PRODUCTIVE PEDAGOGIES IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRE LIKE TO SEE THAT! David Zyngier Faculty of Education, Monash University ABSTRACT Australian teacher educators and teachers have become increasingly familiar with the notion of Productive Pedagogies. It has been argued that Productive Pedagogies is relevant to only secondary and primary education and that Early Childhood pedagogy is different. In this paper the value of Productive Pedagogies as a meta-language for developing pre-service early childhood teachers knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether Productive Pedagogies is a language that is also intelligible for early childhood pre-service teachers without prior teacher knowledge, or whether its elements and dimensions merely constitute an isolated vocabulary. Drawing on early childhood pre-service teachers fieldwork observations, the paper argues that Productive Pedagogies language is indeed useful in the development of early childhood pre-service teachers critical understanding of not just the need for supportive learning environments, but the role that intellectual quality, connectedness and engagement with difference plays in pedagogy of early childhood education. Keywords: Pre-service education, early childhood, pedagogies, fieldwork. INTRODUCTION I was certain that the productive pedagogies dimensions would have no relevance in a kindergarten setting, as throughout the semester [of teacher education at university] I believed that they were solely used in a primary or secondary school classroom. (Sarina)
    
    ID
    
    The centrality of teaching, the explication of what good teaching involves, and the valuing of teachers knowledges are recurrent themes at teacher education conferences. Gore, Griffiths & Ladwig (2001) argue that preparing teachers who can produce high quality outcomes for all of their students requires teacher educators to give greater importance to what they do and say about good classroom practices; that is, what teachers do matters. Australian teacher educators and teachers are become increasingly familiar with the notion of Productive Pedagogies, itself the product of longitudinal research on school reform recently undertaken in Queensland, Australia. While it is outside the scope of this paper to define the 4 Dimensions and 20 Elements of Productive Pedagogies, detailed and accessible information is available from Education Queensland at http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculum-framework/productivepedagogies/. More generally, Government Departments of Education have begun to acknowledge the importance if not its centrality, of good pedagogy for successful teaching (for example the Victorian Principles of Learning and Teaching).
    
    Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education Volume 13 (2) pp103 - 118
    
    This paper provides a brief background to the development of Productive Pedagogies (PP), then reviews the research literature focussing on PP in the education of preservice teachers. The research question is explained and the methodology outlined. The paper then discusses the pre-service early childhood teachers observations of teaching practice to ascertain if Productive Pedagogies language is useful in the development of pre-service early childhood teachers understanding of teaching. I discuss whether this reconceptualisation of pedagogy can be efficaciously introduced to first year students as Gore et al., (2001) and Zyngier (2005) concluded is necessary, but that other pre-service teacher educators have said is too difficult conceptually for pre-service teachers, especially first year students, to grasp (Cambourne & Kiggins, 2004a; 2004b). PRODUCTIVE PEDAGOGIES PP is derived from the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS) (Lingard, Ladwig, Gore, Hayes, & Luke et al., 2001a.; 2001b), a three-year intensive observation of 24 representative state primary and secondary schools, representing the largest and most detailed school reform study in Australia. The research was concerned with how student learning, both academic and social, could be enhanced. Its original contribution was to specify which aspects of teaching require schools urgent attention, concluding that the higher the level of intellectual demand expected of students by teachers the greater the improved productive performance and, hence, improved student outcomes (Lingard et al., 2001a). The base assumption of the research was that this enhancement required quality classroom teaching. The QSRLS defines quality student outcomes in terms of a sustained and disciplined inquiry focused on powerful, important ideas and concepts which are connected to students experiences and the world in which they live. Quality learning experiences, what the QSRLS has termed productive pedagogies is then crucial to improved student outcomes for all students, but in particular those most at-risk of failure; those from socially, culturally and economically disadvantaged conditions, who the research concluded were the least likely to be exposed to intellectually challenging and relevant material (Lingard et al., 2001b). PP in various forms has gained national recognition in Australia as a framework for teacher professional development. Since 2001 there have been limited but significant contributions to this discussion focussing on PP in the education and training of preservice teachers (Gore et al., 2001; Sorin & Klein, 2002; Wilson & Klein, 2000; Zyngier, 2005). Gore et al. s (2001) research results from a pilot study involving final year, teacher education students attempting to apply the principles of PP during their final year. Gore et al., conclude that: Productive Pedagogy needs to come early in the teacher education program in order to be more fully integrated into students knowledge base for teaching. If it is just another framework, just another theory, just another list, then students are likely to draw on it as they might any other approach. Instead, if students are to treat Productive Pedagogies as foundational to all of their efforts in teaching, it needs to be clearly positioned in that way from the beginning of the teacher education program . (Gore et. al. 2001, p. 8 emphasis added) Luke adds that Productive Pedagogies is: 2
    
    an approach to creating a place, space and vocabulary for us to get talking about classroom instruction again. It isn t a magic formula (e.g., just teach this way and it will solve all the kids problems), but rather it s a framework and vocabulary for staffroom, in-service, pre-service training, for us to describe the various things we can do in classrooms - the various options in our teaching repertoires that we have - and how we can adjust these, to get different outcomes. This isn t a one approach fits all model of pedagogy . It has the possibility of providing a common ground and dialogue between teachers, school administrators, teacher educators, student-teachers and others about which aspects of our teaching repertoires work best for improved intellectual and social outcomes for distinctive groups of kids. (Luke 2002, p. 4 emphasis added) Gore and Ladwig state emphatically that in our experience of working with educators from early childhood contexts right through to university contexts, it holds merit (Gore & Ladwig, 2003, p.2 emphasis added). Gore and Ladwig state that their teaching educators course asks their students to explore the relationship between authentic and productive models of teaching and more conventional approaches, and to generate practical materials designed to improve their own practice and is applicable to educators working in early childhood, primary, secondary, and/or tertiary education. (Gore & Ladwig, 2004, p.1 emphasis added) Luke elsewhere concludes that there is need to go beyond the conceptualisation of middle schooling that is current and dominant in both policy and practice there is a sense that middle schooling is positioned as between two other key phases in schooling: we need to articulate the middle years as being built on early childhood foundations. . (Luke & Elkins, 2002, p.5 emphasis added) Pre-service teachers, the research suggests (Cherednichenko & Kruger, 2002; Gore et al., 2001; Sorin & Klein, 2002; Wilson & Klein, 2000), want practical activities, lesson ideas and resources that they can use in the classroom and spend much of their time at the level of just tell me how ...! In our teaching we set out to challenge the notion that learning to teach is a lock-step process and address the preconceptions and dominant discourses in teacher education (Gore et al., 2001, p.7) in order to restore theory as central. The QSRLS states that PP is not a formula to follow and one would not expect the 20 elements to be present all the time in every lesson, nor would they be used in the same way in different settings with different students (Lingard et al., 2001b). It suggests that while all four dimensions of PP may be necessary and sufficient for most students, it is quite tenable that only one, two or three dimensions would be sufficient for some groups of students (Lingard et al., 2001b). While each of the four dimensions is readily defined on ideal grounds, there is no research basis for believing that school systems (anywhere) have been overly successful in consistently providing high levels of all four dimensions to large proportions of school students (Zyngier & Gale, 2003). Loughland and Reid (2002), establish that where teachers have mechanistically applied Productive Pedagogies, it has become a shiny object which teachers desire to utilise in classroom practice [only to] lose its lustre as a new and more desirable method comes along (Loughland & Reid, 2002, p.1).
    
    3
    
    A great deal of research into the early years has been conducted over the last decade. The Early Years Study (McCain & Mustard, 1999; 2003) conducted in Ontario, Canada concludes that the first few years of life are critical to brain development and well-being through to adulthood. Hertzman (2000) reinforces these conclusions. Not unlike the research of the QSRLS, Vinson s (2002) inquiry into teacher education in NSW reviewed studies across developed nations, concluding that well established early childhood programs that take into account the current realisation that rapid brain development occurs in this early period have positive effects for all but especially for disadvantaged children. Vinson concludes that such programs are more effective than those with a more traditional focus and that not only do they produce positive results for just the duration of the early childhood years but include sizable and persistent effects in reading and in maths; better social adjustment; reduced grade retention and special education; improved high school graduation and a reduction in delinquency (Vinson, 2002, p. 78). He provocatively asks whether early childhood teachers actually possess the skills to support children s acquisition of these competencies during the early years (Vinson, 2002). There is strong evidence that early childhood education can have a major beneficial impact on children s lives and give real meaning to the aim of each child achieving their full potential (Vinson, 2002). This research found that the children, who need intellectual quality most, are most likely to be impeded from participating in stimulating early child education as a result of social disadvantage and therefore their cognitive and all round development can be stunted. This conclusion is mirrored in the research of the QSRLS in relation to the older primary and secondary students studied. Professor Fiona Stanley, Director of the Institute for Child Health Research and Australian of the Year rhetorically asks Hey why aren t we putting more efforts into early programs that enhance child development and readiness for schools? (Stanley, 2003, p.9) RESEARCH QUESTIONS In a previous paper (Zyngier, 2005) the understandings of pre-service primary teachers regarding the observations of PP in their classrooms were reviewed. That paper concluded that the student teachers were able to utilize the vocabulary of PP to describe successfully their observations in the discursive language of Productive Pedagogies, as a powerfully reflexive and generative language that provided them ways to talk about what was and wasn t there in the classrooms observed. In this paper, the value of PP as a meta-language for developing pre-service early childhood teachers knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether it is a language that is not only intelligible but also efficacious for these early childhood teachers or whether its dimensions and elements (the dimensions mentioned are written in Bold while the elements are written in Italics throughout) merely constitute another isolated academic vocabulary. This is done against trenchant and recurring criticism that: discussions with teachers in a number of contexts raised an issue regarding the use of the term Productive Pedagogies . Some questioned the use of the word pedagogy suggesting it was academic speak and not the language of their professional discussions. Others suggested that this term inferred that any pedagogy not listed in the chosen twenty was not 4
    
    productive, and this inference raised problems for them regarding several pedagogies that they could not see clearly articulated in the model, and that their experience had taught them were productive or useful worthwhile pedagogies (Hill, 2002 p.1) It is also claimed that PP is more secondary based as almost all the examples found in the original Queensland research and publications were in a secondary setting, and of the almost 1000 lessons observed, the vast majority were in secondary or upper primary classes. Some teacher educators have also claimed that the PP framework is far too complex for pre-service teachers to understand and is only readily understood by experienced teachers in the field (Cambourne & Kiggins, 2004a; 2004b) and that a new simplified understanding of what transpires in the classroom needs to be developed. This current paper argues against such a dumbing down approach. Gore et al. (2001) conclude that there is strong evidence that pre-service teachers highly value the concept of PP as a framework to guide teaching and as the basis for their future work. We wanted to know whether this too would be the case for our early childhood students, whether they would conclude that pedagogy matters; not only regarding what is learned but perhaps more importantly how it is learned (Wilson & Klein, 2000, p.1). METHODOLOGY Since 2002, the first year pre-service teaching foundation studies at Monash University (Peninsula Campus) included an introduction to PP while students were experiencing first-hand the incumbent pedagogies of in-service teachers during the fieldwork component of the course. As part of their foundation studies, we introduced the students to the four dimensions of PP and their 20 elements. The students, including early childhood and primary Bachelor of Education students, were exposed to a new conceptualisation of pedagogy that suggests that there is no one correct pedagogy that will meet the needs of all students, in all sites of education. Engaging our first year pre-service early childhood teachers in a substantive conversation, about the how of pedagogy in the classroom through intellectually challenging material, was based on the assumption that they can understand this even before they have learnt the most basic tricks of the trade. We also understood that we needed to provide the theoretical support, as we were not about to throw them in the deep end and expect them to swim or even just tread water. We sought to convey to our pre-service teachers that our interpretation of PP certainly does not try to replace one hegemony with another. Rather, our understanding of PP is that it offers a counter-hegemony (Giroux, 1990), which is cognisant and inclusive of the viewpoints of the most marginalised learners. At the same time, we suggested that all students must acquire the requisite abstract and analytical knowledge if they are to have access to the dominant cultural capital of society i (Apple & Beane, 1999; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Giroux, 1990; Shor, 1996; Teese & Polesol, 2003). All students in the unit were required to observe in-service teachers over four teaching and learning sessions. In these observations, students were asked to use the dimensions of PP to describe and analyse what they observed in the lesson, and critique their observations detailing the extent to which those dimensions and elements were evident through annotated examples. They were to describe how they were employed by the observed teacher and enacted by the student(s). They also had
    
    5
    
    to indicate whether any of those elements were absent and how this could have been remedied. Finally they were to conclude what their analysis might mean for teachers in general and for their own future as a teacher in particular. As teacher educators, we were confident that we had established that PP is an intelligible language for pre-service primary teachers (Zyngier, 2005). In the context where productive pedagogies origins are in the observations by experienced teachers of upper primary and secondary school we wanted to establish whether it is really possible, for first year, pre-service early childhood teachers many coming directly from their final year of secondary school to make any sense of this new language about professional practice. Most of the students were able to complete the tasks to a high level in academic terms. This research involves the analysis of the observational records of 31 early childhood pre-service teachers from the class of 2004. After the completion of the teaching semester these observations were de-identified (all students have been randomly, but consistently identified by a different letter of the alphabet) and university ethics approval was gained for their use. This analysis of the very rich material presented by the pre-service early childhood teachers only looks at the language and vocabulary used. No attempt has been made to further deconstruct what they are saying about their understandings of PP as a basis for pre-service teacher education, but only to ask how might this analysis of the students responses compare with Gore et al. s (2001) and Zyngier s (2005) conclusions (see above) about their research with their preservice primary teachers? The remainder of the paper focuses on the written observations of the 31 pre-service early childhood teachers, selected to show how appropriately they were able to use the concepts of PP to discuss their observations of teaching practice made in the early childhood setting. In order to this I was able to identify the situations where the students were required to use the theoretical ideas of the PP framework. I was not interested in whether they were accurate representations of the teachers practices because we don t know actually what transpired in the classroom - only whether the students could describe in meaningful ways in their own words that were congruent with the theoretical concepts what they saw and what was missing in those practices. Despite these reservations the students readily and successfully identified all the dimensions and the relevant elements of PP as being present. While some did this better than others, this research seeks to identify only whether the pre-service early childhood teachers could effectively understand and use this new language of Productive Pedagogies. The intention is to focus on the extent to which the preservice teachers were able to use the language of PP to identify what they thought was going on in their observations of the children and the teachers in the early childhood setting. RESULTS One of the first themes to emerge was that many of the pre-service teachers initially were sceptical about the possibility of finding productive pedagogies in an early childhood setting, while they described these views of PP as changing in their assignments. Many concurred with the view that it is extremely hard to see how most of the dimensions of PP can be seen in the pre-school . PP are not for the preschool environment [or] for the very early years of primary school (Y).
    
    6
    
    As one of the pre-service teachers remarked when I went on my placement at a preschool, I was in doubt as to whether I d see these great things that we learned about in our course happening (J), while another remarked that observing in a pre-school made me think that I would not be able to make any connections to Productive Pedagogy (Z). When another read that productive pedagogies can provide students with empowering educational experiences and allow them to construct a positive self image as a learner [quoting from McFadden & Munns, (2002)], I did not believe this was possible in an early childhood setting (A). Another noted that I thought that there wouldn t be many elements of the dimensions found at the preschool, because of the different structure of lessons compared to primary school classrooms (F). Intellectual Quality in particular was going to be difficult and unusual to find I immediately thought that Deep Understanding would be one of the most difficult pedagogies to find at the kinder (Ad). These views are representative of the widely held epistemology of learning and teaching among beginning pre-service teachers of the image of the child (Ridgway and Surman, 2004), that originated in 19th century, but perseveres today where children are seen as imitative learners who learn from exposure to didactic exposure. This view was surprising because the pre-service teachers had previously spent one semester studying various perspectives on learning as well as discussing in detail the theoretical understandings of children as learners that not only are children thinkers and knowledgeable but are able from a very early age to construct knowledge. For some (at least) these views still remained dominant. Many of the students made comments that suggested that they believed that it is necessary for things to be dumbed down for preschoolers (E) because of the children s age and inability to regulate their behaviour. Uniquely one takes an overtly political position in relation to her observations and comments that As a teacher I don t want to disempower and further marginalise children and thereby promote disengagement and disconnectedness in their learning. I believe that this is based on structural inequalities present in the socio-political system and can impact on the type of education delivered to children of our society. (K) A student notes that observing in a pre-school made me think that I would not be able to make any connections to Productive Pedagogies [but] when I analysed my observations its was very clear that I was seeing Connectedness and Recognition of Difference (Z). While many of the students commented that they didn t expect preschool children to be able to be self regulated because of their age many concluded that this was indeed the case. The teacher didn t have to regulate the children s behaviour or make statements directing the children what to do (G). Many of the students doubted that they would see any Intellectual Quality in the preschool yet they observed children discovering new knowledge through discussion and sharing their experiences which they suggest are examples of deep understanding as the children discussed and then came to the conclusion . Their running records of observations and analysis clearly describe how relatively complex connections between concepts were developed so that the children were able to support connections by discovering the relationship between new and difficult concepts .
    
    7
    
    One student summarised her observations of Intellectual Quality by using newly acquired meta-language to describe how the teacher created an environment that allowed opportunity for the children to engage in manipulating ideas constructing and transforming new meanings and ideas .. through sustained dialogue between teacher and student building coherently on students ideas and knowledge. These interactions supported higher order thinking, deep knowledge and understanding allowing the students to become producers of knowledge. (A) Linking their observation with previous theoretical reading another commented that Arguably the most prevalent element within the kindergarten was Student Direction as the entire program was planned from the children s interest. This method of planning is strong within early childhood settings; based on studies of Reggio Emilia where the view of engaging children through experiences based on their own ideas and thoughts has proven successful. (J) Not only could the pre-service teachers identify and talk about elements of PP that they observed they were also able to discuss the implications of missing elements for the learning outcomes of the children and make suggestions to improve the teachers pedagogies. Distinguishing between the pedagogy of narrative and didactic teaching and learning and between lower and higher order thinking one student writes that throughout the lesson there was no focus on solving intellectual or real world problems, and children were not presented with hypothetical and practical problems to solve; children were presented with a large body of facts. (A) Although this student reported on some very productive pedagogy she observed she still recommends that Substantial conversation could have been enhanced by encouraging students to share their ideas about the different topics and how they think they might be related. As a teacher I can scaffold children s learning by supporting their questions and encouraging them to form generalisations on the basis of their ideas. (A) A student also observed the lack of Intellectual Quality as it could be argued that there was some evidence [only] of lower order thinking as they were reciting some factual information they were simply recalling facts. Identifying the normative IRE teacher approach the same student writes It was mainly teacher-student interaction, with hardly any student-student interaction. (F) Another explained how dominant culture was reproduced in a flag making activity even though the teacher sought to deliberately increase the participation of students from different backgrounds. She notes that the fact that the only flags used to model were Australian flags and that this might have sent the wrong impressions to the children as the only model that was displayed to them was of the dominant Australian flag which is what the teacher was trying to not show as dominant (L).
    
    8
    
    Reflecting like an experienced teacher on the extent of Knowledge Integration a student concludes that there were opportunities to extend this topic to include some language and literacy, music and movement and a possible excursion or incursion from a member of the community (I). Commenting on the tendency by the teacher to accept only short answers the same student suggested that to extend or improve this lesson the teacher may encourage the children to have [more] thinking time leading students to give more elaborate answers, use more logical arguments to support inferences and give more speculative responses. (I) Most of the students clearly understood that not all dimensions and their associated elements had to be present all the time and even that for certain children some elements were more important than others writing that involving all these elements is about making conscious decisions to make sure all children are being catered for and feel safe and able to take risks and learn (L). Rejecting the preconception that pre-school is all about play and fun another concludes that I found that Intellectual Quality does exist in a pre-school environment and it plays an important role in a child s learning and development (O). The students indeed recognised that each element and dimension cannot be seen as separate entities. Speaking as if she had years of classroom experience another concludes that the teacher openly values the children s prior knowledge background experiences and individual ideas while student suggestions are encouraged throughout discussion and are treated respectfully (I). Many (but not all) students rejected the toolbox (Loughland & Reid, 2002) or checklist approach rejected by the QSRLS (Lingard et al., 2001) noting the interrelatedness and importance of all elements and dimensions in the early childhood centre. Reflecting on the interconnectedness and relatedness of the various dimensions and elements it became apparent that the more the students enjoyed the sessions the more they began to take charge of their own learning and influence the activities at hand. The teacher encouraged the children to take risks to further their knowledge or express more detail. The high expectations that were present were from the students using their initiative and freedom to express themselves to seek praise and recognition challenging and advancing their skills and knowledge in the process. (C) Clearly indicating that this new language is not just intelligible, but also helpful one student comments on the new understanding of pedagogy that: although I am only beginning to understand the power that using Productive Pedagogies brings, I believe it is definitely the first step in the direction of becoming a good teacher. It has made me much more aware of the small but extremely important things such as valuing children s contributions and encouraging a passion for learning through engagement. (W) So did the pre-service teachers now understand PP after experiencing their first inescapable whiff of the classroom (Alexander, 2000, p.551)? Plainly they were able to integrate the dimensions of and their elements. Quoting Gore et al. (2001) that PP needs to be more extensively integrated into existing programs across all years to apply to not just pre-service teacher education but to children s education in general a 9
    
    student concludes that as I endeavour to look for the most suitable [pedagogy] that matches the interests of the students productive pedagogies must be the art of exceptional teaching (A). Almost all agreed with the conclusion that PP is more than just a way of teaching and that it is not necessary or even advisable to dumb down curriculum for young learners. [Productive Pedagogies] have steered me away from that notion to a mentality that inspires me to engage the intellects of children and put no limitations on what they can achieve. (E) Reflecting the views of almost all the pre-service teachers, S concludes using her new meta-language to suggest that the use of Productive Pedagogies will create an environment that reflects more on interactive learning, where children are encouraged further to construct their own understanding opposed to a more traditional transmittive approach where children are given facts and less engaged in communicating about their prior and newly discovered knowledge. CONCLUSION What can we conclude about the value of PP as a meta-language for developing preservice early childhood teachers knowledge and understanding of teaching? Is it an intelligible and efficacious language for these teachers who have not been exposed to any prior teacher knowledge or do its dimensions and elements merely constitute an isolated vocabulary, another framework, theory (Loughland & Reid, 2002)? The students understood the requirement not to necessarily include each dimension and its related elements in every lesson and concluded that despite the early childhood teachers they observed having little or no knowledge of the theory of Productive Pedagogies, it was not something new, but merely a reformulation of what good teachers have always been doing. Importantly they learnt that very young children s education is more than just about play and that PP has value for the early childhood teacher. The teaching approach of using Productive Pedagogies to enhance, support and develop children s learning is clearly seen at this pre-school [Productive Pedagogies] portrays the image that every child is a capable learner. . This sends a powerful message to myself as a student teacher as I can [now] identify that all students have an opinion and it is our place to hear and value each opinion. (W) The pre-service teachers observation records contained many examples pf the elements and dimensions of PP found in the early childhood centres. Almost all dismissed their initial scepticism and concluded that the dimensions of productive pedagogy are evident in a kindergarten setting as they have relevance to all teachers, kindergarten teaching included (S). Most already understood that teaching is more than imparting information to children rather it is encouraging a learning climate in which interesting and personally meaningful tasks can flourish (P). It was acknowledged by most that dimensions of PP can be obvious, not just in primary or secondary classrooms, but also early childhood settings (F).
    
    10
    
    Another reflects that the strategies I have learnt in analysing and thinking of alternatives hold me in better stead for evaluating my own teaching it makes you conscious of [pedagogy]. Rather than waiting to be told to reflect on our teaching practice later, I could already be doing it! (D) while A now understands that When reading through the productive pedagogies it seemed to be an impossible task to find an example of all 20 in one single week of observations. But the more I thought about it, and related the pedagogies to younger children the easier it seemed. Observing the children and teachers at the kindergarten showed me that a lot of the pedagogies become second nature to the teachers and they don t even think about it. These students acknowledged that PP reflects what good teaching has always been about, and concluded that the Productive Pedagogies elements can be used not only in a preschool but in all year levels and all subject areas this includes the Intellectual Quality dimension which I certainly believed would not be found in the kindergarten (B). One student even suggests that the analysis of observations demonstrated that Productive Pedagogies is possibly more adaptable in early childhood settings than in traditional classroom settings. Much of the learning was discovery based. Although [there] were strong links between particular elements I feel that this was more of a result of the nature of Early Childhood settings, which aim to embed learning experiences within play-bases contexts, [rather] than of the teacher s intention. (J) On the other hand some of the students still only saw PP as another (important) strategy that can be incorporated into every lesson. A minority of our students were still holding to their 19th century image of the child rejecting the unlimited potential of pre-schoolers to learn. These students continued to display ambivalence about the utility of the PP framework for early childhood. But the majority of the student teachers found that as a teacher I want my students to be involved with issues that they regard as vital. I find Productive Pedagogies is vital for successful teaching (T). Understanding the efficacy of the language of PP a student adds that: seeing pedagogies in practice has strengthened my beliefs that they really do benefit the classroom and the children s learning. When I saw a particular element was missing or poorly used I was able to refer back to learnt knowledge and find ways to incorporate them. (U) The observation and analysis task of PP empowered our students to engage in substantive conversation about their own learning and the teaching of their supervising teachers. It provided them with deep knowledge, deep understanding and with importantly a meta-language to stand back and reflect on the things that we do (Loughland & Reid, 2002, p.1). It allowed the pre-service teachers to construct and deconstruct classroom learning situations while promoting higher order thinking. Without the meta-language of PP our pre-service teachers may have been confined to mere observation of what was obvious to them in the early childhood centres they visited, without being able to critically read what it was that actually was taking place between the teacher(s) and the learner(s). Without this language the pre-service teachers perhaps would never have been able to articulate so clearly what in fact was missing from their observations. 11
    
    Some of our students reaction however to PP was on the level of a shiny new object or formula for good teaching ( just tell us how do we do this ) and this is mirrored in the misconception among in-service teachers and many teacher educators (Hill, 2002; Cambourne et. al 2004a & 2004b) that PP is merely another instrument or framework to be applied as writ (Loughland & Reid, 2002). On the other hand the majority clearly understood that PP requires a focus on learning and teaching as a whole, not just as a separate tool. In the end, only one student still maintained that there was no place for PP in early childhood education as it is extremely hard to see how most of the dimensions of productive pedagogies can be seen in the pre-school . Productive Pedagogies are not for the pre-school environment [or] for the very early years of primary school. (Y) This view suggests that pre-school educators don t need to plan purposefully for intellectually engaging, supportive and connected learning experiences. If this was the case then all the play in the world would actually disadvantage the already disadvantaged marginalised children as well as bore their very pants off them. If the pre-school children come to school already disengaged from their learning, or are not prepared to be challenged by intellectual quality, how will we ever switch them on? While Cambourne & Kiggins (2004b) have rejected the efficacy of using the PP as a framework for preservice teacher education because [pre-service] students lacked the background knowledge, experience and professional learning to be able to interpret and apply the framework as intended (p.2), this introduction to PP for pre-service early childhood teachers did produce results that seemed to be quite outstanding. The early childhood pre-service teachers studied here confirm the conclusions of the QSRLS research, that PP is not something new or groundbreaking, but the identification and expression through the use of a vocabulary and language to describe what good teachers have always been doing in their classes with their students; providing intellectually challenging material, in a supportive environment that engages with student difference and is relevantly connected to the world of the learner. PP is we believe more than just a vernacular knowledge of teaching made formal but a language for reflecting on their practice (Loughland & Reid, 2002, p.1) and that as one student observes I believe that PP draw teacher s attention to what really matters in helping kids to learn (P). This research can conclude that PP is indeed an intelligible and efficacious language meta-language that develops both the knowledge and understanding of the pre-service early childhood teachers so that they gain insight into their fieldwork observations. Like the student who suggested that it helps us walk the walk and talk the talk (Sorin & Klein, 2002 p.8), our students were similarly empowered in their potential for developing a shared pedagogical discourse with their lecturers, their supervising teachers and each other as professionals.
    
    12
    
    REFERENCES Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Apple, M & Beane, J (1999). Democratic school: lessons from the chalk face. Buckingham: Open University Press,. Bourdieu, P & Passeron, J 1990, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, (2nd edition), London: Routledge Cambourne, B., & Kiggins, J. (2004a). Towards a literacy of pedagogy for preservice teacher education students. Paper presented at the ATEA Annual Conference Making Spaces: Regenerating the Profession, Charles Sturt Univ, Bathurst, NSW. Cambourne, B., & Kiggins, J. (2004b). The Development of a literacy of pedagogy for preservice teacher education students. Paper presented at the Doing the Public Good - Positioning Education Research AARE International Conference, Univ. of Melbourne. Giroux, H. A. (1990). Curriculum discourse as postmodernist critical practice. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University. Gore, J. M., Griffiths, T., & Ladwig, J. G. (2001). Productive Pedagogy as a Framework for Teacher Education: Towards Better Teaching. Paper presented at AARE Conference, Perth. Gore, J. M., & Ladwig, J. G. (2003). Responses to Issues Paper - Striving for Quality. Retrieved November, 2004, Retrieved November, 2004, from http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/submissions/issues_sub/pdf/i164.p df Gore, J. M., & Ladwig, J. G. (2004). Graduate Certificate in Educational Studies. Retrieved November, 2004, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/faculty/educarts/programs/files2004/GC_EdStudPed2004.pdf. Hertzman, C. (2000). The Case for an Early Childhood Development Strategy Canadian Journal of Policy Research (1)2 Autumn 2000 Retrieved November, 2004, from http://www.isuma.net/v01n02/hertzman/hertzman_e.shtml Hill, G. (2002). Reflecting on professional practice with a cracked mirror: Productive Pedagogy experiences. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane. Lingard, B, Ladwig, J, Mills, M, Bahr, M, Chant, D, Warry, M, Ailwood, J, Capeness, R, Christie, P, Gore, J, Hayes, D & Luke, A (2001a). Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final report. Report prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. ---- (2001b). Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: Supplementary Materials, Report prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
    
    13
    
    Loughland, T., & Reid, J. A. (2002). A language for practice: Becoming explicit about teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australian Teaching Education Association, Sydney. Retrieved November, 2004, from http://www.atea.schools.net.au/LoughlandReidsamplepaperATEA2003.pdf Luke, A (2002). Education 2010 and new times: Why equity and social justice still matter, but differently, Education Queensland, viewed 2 July 2003, Retrieved November, 2004, from http://vision.cangoul.catholic.edu.au/teaching/tf/readings/ed2010.pdf Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (2002). Beyond the middle: A report about literacy and numeracy development of a target group students in the middle years of schooling. Retrieved May, 2004, from http://www.gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/2003_Middle/BEYONDVol1C ontentsandExecSum.pdf McCain, M., & Mustard, J. F. (1999). Early Years Study: Reversing the Real Brain Drain. Toronto: Ontario Children s Secretariat. McFadden, M., & Munns, G. (2002). Student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3) 357-366. Ridgway, A., & Surman, L. (2004). Practise what we preach: Why reflective pedagogy? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(2), 1-12. Shor, I 1996, When students have power: negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sorin, R & Klein, M (2002). Walking the walk and talking the talk: adequate teacher preparation in these uncertain times? paper presented to AARE COnference, Brisbane, Australia. Stanley, F. (2003). The Real Brain Drain. Retrieved November, 2004, from http://www.australianoftheyear.gov.au/document.asp?filename=FionaStanleyP C retrieved November 2004 Teese, RV & Polesel, J (2003). Undemocratic schooling: equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Publishing. Vinson, T. (2002). The Independent Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education in New South Wales. Sydney: The New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Chapter 3 Laying the Foundations for Effective Learning (75 83) Wilson, E., & Klein, M. (2000). Promoting productive pedagogies: pre-service teacher education for new times in Queensland state schools. Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Perth Zyngier, D., & Gale, T. (2003). Non-systemic and non-traditional educational programs in FMP secondary schools: Final Report. Frankston: Frankston Mornington Peninsula Local Learning Employment Network. Zyngier, D. (2005). Choosing our ideas, words and actions carefully: is the language of Productive Pedagogies intelligible for pre-service teachers? Issues in Educational Research 15(2) 225-248.
    
    14
    
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the support, assistance and advice of Associate Professor Trevor Gale, Faculty of Education, Monash University in the writing of this paper. Dr Gale began the teaching of this course in 2002 and I was privileged to work with him on the course between 2003 to 2005. AUTHOR David Zyngier is a former K-10 school principal and classroom teacher lecturing in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. The area of his research is How school connectedness can improve student engagement and student outcomes, particularly for at risk students. In 2004 he commenced a research project, Keymakers: Advancing student engagement through changed teacher practice. He is currently researching the affect that teacher beliefs about their own pedagogy Email: david.zyngier@education.monash.edu.au
    
    15
    
    This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)