A fundamental tension has long existed between school reform proposals and actual teaching practice. Despite a large literature on teacher change, the discontinuity between innovation and practice continues and many attempts to reform teaching fail to be enacted in most classrooms.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The purpose of this paper is to present a bridging methodology for connecting pedagogical innovations to the practical demands of teaching. The methodology is framed within practicality theory, which is an ecologically grounded analysis of the design issues and constraints that practitioners face in the everyday work of teaching. To conduct lessons, teachers must construct procedures (instrumentality) that fit circumstances (congruence) within available time and resources (cost). Underlying these practicality dimensions is a set of reasoning processes that can be understood from the perspective of three strands of research on bounded rationality—goal systems, heuristics, and evolutionary planning.
Intervention/Program/Practice
The analysis of teacher practical reasoning provides a design foundation for a bridging methodology consisting of (a) construction of a heuristic goal system (HGS) representation of the hierarchy of goals and heuristic means that underlie a teacher's planning decisions with respect to lesson segments used to carry out instruction; and (b) a teaching impact analysis (TIA) that connects an innovation's lesson structure to a teacher's heuristic goal system and shows how a teacher can adapt his/her current practice to achieve increased expected value (i.e., an improvement).
Research Design
This study was designed as an analytical essay that theorizes teaching practice, teacher reasoning, and a bridging methodology for connecting teaching practice with specific educational innovations. Cases of an experienced biology teacher and of 11 student teachers are presented that demonstrate the nature of this bridging methodology and variations in its use in particular circumstances.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The bridging framework provides a practical tool for identifying the action-guiding model of a teacher, the connection of this model to the precise components of an innovation, and the recombination or adaptations a teacher can make to achieve personal goals through an innovation. Although further studies are needed, this framework promises to furnish a powerful tool for making innovations practical.
We cannot characterise behaviour independently of intentions, and we cannot characterise intentions independently of the settings which make those intentions intelligible both to agents themselves and to others (MacIntyre, 1981, p. 192).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AustinJ., & VancouverJ. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
2.
BaldwinC.Y & ClarkK.B. (2000). Design rules. The power of modularity.Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
3.
BallD. L., & ForzaniF. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511.
4.
BorkoH., JacobsJ., & KoellnerK. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In PetersonP., BakerE., & McGawB. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 7 (pp. 548–556). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
5.
BrunerJ.S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In BrunerJ.S., BrunswikE., FestingerL., HeiderF., MuenzingerK.F., OsgoodC.E., & RapaportD. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41–69). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
ChinC. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815–843.
7.
ColeM., & EngeströmY. (1993). A socio-cultural approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Crowther-HeyckH. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: The bounds of reason in modern America.Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
DamM., JanssenF. J. J. M., & van DrielJ. H. (2010). Motivating teachers for educational change: Using educational building blocks and the solution focused approach to engage teachers in educational change towards context-based biology education. Paper presented at the ESERA summer school, 25-31 July 2010, Udine, Italy.
10.
DesimoneL. (2009). How can we best measure teacher's professional development and its effects on teachers and students?Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
11.
DoyleW., & PonderG. (1977). The ethic of practicality and teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8, 1–12.
12.
DoyleW. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.
13.
DoyleW. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.
14.
DoyleW. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In EvertsonC. & WeinsteinC. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
DoyleW., & CarterK. (2003). Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teacher-education curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 129–137.
17.
DoyleW., & RosemartinD. (2012). The ecology of curriculum enactment: Frame and task narratives. In WubbelsT., den BrokP., van TartwijkJ., & LevyJ. (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education: An overview of contemporary research (pp. 137–147). Rotterdam: Sense Academic Publishers.
18.
EngeströmY. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In ChaiklinS. & LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ErautM. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
20.
FioriS. (2008). Herbert A. Simon and contemporary theories of bounded rationality. Working paper. University of Turin, Italy.
21.
FishbachA., & FergusonM. F. (2007). The goal construct in social psychology. In KruglanskiA. W. & HigginsT. E. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 490–515). New York: Guilford Press.
22.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Columbia, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
GigerenzerG. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools of bounded rationality. In KoehlerD., & HarveyN. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgement and decision making (p.62–88). Oxford: Blackwell.
GigerenzerG., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
GrunertK. G., & GrunertS. C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 209–225
27.
GronerM., GronerR., & BischofW. F. (1983). Approaches to heuristics: a historical review. In GronerR. (Ed.), Methods of Heuristics (pp. 1–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
GrossmanP., ComptonC., IgraD., RonfeldtM., ShahanE., & WilliamsonP. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 11, 2055–2100.
29.
GumpP. V. (1967). The classroom behavior setting: Its nature and relation to student behavior (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 015 515)
30.
GumpP. V. (1969). Intra-setting analysis: The third grade classroom as a special but instructive case. In WilliamsE. & RauschH. (Eds.), Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
31.
GumpP. V. (1982). School settings and their keeping. In DukeD. L. (Ed.), Helping teachers manage classrooms (pp. 98–114). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
HollandJ.H. (2000). Emergence from chaos to order. Oxford: Oxford University Press
33.
HubermanA. M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens. A situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools. Knowledge, 4, 478–510.
34.
HubermanA. M., & MiddlebrooksS. (2000). The dilution of inquiry: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13, 281–304.
35.
JanssenF. J. J. M. (1999). Ontwerpend leren in het biologie onderwijs [Learning by designing in biology education, with a summary in English]. Utrecht: CD-B press.
36.
JanssenF. J. J. M., & WaarloA. J. (2010) Learning biology by designing. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 87–96.
37.
JanssenF. J. J. M., Hullude A. E., & TigelaarD. E. H. (2008). Positive experiences as input for reflection by student teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14, 115–127.
38.
JanssenF. J. J. M., Hullude A. E., & TigelaarD. E. H. (2009). Using a domain-specific model to improve student teachers’ reflections on positive teaching experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 31, 120–135.
39.
JanssenF. J. J. M., van DrielJ. H., & VerloopN. (2010). Naar praktische ontwerpondersteuning voor docenten [Toward practical design support for teachers]. Pedagogische studiën, 87, 412–431.
40.
JanssenF. J. J. M., WestbroekH.B. & DoyleW. (2011). Bounded rationality in the classroom. Understanding teacher performance in context. Paper presented at the ESERA, 5-9 September 2011 in Lyon, France.
41.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
42.
KennedyM. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
KennedyM. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39, 591–598.
44.
KouninJ. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
45.
KouninJ. S., & GumpP. V. (1974). Signal systems of lesson settings and the task related behavior of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 554–562.
46.
KruglanskiA. W., & GigerenzerG. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109.
47.
LampertM., & GrazianiF. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning in and for ambitious practice. Elementary School Journal, 109, 491–509.
48.
LittleB. R., & TravisG. (2007). The methodology of personal projects analysis: four modules and a funnel. In LittleB.R., PhillipsS.D., and Salmela-AroK. (Eds.), Personal project pursuit: goals, action, and human flourishing (pp. 51–93). Mahwahy NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49.
MacIntyreA. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
50.
MerrillM. D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 33–50.
51.
PollockJ. L. (2006). Thinking about acting. Logical foundations for rational decision making.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
RandiJ., & CornoL. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In BiddleB., GoodT., & GoodsonI. (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1163–1221). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
53.
ReynoldsT. J, & OlsonJ. C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy.Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
RichardsonV., & PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
55.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constraints (Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 9) (pp. 131–169). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
56.
SimonH.A. (1947). Administrative behavior.New York, NY: Macmillan
57.
SimonH.A., (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
58.
SimonH.A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
59.
SimonH. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In PatteeH. H. (Ed.), Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: George Braziller.
60.
SimonH. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
ShahJ. Y. & KruglanskiA. W. (2008). Structural Dynamics: The challenge of change in goal systems. In ShahJ. W. & GardnerW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 217–235). New York: Guilford Press.
62.
ShahA. K., & OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207–222.
63.
ShavelsonR. J., YoungD. B., AyalaC. C., BrandonP. R., FurtakE. M., Ruiz-PrimoM.A., TomitaM. K., & YinY. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 295–314.
64.
SteinM. K., GroverB.W., & HenningsenM. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.
65.
TverskyA., & KahnemanD. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
66.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
Veledo-de OliveiraT., IkedaA. A., & CampomarM. C. (2006). Discussing laddering application by the means-end chain theory. The Qualitative Report, 11, 626–642.
68.
VerloopN., Van DrielJ. H, & MeijerP. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441–461.
69.
WieringaN., JanssenF. J. J. M., & van DrielJ.H. (2011). Biology teachers designing context-based lessons for their classroom practice—The importance of rules-of-thumb. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2437–2462.
70.
WimsattW. C. (2007). Re-Engineering philosophy for limited beings. Piecewise approximations to reality.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
71.
WestbroekH. B., & JanssenF. J. J. M. (in press). Using teachers’ goal systems to understand their responses to context-based chemical reform materials.
