Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 11:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Curriculum JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjo20
Preparing to teach with ICT: subjectknowledge, Didaktik and improvisationAvril Loveless aa University of Brighton , UKPublished online: 28 May 2008.
To cite this article: Avril Loveless (2007) Preparing to teach with ICT: subject knowledge, Didaktikand improvisation, The Curriculum Journal, 18:4, 509-522, DOI: 10.1080/09585170701687951
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170701687951
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Preparing to teach with ICT: subject
knowledge, Didaktik and improvisation
Avril Loveless*University of Brighton, UK
The article argues that preparing to be, in Shulman’s words, ‘ready, willing and able’ to teach with
ICT can be supported by an integrative framework of teacher professional knowledge which
recognizes connections between subject domain knowledge, the didactic relation with information
and communications technology (ICT), and an openness of mind in the moments of teaching,
similar to improvisation. A study of teaching with ICT in an English primary school illustrates links
between understandings of Didaktik and improvisation as teachers draw imaginatively upon subject
knowledge to represent content and purpose appropriately for their pupils. The article discusses a
relationship between understandings of Didaktik and improvisation, and the importance of
conceptual subject domain knowledge in primary teacher education at a time of debate about
curriculum, technology and professional knowledge.
Keywords: Didaktik; ICT; Improvisation; Primary education; Subject knowledge; Teacher
education
Introduction
The initial position paper for the conference series which supported the development
of this journal issue identified three perspectives in the subject knowledge debate: the
curriculum, the learner and the pedagogical (Banks et al., 1999). This article focuses
on the pedagogical perspective and its consideration of models of teacher professional
knowledge. It describes some of these models and extends the discussion to include
understandings of Didaktik, improvisation and the development of ICT capability in
the curriculum (where the term ICT encompasses a range of information and
communication technologies). I have taken the opportunity to reflect on a study of
teachers’ use of ICT for different purposes in the primary curriculum, to illustrate
some of the links between Didaktik and improvisation, and their close relationship
with subject knowledge. This relationship has implications for policy and practice in
*Education Research Centre, School of Education, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton, BN1
9PH, UK. Email: [email protected]
The Curriculum Journal
Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 509 – 522
ISSN 0958-5176 (print)/ISSN 1469-3704 (online)/07/040509–14
ª 2007 British Curriculum Foundation
DOI: 10.1080/09585170701687951
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
teacher education in drawing attention to the place of conceptual understanding of
content and purpose in the development of teacher professional knowledge. The
discussion is presented against a backdrop of debate in the UK about the future
curriculum (QCA, 2007), standards for teaching (TDA, 2007) and the role of
technology enhanced learning (DfES, 2005).
Models of professional knowledge
Pedagogy can be described as an expression of teachers’ professional knowledge in
which a number of dimensions interact within a broader social and cultural context
for learning and practice. Shulman’s work on the nature of teacher professional
knowledge has developed from understandings of elements of individual teachers’
knowledge (Shulman, 1987), to levels of analysis of individual, community and policy
layers:
We would now stipulate that an accomplished teacher has developed along the following
dimensions: An accomplished teacher is a member of a professional community who is
ready, willing, and able to teach and to learn from his or her teaching experiences. Thus,
the elements of the theory are: Ready (possessing vision), Willing (having motivation),
Able (both knowing and being able ‘to do’), Reflective (learning from experience), and
Communal (acting as a member of a professional community). Each of the dimensions
entails an aspect of personal/professional development, and can connect with portions of
a curriculum of teacher preparation or professional development. (Shulman & Shulman,
2004, p. 259; emphasis and capitalization as original)
A key aspect of Shulman’s framework is the discussion of pedagogical content
knowledge, which underpins a teacher’s ability for pedagogical reasoning and action.
The transformation of knowledge takes place when teachers actively grasp, probe and
comprehend ideas in order to shape and tailor them in representations which are
appropriate for learners. It is this ‘representational repertoire’ that characterizes
teachers who have integrated the different components of their professional
knowledge, from the deep knowledge of concepts within a subject domain to the
understanding of classroom strategies that reflect both the needs of the learners and
the context of educational initiatives. Shulman’s framework draws attention to the
significance of subject knowledge and the complexity of pedagogical reasoning.
Hillocks also argues that there is a recognition of a distinctive pedagogical
knowledge which identifies ‘good teachers’. This distinguishes them from others with
similar subject knowledge, but who lack the abilities to represent and ‘transform the
world’ in order to support learners in the construction of their own knowledge. It is
the aspect of teaching, in which teachers do not assume a necessary shared
understanding with learners and take pains to represent, explain and provide
opportunities for constructive learning processes, which Hillocks claims to underpin
effective knowing and teaching. He quotes Aristotle: ‘In general it is a sign of the man
who knows and the man who does not know, that the former can teach and . . . men of
mere experience cannot’ (Hillocks, 1999, p. 244).
510 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Banks et al. (1999) present a model of teacher professional knowledge which draws
upon a range of perspectives on teacher knowledge in order to represent the dynamic
nature of interaction, transposition and evaluation in pedagogy. Their model reflects
the influence of Shulman’s early framework for teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1987);
acknowledges the interaction and impact of beliefs and values (Alexander, 2001); and
develops ideas of ‘school knowledge’ from the European tradition of Didaktik and the
relationship between teachers, learners and content in institutions such as schools
(Banks et al., 1999). It is also presented within an encompassing view of learning as
situated in communities of practice developed in particular pedagogic arenas and
settings (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The model highlights the importance
of the recognition of teachers’ integration of these aspects of knowledge and it resists
definitions of teachers ‘primarily as technicians or pedagogical clerks’ (Leach &
Moon, 1999, p. 109). See Figure 1 for a diagrammatic representation of the model.
Figure 1. Leach and Moon’s model of professional knowledge (Leach & Moon, 2000)
Preparing to teach with ICT 511
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Understandings of Didaktik
Hillocks’s discussion of pedagogical content knowledge, in terms of taking pains to
represent and transform subject concepts appropriately for learners, is supported by
the European understanding of the concept and traditions of Didaktik. In discussing
the evolution of the ‘science of the didactic’, Chevellard argued that
the basic principle of the didactic view of learning and teaching was that knowledge is
not something given out there, so to speak, but something to be explained. . . . Knowledge
is not a given, the theory says, it is built up, and transformed, and—such was the
watchword—transposed. (Chevellard, 2007, p. 132; emphasis as original)
The German traditions of Bildung and Didaktik can provide a useful framework for
further consideration of issues raised in this article, although the brief discussion
cannot do justice to the complexity of meaning in translating these words. Bildung
can be translated as erudition or formation—the qualities of learning which
contribute to the overall aim of the growth of an educated personality that can
participate in and contribute to the social and cultural context. Didaktik has been
described as ‘the science whose subject is the planned . . . support for learning to
acquire Bildung’ (Hudson et al., 1999, p. 7). Chevellard also describes didactics as
‘the science of the diffusion of knowledge in any institution, such as a class of pupils,
society at large, etc.’ (Chevellard, 2007, p. 133; emphasis as original). Under-
standings of Didaktik are encapsulated in the study of the questions ‘what?’, ‘how?’
and ‘why?’ in teaching and learning. ‘What?’ relates to content and subject
knowledge. The recontextualization of knowledge is the theme of Winsløw’s article
in this special issue in which he pays attention to the close connection between
knowledge in a specific discipline and didactic design for teaching and learning
(Winsløw, 2007). ‘How?’ relates to teaching styles, methods and strategies. Banks
et al.’s model and Shulman’s description of the dimension of pedagogic knowledge
address these elements (Shulman, 1987; Banks et al., 1999). ‘Why?’ relates to the
aims of the activity and the purposes of the subject within the wider context of the
social and cultural purposes of education. Hudson asserts that ‘a key feature of
Didaktik is the emphasis that is placed upon meaning and intentionality (or purpose)
from the outset of the process of preparation for teaching’ (Hudson, 2007, p. 137).
Didaktik as the study of the planned support for learning and education is
expressed and developed practically in ways of knowing which have been described as
‘public knowledge’ and ‘personal knowledge’ (see Winsløw, 2007, in this issue, for an
extended discussion of Brousseau’s epistemological approach to didactics in public
and personal knowledge). When teachers teach in classrooms they are not only
drawing upon public knowledge—socially shared and officially acknowledged, often
presented in curriculum guidelines, schemes of work and textbooks—but also upon
personal knowledge which is situated and often tacit. When teachers prepare to teach
they engage in a process which Klafki describes as ‘Didaktik analysis’ (Klafki, 2000).
This is an interpretive reflection on the fundamental principles, significance and
512 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
structure of the content, and the ways in which it can become ‘interesting,
approachable, conceivable, or vivid for children of the stage of development of this
class’ (Hudson, 2007, p. 137). Klafki draws attention to important features of such
Didaktik analysis in preparing to teach—that it is ‘draft’ in character; that planning is
the design of opportunities and possibilities for pupils; and that it requires an
openness of mind in the moment of the Didaktik triad of the relationship between
content, teacher and pupil.
Understandings of improvisation in teaching
Klafki’s consideration of openness of mind helps to make a link between the careful,
organized preparation and planning for teaching, and the interactions in the moments
of teaching that are unscripted, yet enable teachers and pupils to make conceptual
connections within subject domains. These unscripted moments can be described
as experiences of improvisation when the artistry of teaching is expressed and
performed:
As a practical art, teaching must be recognized as a process that calls for intuition,
creativity, improvisation, and expressiveness—a process that leaves room for departures
from what is implied by rules, formulas and algorithms. (Gage, 1978, p. 15)
The metaphor of jazz has been applied to discussions of teacher performance of
professional knowledge, where ‘the best teachers are not only well prepared, but
also practised and skilful improvisers’ (Humphreys & Hyland, 2002, p. 11). Jazz
improvisers are able to draw upon their established conceptual understanding of
music and their practised techniques, and use them in flexible and novel ways. A jazz
musician can improvise to high levels of skill and originality when grounded in
elements of the history, philosophy, technique and practice of jazz, and aware of the
possibilities of the moment for the music, fellow musicians and the audience
(Nachmanovitch, 1990; Purcell, 2002). There are echoes of Tochan and Munby’s
distinction between the thinking of novice teachers who have abilities to plan and
organize sequences of activities, and the thinking of expert teachers who are more able
to be immediate, flexible and improvisational in interacting with pupils’ responses in
the time and place of the moment (Tochan & Munby, 1993).
Improvisation is not just related to experience and skill, and neither is it ‘content
free’, but it is expressed within and between subject domains. Creative individuals
in different knowledge domains demonstrate understanding of the underpinning
concepts and traditions, while knowing how to ‘break the rules’ to present original
combinations of ideas and outcomes. Those with expertise in subjects are able to
use their conceptual understanding in making decisions about tools and technologies
to support and explore Didaktik analysis. The Creative-Partnerships initiative, for
example, builds on long experience of interaction between creative practitioners
and learners, and acknowledges the role that practitioners with expertise in a
range of subjects—scientists, artists, photographers, sculptors, performance artists,
Preparing to teach with ICT 513
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
film-makers and writers —can play as they work alongside pupils and teachers in
schools. The practitioners’ immersion in, and passion about, their practice can
represent and draw out a deeper conceptual understanding in pupils’ creative work
(Loveless & Taylor, 2000; Hawkey, 2001; Creative-Partnerships, 2007; Hall &
Thomson, 2007). Both Didaktik analysis and improvisation are rooted in conceptual
understandings of subject content, and teachers draw imaginatively upon public and
personal subject knowledge to represent content and purpose appropriately for their
pupils.
ICT: subject and tool
In the English National Curriculum, ICT is presented as a subject with particular
knowledge, skills and concepts, and as a tool to support learning in other curriculum
subjects (DFEE/QCA, 2000). A study of primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT subject
knowledge indicated that there are ambiguities held in tension between ICT as a
discrete subject domain; as a resource to support curriculum learning objectives; and
as a capability for higher order thinking and activity (Loveless, 2003a). The questions
of the subject, methods of enquiry, theoretical frameworks and networks of concepts
are relatively recent and emergent when compared with more long-standing subject
domains such as English, mathematics and history, for example. The relationship
between ‘public’ and ‘personal’ knowledge of ICT in education is still developing.
ICT capability for pupils is more complex than knowledge of skills and techniques
with ICT applications. Capability carries the meanings of having power or fitness for a
task, being qualified and able, and being open to or susceptible to development. The
knowledge or skill is turned to use, involving understanding and choice. Pupils
therefore develop and apply an understanding, not only of how ICT can assist them
in their work for a specific task, but also of how it might affect the nature of that work
(Loveless, 2003b).
In the late 1990s, the distinctive feature of digital technologies which supported
learning and teaching were identified as provisionality, interactivity, capacity, range,
speed and automatic functions (Department for Education and Employment, 1998;
Sharp et al., 2002). Such a view locates the power of these features in the technologies
themselves, rather than acknowledging the interaction with human agency. A more
useful approach might be to consider the affordances—the opportunities and
constraints—that digital technologies offer in interaction with people and contexts
(Kennewell, 2001; Conole & Dyke, 2004). Fisher et al. identified ‘clusters’ of
activities in teacher learning, which are also helpful in discussions of the affordances
of digital tools: knowledge building, distributed cognition, community and
communication, and engagement (Fisher et al., 2006).
Webb and Cox (2004), in a comprehensive literature review of pedagogy related to
ICT in the primary and secondary curriculum, suggested that new affordances
provided by learning environments which include ICT resources require pedagogical
reasoning from teachers which is more complex than before. Teachers’ preparation,
planning and teaching need to incorporate knowledge of particular affordances and
514 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
the relationship with subject-based teaching objectives (Webb & Cox, 2004). There
is, therefore, a didactic relation between the ‘what, how and why’ of the content of
subject domains, and the ‘what, how and why’ of the digital technologies available to
teachers (Hudson, 2007).
The following section draws out one aspect of a study of an English primary school
to illustrate different ways in which teachers engaged with subject knowledge, ICT
capability, Didaktik analysis and improvisation in their practice. The main focus of
the larger study was the interaction between teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their
pedagogy, using Banks, Leach and Moon’s model of teacher professional knowledge
(Loveless, 2003a). The research took place during a period of transition between
versions of the National Curriculum Orders for ICT (Department for Education,
1995; DFEE/QCA, 2000).
Carberry Junior School: an illustration of Didaktik and improvisation
The case-study was ‘Carberry Junior School’ (CJS), an English school where the
teachers taught the National Curriculum to children aged from 7 to 11 years (Key
Stage 2). The quality of teaching in the school was described as ‘high’ by local
education authority advisers: there was a positive ethos in school development, an
innovative approach to the development of ICT in the school and an open attitude
to involvement in research. Twelve teachers and the head teacher participated in
20 interviews and 31 observations. The main period for data collection through
interviews, observations and document analysis was between March 1999 and
November 2000.
The teachers perceived ICT as an ambiguous and interactive construct of a subject
including all three of the elements outlined earlier: as a set of vocational tools and
techniques to equip pupils for social and economic life in the twenty-first century; as a
tool to support specific teaching and learning objectives across the current school
curriculum; and as a capability required in the National Curriculum. They worked
with the children to develop their knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding of
ICT in different curriculum subjects, through processes such as finding things out,
developing ideas and making things happen, exchanging and sharing information,
and reviewing, modifying and evaluating work as it progressed, as described in the
ICT National Curriculum in 2000. (The 1995 version of the National Curriculum
described IT as communicating and handling information, and controlling,
monitoring and modelling, through which the children were encouraged to discuss
their experience of using IT and look for parallels with the use of IT in the wider
world.) The current ICT coordinator was aware of the transition in the description of
ICT in the National Curriculum, and was incorporating this into the school’s policies
for teaching and learning. The ICT coordinator was the only teacher in the school at
the time who directly consulted the official National Curriculum guidelines and
schemes of work for ICT. The rest of the teaching staff developed their preparation,
planning and practice in teams, advised by curriculum coordinators who specialized
in particular subjects.
Preparing to teach with ICT 515
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Three ‘vignettes’ drawn from the data illustrate how some of the teachers prepared,
designed and represented both the subject content and the ICT capability
underpinning planned lessons. They describe teaching episodes which express three
features of Didaktik and improvisation: the intentionality and purpose of the activity;
the opportunities to improvise in response to children’s ideas and needs; and the
confusion and lack of focus which might occur if the didactic relation with ICT is not
well understood.
Understanding the purpose of teaching with ICT
Emma was an experienced primary school teacher who had previously been the ICT
coordinator in the school, responsible for developing ICT policies in teaching and
learning, and supporting colleagues in using ICT in their practice. She described an
information handling activity which she considered to be successful, which she had
undertaken with her Year 5 class of 9- and 10-year-old children. She thought that one
of the reasons for the success was the fact that it was ‘really doing an investigation
properly’, as the data being used were real to the children—their athletics
performances in the school sports day. She described the progression of the activities
the children undertook in the classroom and the ICT suite:
It starts where they are putting in their cards and we revise all the things about accessing a
database. They are going to have a very simple session about revising how to search and
sort through that information, and then the other session is, I think, quite high level skills,
where they’ve got to [answer the question]—‘is it true to say that larger children perform
better in athletics than smaller children?’ They’ve got to do some really quite complex
things to get there, and they very much need to be guided through that process. But I find
it quite exciting that they are really using it, not just to make graphs and things like that,
but they have a purpose. They are looking for patterns, so I think it’s real stuff that would
be difficult to do in another context.
Although she ascribed the success of the activity to its connection with the children’s
own data, she was also clear about how the use of ICT supported engagement with
the underlying concepts of the organization of the data, the different purposes of
searching and sorting information, the appropriate use of graphical displays and the
building up of more complex searches in order to analyse and present answers to
questions.
Taking opportunities to improvise
Oliver had been teaching for two years after completing a first degree in mathematics
and a postgraduate certificate in primary education. He had planned a series of
lessons on control and modelling with ‘Roamers’ (programmable ‘turtle’ toys) and an
application called ‘Winlogo’ (a screen version of Logo). He had written the lesson
plans and supporting worksheets, and collected the appropriate resources to support
his colleagues who were teaching the same material in the Year 3 group for 7-year-old
516 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
children. The sequence of lessons introduced the concepts of modelling and control
progressively and appropriately for the children’s level and experience, illustrating his
own conceptual understanding. He introduced the pupils in his class to the WinLogo
software after offering them a number of experiences playing and programming with
Roamer. Oliver demonstrated to the children a range of activities and problems to be
solved which explored the concepts of ‘distance’ and ‘turn’ and developed the
knowledge of the commands and syntax in WinLogo. Most of the children were able
to understand and undertake the activities, although some said that they found
‘turning’ difficult. They wanted to use the mouse or the arrows on the keyboard to
direct the turtle, as with text and graphics applications, rather than use a Logo
sequence of commands for moving and turning the screen ‘turtle’. Oliver had not
anticipated some of these misconceptions between the hardware (e.g. the mouse) and
the software (e.g. the Logo commands) ‘control’, but he was able to restructure the
lesson quickly to include an open-ended demonstration in which he responded to the
children’s questions and suggestions and showed them the new techniques needed.
He provided a simple ‘dot to dot’ activity for the children which engaged their
attention and enthusiasm and enabled them to learn how to use commands and
editing techniques in WinLogo as they programmed the screen ‘turtle’ to move
sequentially between dots on a transparent overlay. He related these new experiences
to the spatial work they had done in giving instructions to Roamer and ended the
lesson by showing them new possibilities in drawing a regular shape in the next
session. One of the children claimed that he preferred WinLogo as it was easier to
control: ‘If you’ve done it wrong, you can see what you have done wrong.’
In each of the observed lessons, Oliver’s planning demonstrated the level of his own
understanding of the concepts underpinning control with applications such as
Roamer and WinLogo. He was not always able to predict the range of misconceptions
that the children demonstrated, or the ways in which some of his designed activities
masked or complicated some of the underlying concepts, but when the children asked
questions or expressed their confusion he was able to understand the underlying
misconception or lack of technique, and change his approach quickly. He was able to
improvise in the explanations and examples that he used, as well as in the tasks he
suggested to provide a different way to engage with the problems of programming
movement and turn. In the lesson on ‘distance’ and ‘turn’, for example, he
understood both the mathematics learning objectives and the affordances of the
Winlogo application to explore and express these objectives, and was therefore able to
improvise appropriately for the children’s responses.
Some consequences of weak didactic relations between content and ICT
A lesson in the use of visual images to explore geometric relationships was much less
successful in providing focused and progressive experiences for the children. Rik, an
experienced teacher working with Year 4 8- and 9-year-old children was observed
using ‘Dazzle’ (a simple painting package) to support a maths lesson, creating star
patterns from the star figure in the toolbar and then joining up the interior points to
Preparing to teach with ICT 517
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
investigate the appearance of pentagons, triangles and decagons. He also showed the
‘fill tool’ to colour different parts of the pattern. He had not designed the lesson
himself, but was using material shared between colleagues teaching in the same year
group. The demonstration on the projector screen was given as a sequence of
instructions without further commentary, and the children were asked to try out their
own investigations. The teacher then let the children work with the software, walking
round and discussing particular points or techniques with them. There was no
observed discussion about the nature of the star patterns or the relationships between
the shapes and the linking lines or nodes. The teacher’s comments related more to the
visual quality of the patterns and the number of tasks completed. The observation
notes described the children’s activities in relation to the intended mathematical focus:
The children were familiar with the software, used the tools to draw and colour the star
patterns very quickly and started to experiment with some of the other features. They
seemed familiar with the techniques required and could save their work. Some were not
satisfied with their initial attempts and knew how to discard their work and start a new
file. Two boys had finished the star task and were using the line tool to make some
interesting patterns around the coloured star. When asked what they were doing, they
replied, ‘We are making an army camp around it.’ ‘Why are you doing that?’ ‘Because we
like armies.’
During the observation Rik did not clearly demonstrate his own understanding of the
mathematical purpose of the activity and the contribution that ICT would make, and
he did not offer suggestions for exploring the relationships between the patterns and
figures further. Neither did he explain the techniques and skills of the software to
reinforce familiar tools or introduce new tools and effects.
Reflections on Didaktik, improvisation and ICT
In the classroom interactions, activities and conversations, the teachers expressed
their pedagogic knowledge in the ways in which they planned, presented and paced
their teaching strategies for their children in the setting of an ICT suite—a room
containing computers for dedicated ICT activity with a whole class. Emma and
Oliver were observed to provide clearly focused, structured and flexible learning
experiences for the children in the information handling and Logo control activities,
indicating that their confidence with the use of ICT was not just associated with their
familiarity with the hardware and software applications. They demonstrated a
conceptual understanding of the affordances of ICT which not only gave purpose to
the development of specific ICT skills, but also made a contribution to the learning
within the curriculum subject areas, such as mathematics, which contextualized the
ICT activities. This conceptual understanding was not always comprehensive, but
there were times when the teachers expressed knowledge of techniques and processes,
flexibility in approach, and understanding of children’s misconceptions and
misunderstandings in searching databases for information or solving a problem with
Logo. They were able to identify the key concepts in the use of ICT in the sequences
518 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
of learning activities and often found a variety of ways to represent these appropriately
for the children, improvising new interventions and tasks in the moment of children’s
questions or confusions, such as Oliver’s ‘dot to dot’ activity (Tochan & Mumby,
1993; Humphreys & Hyland, 2002). Rik, however, was not confident in his planning
of either the mathematical task or the didactic relation with ICT in the particular
activity, and was unable to respond to the children’s needs, interests or sense of
relevance in the task. He demonstrated neither conceptual understanding in his
design (which he had taken from other sources, perhaps without full understanding),
nor ability to improvise to adapt to the teaching and learning demands of the episode
when it became clear that the children were focused on other purposes for the activity
such as drawing diagrams of armies. Both he and the pupils fulfilled the contract
between them to do the task, without understanding its purpose or challenge. The
teachers’ planning of learning goals, their choice of teaching strategies and their
flexibility in providing appropriate interventions to scaffold the children’s learning
were all affected by their pedagogical reasoning and representations. They were
probing, grasping and comprehending concepts of ICT capability in order to
construct the didactic relation between the subject content, such as mathematics, and
the affordances of ICT for the particular objectives. The teachers’ attempts to
describe their Didaktik analysis were grounded in their own experience, practice and
engagement. The ICT coordinator had consulted the National Curriculum
documentation, but the local preparation and planning were developed within the
small year group teams by suggesting and sharing ideas and activities that had worked
for them in the topics in the past. They did not, at that time, seem to be explicitly
informed by external guidelines, documentation or agencies, or by more widely
shared understandings of the subject knowledge which might have been present in
more established areas such as mathematics or history. Their repertoires did not
develop as externally recognized knowledge, gleaned from official schemes of work or
textbooks, but were interpreted, fashioned and diffused in interaction with practice
and other colleagues within the school and the wider community.
Conclusions
The aim of this article was to discuss the complexities of preparing to teach with ICT in
primary curriculum subjects and put forward a framework which suggested the
integration of the planned design of Didaktik analysis—the open-mindedness which
offers possibilities for improvisation; and the engagement with the affordances of ICT
as a subject and tool for teaching and learning—and so draw attention to how each of
these dimensions draws upon constructions of subject content knowledge. Figure 2
represents the relationship between these dimensions in the expression of professional
knowledge.
This is a time of debates about the curriculum for the future: the understanding of
the nature of knowledge is dynamic and contested, and the influence of digital
technologies is still emerging. The ESRC TLRP Seminar Series and the articles in
this journal issue have explored a range of themes relating to subject disciplines,
Preparing to teach with ICT 519
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
curriculum, professional knowledge and teacher education. In England, from
September 2007, policy-makers, teacher educators, educational researchers and
practitioners will have engaged with new professional standards for teachers and
interpreted them in the design and practice of teacher education and professional
development for the beginning of the twenty-first century. There are implications for
the development of professional knowledge for primary teachers and the important
role of subject specialism and expertise in primary schooling. There are also
implications for the ways in which teachers work in teams to share their preparation,
planning and professional knowledge.
I suggest that in preparing to teach with ICT in primary schools we would benefit
by considering three themes in our thinking and practice: how the didactic relation
between the ‘what, how and why’ of content and ICT can be articulated clearly; how
the traditions of Didaktik can make a contribution to Anglo-American pedagogical
perspectives; and how professional knowledge can express both the ‘science’ of
careful design for learning and the ‘art’ of openness and improvisation in making
conceptual connections within and between subject domains. These perspectives can
contribute to our understanding of the processes of ‘taking pains’, as expressed
succinctly in a remark by Emma, one of the teachers at Carberry Junior School: ‘I
love being able to translate what a computer does for kids at their level so that they
can understand it.’
References
Alexander, R. J. (2001) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education
(Oxford and Boston, Blackwell).
Banks, F., Leach, J. & Moon, B. (1999) New understandings of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge, in:
J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds) Learners and pedagogy (London, Paul Chapman Publishing in
association with the Open University Press).
Figure 2. Integration of Didaktik analysis, improvisation, ICT and subject knowledge
520 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Chevellard, Y. (2007) Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology, European Educational
Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134.
Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004) What are the affordances of information and communication
technologies? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113–124.
Creative-Partnerships (2007) What is Creative Partnerships? Available online at: http://www.creative-
partnerships.com/aboutcp/ (accessed 7 September 2007).
Department for Education (1995) Information Technology in the National Curriculum (London,
HMSO).
Department for Education and Employment (1998) Teaching: high status, high standards.
Requirements for the courses of Initial Teacher Training (Circular 4/98) (London, DfEE).
DFEE/QCA (2000) Information and Communication Technology. The National Curriculum for
England, Key Stages 1–4 (London, Stationery Office).
DfES (2005) Harnessing technology: transforming learning and children’s services (London, DfES).
Fisher, T., Higgins, C. & Loveless, A. (2006) Teachers learning with digital technologies: a review of
research and projects (Bristol, Futurelab).
Gage, N. L. (1978) The scientific basis of the art of teaching (New York, Teachers College Press).
Hall, C. & Thomson, P. (2007) Creative partnerships? Cultural policy and inclusive arts practice in
one primary school, British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 315–329.
Hawkey, R. (2001) Science beyond school: representation or re-presentation? in: A. Loveless & V.
Ellis (Eds) ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: subject to change (London, Routledge).
Hillocks, G. (1999) Ways of thinking, ways of teaching (New York and London, Teachers College
Press).
Hudson, B., (2007) Comparing different traditions of teaching and learning: what can we learn
about teaching and learning? European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 135–146.
Hudson, B., Buchberger, F., Kansanen, P. & Seel, H. (1999) Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as science(s) of
the profession? TNTEE Publications, 2(1).
Humphreys, M. & Hyland, T. (2002) Theory, practice and performance in teaching:
professionalism, intuition and jazz, Educational Studies, 28(1), 5–15.
Kennewell, S. (2001) Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and
communications technology in teaching and learning, Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 10(1 & 2), 101–116.
Klafki, W. (2000) Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction, in: I. Westbury, S.
Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds) Teaching as a reflective practice: the German didaktik tradition
(Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 197–206.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Leach, J. & Moon, B. (Eds) (1999) Learners and pedagogy (London, Paul Chapman Publishing in
association with the Open University Press).
Leach, J. & Moon, B. (2000) Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers’
professional knowledge, The Curriculum Journal, 11(3), 385–404.
Loveless, A. (2003a) The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their
pedagogy, Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 313–326.
Loveless, A. (2003b) The role of ICT (London, Continuum).
Loveless, A. & Taylor, T. (2000) Creativity, visual literacy and ICT, in: M. Leask &
J. Meadows (Eds) Teaching and learning with ICT in the primary school (London, Routledge),
65–80.
Nachmanovitch, S. (1990) Free play: improvisation in life and art (New York, Jeremy P. Tarcher/
Putnam, a member of Penguin/Putnam Inc.).
Purcell, S. (2002) Musical patchwork: the threads of teaching and learning in a conservatoire (London,
Guildhall School of Music and Drama).
QCA (2007) Futures—meeting the challenge. Available online at: http://www.qca.org.uk/
qca_6073.aspx (accessed 16 August 2007).
Preparing to teach with ICT 521
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Sharp, J., Potter, J., Allen, J. & Loveless, A. (2002) Primary ICT: knowledge, understanding and
practice (2nd edn) (Exeter, Learning Matters).
Shulman, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Shulman, L. S. & Shulman, J. H. (2004) How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective,
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
TDA (2007) The revised standards for the recommendation for qualified teacher status (QTS). Available
online at: http://www.tda.gov.uk/partners/ittstandards/draftqtsstandards.aspx (accessed 27
May 2007).
Tochan, F. & Munby, H. (1993) Novice and expert teachers’ time epistemology: a wave function
from didactics to pedagogy, Teacher and Teacher Education, 9(2), 205–218.
Webb, M. & Cox, M. (2004) A review of pedagogy related to ICT, Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 13(3), 235–286.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Winsløw, C. (2007) Didactics of mathematics: an epistemological approach to mathematics
education, The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 523–536.
522 A. Loveless
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
04 0
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
