This paper theorizes and describes a program-wide pedagogical design for teacher preparation that addresses central problems related to supporting beginning teacher candidates in designing engaging classroom interactions in and across diverse contexts.
Focus of Study
In particular, we aimed to support the development of dialogically-organized classroom interactions over time through a pedagogy informed by Multiliteracies. Our pedagogy involved a Web 2.0-mediated process of Video-Based Response and Revision (VBRR), developed and implemented over two years with secondary English teacher candidates at Michigan State University engaged in fifth-year internships in local secondary schools.
Project Design
Four times over the course of their year-long internships, teacher candidates recorded video of their teaching, posted clips and other related materials to an online social network, commented on each others’ practices, and reflected on how they might implement the feedback they received from their peers and instructors. In addition, they created an end-of-year “digital reflection” drawing on all of these materials.
Conclusions/ Recommendations
Based upon analysis of teacher candidates’ moves within the structure of the pedagogical design, we present pedagogical and programmatic considerations for teacher educators interested in designing learning environments that make beginning teacher practices visible in networked spaces, that invite collaborative responses to those practices, and that create opportunities for transformed practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
AdlerM., & RougleE. (2005). Building literacy through classroom discussion: Research-based strategies for developing critical readers and thoughtful writers in middle school.New York: Scholastic.
3.
AlvermannD. E. (2006). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
AlvermannD. E., & HayesD. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area reading assignments: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 305–335.
5.
ApplebeeA. N., LangerJ. A., NystrandM., & GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
6.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination, (HolquistM., Ed.), (Emerson, C. and Holquist, M., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1935).
7.
BakhtinM. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (Emerson, C., Ed. and Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1929).
8.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (EmersonC. and HolquistM., Eds.), (McGee, V. W., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1953).
9.
BakhtinM. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (LiapunovV. and HolquistM., Eds.), (Liapunov, V., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
10.
BasmadjianK. G. (2005). Learning to lead discussions: Context, conflict, and community. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
11.
BeachR. (2006). Teaching medialiteracy.com: A web-linked guide to resources and activities.New York: Teachers College Press.
BorkoH., JacobsJ., EiteljorgE., & PittmanM. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education24(2), 417–436.
14.
BorsheimC. (2010). English teacher candidates’ incorporation of digital technologies in planning for English language arts. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
BrandtD. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BrandtD., & ClintonK. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research34(3): 337–356.
17.
CaughlanS. (2003). Exploring the gap between espoused and enacted cultural models of literature discussion. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 52, 150–161.
18.
CaughlanS. (2007, April). Raising critical awareness of classroom discourse practices inpreservice teachers. Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
19.
CaughlanS., JuzwikM., SherryM., LaVoyM., & HeckmanA. (2009, November). Video-based response and reflection: A process of discovery. Talk presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philadelphia, PA.
20.
CazdenC. (1986). Classroom discourse. In WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.
21.
ChinnC. A., AndersonR. C., & WaggonerM. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.
22.
Cook-GumperzJ. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
CopeB., Kalantzis, M., & New London Group. (2000). Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
24.
DeVossD. N., CushmanE., & GrabillJ. T. (2005). Infrastructure and composing: The when of new-media writing. College Composition and Communication, 57(1), 14–44.
25.
DicksonR., SmagorinskyP., BushJ., ChristenburyL., CummingsB., & GeorgeM. (2006). Are methods enough? Situating English education programs within the multiple settings of learning to teach. English Education38(4), 312–328.
26.
DoeringA., BeachR., & O'BrienD. (2007). Infusing multimodal tools and digital literacies into an English education program. English Education, 40(1), 41–60.
27.
DysonA. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
FaircloughN. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness.London: Longman.
29.
Feiman-NemserS. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record103(6), 1013–1055.
30.
GeeJ. P. (2008). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
GonzálezN., MollL. C., & AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
GoodladJ. I. (2004). A place called school (2nd Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
GreenhowC., RobeliaB., & HughesJ. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?Educational Researcher, 38, 246–259.
34.
GreenwaltK. (2008). Through the camera's eye: A phenomenological analysis of teacher subjectivity. Teaching and Teacher Education24, 387–399.
GrossmanP. L., ValenciaS., EvansK., ThompsonC., MartinS., & PlaceN. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.
38.
HatchT., & GrossmanP. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation. Journal of Teacher Education60(1), 70–85.
39.
HatchT. C., & PointerD. (2006). Making teaching public: A digital exhibition. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/makingteachingpublic/
40.
HatchT., & Pointer-MaceD. (2007). Key questions for representing teaching and learning using multimedia and the Web. Teachers College Record. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=13462
41.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
HeintzA., BorsheimC., CaughlanS., JuzwikM. M., & SherryM. B. (2010). Video-based response and revision: Dialogic instruction using video and Web 2.0 technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol10/iss2/languagearts/article2.cfm
43.
Herbel-EisenmannB., & CirilloM. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: NCTM.
44.
JenkinsH. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (white paper): MacArthur Foundation.
45.
JuzwikM. M. (2004). Towards an ethics of answerability: Reconsidering dialogism in socio-cultural literacy studies. College Composition and Communication, 55(3), 536–567.
46.
JuzwikM. M. (2009). The rhetoric of teaching: Understanding the dynamics of Holocaust narratives in an English classroom.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
47.
JuzwikM. M., NystrandM., KellyS., & SherryM. B. (2008). Oral narrative genres as dialogic resources for classroom literature study: A contextualized case study of conversational narrative discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1111–1154.
48.
LampertM. (2003). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
LankshearC., & KnobelM. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
McConnellT. J., EberhardtJ., LundebergM. A., ParkerJ. M., KoehlerM. J., Urban-Lurain, M., & Problem-Based Learning Staff. (2008). The PBL project for teachers: Using problem-based learning to guide K-12 science teachers’ professional development. MSTA Journal, 53(1), 16–21.
53.
MishraP., & KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
54.
MorsonG. S., & EmersonC. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
55.
NewellG. E., GingrichR. S., & JohnsonA. B. (2001). Considering the contexts for appropriating theoretical and practical tools for teaching middle and secondary English. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 302–343.
56.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
57.
NystrandM., with GamoranA., KachurR., & PrendergastC. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
58.
NystrandM., WuL. L., GamoranA., ZeiserS., & LongD. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the unfolding structure of classroom discourse. Discourse Processes35(2), 135–196.
59.
OchsE. (1979). Transcription as theory. In OchsE. and SchieffelinB. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.
60.
OchsE., & SchieffelinB. (2001). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 263–301). Oxford: Blackwell.
61.
O'ReillyT. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65(1), 17–37.
62.
PecheoneR., & ChungR. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22–36.
63.
Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). (2007). A brief overview of the PACT assessment system. Retrieved from http://www.pacttpa.org/
RexL. (1999). “If anything is odd, inappropriate, confusing, or boring, it's probably important”: The emergence of inclusive academic literacy through English classroom discussion practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 34(1), 65–129.
66.
RexL. A. & JuzwikM. M. (2011). Narrative discourse analysis for teacher educators: Managing cultural differences in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Hampton Press.
67.
RexL. A., MurnenT. J., HobbsJ., & McEachenD. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical stories and the shaping of classroom participation: “The Dancer” and “Graveyard Shift at the 7-11.”American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 765–796.
68.
RichP. J., & HannafinM. (2009). Video annotation tools: technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.
69.
RonfeldtM., & GrossmanP. (2008). Becoming a professional: Experimenting with possible selves in professional preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 41–60.
70.
RosaenC. L., LundebergM., CooperM., FritzenA., & TerpstraM. (2008). Noticing: How does investigation of video records of practice change how teachers reflect on their experience?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360.
71.
RosaenC. L., LundebergM., CooperM., FritzenA., & TerpstraM. (2010). Interns’ use of video cases to problematize their practice: Crash, burn and (maybe) learn. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 459–488.
72.
SegallA. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 489–504.
73.
SherryM. (2010). Reframing discussion. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
74.
StanawayJ. C. (2008). The PBL project for teachers: Using problem-based learning to guide K- 12 science teachers’ professional development. MSTAJournal, 53(1), 16–21.
75.
StreetB. (1995). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
van EsE. A., & SherinM. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education24(2), 244–276.
77.
WellsG. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244–274.
78.
WideenM., Mayer-SmithJ., & MoonB. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.
79.
WorthamS. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis.New York: Teachers College Press.
80.
WorthamS. (2004). The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 715–749.
