Author: Lola Hill

Deakin University

Keywords: preservice teacher education program, educational psychology, primary teaching, secondary teaching, intellectual development Perry scheme Developmental Instruction Model, intellectual development, ethical development, critical thinking, reflective thinking, self-agency, learners' autonomy, teaching and learning.

Article style and source: Peer reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication.. Paper initially prepared for "Initial Teacher Education Forum: Showcasing excellence in initial teacher education and schooling" RMIT University, Melbourne 17-19 February 1999.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Theoretical Framework
• The Program
• Program Supports and Challenges
• Research Question
• Participants
• Method
• Research Findings and Discussion
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

In this paper I describe a preservice teacher education program in educational psychology designed to promote primary and secondary preservice teachers' intellectual development. According to the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development, relatively advanced intellectual functioning is characterised by, for example, awareness that agency is within oneself, critical and reflective thinking and judgement, tolerance of doubt and ambiguity, the capacity to build and evaluate competing legitimate theories, and a view of authorities as sources, not of Answers, but of expertise. The program is a collaborative endeavour between schools and university staff, and provides opportunities for preservice teachers to engage in a continuing cycle of theory, practice, and reflection in a supportive and challenging context. Research findings suggest that the program promotes preservice teachers' intellectual development as manifested in, among other things, movement away from dualistic and absolutist thinking, increasing realisation of self-agency and the value of supporting learners' autonomy, and enhanced critical and reflective thinking. top

Introduction

In my experience as a visiting teacher educator to perhaps a hundred primary classrooms over more than a decade, I have witnessed innumerable interactions between teachers and children in which the teacher appears not to have grasped the meaning or consequence of a child's intellectual offering. I am not speaking of the inevitable moments when distraction or preoccupation interferes with a teacher's ability to listen and respond adequately to a child, nor of situations when the child's meaning is unclear, but of interactions in which a child's expression of thinking is clear, unambiguous, and significant, yet falls into the void, uncomprehended, unacknowledged, and unused. That particular opportunity to engage the child in further learning is lost. In the short term, the child may not appreciate his or her own achievement, and in the longer term the child may question whether the effort required to engage intellectually with a teacher is worthwhile.

I do not believe that these teachers deliberately neglect children's interests. We do not educate our teachers to engage with children intellectually. Like Splitter and Sharp (1995, p. 65), I distinguish between 'schooling' and 'education'. Unlike education, schooling is not renowned for its attention to inculcating reflective and critical thinking and judgement in its learners. Most teachers, I hazard, are more schooled than educated. Consequently, most are not practiced at joining in thoughtful dialogue about substantive issues. Sadly, many appear disinclined towards it.

Intellectual development is a journey requiring effort, not an inherent gift which one does or does not possess. One chooses whether or not to embark on the journey and applies one's intelligence, among many other personal qualities, to the journeying. If we want our teachers to be educators in the true sense of the word, then we must educate them. We must provide them with opportunities, support, and challenge to become reflective, critical, and creative thinkers, to grow intellectually, to engage in a process of constant transformation. Then, in Postman's words: "What this means is that at its best, schooling can be about how to make a life, which is quite different from how to make a living" (Postman, 1996, p. x).

This paper describes a teacher education program designed to promote preservice teachers' intellectual development and discusses findings regarding preservice teachers' experiences of the program. I use the term "intellectual development" to mean that process of adult post-formal-operational development described by theorists such as Perry (1981); Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule (1986); and King, Kitchener, Davidson, Parker & Wood (1983). Broadly, the above developmental models describe adult intellectual development as a process of growth from a state of relative psychological rigidity toward increasing flexibility. As Perry (1988) describes it, adult intellectual development is a "visible, even explicit broadening of the mind" (p. 150). It is a reorganisation of intellectual structures stimulated by cognitive disequilibrium (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) resulting in increasing awareness, comprehension, and ability to deal with the complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities of one's intellectual and social life.

The program aims to stimulate intellectual growth in preservice teachers—in particular their proclivity towards supporting learners' autonomy—by providing the "ingenious blend of support and challenge" described by Perry and others which fosters intellectual development (Kegan, 1994, p. 42). Autonomy-supportive teachers promote learners' intrinsic motivation, initiative, self-discipline, capacity to think and judge for themselves, meaningful participation in classroom decision-making, and so forth. Learners taught by autonomy-supportive teachers benefit both academically and personally (Reeve, 1998). Relatively controlling teachers generally rely on extrinsic motivators to control learners' progress towards teacher-determined goals (Reeve, 1998). Pedagogical approaches associated with higher levels of intellectual functioning—fostering reflective judgement and tolerance of uncertainty, democratic leadership, autonomy-supportive style, and so forth—are not learned easily. For many teachers, schooled and trained in authority-centred, control-oriented institutions, these are unfamiliar and difficult notions. Even when teachers do value these ideas, implementing them is often difficult. The notions are practised minimally in mainstream schooling, and autonomy-supportive teachers may face a lack of collegial support, even resistance and hostility. Intellectual growth is a process of accommodating to new ideas, a process of ongoing conceptual change, and accommodation is generally a difficult, even psychologically painful process. Not only does one experience considerable confusion, doubt, and discomfort, one also experiences grief at the loss of one's dearly held and comfortable notions about the world. top

Theoretical framework

A critical review of research findings in teacher education (Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998) reinforces the commonly held view that many teacher education programs barely scratch the surface of entrenched beliefs held by preservice teachers. The problem for teacher education is to find ways of encouraging preservice teachers to encounter, engage with, practice, reflect on, value, and commit to, new ideas—such as autonomy-supportive approaches—despite reluctance to relinquish the familiar and comfortable.

Conceptual change theory (e.g., Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982) throws some light on the problem. According to Posner et al., four conditions must be fulfilled before learners will commit time and energy to conceptual change. What is required before such a commitment is made is that students be aware of and dissatisfied with their current conceptions and see that the new idea is intelligible and plausible and that taking it on is a fruitful proposition. In other words, before accepting that change is necessary, learners need to first, have lost faith in the capacity of their current conceptions to solve their current problems; second, be able to understand the new ideas; third, believe that the new ideas will solve the problem; and fourth, feel that it is worthwhile to put time and effort into learning the new ideas. Deceptively simple, the model is more easily described than applied. What might it take, for example, for preservice teachers to lose faith in their current pedagogical notions? What might it take for them to find unfamiliar and complex ideas plausible and fruitful? Why should they value and practice approaches which demand a great deal of thought and effort, particularly initially? Unless preservice teachers can see links between their own personal theory (derived from experience) and the new theory, change is unlikely (Piper & Rodgers, 1992). Reeve (1998) shows that the autonomy-supportive teaching style is teachable, but that its plausibility and applicability must be demonstrated clearly if control-oriented teachers are to accommodate the information. In the next section I discuss links between Posner et al.'s model of conceptual change and the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development, and describe how the models underpin the present program.

A central aim of the program is to enhance preservice teachers' intellectual functioning and in so doing foster their adoption of more developed notions of learning and teaching. The Perry scheme portrays a continuum of development from dualism, characterised by a view of knowledge as Absolute Truths held exclusively by Authorities, to a position of commitment to a relativistic understanding of human behaviour as influenced by context and interpretation. Positions one to five on the nine-position scheme constitute that part of the scheme primarily focused on intellectual growth; positions six to nine are more concerned with ethical issues such as identity and commitment. The nine positions fall into four major categories: Dualism (Positions 1-2), Multiplicity (3-4), Contextual relativism (5-6), and Commitment within relativism (7-9) (Moore, 1994).

Factor analyses identify three main related dimensions of the scheme: Dualistic and absolutist thinking; Issues of personal agency; Critical thinking/analysis (Moore, 1994, p. 58). According to the scheme, persons functioning at the level of Commitment within relativism are less prone to dualistic and absolutist thinking; accept that agency is within themselves and that they are responsible for their own decisions and behaviour; and bring analytical and critical thought to their judgements. A dependent, surface-level approach to learning is consistent with dualism while an independent, deep-level approach corresponds with more relativistic views. In a dualistic view, learners have fulfilled their responsibility as learners to the extent that they have memorised the given content and completed the required exercises. Teachers need only dispense the content and correct learners’ answers. From positions two to five, characteristic thinking about learning is as follows: At position two learners tend to focus on what to learn (ie., Right answers), thinking tends to be dualistic and rule-driven, and agency is seen as external (ie., vested in Authorities). At position three the focus shifts to how to learn (ie., how to find Right answers), thinking is multiplistic and focused on relevance. At position four, thinking is still multiplistic but the focus is on how to think independently. At position five, thinking is relativistic and one learns how to judge, that is how to think in context, weigh alternatives, and seek adequate solutions based on evidence. Agency is seen as internal (Moore & Taylor, 1991).

The Developmental Instruction Model (Knefelkamp, 1981; Moore & Taylor, 1991), based on the Perry scheme, is designed to promote learners' intellectual development via a blend of challenge and support. This means helping learners to understand what is expected of them and enabling them to take control of their progress, as well as encouraging risk-taking, experimentation, and the tackling of new and complex ideas and tasks. Teachers must offer enough support to quell learners' fears that their mistakes may result in failure.

The four key variables in the Developmental Instruction Model are structure, diversity, experiential learning, and personalism. The structure variable represents the degree of direction provided for learners; diversity represents the number and complexity of perspectives or alternatives offered. Experiential learning represents the degree of active, personal involvement in learning; personalism indicates the degree to which the class offers a safe forum for cooperation, risk-taking, and critical and evaluative discussion. For learners operating at position three, high degrees of structure, experiential learning, and personalism provide support, while a high degree of diversity provides challenge. The three support variables tend to establish three of the four conditions for conceptual change—intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness—while provision of diverse pedagogical contexts, philosophies, interpretations, and methods provokes the fourth—dissatisfaction with existing levels of knowledge and understanding (Hill, 1997). top

The Program

The present program is a school-based strand of the educational psychology tutorials in the teacher education courses at Deakin University's Burwood Campus. The 16-week program addresses theories of learning, intelligence, cognitive development, personality, psychosocial development, and pedagogy. Henceforth I use the term "students" to refer to the primary and secondary preservice teachers participating in the program. Students attend a school each week for a two-hour tutorial given by their university tutor. The tutorial incorporates the community of inquiry approach to discussing problematic issues within educational psychology. For a third hour each week, supervised by their university tutor, students teach philosophy to groups of 15 school students using the community of inquiry approach. In teaching Philosophy for Children, students practise what they learn in theory in the educational psychology tutorials, for example, putting constructivist philosophies of learning into action, particularly via the community of inquiry approach. In the school setting, students consistently and repeatedly experience theory, practice, and reflection in an integrated way for a substantial period of time.

The community of inquiry is described in detail by Splitter and Sharp (1995). Essentially it is a cooperative attempt by a group to inquire into problematic issues with the purpose of creating a unified whole which is both satisfying to the participants and culminates in judgement (p. 18). The process is facilitated by a circular seating arrangement, and by group members engaging directly with each other rather than through the tutor. Clearly, a community of inquiry which is functioning effectively (see, eg., Gardner, 1995) will support and foster intellectual growth in its participants. Through its emphasis on dialogue, the community of inquiry encourages its members to become more analytical, reflective, critical, articulate, to offer their opinions and reasons with clarity and goodwill, and to progress towards making sound judgements.

In the program community of inquiry I challenge students to tackle difficult and contentious issues in educational psychology. They begin to understand that the aim of the inquiry is not necessarily to achieve answers, but to further understanding and create meaning in a world of conflicting perspectives and interpretations. From the tutorial material the group formulates questions to be addressed in the inquiry, for example, "To what degree should children participate in classroom decision-making?" I encourage students to articulate, analyse, and defend their opinions, and take personal responsibility for learning. Students also must meet the challenge of implementing the community of inquiry with their own learners using philosophical material.

The program is designed in accordance with the Developmental Instruction Model, and aims to foster students' intellectual development via a challenging and supportive combination of the model's four main variables: structure, experiential learning, personalism, and diversity. These variables are present in any university program, but if not deliberately organised according to students' developmental needs, they may have a neutral or even detrimental effect. Too much structure, for example, can be stifling; not enough structure or too much diversity may provoke undue anxiety. The program is designed to encourage students to progress towards adopting position-four or position-five perspectives. Fours value self-expression, independent learning, and autonomy-supportive teaching styles. They are beginning to view teaching and learning as a collaborative rather than authority-driven process. Fives value the notion of a community of inquiry as a shared way of questioning, building, and evaluating alternative theories, analysing issues, and exploring values (Moore & Taylor, 1991). top

Program Supports and Challenges

The supports in the program include a high degree of experiential learning and personalism and a moderate degree of structure. The program is based in schools so that students consistently link theory and practice and reflect on the outcomes in an on-going cycle of theory, practice, and reflection. The high degree of personalism in the program encourages students to support each other in asking questions, taking risks, and voicing opinions. The challenges designed to foster intellectual development include the community of inquiry format, the diversity of perspectives and choices offered in the program, an emphasis on independent learning, autonomy-supportive approaches, and the opportunity to collaborate with peers and tutor. The program includes multiple and often conflicting perspectives on pedagogical issues. I encourage students to appreciate: their own understandings and opinions of the theories presented; how they experience the theories in practice; the need to refer to context and personal values when evaluating and making decisions; and that effective teaching-learning relationships are collaborative rather than authority driven. Students have substantial choice regarding assessment topics and material for teaching, and many experience this as a considerable challenge. I also encourage students to challenge their own and others' dualistic and absolutist thinking.

The community of inquiry also presents the challenging notion of teacher and students participating on an equal footing. Most students tend to feel more comfortable with the notion of teacher as Authority than teacher as co-inquirer and source of expertise. Each week the students are exposed to this challenge both as learners—with their peers and tutor—and as teachers collaborating in a community of inquiry with their learners. The community of inquiry also requires a democratic approach to class management and discipline—another challenge for students who tend towards controlling rather than autonomy-supportive styles. In an authentic community of inquiry teacher and learners collaborate in defining both the ground-rules for discussion and the consequences of infringement of those rules.

In summary, the program provides opportunities for students to engage in a continuing process of theorising, practising, and reflecting on the immediate outcomes, and to undergo powerful emotional and intellectual challenges within a supportive context. The aim is to bring about the four conditions for conceptual change in order to encourage students to value and adopt position-four or position-five perspectives. Only if students value these perspectives will they form a commitment to acting according to them. Only if they find the approaches worthwhile will they be enduring. top

Research Question

The research question addressed in this paper is: What is the nature of students' experiences of the program? I discuss the impact of the program on students' intellectual development and findings from quantitative data elsewhere (Hill, 1999). top

Participants

Method

During the final weeks of the program, I collected responses to a questionnaire investigating students' experiences of the program and audiotaped one-hour semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of 11 students from the program. Of the 11 interviewees, six are men, eight are postgraduates, six are likely to become primary teachers, and five, secondary teachers. Their ages vary between 20 and 41, with the majority under 30. I use the questionnaire and interview material to help me understand students' experiences of the program and changes, if any, in their intellectual development. The questionnaire items are: "What is the most important thing you have learnt from [the program] and what effect, if any, has [the program] had on your ideas about what constitutes an ideal learning situation?" and "Please offer any suggestions for improvements in tutorials". The interview question is: "In what ways, if any, are your ideas about what is a good learning experience for you changing, and what effect, if any, has the [program] had on those ideas? Please describe both negative and positive experiences."

The program focuses on a multitude of educational issues apart from intellectual development, and students are unaware of the main research focus. This reduces—at least partially—the likelihood of students responding to the questionnaire and interview items with what they think I want to hear. Also, because of their experiences in the community of inquiry, most students seem prepared to disagree openly with me on educational issues without fear of being penalised. Finally, questionnaire and interview items are open-ended rather than leading, the questionnaire elicits spontaneous responses rather than choices among given responses, and I ask students to describe both negative and positive experiences. The participants complete the questionnaire anonymously. top

Research Findings and Discussion

In summary, the program aims to foster students' intellectual functioning in order to enhance their ability to meet the needs of their learners. The findings discussed here relate to the nature of students' experiences of the program. The data in Table 1 summarise students' spontaneous responses to the questionnaire item regarding the effect of the program on their ideas about what constitutes an ideal learning situation. Three distinct themes emerge which I categorise as: Category A: growth as a teacher; Category B: personal growth; and Category C: teaching practice and strategy-building. Category C includes a small number of nondescript responses.

Table 1

Students' Spontaneous Responses about the Effects of the Program on their Pedagogical Views (Percentages of Total Responses; N = 52)

Summarising the data, half of the respondents spontaneously report a shift towards more autonomy-supportive approaches. Such a shift signifies movement away from an Authority-centred, controlling notion of pedagogy to the more flexible, democratic outlook. 24% of respondents report an increased sense of personal agency. These responses are characterised by growing commitment to thinking for oneself and making decisions based on personal judgements rather than on rules laid down by Authorities. Many of the remaining respondents emphasise their discovery of pedagogical methods such as the community of inquiry and democratic classroom management. Students' reporting of this effect also may indicate a shift toward more autonomy-supportive views, but I cannot assume this is the case. Nevertheless, three-quarters or more of the responses suggest some movement towards higher level perspectives.

To the item asking for suggestions for improvements to the tutorials, 55% offer no response. The otherwise positive response from this 55% suggests that the lack of response is not due to indifference or hostility, but a question about negative reactions may have yielded more useful data. Nine responses (17%) I categorise as "Desire for more structure", for example: More handouts; More overheads; More time to copy overheads; More discussion of assessment requirements. These responses indicate a desire on the part of these students for more structure in the form of more focused information, particularly regarding assessment. This is unsurprising given that most, if not all, students have become accustomed to and have achieved success via transmission modes of teaching and learning in the past. Regarding other categorisable data, no more than three responses fall into any one category. Three responses are teaching-related, for example, a request for me to talk more about my teaching experiences in schools, three complain that discussions are sometimes too long, and three express frustration with peer side-talking. Overall, the responses to the questionnaire item suggest relative satisfaction with the program, but also that a substantial minority of students want more focused information, particularly regarding assessment requirements. I believe it is possible to provide this kind of support without compromising the program aims, but it is also important not to do students' thinking for them.

The next section describes the interviewees' experiences of the program in relation to the three Perry dimensions described earlier: dualistic and absolutist thinking; issues of personal agency; and critical and reflective thinking. The interview question is: "In what ways, if any, are your ideas about what is a good learning experience for you changing, and what effect, if any, has the school-based tutorial had on those ideas? Please describe both negative and positive experiences."

Several interviewees indicate that their experiences in the program facilitate or reinforce their increasing appreciation of the complexity of many pedagogical issues. Some comment on their development away from dualistic and absolutist positions, with comments such as: "I don't think I had that complexity of analysis before". The effective community of inquiry acts as a crucible for ideas—diverse opinions are discussed and more complex understandings emerge—and is thereby likely to promote complexity of thought.

Educators expect adult students to analyse and criticise competing theoretical perspectives and methods. Many students meet such expectations often with shock and dismay. Whether students advance or retreat in the face of the challenge is influenced significantly by how well educators support them in their attempts to make sense of this new terrain. Our recognition and acknowledgement of their struggle may make an important difference. Future challenges may cause interviewee 7 to re-examine her statement: "There is no right and wrong", and to realise that there are a few clear strokes of black and white amongst the grey.

In the following excerpts, interviewees 9 and 11 comment on the way the community of inquiry approach dissolves the traditional divide between teacher and learner:

While the breaking down of traditional divisions can enhance the autonomy of both teacher and learner, it also brings uncertainty. Yes, it is a powerful place, but also a vulnerable one.

Following, interviewees 6, 8, and 4 describe their increasing openness to new ways of thinking, the discomfort of the ambiguity that accompanies the puzzling, and the exhilaration experienced when some new pieces fall into place with the formation of deeper connections and understandings. Several comments signify that broadening of the mind of which Perry speaks, the deepening of perspective, and the process of opening up to new ways of thinking.

Weighing up alternatives, managing dilemmas, thinking to the point of exhaustion—something is going on here. Both challenge and support is required for students to put in the effort required to develop intellectually. The benefits speak for themselves and encourage students to face new challenges.

Several interviewees highlight their valuing of collaboration and negotiation with their peers and tutor and a growing sense of personal ownership and regard for the legitimacy of their own understandings. They are realising that agency is within themselves, that their ideas and experiences matter, and that they are all grist for learning. The community of inquiry fosters the expression of opinion, and in so doing, the hearing of one's own opinions and how others respond. Those opinions, for good or ill, are made available to be compared and contrasted with others. One begins to understand what and how one thinks, and why, and to recognise how this drives one's practice.

A maturing of mind seems to be occurring here, including a growing realisation that agency and responsibility for one's learning and development is within oneself.

The following responses highlight the interviewees' increasing use of metacognitive processes—critical analysis, reflection on practice, and questioning and clarification of pedagogical beliefs and how they arise in practice. The community of inquiry forces participants to think and to question their own and others' taken-for-granted assumptions. In response, they can either retreat or move forward, but things cannot remain as they were.

Several interviewees spoke of discovering a controlling tendency in their teaching—a tendency hitherto unrecognised as problematic.

Issues of letting go control versus asserting more control at first glance may appear to be in opposition, but in fact they comprise two faces of one coin. To be a democratic teacher means to foster one’s own as well as one’s learners’ autonomy. Teachers must be assertive in fostering the goals of education, and also relinquish counterproductive notions about controlling others. Teachers have a responsibility to educate and to protect their learners’ right to learn. Learners who feel respected, recognised, and protected are more cooperative and show less resistance to taking responsibility for their own learning. Students see both sides of the coin each week as they engage as both participants and leaders in the community of inquiry and the education process. Given appropriate support and time to reflect on their endeavours, one hopes that students will deepen their understanding of the democratic balance which is achieved in a well functioning educational community.

Following, interviewee 4 speaks of his struggle to bring his practice in line with his intentions. Considerable critical and reflective capacity is essential if one wants to practise in ways consistent with one's pedagogical theories.

In summary, the interview data provide insight into the nature of the interviewees' experiences of the program and their perceptions of changes wrought at least partly as a result of those experiences. Several interviewees spontaneously report increased appreciation of the complexity of the issues they confront in the program. Several also report a growing sense of self-agency and of becoming more critical and reflective in their thinking. top

Conclusions

The findings suggest that students' participation in the program enhances their intellectual growth. Students' self-reporting of the impact of the program on their pedagogical views suggests that at least 74% moved towards an increased awareness of the value of democratic and autonomy-supportive approaches or an increased sense of personal agency, both indicators of intellectual growth. The interview data support these findings and offer considerable insight into the nature of these changes and the accompanying delights and difficulties of meeting the intellectual challenges entailed.

The above findings are relevant to a current and hotly debated issue in teacher education. University-based teacher education is under fire from several directions. Disaffection is expressed by government bodies and preservice teachers themselves about what they perceive to be overly theoretical approaches, inadequate focus on the development of teaching competencies, and insufficient relevance of university-based teacher education. In response to such complaints, governments may argue in favour of returning to apprenticeship models of teacher training. In the present program, students teach in schools each week for the duration of the academic year and thereby the program addresses and overcomes the above mentioned problems. While the program does resolve these issues, importantly it also maintains an essential focus on the development of students' reflective and critical capacities and their understanding of the broader pedagogical picture. The program's emphasis on teaching experience is essential in order to support students, but experience alone will not challenge level three functioning. As several researchers have observed (Johnston, 1994), experience of itself does not lead inevitably to learning, nor to reflection, nor to improved practice. The present program constitutes a unique opportunity for students to put pedagogical theory into practice immediately and reflect on outcomes. An unresolved question is whether many students are driven to such an extent by their legitimate and strongly felt need for teaching experience that their level three needs dominate.

The results of this research indicate that, as long as students have the opportunity to engage in consistent, albeit brief, periods of meaningful teaching practice within a challenging, supportive, and reflective context, they will be willing to be more intellectually adventurous. It is critical, therefore, for university-based teacher educators to maintain a strong teaching and assessment role in teacher education. Teacher educators have a crucial role to play in provoking critical thought, enhancing preservice teachers’ reflection on their experiences, and encouraging them to confront the difficulties that inevitably accompany experimentation with unfamiliar teaching approaches.

The results of this study indicate changes in students' pedagogical attitudes—attitudes which traditionally are resistant to change (eg., Reeve, 1998). Such attitudes and underlying beliefs are complex, subtle, and multi-faceted, and only an intervention process of similar order of complexity is likely to succeed. Intellectual growth in the form of increasing awareness, understanding, and ability to deal with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity is more likely to occur, and to occur rapidly, in contexts which allow students to experience powerful emotional and intellectual challenges within a supportive context, and to engage in a continuing cycle in which meaningful practice is built upon theory and is reflected upon with peers and university tutor within a critical framework. In such contexts, the combination of support and challenge is more likely to foster the conditions for conceptual change, leading to a valuing of the new ideas and manifested in improved practice. With increased use of online teaching, teacher educators must not lose sight of the potential of face-to-face encounter to bring about significant attitudinal change.

What might flow from students' increased awareness and understandings? As teachers, perhaps they will be better prepared to support learners’ autonomy, to listen to them with respect and informed attention, to recognise their intellectual endeavours, and to respond by offering appreciation and further challenge, thereby engaging learners in an intellectual cycle of creative and clear thought, reflection, critical appraisal, and refinement of ideas. Similarly I hope they will direct their beam of critical appraisal onto our schooling system itself. top

References

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Susan T. (1995). Inquiry is no mere conversation: facilitation of inquiry is hard work! Critical and Creative Thinking, 3, 2, 38-49.

Hill, L. M. (1997). "Just tell us the rule": Learning to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 3, 211-221.

Hill, L. M. (1999). "Having the opportunity to think for myself": Intellectual development of preservice teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Deakin University.

Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 1, 88 -140.

Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 199-208.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Davidson, M. L., Parker, C. A. & Wood, P. K. (1983). The justification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study. Human Development, 26, 106-116.

Knefelkamp, L. L. (1981). Developmental Instruction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.

Moore, W. S. (1994). Student and faculty epistemology in the college classroom: The Perry schema of intellectual and ethical development. In K. Pritchard & R. McLaren Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications (pp. 45-67). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moore, W. S. & Taylor, K. (1991). Intellectual development and students-as-learners: Using an understanding of the Perry Scheme to encourage transitions. Olympia, Washington: Center for the Study of Intellectual Development.

Perry, W. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Perry, W. (1988). Different worlds in the same classroom. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page.

Piper, T. D. & Rodgers, R. F. (1992). Theory-practice congruence: Factors influencing the internalisation of theory. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 117-123.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Postman, Neil (1996). The end of education. New York: Vintage Books.

Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 3, 312-330.

Splitter, Laurance J. & Sharp, Ann M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 2, 130 -178. top

About the author

Lola Hill
Deakin University, Burwood Campus
Burwood Highway, Burwood
Victoria 3125, Australia
Tel (+613) 9244 6026
Fax (+613) 9244 6834

E-mail: lhill@deakin.edu