|
Pamela
Grossman and Peter Williamson, The Translation\Transformation of Disciplinary
Knowledge into Pedagogy. Pam
Grossman and Peter Willliamson focused our attention on the differences
between Lesson Design features that represent on subject matter translations
and that represent activity features of Lesson Design---for instance,
the focus on lesson sequences with small groups, individual work, and
whole class work. These features
describe activity forms in the classrooms, but they do not describe
the subject matter translations that are taking place. For instance,
in the mathematics lesson we saw, the Disciplinary Knowledge of the
topics of mathematics are translated into a specific, contextualized
problem (a man was selling a plot of land with….).
This specific problem is the Lesson Design framework for the
subject matter. But the discussion about grouping in those mathematics
lessons is not a discussion of the translation of subject matter.
Watching those mathematics lessons enabled us to see that it
is impossible to judge the quality of a Lesson Design if one does not
know the subject matter. NOTE:
The articles (provided for the conference) on pre-schools provide an
interesting perspective on this problem. For example, one of the articles
charges that the Thelma Harmes rating scale for preschools completely
ignores the way a pre-school nurtures literacy development. Pam
Grossman and Peter Williamson began by distinguishing between disciplinary
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. (SIDE NOTE FROM Sheridan
Blau: What is disciplinary knowledge
in Literature? He suggests (1)
knowledge of evidentiary reasoning from texts, (2) knowledge of textual
facts and topics, and (3) knowledge of LENS, a way of looking at experience.
Sheridan is working on a book on the workshop as an instructional
method\design in the teaching of Literature).
Pedagogical Content knowledge, according to Grossman and Williamson,
is how teachers use (or translate) what they know about the subject
matter in\into the learning of the subject matter for students in the
classroom. Said Pam Grossman: Within the category of pedagogical content
knowledge I include the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject
area (stated in terms accessible to students), the most useful forms
of representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations,
examples, explanation and demonstrations. Peter and Pam then turned
to two kinds of Transformation: (1) structuring and segmenting (the
topics, the critical interpretation and analysis of texts) and (2) representations
(analogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations) acting as BRIDGES from
Disciplinary CONTENT to PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT. Can
Dead Poet’s Society or Stand and Deliver be considered
examples of Lesson Design? That
is, these two exemplars of teaching might be said to be presenting Adult
Expert Performances of the Subject Matter (recognizing that there are
a few [pedagogical moments), just what one might see in a Stage Performance
or an Expert Lecture. Are these
kinds of Performances teaching? One
group argues that teaching is a Personal Performance involving Heart
and Spirit, not a technical achievement. THESE Performances represent
Lessons as Expert Modeling of Subject in which the Expert is focused
on the subject, not the students and their learning.
If this constitutes a Lesson of some kind, one might argue that
Lessons can move from NO PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT (Expert Performance) to
substantial PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT. For purposes of this conference, we are assuming
that a LESSON ALWAYS HAS SOME PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT. Pam
Grossman introduced the idea of representation and its centrality in
a pedagogical transformation of subject matter. In an example of representation
(making visible the rise and fall of dramatic tension in the plot),
students were standing at different heights on chairs (the tallest the
key point in the plot) and enacting the flow of the plot by telling
a story, each contributing based on the location of one’s chair in the
flow of the plot. This pedagogical activity, carefully designed to translate
a subject matter concept (plot) into a representation the students could
SEE, ACT OUT, (and understand) provided a BRIDGE of enacted learning,
taking the students from little Disciplinary CONTENT knowledge to some
Disciplinary CONTENT mediated by Pedagogical Content knowledge. Enacted
learning means that students can SEE something and DO (ACT OUT) something.
Another
example of representation focused on how to translate the CONCEPT of
SUBTEXT and stage directions, either by the playwright or the stage
director, into a PEDAGOGICAL bridge that would enable students to discover
and learn the importance of the SUBTEXT ----in this case, the subtext
suggested by inflection in one of Shakespeare’s plays. How do you get the subtext from the text,
especially from Shakespeare who gives little help with stage directions?
First, the class gets a few lines from Shakespeare (Said one,
“A FEATURE OF LESSON DESIGN: ESTABLISH
A CLEAR FOCUS AT ANY POINT IN THE LESSON”), and the class explores how
they will infer the subtext. In groups of two or three, the students
are asked to plan a short drama based on a particular oral reading of
the three or four lines. They decide what the tone and body language
should be. Then, in groups of
two or three, they perform their dramas, showing that with the same
words you can have many different types of interpretations. Later
they get a longer more complex piece to present.
Video samples of these student dramas were shown.
Question from one participant:
Is there any evaluation of the various interpretations? At this point, no. The focus is on making visible the SUBTEXT that is present, not
evaluating the different SUBTEXTS. But
interpretation would have to occur eventually. One could teach Paradise
Lost in the English Department as Disciplinary Knowledge and one could
teacher Paradise Lost as Lesson Design in the education department.
Although one could teach Disciplinary Knowledge without teaching Pedagogical
Knowledge, one could not teach Pedagogical Knowledge without referring
to and knowing Disciplinary Knowledge, at least as an end goal. Translators---that
is, teachers----need to know both languages.
Pam Grossman’s students are reading the TEMPEST in the education
dept and thinking about how to design lessons that give students the
necessary scaffolds to grow into good or expert readers of the play. She focused on what devices enable teachers
to make the translation from Disciplinary to Pedagogical Knowledge,
and she asked us to consider
whether a device moved student understanding all the way to an understanding
of the text or only part way.
In fact, one teacher (Connie Davidson) suggested that partway
devices are effective in their own way, and Pam agreed.
(This point did not get discussed, but the issue is important---
when is good-enough, when is getting-there?) At the conference, Pam
and Peter Williamson presented several interesting devices.
First, they showed us how students could invent scenes/little
dramas in which the same line could be “spoken” in different ways, creating
entirely different dramatic situations.
I took these dramatic recreations to be a partway device, opening
students up to the idea of the SUBTEXT, the great importance of reading
Shakespeare aloud, and the importance of listening for different readings
as the class proceeds through the text. Second, they showed us a discussion of Animal
Farm in which the teacher asked students to suggest analogies between
school or political life and Animal Farm. These analogies, which
the students described and discussed, took the students part-way (maybe
a long-way) toward a deeper reading of Animal Farm.
What Pam Grossman opened up us for us is the importance of getting
a much better handle on some of the features of subject matter translation
from D.K. to PK. The distinction
between BRIDGE devices which take us partway and those that take us
a longer way could be one important distinction among features.
Using a BRIDGE requires knowing how one is segmenting the trip,
knowing whether a BRIDGE is near the end of the trip or at the beginning.
One
participant (it might have been Janet Levenson) raised the issue of
whether a BRIDGE might be like a scaffold and have no subject matter
content. For instance, in one approach to Teaching the Multiparagraph
Essay, there isn’t any attention to the ideas being developed, no concern
with writing that is gripping or involved.
There are specific directions which give a guide. The problem
is that the structure might not fit all purposes. For example,
a five-paragraph essay may not be appropriate for a eulogy. The answer appears to be “Yes,” a bridge might
be fun and even a “cute activity” and contribute nothing to advancing
the subject matter. Therefore,
it is not a subject matter BRIDGE.
But it might be a motivational BRIDGE, moving students from indifference
to some interest in what is happening in the classroom.
At
one point, Carrie Holmberg and Joan Owen raised a point about the Literature
Circles LESSON Design. Literature
Circles, said one of them, is like a Madeline Hunter structure applied
to a discussion of Literature. The students at some point want to throw off the structure (they
find it to be an obstacle) and talk about the book. Again, one might speculate that Literature Circle LESSON design
has a number of activity structures and no subject matter bridges. After
awhile, the activity structure gets in the way of getting to the Subject.
A SUBJECT MATTER BRIDGE is only one type of bridge. Is a good BRIDGE
one that accomplishes both subject matter and motivational purposes? Not necessarily. A good BRIDGE could simply
serve the motivational purpose of getting students to respond to a literary
selection, without any particular subject matter. The assumption in this line of reaso0ning is RESPONSE, any kind,
comes first. Then engagement at another level is possible.
Conference
Participants tried to describe what was happening in the Lesson, but
some evaluation began to take over. Conference Participants knew that the teacher
is moving from a focus on response in a prior Lesson to a focus on interpretation
in this Lesson, but these terms RESPONSE and INTERPRETATION may not
readily be understood by all as a clear indication of a Lesson sequence.
In general, do teachers of literature understand the subject
matter distinction between RESPONSE and INTERPRETATION? Is this one
kind of Content knowledge that is important in understanding representations?
One Conference Participant commented, “In America we are quick
to evaluate videotapes rather than describe what is going on?” Another asked: is the rush to evaluation of some techniques a way
to avoid having to talk about subject matter knowledge in some detail? There was some debate among Participants about
how to and whether to evaluate the Lesson we viewed. Another commented on student assumptions about
teacher role: Students need to be able to understand
teacher role --facilitator, guide, and director. Other teachers may
need a review of what we know about the subject matter--what
is the subject matter of Animal Farm and then what is the subject
matter of this particular Lesson in the Animal Farm unit.
On interesting exchange took place when Wende Sjoblow observed that he had been in a high school classroom that had the same Lesson, drawing analogies between Animal Farm and people in school and between Animal Farm and people outside of school. He questioned whether these SUBJECT MATTER BRIDGES (the analogies) took students to deeper understanding of Animal Farm. His point about a “deeper understanding” did not get taken up---for instance, what might a deeper understanding be? However, there was some exchange about whether an old LESSON in one person’s hands could be a good LESSON in another person’s hand. In other words, is Originality a necessary LESSON feature? Why couldn’t many teachers teach the same or similar Lesson simply because the structure of the LESSON was effective? The Japanese do this in their RESEARCH LESSONS. Are U.S. teachers insistent on the ORIGINALITY one associates with the IDEALS of painters and architects? Is this a fatal problem in LESSON DESIGN in the U.S.? (Go back to earlier discussion of AUTHORSHIP and OWNERSHIP). -------------------------------------------------------------- Celeste
Campbell added the following interesting notes: Notes: · How do you represent content and make it comprehensible to others? · Bridge – take our understanding and represent it so the kids understand it (transformation) · One way to look at lessons is to trace representations and look at misrepresentations
·
Test in the “crucible” of the classroom My insights and questions: ? The biggest gap between traditional US teaching and the lesson study lens is representing content through tasks that become windows into student understanding ? Re: lesson design – how do I represent the key concepts so they are effective bridges? ? What tasks do I devise that become windows into student understanding? ----------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, Pamela Grossman and Peter Williamson presented to us a model of classroom subject matter in which three versions of subject matter knowledge are interacting: I. The Disciplinary Model of Subject Matter (the practices, ideas and theories one observes in EXPERT performances or one learns in Disciplinary courses)---which is the Ultimate Goal of Lessons (or Is it?); II. The Student’s version of Subject Matter (one for each student, some clusters); and III the Teacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (the bridges in the form of analogies and so forth, helping the student move toward Disciplinary KNOWLEDGE). A teacher could know the Disciplinary Knowledge and still know nothing about Pedagogical Content Knowledge. These different types of Knowledge raise a question about other types. Is there something called Folk Knowledge or Pop Knowledge of Subject Matter which may be the goal of instruction in place of Disciplinary Knowledge of Subject Matter? At one time, well know novels were rewritten for school consumption (like the Readers Digest version of War and Peace). The argument against this kind of knowledge in schools is that it denies some students the access to full fledged Disciplinary Knowledge. A few of us tried mapping the different types and generally failed at the task (probably getting too late).
|
