogy for anyone in the teaching profession is innocuous. The term itself, is steeped in history but the details of the practice can be elusive. What does it mean for an academic to be embracing pedagogy? The problem is not limited to academics; most teachers baulk at the introduction of a pedagogic agenda and resist attempts to have them reflect on their classroom teaching practice, where ever that classroom might be constituted. This paper explores the application of a pedagogic model (Education Queensland, 2001) which was developed in the context of primary and secondary teaching and was part of a schooling agenda to improve pedagogy. As a teacher educator I introduced the model to classroom teachers (Hill, 2002) using an Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987) model and at the same time applied the model to my own pedagogy as an academic. Despite being instigated as a model for classroom teachers, I found through my own practitioner investigation that the model was useful for exploring my own pedagogy as a university academic (Hill, 2007, 2008). Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organisational life, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds) Research in Organisational Changes and Development (Vol 1) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp 129-69 Education Queensland (2001) School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS), Brisbane, Queensland Government. Hill, G. (2002, December ) Reflecting on professional practice with a cracked mirror: Productive Pedagogy experiences. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Brisbane, Australia. Hill, G. (2007) Making the assessment criteria explicit through writing feedback: A pedagogical approach to developing academic writing. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 3(1), 59-66. Hill, G. (2008) Supervising Practice Based Research. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 5(4), 78-87

Fusing curricula : science, technology and ICT

Curriculum demands continue to increase on school education systems with teachers at the forefront of implementing syllabus requirements. Education is reported frequently as a solution to most societal problems and, as a result of the world’s information explosion, teachers are expected to cover more and more within teaching programs. How can teachers combine subjects in order to capitalise on the competing educational agendas within school timeframes? Fusing curricula requires the bonding of standards from two or more syllabuses. Both technology and ICT complement the learning of science. This study analyses selected examples of preservice teachers’ overviews for fusing science, technology and ICT. These program overviews focused on primary students and the achievement of two standards (one from science and one from either technology or ICT). These primary preservice teachers’ fused-curricula overviews included scientific concepts and related technology and/or ICT skills and knowledge. Findings indicated a range of innovative curriculum plans for teaching primary science through technology and ICT, demonstrating that these subjects can form cohesive links towards achieving the respective learning standards. Teachers can work more astutely by fusing curricula; however further professional development may be required to advance thinking about these processes. Bonding subjects through their learning standards can extend beyond previous integration or thematic work where standards may not have been assessed. Education systems need to articulate through syllabus documents how effective fusing of curricula can be achieved. It appears that education is a key avenue for addressing societal needs, problems and issues. Education is promoted as a universal solution, which has resulted in curriculum overload (Dare, Durand, Moeller, & Washington, 1997; Vinson, 2001). Societal and curriculum demands have placed added pressure on teachers with many extenuating education issues increasing teachers’ workloads (Mobilise for Public Education, 2002). For example, as Australia has weather conducive for outdoor activities, social problems and issues arise that are reported through the media calling for action; consequently schools have been involved in swimming programs, road and bicycle safety programs, and a wide range of activities that had been considered a parental responsibility in the past. Teachers are expected to plan, implement and assess these extra-curricula activities within their already overcrowded timetables. At the same stage, key learning areas (KLAs) such as science and technology are mandatory requirements within all Australian education systems. These systems have syllabuses outlining levels of content and the anticipated learning outcomes (also known as standards, essential learnings, and frameworks). Time allocated for teaching science in obviously an issue. In 2001, it was estimated that on average the time spent in teaching science in Australian Primary Schools was almost an hour per week (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). More recently, a study undertaken in the U.S. reported a similar finding. More than 80% of the teachers in K-5 classrooms spent less than an hour teaching science (Dorph, Goldstein, Lee, et al., 2007). More importantly, 16% did not spend teaching science in their classrooms. Teachers need to learn to work smarter by optimising the use of their in-class time. Integration is proposed as one of the ways to address the issue of curriculum overload (Venville & Dawson, 2005; Vogler, 2003). Even though there may be a lack of definition for integration (Hurley, 2001), curriculum integration aims at covering key concepts in two or more subject areas within the same lesson (Buxton & Whatley, 2002). This implies covering the curriculum in less time than if the subjects were taught separately; therefore teachers should have more time to cover other educational issues. Expectedly, the reality can be decidedly different (e.g., Brophy & Alleman, 1991; Venville & Dawson, 2005). Nevertheless, teachers report that students expand their knowledge and skills as a result of subject integration (James, Lamb, Householder, & Bailey, 2000). There seems to be considerable value for integrating science with other KLAs besides aiming to address teaching workloads. Over two decades ago, Cohen and Staley (1982) claimed that integration can bring a subject into the primary curriculum that may be otherwise left out. Integrating science education aims to develop a more holistic perspective. Indeed, life is not neat components of stand-alone subjects; life integrates subject content in numerous ways, and curriculum integration can assist students to make these real-life connections (Burnett & Wichman, 1997). Science integration can provide the scope for real-life learning and the possibility of targeting students’ learning styles more effectively by providing more than one perspective (Hudson & Hudson, 2001). To illustrate, technology is essential to science education (Blueford & Rosenbloom, 2003; Board of Studies, 1999; Penick, 2002), and constructing technology immediately evokes a social purpose for such construction (Marker, 1992). For example, building a model windmill requires science and technology (Zubrowski, 2002) but has a key focus on sustainability and the social sciences. Science has the potential to be integrated with all KLAs (e.g., Cohen & Staley, 1982; Dobbs, 1995; James et al., 2000). Yet, “integration” appears to be a confusing term. Integration has an educational meaning focused on special education students being assimilated into mainstream classrooms. The word integration was used in the late seventies and generally focused around thematic approaches for teaching. For instance, a science theme about flight only has to have a student drawing a picture of plane to show integration; it did not connect the anticipated outcomes from science and art. The term “fusing curricula” presents a seamless bonding between two subjects; hence standards (or outcomes) need to be linked from both subjects. This also goes beyond just embedding one subject within another. Embedding implies that one subject is dominant, while fusing curricula proposes an equal mix of learning within both subject areas. Primary education in Queensland has eight KLAs, each with its established content and each with a proposed structure for levels of learning. Primary teachers attempt to cover these syllabus requirements across the eight KLAs in less than five hours a day, and between many of the extra-curricula activities occurring throughout a school year (e.g., Easter activities, Education Week, concerts, excursions, performances). In Australia, education systems have developed standards for all KLAs (e.g., Education Queensland, NSW Department of Education and Training, Victorian Education) usually designated by a code. In the late 1990’s (in Queensland), “core learning outcomes” for strands across all KLA’s. For example, LL2.1 for the Queensland Education science syllabus means Life and Living at Level 2 standard number 1. Thus, a teacher’s planning requires the inclusion of standards as indicated by the presiding syllabus. More recently, the core learning outcomes were replaced by “essential learnings”. They specify “what students should be taught and what is important for students to have opportunities to know, understand and be able to do” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2009, para. 1). Fusing science education with other KLAs may facilitate more efficient use of time and resources; however this type of planning needs to combine standards from two syllabuses. To further assist in facilitating sound pedagogical practices, there are models proposed for learning science, technology and other KLAs such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2004), de Bono’s Six Hats (de Bono, 1985), and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1999) that imply, warrant, or necessitate fused curricula. Bybee’s 5 Es, for example, has five levels of learning (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate; Bybee, 1997) can have the potential for fusing science and ICT standards.

Researching for social justice: Contextual, conceptual and methodological challenges

Reforming schooling to enable engagement and success for those typically marginalised and failed by schools is a necessary task for educational researchers and activists concerned with injustice. However, it is a difficult pursuit, with a long history of failed attempts. This paper outlines the rationale of an Australian partnership research project, Redesigning Pedagogies in the North (RPiN), which took on such an effort in public secondary schooling contexts that, in current times, are beset with 'crisis' conditions and constrained by policy rationales that make it difficult to pursue issues of justice. Within the project, university investigators and teachers collaborated in action research that drew on a range of conceptual resources for redesigning curriculum and pedagogies, including: funds of knowledge, vernacular or local literacies; place-based education; the 'productive pedagogies' and the 'unofficial curriculum' of popular culture and out-of-school learning settings. In bringing these resources together with the aim of interrupting the reproduction of inequality, the project developed a methodo-logic which builds on Bourdieuian insights.