Time:
10:35 AM - 12:05 PM
Location: Marriott, 4th Level, Franklin 8
Session Type:
Working Group Roundtable
Chair: Lynley H. Anderman,
The Ohio State University
Iron
Instructor: Educational Psychology—Harnessing the
Power
of Educational Research
for
Practice
Abstract: Modeled after the television show Iron Chef,
our symposium offers Iron Instructor – Educational Psychology, which challenges
four educational psychology instructors (EPIs) to use three not-so-secret
ingredients to revitalize their courses. Ingredients consist of key articles
from the educational psychology literature that each EPI selected based on its
potential to transform current instructional practices and to serve as models
of best practice. EPIs will bring three “courses” to the competition: a syllabus,
a sample lesson, and an assessment. Our chair will facilitate a discussion
among the audience members who will judge how well EPIs integrated secret
ingredients into each course. The intent of this symposium is to communicate
ways that EPIs are using the power of educational research to influence
practice
Papers
Creating an Issues-Based
Course in Educational Psychology: Utilizing Case Studies and Current
Events as a Catalyst for Learning
Authors: Sandra A. Deemer, Millersville University of Pennsylvania,
and Laurie B. Hanich, Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Abstract: Although
the importance of educational psychology is implied because of its inclusion in
most teacher education programs, the struggle over how to create a meaningful
course for preservice teacher candidates has often resulted in learning
experiences that do not best meet the needs of preservice educators. Dembo
(2001) suggested that the major controversy centers on both the objectives and
the methodology used by instructors to reach their intended objectives.
Specifically, the difficulties may arise because educators often want answers
to specific problems that may occur in the classroom and explicit examples as
to when they will use educational psychology in the classroom, whereas
professors want to emphasize somewhat esoteric theoretical explanations of
teaching and learning, (Aspy, 1970; Clinefelter, 1979; Sternberg, 1996).
Considering these opposing perspectives can make the task of structuring a
meaningful educational psychology course a daunting task.
One promising approach to bridge this chasm is to use
case studies and current events to frame the pivotal content in the field of
educational psychology. Although this approach is not new in higher education
and is often used in law, medicine and business, using case studies and current
events as the foundation of an educational psychology course is not typically
seen. Instead what is more common is for instructors of educational psychology
to present key theories in the field and then utilize case studies and current
events to apply that theoretical information (Engle & Faux, 2006). Our goal
is to create an undergraduate course in educational psychology where the case
studies and issues are the driving force of the discussion of theory, rather
than the afterthought in applying the theory. This approach will more closely
resemble the actual PK-12 classroom where teachers are presented with an issue
(e.g., bullying) and then must consider what knowledge will be most helpful in
resolving it.
The course being revamped in this way is taught to
education majors typically in their sophomore year at a comprehensive state
university where field components are integral to our teacher education
programs. In fact, students in this course spend eight half-days or eight
full-days (depends on whether the students are in our secondary or
elementary/special education sections of the course) in a local urban
classroom.
Even though our students are immersed in classrooms
during their field experiences, using constructivist pedagogy in this way can
still pose its’ own set of challenges and often can result in confusion if
students do not perceive a logical flow to the course. As discussed by Sudzina
(1997), the challenges can be overcome if certain aspects of this
constructivist problem-based
approach are evident in the design of the course. As she discusses in her
review related to case based teaching, careful planning, adhering to a
schedule, and allowing adequate time for content and case discussion can aid
students in both learning and transferring content in educational psychology to
the PK-12 classroom.
Skate By? Not on My
Watch: Redesign to Promote Conceptual
Change in an Educational Psychology Course
Author: Michael Yough, Purdue University
Abstract: Prospective teachers
possess well-developed beliefs about knowing and the nature of learning
complete with a complementary repertoire of strategies to assist in navigation
of their education programs. While these views and subsequent strategies have
been adaptive for taking classes that promote rote memorization, these
conceptions of learning are in conflict with findings in educational
psychology. That is, they are at odds with the content of their educational
psychology course. Unfortunately, budget constraints, administrative barriers,
and a lack of risk-taking by instructors result in classrooms and structures
that act to reinforce these beliefs rather than challenge them. Courses in
education are unique in that the structure of the course sends messages to
students about the nature of knowing and learning. An educational psychology
course structured in such a way so as to be at odds with principals of learning
has the potential to undermine the content of the course.
Using Patrick and Pintrich’s
(2001) model of conceptual change for teachers as a guide, the present study
will examine a redesign of one of two sections of a large (>70) educational
psychology course during autumn of 2013. Patrick and Pintrich’s model
acknowledged the role of motivational factors such as goals, interest and
value, efficacy and control beliefs, and epistemological beliefs in conceptual
change. They recommend that teachers of educational psychology be aware of the
misconceptions students may be bringing to the course, provide opportunities
for students to be aware of their own beliefs, promote mastery and
understanding, and facilitate explicit discussion regarding the various
epistemological factors that play a role in students’ beliefs.
The current
structure of the course consists of two lectures and a shared recitation with
another foundations course (special education). Also shared is an early field
experience where students have an opportunity to put “theory into practice”
under the guidance of a local cooperating teacher. Though attempts are made to
make lecture interactive, the large class size makes it prohibitive to conduct
activities that promote deeper understanding of the material. Thus, lectures
generally consist of reviewing some of the main themes in the text, synthesis
of readings, expansion of concepts, etc. The course is where the program
addresses many of the state and national standards of teacher education, thus
there is added pressure to “cover a lot of material.”
The proposed
structure of the course moves the lectures online. Students can explore their
conceptual understanding by making contributions to discussion boards. This
positions students to have more control over their own learning and promotes
the self-regulated learning strategies they will be expected to foster in their
future students in preparing them for navigating a rapidly changing world. This
also frees up class time to allow for a broader array of active learning
strategies to identify and challenge students’ conceptions of learning, promote
a deeper conceptual understanding of the material, and a greater exploration of
what it means in their own classrooms.
Placing Learning, Beliefs,
and Research at the Center of Teaching Educational Psychology
Author:
Helenrose
Fives, Montclair State University
Abstract: Two incidents caused me to
rethink my overall approach to teaching educational psychology. The first
incident occurred in undergraduate course. I organized a class session into a
series of learning centers that the class transitioned through in teams. The
session seemed to go well; one student even commented “This is like circuit
training for your brain!” After the centers we took time to debrief and discuss
the students’ with the learning centers. As I listened to my class, it occurred
to me that something was amiss in the discussion. I asked the class “Did I
teach today?” The immediate response from more than half the class was “Well,
no.” and “Not really.” Silence. Then the discussion got good as the class
dissected just what is teaching and whether I had taught that day or not.
(Turns out I did). This unearthed a teaching problem, the need to be explicit
about why I teach the way I do. I was able to bring the discussion around to
“what is teaching” but this was due more to a happy accident than an
intentional pedagogical decision.
The second
incident occurred while I was writing a theoretical chapter on the functions of
teachers’ personal epistemologies as filters of information, frames for task
analysis, and guides for decision making (Fives & Buehl, under review). At
the end of the chapter we described three recommendations for teacher educators
that I consider essential, and yet I have only implemented on a random or ad
hoc basis in my own classes. Thus, I realized that in a very real way I was not
using research (my own) to influence practice (my own) around concepts that I
believe are central to teaching.
Renninger
(1996) described the design of her educational psychology course in which she
made “Learning as the Focus.” In this piece she describes how the course design
and organizing questions were framed to centralize learning and its role in
teaching. Further, her piece responded to Anderson et al.’s (1996) call for
changes in how we teach educational psychology.
As I engage in the restructuring of my course, I am inspired by Renninger’s
(1996) paper and my research. Thus, the class will be focused on learning,
beliefs, and research with an eye to facilitating self-regulation for my
students as first learners, then teachers (Dembo, 2001). Additional adaptations
will address contextual differences, my course is a pre-requisite for students
who wish to apply to our teacher education program, it fulfills a
general-education requirement, and is taught without a field or laboratory
experience embedded into the course. The diversity of students enrolled in the
course, the lack of a field component, and the time between when this course is
taken and when they enter the teacher education program often make it
challenging for students to connect what they are learning with their own
beliefs about learning and teaching and their potential future practice.
Focusing on learning, beliefs, and research however may provide a lens that is
relevant for all students.
