Category Archives: Ambitious Teaching

Lampert, et al. 2013 Ambitious Teaching

Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Franke, M. L., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex:  using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.

TE = teacher educator    NT = novice teacher

p. 227  “Learning in the company of other teachers who value and investigate student work, treat students like sense-makers, and adapt teaching to learning has resulted in experienced teachers being able to maintain high expectations of all students and enact practices that accomplish high-level academic learning goals.”

“The design is based on the assumption that mathematics teachers need to learn to elicit, observe, and interpret student reasoning, language, and arguments and to adjust their instruction accordingly to promote learning.” p. 227

Methods course:  Used in relation to one another, not in isolation

Principles, practices, content (mathematics)

  1. a set of teaching practice
  2. a set of normative principles to guide teachers’ judgement in the use of those practices
  3. the mathematical knowledge needed to teach elementary content.

Deliberate Practice:  creating a balance between the conceptual and the practical; cycles of repetition with feedback.

Building an iterative and interactive relationship between knowledge and principles, and practical tools. p. 229

This cycle develops ADAPTIVE COMPETENCE

REHEARSALS

  • simulation with the teacher educator and other novices acting as students
  • TE is both coach and student
  • this creates a community of practice
  • This study focused on these interactional exchanges between NT and TE

Note:  This feels a little bit like lesson study.

CODES:   Using Studiocode video-analysis software

  1. WHAT was worked on (substance)
  2. HOW it was worked on  (structure)
  3. TE/NT exchanges

30 video recorded rehearsals for each site = 90 videos!!

Four exchange code categories  STRUCTURE CODES  See Table 3 page 234

  1. TE gives directive feedback  60.85%
  2. TE give evaluative feedback  28.14%
  3. TE scaffolds enactment 21.09%
  4. TE facilitate discussion 17.29%

SUBSTANCE CODES (including who initiated the interaction)

  1. eliciting and responding to students’ mathematical ideas
  2. attending to IA
  3. see page 232 for 16 substance codes

FINDINGS:  p. 233

  1. 12 – 15 minutes
  2. average 14 TE/NT exchanges per rehearsal
  3. NT teaching 56%, TE/NT exchanges 47%
  4. TE/NT exchanges averaged 27 seconds
  5. 27%  exchanges were initiated by the NT or another NT
  6. analyzed by quartile–little variability
  7. multiple versus single code usage, indicated complexity
  8. 42% single codes, 58% multiple codes
  9. found more than 350 different combinations of codes

ELICITING AND RESPONDING

  • a qualitative look
  • 120 of 1290 single eliciting and responding code
  • shorter, average = 7 seconds
    • TE scaffolds enactment
    • TE provides directive feedback
    • TE provides evaluative feedback
  • The novice’s enactment is not interrupted
  • analyzed 83 exchanges, multiples with 2 other codes  6% of the total number
  • there were 40 distinct combinations of three codes, these were longer than average or 39 seconds
  • findings:  teaching decisions  = mathematical ideas of students
  • these rehearsals move the study of teaching back and forth in clinical practice
  • rehearsals are approximations of practice
  • in microteaching, there is not interruption
  • take on principles of teaching in a public way.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ambitious Teaching, COMPS, COMPS LASW, Inquiry as Stance