Praxis pedagogy in teacher education

The underlying shift to the model of signature pedagogies indicated has relied on a dialogic approach to learning and knowledge (Freire, 1989) and experiences from classrooms of preservice teachers (Dewey, 1938). The opportunity of envisaging ‘transformative’ curriculum, approaches and outcomes for students (Arnold et al., 2012; Arnold et al., 2014; Hooley, 2013; Kalantzis, 2006) underpins the conversations when presenting cases and the portfolio. It is during conversations that practice is described, explained, theorised and re-imagined. Portfolios based on signature pedagogies are developed by the preservice teachers as a basis for the praxis to encompass ideas of pedagogical perspectives in terms of current and future professional engagement. Collegiate conversations often include perspectives of the preservice teacher, mentor teachers and lecturer and can be enhanced through ‘Learning Circles’ (Fitzgerald, Farstad, & Deemer, 2005, p. 212; Peters & Le Cornu, 2005), case writing and commentary (Cherednichenko, Hooley, Kruger, & Mulraney, 1997) processes as ways of enabling this type of dialogue. When preservice teachers are able to articulate their own inquiry (Loughran, 2006; Shulman, 1992) and position, there is an opportunity for critical dialogue (Freire, 1989) which is based on real issues from teaching and learning experience to become highly focused, thoughtful and critical (Arnold et al., 2012; Green, 2009). Preservice teachers bring highly developed ideas and ways of knowing that reflect habitus (Bourdieu, 1977), Frames of Reference (Burridge et al., 2016), Funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzales, 1992) and experiences (Dewey, 1938). 12.

The qualitative method includes narrative data (Riessman, 2008) and provides dialogue (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990) from the preservice teachers’ perspectives that described understanding of the conditions of teaching and learning and the importance of making connections to theories and practice in the classroom. This research whilst acknowledging the progressive scholarly critiques and approaches also focuses on knowledge, expertise and prior learning that students bring to their chosen field of teaching as a 4th year student in teacher education.

Accessing preservice teacher notions of cultural values, capabilities and ‘funds of knowledge’ which form and inform preservice teacher’s learning should not be overlooked in teacher education. Human and social experiences are bound by socio-political and cultural agency (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). For preservice teachers examining one’s own pedagogy may be one way of reflecting on the virtues of why and how we teach. The ability for preservice teachers to critique is crucial. Praxis pedagogy provides the opportunities for educational issues to be shared and explored deeply enabling preservice teachers to reflect on the practice of schools and the curriculum. It is important to not understate the personal funds of knowledge which preservice teachers bring that is deep and highly personalised (Bourdieu, 1976; Moll et al., 1992).

To further validate the praxis model, a group of colleagues from the College of Education routinely met to provide educational perspectives to develop a strong theoretical foundation. The Signature Pedagogies are underpinned by many theorists and some examples of these authors are provided in the rubric. It is important to identify here the authors which underpin the Signature Pedagogies. Teacher education requires accounts of Professional Practice (Green, 2009; Kalantzis, 2006; Kemmis, 2012; Schatzki, 2001) which provides a foundation for teachers to engage in and consider behaviours to improve and think critically about practice. Building a culture of Teacher as Researcher (Stenhouse, 1985) is an expectation which embodies the manner in which teachers gather data about their students and respond to the data through practice. Stephen Brookfield (1995) considers development of portfolios by teachers as an effective reflective tool and a means to document processes for improving practice. Not only does Brookfield suggest a rationale for such a practice, but also presents a variety of ways in which portfolios may be documented. These practices might include reflective approaches such as Case writing (Shulman, 1992) accounts of experiences and inquiries into practice. Portfolios become useful ways of documenting learning in teacher education and have traditionally explored teachers’ work as well as a way of considering critical practice by presenting challenging dilemmas and issues from everyday teaching and learning experiences in the classroom. Kalantzis and Cope (2000) are introduced as a theoretical foundation for highlighting Repertoires of Practice and in particular those associated with new literacies and technological developments in the classrooms. They suggest cultural shifts and the increasing expectations of teacher and learner approaches are often confronting practices. Critical theory as indicated by Moll et al. (1992) suggest considering funds of knowledge as a way for teachers to critically examine perceptions of collective, communities and knowledge exchange. Freire (1989) emphasises dialogue and praxis as a form of exposing symbiotic processes and a way of moving towards thinking critically.

This study utilises data from 4th year preservice teachers to consolidate and evaluate on the merits of the Signature Pedagogies. The reviews of the Signature Pedagogical approaches along with experiences and accounts of practice prompted lively discussions by preservice teachers and the response indicated a critical understanding. These connections continued increasingly recognised by preservice teacher and lecturers in effectively meeting the Australian Standards (VIT and AITSL) during classes and particularly during portfolio presentations. Analysis of these accounts is further explored in the method of this research. Signature Pedagogies have developed as a result of the theoretical foundations outlined and ideas have merged to distinguish approaches that reveal elements of ‘trustworthiness’ in the development of preservice teacher within the College of Education. The approaches implemented along with the focus of the data collection are outlined in the following commentary.

The methodology focuses on some of the commentary and personal accounts from preservice teachers which contributed to the data collection process. Small group forums were held to discuss the features of the Signature Pedagogies. Pedagogical tools and approaches are required when thinking about praxis. These praxis tools provide an approach and provide a mechanism for a critical approach to understanding. Preservice teachers from Victoria University in their 4th year of study of the Bachelor of Education (Prep – Year 12) were invited to participate in the research project. Data was gathered from a random selection of 25 year 4 preservice teachers. Preservice teachers were briefed on the research and if interested were invited to provide accounts and respond to the Signature Pedagogy rubric as a way of mapping their practice. This was completed by each individual preservice teacher in groups of 5. Data was collected and following this work conversations to debrief and revisit the purpose of the study were implemented. Data was analysed and themes drawn to exemplify connections from practice and praxis. Engaging 25 preservice teachers in early discussions on aspects of the Signature Pedagogies through the rubric listed as Table 1 (Hooley, 2014) provided a basis for identifying practices within their teaching and learning experiences. A combination of approaches is useful to enable the analysis of the development of preservice teacher professional practice and praxis. The Signature Pedagogies have been critical in determining the impact of professional experience and the process of linking theory and practice.

Many preservice teachers approached this mapping in a variety of ways. The instructions were clear and acted as a general guide by which they could begin to map their development. The instructions given to preservice teachers included

A qualitative methodology enabled a close exploration of 4th year preservice teacher pedagogical praxis. To explore praxis, preservice teachers were invited to participate in forums and conversations regarding their practice. All students were briefed as to the purpose of the project and those who chose to be involved were provided detailed information and consent forms were then provided. The ethical practices were clarified and preservice teachers were reassured privacy would be protected and they could withdraw from the research if they chose without any penalty (Singh, Reid, Mayer, & Santoro, 2011). Once these ethical considerations as required higher education institution were in place focus group discussions were held with participants regarding their evaluation of the Signature Pedagogy rubric and artefacts. It will be made clear that such discussions are completely unrelated to assessment requirements. Focusing on portfolios (Brookfield, 1995; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Zeichner & Wray, 2001) and the opportunity for inquiry into practice offers an inclusive approach for preservice teachers particularly in their final year of study. Portfolios are not new to teacher education, but when used as a research tool whereby stories, cases and commentaries and evidence contribute critical dialogue they provide valuable pedagogical conversations when shared with colleagues. When engaging with preservice teachers, time is given to dialogue and for us, ‘the research portfolio seems to open dialogue in a practical way for those candidates who have struggles with the idea of making teacher research a logical part of their practice’. Cases (Shulman, 1992) are included as part of the preservice teacher research of practice and bring meaning and insights from elements of classroom experiences. The process of case writing is well suited to teacher education and provides opportunity to share practice and commentary through inclusive protocols. The idea of case writing encourages critical perspectives that provide a platform for shared new knowledge based on the connected and ‘lived experience’ (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990) of those involved.

Data was gathered and has been derived from 10 preservice teachers and included both male and female from the Bachelor of Education (P-12) course at Victoria University during 2014. Small case studies provide details for considering a way in which preservice teachers might approach the signature pedagogies framework. These accounts of small case studies lead the research and through examining and analysing critical conversations and written commentaries for preservice teachers we gain perspectives of their ability to identify their own understanding. The insights vary in description and understandings when approaching the 8 signature pedagogy rubric. The range of feedback has been useful in determining the next step of developing and embedding the model in the curriculum. Preservice teachers self-selected to be involved in the process of utilising the signature pedagogy map for their own appraisal and reflection. An overview of the rubric and signature pedagogies was discussed to a point in order to become familiar with many of the key terms. The preservice teachers were asked semi structure questions such as

Responses and feedback from preservice teachers provided an overview for the researchers of the complex conversations. Taking these conversations further we then indicated to the preservice teachers to

We were particularly interested in what the preservice teachers thought of the model at this early stage. The responses were surprising and rich discussion arose and lapsed into a number of critical and collaborative conversations concerning such things as Participatory Action research, Community partnerships and Praxis Learning. Portfolios, Case writing, Learning circles and Praxis Inquiry protocols were discussed by some preservice teachers as a basis for dialogue on the Signature Pedagogies.

These conversations became the highlight of the new ground on which we were moving. This paper signifies how data sourced conversations from the small case studies that pressed preservice teachers to contemplate connections with language, pedagogies and beliefs. With this map, preservice teachers contemplated new space for reflecting on praxis with university peers, colleagues and internalising these ideas through processes of intersubjectivity (Biesta, 1998; Mead, 1939) and reflexive practices.

The signature pedagogy model is intricately bound to practice. Presenting some of the early ideas and initial impacts of distinctive praxis for a teacher education model requires that we view ways in which praxis and critical reflection is implemented to the improvement and practice in teacher education and student outcomes. This presentation draws out characteristics of the model.

This definition and the accompanying diagrams raise questions and intend to respond to further ideas of a dialogic and interactive praxis in an ethical space and where education is seen as a democratic process and human virtue valued. Figure 3 below demonstrates how praxis pedagogy as defined operates in the classroom.

When discussing the Signature Pedagogies rubric with preservice teachers they provided stories or accounts of practice to illustrate and identify particular pedagogies.

When Rosie (preservice teacher) was presenting her portfolio, she provided a story about an experience on school placement. The story was prompted by ‘a reluctance to read from some of the students’ from her class. After writing a case regarding this concern, she developed a critical commentary with others she indicated that the case and commentary protocol pedagogy ‘encourages analysis of teachers’ knowledge in relation to theories of curriculum and teaching’. She had reflected on the Signature Pedagogy map in a way that enabled her to articulate and identify a way for her to search and research the concern she had with her reluctant readers. She then came up with a plan. She indicated she would attempt to solve this issue in her classroom by implementing a ‘dot’ chart for students to determine their own reading behaviours in an individual learning plan. She added, ‘I think the pedagogies rubric makes you think deeper about the concepts. I think it makes you reflect better on what you have learnt and the type of teacher you want to be.’ Rosie (preservice teacher).

When Linda (preservice teacher) was articulating and positioning her practices she chose three areas from the Signature Pedagogies rubric to make comment on. Like Rosie, she began with Case conferencing. Linda also chose to discuss Praxis Learning (inquiry into her practice) and Participatory Action research. Table 2 below indicates the three Signature Pedagogies determined by Linda for explaining her practice.

Linda presented many accounts of her practice, but did not immediately recognise these within the Signature Pedagogies rubric. For instance, Linda described the focus and structure of the school she was currently placed in. She felt the school has a strong sense of community and the curriculum had a strong integrated curriculum. Linda was engaging and she did this by providing a story - a story told of her practice. She began by articulating that the sense of community within the school had prompted her to tell her story to the students. She chose a literacy lesson to write her story for the students during the beginning of the writing session. A literacy practice and understanding pedagogy that was engaging, contextualised and relevant and which highlighted the Signature Pedagogy of Community and Partnership characteristic titled ‘Integrates community culture and knowledge into curriculum’. After this conversation and reflection, Linda was able to locate her practice and praxis pedagogy in the Signature Pedagogy rubric.

Elizabeth (preservice teacher) began with some early comments after viewing the Signature Pedagogies map for some time and stated, ‘Some of the language seems to just be there for the sake of it – this does not get used in the day-to-day setting.’ This critique draws attention to when and why the use professional language and the social practices teachers and researcher engage in. Adopting and adapting to social and professional practice requires a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006). In general preservice teachers grapple with language used in teacher education programs. It is not until the preservice teachers join the profession that there is a ‘sobering understanding’ (Cochran-Smith et al. p. 111) and professional shift from university- based experience. Elizabeth indicated she would like ‘more case writing’. This is a constructive comment and an indication of her professional mindshift and growth. Continuing critique of practice for change of conditions to formulate ideas of new practice is indicated under the title of Professional Practice in the Signature Pedagogies. There is evidence to suggest that Elizabeth is reflecting on the challenges she may find in the classroom and recognising that perhaps case writing may assist her to address the professional social practices she may encounter in her future work. Elizabeth also discussed the Applied Curriculum Project (ACP) she was engaged in at her school stating, ‘The ACP went well – it needed to be more school directed to really address their [school] needs’. She indicated that this particular pedagogy was also connected to the opportunity to ‘Participate as member of school-based research team/s.’ An ACP provides opportunity for preservice teachers negotiate with the school to collaborate on a school research project. These projects require that the team design, gather data and analyse data for the benefit of school and student outcomes. Elizabeth’s enthusiasm is evident when speaking about the ACP and this dialogue and exchange regarding the Signature Pedagogies resulted in recognising herself as a participant in a research team and ‘Teacher as researcher’. She added that the ACP had a middle years’ focus and discussions in the university classes assisted and in particular, Case Conferencing was important for developing the ACP.

These responses along with many others not included in this paper, indicated to us that students were thinking about the ideas and articulating from experience from which to theorise. Their perspectives provided a stance for developing practice.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 indicate the connections drawn as a result of our reflections from the data (preservice teachers’ stories) and the processes occurring in the classroom. This provided a way of connecting the theorising of the preservice teachers and the processes linked to their praxis. We find these diagrams useful for exploring the characteristics of praxis pedagogy. They illustrate the rationale and processes that can occur in praxis pedagogy.