Signature Pedagogies in WSE
Signature Pedagogies in WSE
Signature pedagogies are "types of teaching that organize the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions” (Shulman, 2005, p. 52). Calder notes that “signature pedagogies encourage students to do, think and value what practitioners in the field are doing, thinking and valuing” (2006, p. 88). It is "the way each discipline teaches students to think like the professionals in that discipline” (Haynie, Chick & Gurung, 2012, p. 7).
Shulman (2005) proposes three dimensions that form a signature pedagogy:
Surface Structure –“concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing”. Deep Structure –a “set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know-how”. Implicit Structure –“a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions”. (Shulman, 2005, p. 55)In the Werklund School of Education, we have identified six pedagogies that, put together, form the basis for the professional development of school teachers:
PBL is “’a pedagogical method that provides students with practical, real-life problems to solve. These problems are typically open-ended in nature, generally possessing many possible solutions’” (Visconti, 2013, p. 27). It is about carefully designing problems where students are challenged to use problem solving skills, self-directed learning strategies, teaming/collaboration skills and disciplinary knowledge. Through PBL, students can improve their problem-solving skills, research skills, and social skills.
Additional resources:
Center for Teaching and Learning (2001). Problem-based learning. Speaking of Teaching – Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching, 11(1). Retrieved from https://stanford.box.com/shared/static/0y42jxd1leptkqbm4ffe.pdf
Center for Teaching Excellence – Cornell University (n.d.). Problem-based learning. Retrieved from https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engaging-students/problem-based-learning
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A Response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf
Lee, R., & Chiu-Yin, K. (1997). The use of problem-based learning in medical education. Journal of Medical Education, 1(2), 149-157.
University of Delaware. (n.d.). Problem-based learning at University of Delaware. Retrieved from http://www.udel.edu/inst/why-pbl.html
Visconti, C. (2010). Problem-based learning: Teaching skills for evidence-based practice. Perspectives on Issues in Higher Education, 13(1), 27-31.
CBL “is a pedagogical model that connects classroom-based work with meaningful community involvement and experiences.Within the context of equitable partnership, community organizations and students mutually benefit from the CBL experience both by meeting course objectives and by addressing community-identified goals.Students may engage with groups including, but not limited to: nonprofits, government agencies, grassroots collectives, and other educational institutions” (Johns Hopkins Center for Social Concern, 2008).
Additional resources:
Barrett, M.S. (2012). An introduction to community-based Learning. Retrieved from https://www.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/files/cbl/introduction_to_community-based_learning_17.pdf
John Hopkins University. (2008). Community based learning. Retrieved from http://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/socialconcern/programs/community-based-learning/
Klamma, R., Rohde, J., & Stahl, G. (2004). Community-based learning: Explorations into theoretical groundings, empirical findings and computer support. SIG Group Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.gerrystahl.net/publications/journals/cbl.pdf
Place-based learning “connects schools with the local community by grounding learning in local phenomena and lived experiences. Rooted in Dewey’s focus on authentic learning, placed based approaches include cultural and historical studies, nature exploration, and real-world problem solving.” (Lamb & Johnson, 2010).
Additional Resources:
Center for Ecoliteracy. (2004 - 2013). TEACH: Place-based Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/strategies/place-based-learning
Gruenewald, D. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 619-654.
Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Lamb, A. & Johnson, L. (2010). GPS & Place-based learning. Retrieve from http://eduscapes.com/omrp/gps.htm
Learning to Make Choices for the Future. (n.d.). The foundations of place-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.ntu.edu.vn/Portals/96/Tu%20lieu%20tham%20khao/Phuong%20phap%20giang%20day/place-based%20learning.pdf
Inquiry is the process that those working in living disciplines actually undertake. It involves serious engagement and investigation and the active creation and testing of new knowledge.” (Galileo Educational Network, 2011). It is a question-driven search for understanding, where the instructor helps learners to formulate relevant and worthwhile questions, hypothesize solutions, and search/critically analyze information (Garrison, Kanuka, & Hawes, 2003).
Additional resources:
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). What is inquiry-based learning? Concept to Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/index.html
Foundations. (n.d.). Inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm
Galileo Educational Network. (2015). Focus on Inquiry. Retrieved from https://inquiry.galileo.org/
Garrison, D. R., Kanuka, H., & Hawes, D. (2003). Communities of Inquiry. University of Calgary, Learning Commons.
Queens’ University. (n.d.). Inquiry-based learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://www.queensu.ca/ctl/teaching-support/instructional-strategies/inquiry-based-learning
“A good case presents an interest provoking issue and promotes empathy with the central characters. It delineates their individual perspectives and personal circumstances well enough to enable students to understand the characters’ experience of the issue. The importance of the compelling issue and the empathetic character reflects the fact that cases typically focus on the intersection between organizational or situational dynamics and individual perception, judgment, and action.” (Boehrer & Linsky, 1990, p.45).
Clyde Freeman Herreid (2007) provides eleven basic rules for case-based learning.
1. Tells a story.
2. Focuses on an interest-arousing issue.
3. Set in the past five years
4. Creates empathy with the central characters.
5. Includes quotations. There is no better way to understand a situation and to gain empathy for the characters
6. Relevant to the reader.
7. Must have pedagogic utility.
8. Conflict provoking.
9. Decision forcing.
10. Has generality.
11. Is short.
Additional resources:
Boehrer, J., & Linsky, M. (1990). Teaching with cases: Learning to question. In M. D. Svinicki (ed.), The Changing Face of College Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (2012). Case-based teaching and problem-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tscbt
Davis, C., & Wilcock, E. (2004). Teaching materials using case studies. Retrieved from
http://www.materials.ac.uk/guides/casestudies.asp
Meyer, H-D. (2010). Case writing as a signature pedagogy in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 89-101.
Queens’ University. (n.d.) What is case-based learning? Centre for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://www.queensu.ca/ctl/teaching-support/instructional-strategies/case-based-learning
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Additional Resources:
Dennen, Vanessa Paz (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in Educational Practice: research on scaffolding, Modeling, Mentoring, and Coaching as Instructional Strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology.
Seezink, A., Poell, R. and Kirschner, P. (2009) Teachers' individual action theories about competence-based education: the value of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. 61 (2) 203-215. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13636820902904586.
General resources:
Chen, I.L. & Nath, J. (2012). Signature pedagogies for Educational technology courses in teacher education. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012 (pp. 2377-2383). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Chick, N.L, Haynie, A. & Gurung, R.A.R. (2012). Exploring more signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Golde, C. (2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for the preparation of education researchers? Educational Researcher, 36(6), 344-351.
Gurung, R., Chick, N. & Haynie,A. ( Eds.) (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Olson, K. & Clark, C. (2009). A signature pedagogy in doctoral education: the leader-scholar community. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 216-221.
Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/0011526054622015