Advertisement

Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 641–656 | Cite as

Principled practical knowledge in bridging practical and reflective experiential learning: case studies of teachers’ professional development

  • Xin Pei VoonEmail author
  • Lung-Hsiang Wong
  • Wenli Chen
  • Chee-Kit Looi
Article

Abstract

“Heuristic approach” is a teachers’ professional development (TPD) method supported by principled practical knowledge (PPK) which focuses on principled practical guidance that develops teachers’ capacity in innovative learning designs. This study reports the key features of the design and implementation of a TPD programme aimed at facilitating teachers’ experiential learning in designing and implementing seamless inquiry science learning (SISL). The TPD is based on the notion of fast and frugal heuristics which are supported by PPK and lead to actual classroom action. Two teacher case studies were analysed to investigate the teachers’ learning trajectory underpinned by an experiential learning framework throughout the TPD programme. As learners of innovative pedagogy, the teachers explored the design and implementation of SISL with their students. The findings indicate that the TPD programme had a positive impact on three aspects of teachers’ experiential learning: (a) acquiring new pedagogy; (b) improving knowledge and skills in the seamless inquiry science lesson (SISL) design and implementation; (c) nurturing reflective practices in teachers concerning the designing and implementation of SISL lessons. The teachers’ professional reflection and growth through experiential learning processes demonstrate how heuristic-based TPD engaged them as creative and professional lesson designers, resulting in meaningful changes in classroom practices. Our data analysis concluded that the heuristic-based TPD should be designed in such a way that it is authentic, reflective, practice-based and focused on meaningful tasks for the teachers.

Keywords

Principled practical knowledge (PPK) heuristic approach Teacher professional development (TPD) Experiential learning Seamless inquiry science learning (SISL) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Science4C project is funded by MOE Academies Fund, Singapore. We would like to thank Su Fen Goh, Lyna Kwan and participating teachers for their contributions to this project.

References

  1. Armstrong, H. E. (1902). The heuristic method of teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 1(8), 395–401.Google Scholar
  2. Arseven, I. (2018). The use of qualitative case studies as an experiential teaching method in the training of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(1), 111.Google Scholar
  3. Attema-Noordewier, S., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Zwart, R. C. (2013). Core reflection in primary schools: A new approach to educational innovation. In F. A. J. Korthagen, Y. M. Kim, & W. L. Greene (Eds.), Teaching and learning from within: A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education (pp. 111–130). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 175–178.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C. (2015). The practicality of principled practical knowledge: A response to Janssen, Westbroek, and Doyle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 187–192.Google Scholar
  8. Bolan, C. M. (2003). Incorporating the experiential learning theory into the instructional design of online courses. Nurse Educator, 28(1), 10–14.Google Scholar
  9. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Using experience for learning. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bromley, P. D. (1990). Academic contributions to psychological counselling. 1. A philosophy of science for the study of individual cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3(3), 299–307.Google Scholar
  12. Camburn, E. M., & Han, S. W. (2015). Infrastructure for teacher reflection and instructional change: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 511–533.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264.Google Scholar
  17. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 92(6), 81–92.Google Scholar
  20. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending school reform: From one school to many. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  21. Doyle, S. (2007). Member checking with older women: A framework for negotiating meaning. Health Care for Women International, 28(10), 888–908.Google Scholar
  22. Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S., He, Y., Levin, B., Rohr, J., et al. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 161–171.Google Scholar
  23. Farrell, T. S. (2008). Reflective practice in the professional development of teachers of adult English language learners. CAELA network brief. Center for adult English language acquisition.Google Scholar
  24. Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(4), 243–272.Google Scholar
  25. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (p. 62, 88). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Girvan, C., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2016). Extending experiential learning in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 129–139.Google Scholar
  28. Glenn, H. S., & Nelsen, J. (1988). Raising self-reliant children in a self-indulgent world: Seven building blocks for developing capable young people. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publish. & Communication.Google Scholar
  29. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  30. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappa, 84(10), 748–750.Google Scholar
  31. Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 43–52.Google Scholar
  32. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hilden, S., & Tikkamäki, K. (2013). Reflective practice as a fuel for organizational learning. Administrative Sciences, 3(3), 76–95.Google Scholar
  34. Jacobson, S. L., & Battaglia, C. F. (2001). Authentic forms of teacher assessment and staff development in the U.S. In D. Middlewood & C. Cardno (Eds.), Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach (pp. 75–89). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  35. Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176–186.Google Scholar
  36. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.Google Scholar
  37. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657.Google Scholar
  38. Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1996). Developing practice through field experiences. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook. Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiencing learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice hall.Google Scholar
  40. Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology. in Education.Google Scholar
  41. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., et al. (2011). 1: 1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269–287.Google Scholar
  43. Myers, B. E., & Roberts, T. G. (2004). Conducting and evaluating professional development workshops using experiential learning. NACTA journal, 48(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  44. Patton, K., Parker, M., & Neutzling, M. M. (2012). Tennis shoes required: The role of the facilitator in professional development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(4), 522–532.Google Scholar
  45. Pinar, W. F. (1989). A reconceptualization of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 9–12.Google Scholar
  46. Poekert, P. (2011). The pedagogy of facilitation: Teacher inquiry as professional development in a Florida elementary school. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  47. Pokhrel, T. R., & Behera, S. K. (2016). Expectations of teachers from teachers professional development program in Nepal. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 190–194.Google Scholar
  48. Pollock, J. L. (2006). Thinking about acting: Logical foundations for rational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Roberts, J. W. (2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Senge, P. M. (2000). The academy as learning community: Contradiction in terms or realizable future? In A. F. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs (pp. 275–300). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating pedagogy 2012: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Open University Innovation Report 1. Milton Keynes: Open University. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uwYH78.
  52. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.Google Scholar
  54. Svendsen, B. (2015). Mediating artifact in teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1834–1854.Google Scholar
  55. Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 435–467.Google Scholar
  56. Troen, V., & Boles, V. T. (2010). Team spirit: Teachers work together to establish and achieve goals. Journal of Staff Development, 31(1), 59–62.Google Scholar
  57. Voon, X. P., Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2018). Analysing the mediating processes of teacher’s growth: A case study in a seamless inquiry science learning environment. Paper presented at the Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE) 2018, Guangzhou, China.Google Scholar
  58. Watson, C. (2015). Quality in education: Teacher education and Professional development. Danish Education Network. Retrieved from: http://www.globaltfokus.dk/images/Pulje/Arkiv/Uddannelsesnetvaerket/Quality_in_Education_-_A_literature_review_-_21.01.2015.pdf.
  59. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wong, L.-H. (2015). A brief history of mobile seamless learning. In L. H. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 3–40). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Wong, L.-H., Looi, C.-K., & Voon, X. P. (2018). A rubric for assessing seamlessized Science learning lesson plans. In Y.-T. Wu, et al. (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of 26th international conference on computers in education (pp. 761–766). Philippines: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.Google Scholar
  62. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. California, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations