Education 232A
Teaching: Questions for Research, Practice, and Policy
Winter 2001
Tuesdays, 2:15-5:05
CERAS 204
Jo Boaler Pam Grossman
218 Cubberley 215 Cubberley
723-4076 723-0791
joboaler@stanford.edu pamg@stanford.edu
Office Hours: Wed. 4-6 Office Hours: Thurs. 12-2
Debbie Faigenbaum, T.A. Morva McDonald, T.A.
1st floor CERAS CERAS 505
(415) 337-1440 (h) 650-327-4267
dhf@stanford.edu issaac@stanford.edu
This course will explore ways of defining and studying teaching. This is not a course in how to teach. Rather, we will be looking at how teaching has been studied from a variety of different perspectives. The purpose of the course is to help you develop a framework for understanding research on teaching and the implications of research for the improvement of teaching, teacher education, and policy. We hope to introduce you to a wide variety of approaches to the study of teaching, whenever possible through the work of researchers here at SUSE. For those of you who are or have been teachers, we hope this course provides you with a wide array of lenses with which to make sense of your work in classrooms. For those of you are plan to do your own research on teaching, either as practitioners or as university-based researchers, we hope this course provokes you to think about the questions that most interest you, the traditions of research that speak in compelling ways to your own interests and concerns.
Throughout the course, we will adopt a dual perspective on both the methods used to study teaching and on the particular findings about teaching. Part of our goal will be to investigate how diverse traditions pose different questions about teaching and use different methods to study teaching; along the way, we will want to question how these different traditions contribute to our understanding of the complex phenomenon of teaching. Throughout the course, we will also be looking for the implications for practice, for teacher learning across the career, and for policy.
Expectations for Course:
Participation: We expect that all students come to class prepared to participate actively in the class. This includes thoughtful interaction with the readings for the class ahead of time, participation in class discussions–both small group and large group--and careful attention to the contributions of classmates. We ask that you bring at least 2 questions about the readings to every class. These questions will occasionally be used as the basis for discussions and will also help you interact with the texts for the course.
Study Groups: Graduate school isn’t easy! One of the best learning practices to help you succeed in graduate school is to interact with colleagues and to use peers as resources for your own learning. In this class, we ask that you become a part of a study group that meets regularly outside of class. The purpose of the study group is to provide a forum for further discussions of the reading and support for the research project. We will ask you to let us know by the second week of class who is in your study group and when you plan to meet.
Attendance: We expect you to attend class regularly. If you have to miss a class for any reason, please notify one of the instructors and arrange with a colleague to catch up on what you missed.
Assignments:
All assignments must be doubled-spaced in 12 pt. font and carefully proof-read. We expect all assignments to be turned in by the due date.
2) Final project (due 3/ 13). For this project you need to conduct a small study of teaching, motivated by your own burning question. The project must involve some observation of teaching in a setting of your choice. Full guidelines will be distributed in class. Smaller assignments associated with this project include a) a page detailing the question you wish to ask about teaching (due 1/30) and b) a project plan which must include the setting in which you propose to do your project and a plan for collecting information (due 2/13 ).
Grading:
Rubrics for individual assignments will be handed out ahead of time.
Class participation: 10%
Concept paper 30%
Final project 60%
Calendar:
1/9/01: Introduction/Overview to course
How do we define teaching? What are the different components that make up the practice of teaching? To what do we pay attention? In this class, we will present an overview of the course and consider initial responses to these questions.
1/16/01: Definitions of Teaching
In this class, we will examine a range of different definitions of teaching. Our questions will address the components of teaching, and how these are foregrounded or backgrounded in different definitions of teaching. What is the relationship between teaching and learning? Can we talk of one without the other? What are the implications of these different definitions of teaching for how people learn to teach?
Readings:
Fenstermacher, G., & Soltis, J. (1986). The teacher as..., Approaches to teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (CR)
Hawkins, D. (1974). I, Thou, and It, The Informed Vision.: Agathon Press. (CR)
Brown, C., Stein, M. K., & Forman, E. A. (1996). Assisting teachers and students to reform the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 63-93. (CR)
Wolcott, H. (1997). The teacher as an enemy. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and Cultural Process. Waveland Press. 1997.m (CR)
1/23/01: Studying Teaching
Concept Paper due: A definition of teaching (see assignments)
How do we study teaching? Given the complexity of the enterprise, how do we devise ways of capturing this complexity? What trade-offs do we make? What are the different ways of observing teaching? What light do interviews with teachers or students shed on teaching?
Readings: The readings for this week focus on methodology, particularly on observation and interviews as sources of data about teaching. The Boaler and Stodolsky & Grossman articles are meant to illustrate the use of these methods and will be discussed as examples of the study of teaching.
Boaler, J. (2000). Pedagogy and power: Exploring the relationship between 'reform' curriculum and equity., Draft.
Stodolsky, S., & Grossman, P. (2000). Changing students, changing teachers. Teachers College Record, 102(1).
Patton, M. Q. (1972). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delamont, S. (1992). : Spikenard, Mastic, and Terebine, Fieldwork in Educational Settings: Methods, Pitfalls, and Perspectives.: Falmer Press.
Wragg, E. C. (1994). Introduction to classroom observation. New York, NY: Routledge
1/30/01: Disciplinary Perspectives on Teaching
Question for final project due (See assignments)
What does teaching look like if you put on different disciplinary glasses? What makes inquiry disciplined? How have the traditional disciplines looked at teaching? What does each lens magnify? What does it ignore?
Readings: The readings for this week include a series of articles on the same episode of teaching. Each author, however, takes a different perspective on the class, based in large part on their disciplinary perspective. The Shulman chapter presents an argument for what makes inquiry disciplined.
Bennett, W. (1986). Secretary Bennett’s response to evaluations of his teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 333-335.
Delamont, S. (1986). Discussion: A view from a quadruple outside. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 329-332.
Eisner, E. (1986). A secretary in the classroom. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 325-328.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1986). Introduction: Perspectives on a teaching episode. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 299- 300.
Peterson, D., Kromrey, J., Micerri, T., & Smith, B. O. (1986). Evaluation of a teacher's classroom preformance using the Florida performance measurement system. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 309-314.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Introduction: Perspectives on a teaching episode. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 301-308.
Shulman, L. (1997). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In R. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary Methods for Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shuy, R. (1986). Secretary Bennett's teaching: An argument for responsive teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 2(4), 315-323.
(optional)
Ball, S. (1990). Self-doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectories of ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(2), 157-171.
2/06/01: Psychological research on teaching
How do psychologists define and look at teaching? What are the concepts and methodological tools psychologists use to study teaching? How has psychological research on teaching changed as the discipline itself has changed? Given that psychology dominated early research on teaching, what is the legacy of this disciplinary perspective? What implications does this line of research have for policy and practice?
Readings: The readings for this week represent different examples of psychological inquiry into teaching. The Good & Grouws piece represents the tradition of process-product studies of teaching. The Shavelson & Stern article (yes, that’s Shavelson the former dean of SUSE) reviews research on teacher decision-making, representing a more cognitive perspective on teaching. The Berliner piece summarizes an expert-novice study of teaching, based on psychological studies of expertise. Finally, the Wilson & Wineburg piece describes a study done here at Stanford that provided the foundation for the National Board of Teaching Standards. As you read these articles, think both about what these studies have in common, as well as he ways in which they differ.
Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth-grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, XXVII(3), 49 - 54.
Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, August/September, 5-13.
Wilson, S., & Wineburg, S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 729-769.
2/13/01: Sociological research on teaching
Plan for final project due (1-3 pages). Be sure to include the site for your project and your plan for collecting data to answer your question.
How do sociologists define and look at teaching? In what aspects of teaching are they particularly interested? What tools do they use to investigate teaching? How do sociological studies differ from psychological ones? What implications does this line of research have for the improvement of teaching?
Readings: This week, you will be reading sections from two influential books written by sociologists. Schoolteacher, by Dan Lortie, is a classic sociological study of the occupation of teaching. Be sure to look at the Appendix to understand the sources of his data. Beachside Comprehensive is a classic work by the British researcher Stephen Ball. Finally, Judith Warren Little, who teaches at U.C. Berkeley, uses a sociological perspective to look at aspects of the culture of teaching.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Read chapters 3 & 4 and Appendix B, more if you wish.)
Ball, S. (1981). Beachside Comprehensive.: Cambridge University Press. (Preface and chapters 6 & 7)
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistance of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teacher's professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
2/20: How teachers view teaching: Practitioners’ perspectives
How does teaching look from the teacher’s side of the desk? When teachers study their practice, on what do they focus? How is their perspective different from the perspective of a disciplinary researcher? What implications does this research pose for the improvement of teaching?
Readings: All of the authors in this week’s reading are classroom teachers. Lampert is a university professor who has continued to teach elementary mathematics. Paley teaches kindergarten at the University of Chicago Lab school, founded by John Dewey. Delp teaches at Willard Junior High School in Berkeley, California and Shakespear teaches English at Middle College High School in Boston, MA. Delp and Shakespear worked with Sarah Freedman of U.C. Berkeley on a joint teacher-research project.
Lampert, M. How do teachers manage to teach? In Course Reader
Paley, V. (1993). You can't say you can't play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shifter, D. (1996). "Teaching mathematics to all students". In D. Shifter (Ed.), What's happening in math class? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shakespear, E. (1999). What I'd tell a white gal: My black male students taught me about race and schooling. In S. W. Freeman & E. R. Simons & J. S. Kalnin & A. Caserno (Eds.), Inside City Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Delp, V. (1999). We soar together: Studying literature in a heterogeneous classroom. In S. W. Freeman & E. R. Simons & J. S. Kalnin & A. Caserno (Eds.), Inside City Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2/27/01: Knowledge of teaching/knowledge in practice
First drafts of final projects due if you want feedback.
What do teachers know? What do they need to know? How do they need to know it? How is this knowledge used in classrooms? Does it matter what subjects, grade levels, or students they teach, or is teacher knowledge generic?
Readings: The articles for this week take different perspectives on what teachers need to know. As you read through, try to keep track of the different perspectives of the authors.
As you read, think through what knowledge has been most important to you as a teacher and what aspects of your knowledge and understanding may be missing from these articles.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1).
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (1999). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing Teachers for Diversity: Historical Perspectives, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Kerdeman, D. (1998). Between interlochen and Idaho: Hermeneutics and education for understanding. In S. Tozer (Ed.), Philosopy of Education. Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
3/6/01: Implications for teacher learning and teacher education
So if teaching is so complex, how does anyone learn to do it? What implications do our different considerations of the practice of teaching hold for teacher education? What are the possible relationships between research on teaching and learning to teach?
Readings: The readings for this week articulate different philosophies about teacher learning and about the relationship between research and learning to teach. As you read through these articles, ask yourself about the different authors’ beliefs about teaching and learning to teach and their understanding of how research can inform the process of learning to teach.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching and Policy.: Longman, Inc.
Fenstermacher, G., & Soltis, J. (1986). The teacher as..., Approaches to teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gage, N. (1983). When does research on teaching yield implications for practice. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 492-497.
Garcia, E. (1990). Educating teachers for language minority students. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
3/13/01: Implications for policy
Final project due.
What are the different ways that policy might influence teaching? How might teaching influence policy? What policies support good teaching? What should policymakers know about teaching? How does the relationshiop of policy and teaching differ by national context?
Readings: The readings for this week focus on different levels of the policy system. The Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin chapter provides a broad overview of the ways in which policy can support teaching. The other two articles focus more specifically on 2 distinct levels of the policy system–the district and the school.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning profession. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Grossman, P., Thompson, C., & Valencia, S. (2000). Views from the bottom: Beginning teachers and district policy., Draft.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144.
References