Advertisement

Educational Research for Policy and Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 193–209 | Cite as

Making learning visible in initial teacher education: a pedagogical characterisation scheme

  • Peter G. Taylor
  • Ee Ling Low
  • Kam Ming Lim
  • Chenri Hui
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper reports the development of a scheme of characterising pedagogical practices in initial teacher education classes. The scheme is intended to provide baseline data on classroom pedagogical practices in Singapore’s sole provider of initial teacher education (ITE). This study is original in that the research team has found no reports of independent research to characterise, through video analysis of classroom practices, the pedagogical practices experienced during ITE. By characterising the pedagogical practices of a purposive sample of ITE lessons run at the National Institute of Education Singapore, this study contributes an initial scheme to produce detailed and layered representations of pedagogical practices through video recordings, which opens a new approach to research on teacher education. The implications with regard to teacher education policy and practice will be discussed.

Keywords

Characterisation Pedagogical practices Video analysis  Initial teacher education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Falk, B. (2006). A conversation with Lee Shulman–signature pedagogies for teacher education: Defining our practices and rethinking our preparation. New Educator, 2(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators’ teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher education faculty’s instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grossman, P. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(1), 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harford, J. (2010). Teacher education policy in Ireland and the challenges of the twenty-first century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hollingsworth, H. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries results from the TIMSS 1999: Video study. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  9. Horsley, M., & Walker, R. (2005). Video based classroom observation systems for examining the use and role of textbooks and teaching materials in learning. In Paper presented at The International Association for Research on Textbooks and Educational Media Biennial Conference.Google Scholar
  10. Hudson-Ross, S., & Graham, P. (2000). Going public: Making teacher educators’ as a model for preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(4), 5–24.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, J., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., Hollingsworth, H., Givvin, K. B., Rust, K., et al. (2003). Third international mathematics and science study 1999 video study technical report. (NCES 2003–012 U.S. Department of Education) Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Givvin, K. B. (2007). Video-based research made “easy”: Methodological lessons learned from the TIMSS video studies. Field Methods, 19(3), 284–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books.Google Scholar
  14. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041.Google Scholar
  16. Kowalski, T. J. (1984). Research and assumptions in adult education: Implications for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 8–10.Google Scholar
  17. Kwek, D. (2012). Weaving as frontload and backend pedagogies: building repertoires of connected learning. In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 335–350). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, W. O. (2012). Learning for the future: The emergence of lifelong learning and the internationalisation of education as the fourth way? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Low, E. L., Hui, C., Taylor, P. G., & Ng, P. T. (2012). Towards evidence-based initial teacher education in Singapore: A review of current literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin, A., & Freebody, P. (2005). A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore schools, unpublished technical report. Singapore: Center for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manos, M. A., & Kasambira, K. P. (1998). Teacher preparation programs and nontraditional students. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Institute of Education (NIE) (2009) A teacher education model for the 21st century: A report by the National Institute of Education. Singapore: NIE.Google Scholar
  25. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy & Practice, 7(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ng, P. T. (2011). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Journal of Educational Change, 12(4), 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ng, P. T. (2012). The quest for innovation and entrepreneurship in Singapore: strategies and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ng, P. T., Lan, L. K. Y., & Thye, J. T. E. (2004). Developing reflective teachers: The experience of two modules in the teacher training programme at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 200–206.Google Scholar
  29. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, F., & Hardman, F. (2003). Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction. Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tan, C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards performativity. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 2(2), 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tan, C., & Abbas, D. B. (2009). The ‘Teach less, learn more’initiative in Singapore: New pedagogies for Islamic religious schools? KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 6(1), 25–39.Google Scholar
  35. Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tharman, S. (2005). Achieving quality: Bottom up initiative, top down support. Speech by Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2005 at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre, 22 September, Singapore.Google Scholar
  37. Tigchelaar, A., Brouwer, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2010). Tailor-made: Towards a pedagogy for educating second-career teachers. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 164–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wragg, E. C. (2005). An introduction to classroom observation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1544–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2010). Seeing what you normally don’t see. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 60–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter G. Taylor
    • 1
  • Ee Ling Low
    • 2
  • Kam Ming Lim
    • 2
  • Chenri Hui
    • 3
  1. 1.QCM, Griffith UniversitySouth BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Office of Teacher Education, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options