Developing Micro-Teaching with a Focus on Core Practices: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Fanny Huang and Version 1 by Joanne O'Flaherty.

Micro-teaching as a pedagogical approach is practiced in many higher education programmes focused on building knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes that can be applied in a professional setting. The previous literature attests to the usefulness of micro-teaching experiences in supporting the development of the beginning professional.

  • micro-teaching
  • core practices

1. Introduction

The international literature focuses on teacher effectiveness and problematises the concept from a variety of perspectives, including the quality of teacher preparation [1,2,3][1][2][3]. With increased policy and practice focus on teacher effectiveness comes an emphasis on what we do as teacher educators and the learning experiences included in teacher preparation that can optimally prepare students to be effective teachers in the classroom. Thus, researchers' attention was brought to the enactment of pedagogy in preparing professionals for practice, and the campus-based learning experiences versus the practical expectations of the professional role [4,5,6][4][5][6]. In an effort to connect campus-based coursework with fieldwork, a number of researchers have advocated for practice-based teacher preparation [7[7][8][9],8,9], which includes a focus on core practices of teaching [8,10][8][10] and practice-based pedagogies including representation, decomposition and approximation [8,11,12][8][11][12]. It is within this context that we, as teacher educators, share one example of the enacted pedagogical practice: micro-teaching. Micro-teaching focuses on the development of teaching skills via the practice of expert modelling while the novice observes, deconstructs and replicates. This idea has been developed with the identification of a number of practice foci, including classroom observations, discussion, video observations, dialogic teaching and formative assessment practices [8,13,14,15][8][13][14][15]. This focus on core practices is central to the conceptualisation of approximation of practice (AoP) [11,16][11][16]. Approximations are understood as the level of closeness and/or distance from the actual reality of practice. Foregrounding core practices in teacher preparation programmes in this way can enable pre-service teachers (PSTs) to enact but also potentially adapt these practices for specific classroom contexts [13], as it situates a practice within the frame of a theoretical approach and supports the exploration of AoPs from the perspective of distance from the ‘reality’ of the professional setting.

2. Developing Micro-Teaching with a Focus on Core Practices

2.1. Practice-Based Teacher Preparation

A number of authors have advocated for practice-based teacher preparation that provides novices learning opportunities, including the enactment of teaching [10[10][14][17],14,17], therefore supporting PSTS in learning how to use knowledge in action [7,8,18][7][8][18]. Sleep [19] describes this trend of focused teacher preparation on practice as opposed to merely talking about teaching as a means to concentrate on what teachers do rather than what they know. In recent decades, research has emerged that has explored ways of focusing teachers’ professional education on “core” practices of teaching [7,10,13,14,20,21][7][10][13][14][20][21]. Grossman [22] defines core practices as “components of teaching that teachers enact to support learning. These components include instructional strategies and the subcomponents of strategies and moves. Core practices can include both general and content-specific practices” (p. 184). In terms of selecting core practices, they are typically used frequently in teaching and learning, research-informed and evidence based, implemented broadly across the curriculum, linked to student outcomes and transferable to novices [8,10,14][8][10][14]. Previous research has reported the inclusion of the following core practices in teacher preparation: eliciting and responding to student thinking [8,23,24][8][23][24]; the use of video as a prompt for deconstructing practice [13,25][13][25]; facilitating a whole-class discussion [24,26,27,28][24][26][27][28]; redirect off-task behaviour [22]; anticipating student errors and misconceptions during planning [29]; and modelling [10,30][10][30]. The inclusion of core practices in teacher preparation, it has been argued, may go some way to militating issues of complexity, enactment and the lack of a shared language for talking about teaching and learning [11,13,16,31,32,33,34][11][13][16][31][32][33][34]. Hauser and Kavanagh [35] suggest that identifying a set of core practices enables a disentanglement of the complex work of the teacher and the theoretical concepts that underpin this work. This research reflects an increasing effort to develop what has been termed “practice-based” teacher preparation, which “attempts to focus novices’ learning more directly on the work of teaching rather than on traditional academic or theoretical topics that may have only marginal relevance to the realities of the classroom” [14] (p. 357).
AoPs are a critical component of practice-based pedagogies that provide opportunities for PSTs to enact selected core practices in settings that are designed to facilitate additional support and feedback [11,13,36][11][13][36]. AoPs refer to opportunities for students “to engage in practices that are more or less proximal to the practices of a profession” [11] (p. 2058) and therefore provide opportunities for deliberate practice [37]. They are designed to focus students’ attention “on key aspects of the practice that may be difficult for novices but almost second nature to more experienced practitioners” [11] (p. 2078). Similar to other disciplines, for example, psychotherapy, psychology and medicine, AoPs are increasingly used as a pedagogy of enactment in teacher preparation programmes [8], thus providing PSTs with opportunities for enactment, experimentation and feedback [38,39][38][39]. AoPs provide PSTs with an invitation to simulate certain aspects of practice within the campus-based classroom, thus allowing students “to try piloting the waters under easier conditions” [11] (p. 2076). It is important to note that the inclusion of core practices in teacher preparation does not come without critique. Some authors argue that adoption of this approach may reduce the focus on students, student outcomes of interest and the nuances of various contexts and rather privileges a formulaic and technocratic approach to teaching over adaptive and context-sensitive teaching [13,16,40,41,42][13][16][40][41][42]. Scholars have also noted that reproducing practices across contexts risks undermining equity and justice, calling for equity-oriented and contextually sensitive responses to dilemmas of practice [41,43][41][43]. Others have rebutted, arguing that the inclusion of core practices in teacher preparation can prepare and support PSTs to adapt their teaching to changing contexts [12,23,44][12][23][44]. For instance, Baldinger and Munson [32] reported that approximating core practices in coursework can support developing adaptive expertise. McDonald et al. [10] suggested that in order to truly develop an understanding of the practice of teaching, teacher preparation programmes must not only reimagine the curriculum but also the pedagogy of teacher preparation and consider adding pedagogies of enactment to an existing repertoire of pedagogies of reflection and investigation [8]. Grossman et al. [11] recommended three concepts to promote understanding of the pedagogies of practice in professional education: representations, decompositions and approximations of practice. The inclusion of pedagogical approaches that focus on representations of practice provides students with opportunities to experience the variety of ways that practice is presented in professional education and what such representations make visible and explicit. These approaches emphasise that the nature of representation reflects particular decision-making and resultant consequences. Engaging in the decomposition or deconstruction of these representations provides students with opportunities to analyse and deconstruct practice into its constituting parts to support teaching and learning; for example, instructional or dialogic moves can be identified. It is important therefore that teacher preparation programmes pay close attention to the pedagogies selected to enable the exploration of core practices for the beginning professional. Dependent on this is the necessity to create infrastructure to implement and support these practices in teacher preparation programmes.

2.2. Micro-Teaching

Micro-teaching, a ‘scaled down’ version of an actual classroom, is a technique currently practiced worldwide to provide PSTs with opportunities to develop their teaching by practicing various teaching skills in a safe and supportive learning environment [45,46,47][45][46][47]. While micro-teaching has become a stalwart in teacher preparation since the early 1960s, the conceptual framework underpinning the initiative has been replicated across various disciplines, including nursing and medical education [48,49,50][48][49][50]. The model of micro-teaching developed at Stanford University [45,51,52][45][51][52] as part of their teacher preparation programme required students to engage in a three-part process. Firstly, students observe a model teaching scenario in which a specific skill is demonstrated. Then, students try out the new technique and receive feedback on their performance. Feedback is facilitated by recording the students, and then this recording is reviewed by a supervisor. Micro-teaching enables students to try and improve certain teaching skills in a controlled way in a ‘laboratory’ environment. The class environment is profoundly complex under normal conditions, is simplified in terms of the number of students and duration of teaching and is organised in such a way as to focus on certain behavioural situations that the participant may encounter in their professional practice. Although there are different ways of applying the principles, the micro-teaching cycle can be listed as follows: prepare a short lesson plan on a certain topic; video-recording of the lesson; review the video-recorded lesson; evaluation of the lesson by the student, peers and tutor; prepare the lesson again and re-present and finally re-evaluate. Using micro-teaching as a pedagogical approach simulates a teaching experience, which is scaled down in terms of time and student numbers. Typically, this translates into a four to twenty-minute lesson which is taught to three to ten pupils where “the student teacher [is immersed in] an active teaching role” [51] (p. 78), which can be highly controlled. A number of variables can be adjusted to change the experience for the student, including teaching pupils or peers, the length of the lesson, the number of pupils, the number of re-teaches, the amount and type of feedback provided to students and the use of the video-recording.
Numerous studies carried out in the mid-1970s supported the use of micro-teaching for the acquisition of new teaching techniques, e.g., [51,53,54][51][53][54]. These findings have been replicated in later research studies [55,56][55][56]. Fernández [57] recommended the provision of collaborative opportunities for PSTs to explore pedagogical problems and engage in “reflection and critical analysis of their teaching practices” (p. 351), while Ledger and Fischetti [58] suggested that micro-teaching simulations offer teacher educators “a controlled learning environment for effective moderation and diagnosis of practice” (p. 37). The literature highlights how engagement with micro-teaching as a pedagogical approach has the potential to impact a number of skills required for the classroom, including the following:
Darling-Hammond [72] noted that micro-teaching provides a valuable opportunity to receive feedback via comments from tutors and peers in a simulated environment. These findings have been replicated by Higgins and Nicholl [48], Ismail [46] and Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero [73]. Engagement with this pedagogical approach has also been linked to reduced learning anxiety [70,71,74][70][71][74]; making classroom practices less teacher-centred [75] and providing valuable teaching experiences, which can facilitate PSTs’ awareness of the benefits and relationships between theory and practice [76]. It is clear from the literature presented here that higher education institutions and, indeed, schools of education have the autonomy to select and implement their own programme of micro-teaching, one that focuses on a particular skill or suite of skills for professional practice. It is important therefore to conceptualise and develop programmes that are informed by the evidence and equally contribute to the evidence, thus ensuring that PSTs can model the practices, knowledge, skills and attitudes required for professional practice.

References

  1. Cochran-Smith, M.; Stringer Keefe, E.; Cummings Carney, M.; Sánchez, J.G.; Olivo, M.; Jewett Smith, R. Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education. Teach. Educ. Q. 2020, 47, 8–37.
  2. Darling-Hammond, L. Accountability in Teacher Education. Action Teach. Educ. 2020, 42, 60–71.
  3. Hollins, E.R. Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. J. Teach. Educ. 2011, 62, 395–407.
  4. Allen, J.M. Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 647–654.
  5. Farrell, R. The School–University Nexus and Degrees of Partnership in Initial Teacher Education. Ir. Educ. Stud. 2023, 42, 21–38.
  6. Resch, K.; Schrittesser, I.; Knapp, M. Overcoming the theory-practice divide in teacher education with the ‘Partner School Programme’. A conceptual mapping. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2022, 1–17.
  7. Ball, D.L.; Forzani, F.M. The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education. J. Teach. Educ. 2009, 60, 497–511.
  8. Grossman, P.; Hammerness, K.; McDonald, M. Redefining Teaching, Re-Imagining Teacher Education. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract. 2009, 15, 273–289.
  9. Peltier, M.R.; Bemiss, E.M.; Shimek, C.; Van Wig, A.; Hopkins, L.J.; Davis, S.G.; Scales, R.Q.; Scales, D.W. Examining learning experiences designed to help teacher candidates bridge coursework and fieldwork. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 107, 103468.
  10. McDonald, M.; Kazemi, E.; Kavanagh, S. Core Practices of Teacher Education: A Call for a Common Language and Collective Activity. J. Teach. Educ. 2013, 64, 378–386.
  11. Grossman, P.; Compton, C.; Igra, D.; Ronfeldt, M.; Shahan, E.; Williamson, P. Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2009, 111, 2055–2100.
  12. Kavanagh, S.; Conrad, J.; Dagogo-Jack, S. From rote to reasoned: Examining the role of pedagogical reasoning in practice-based teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 89, 102991.
  13. Brataas, G.; Staal Jenset, I. From coursework to fieldwork: How do teacher candidates enact and adapt core practices for instructional scaffolding? Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 132, 104206.
  14. Forzani, F.M. Understanding ‘Core Practices’ and ‘Practice-Based’ Teacher Education: Learning from the past. J. Teach. Educ. 2014, 65, 357–368.
  15. O’Flaherty, J.; Beal, E.M. Core Competencies and High Leverage Practices of the Beginning Teacher: A Synthesis of the Literature. J. Educ. Teach. 2018, 44, 461–478.
  16. Grossman, P. (Ed.) Teaching Core Practices in Teacher Education; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021.
  17. Jenset, I.S. The enactment approach to practice-based teacher education coursework: Expanding the geographic scope to Norway and Finland. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 64, 98–117.
  18. Lampert, M. Learning teaching in, from, and of practice: What do we mean? J. Teach. Educ. 2010, 61, 21–34.
  19. Sleep, L. Teaching to the Mathematical Point: Knowing and using Mathematics in Teaching. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Education) at the University of Michigan. 2009. Available online: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64676/sleepl_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  20. Cuenca, A. Proposing Core Practices for Social Studies Teacher Education: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Inquiry-Based Lessons. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 72, 298–313.
  21. Dinkelman, T.; Cuenca, A. A Turn to Practice: Core Practices in Social Studies Teacher Education. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 2020, 48, 583–610.
  22. Grossman, P. Teaching Core Practices in Teacher Education; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.
  23. Kavanagh, S.; Metz, M.; Hauser, M.; Fogo, B.; Taylor, M.; Carlson, J. Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers’ responsiveness to students’ ideas. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 71, 94–107.
  24. Kavanagh, S.; Rainey, E.C. Learning to support adolescent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher take up in secondary English language arts teacher preparation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2017, 54, 904–937.
  25. Ball, D.L. The Pedagogy of Video: Practices of Using Video Records as a Resource in Teacher Education. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 April–1 May 2013.
  26. Hlas, A.C.; Hlas, C.S. A Review of High-Leverage Teaching Practices: Making Connections between Mathematics and Foreign Languages. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2012, 45, S76–S97.
  27. Alston, C.L.; Danielson, K.A.; Dutro, E.; Cartun, A. Does a discussion by any other name sound the same? Teaching discussion in three ELA methods courses. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 69, 225–238.
  28. Williamson, P. Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of discussion. Engl. Educ. 2013, 46, 34–67. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24570973 (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  29. Ball, D.L.; Forzani, F.M. Teaching Skillful Teaching. Educ. Leadersh. 2010, 68, 40–45.
  30. McGrew, S.; Alston, C.L.; Fogo, B. Modeling as an example of representation. In Teaching Core Practices in Teacher Education; Grossman, P., Ed.; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 35–56.
  31. Grosser-Clarkson, D.; Neel, M.A. Contrast, commonality, and a call for clarity: A review of the use of core practices in teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 71, 464–476.
  32. Baldinger, E.E.; Munson, J. Developing adaptive expertise in the wake of rehearsals: An emergent model of the debrief discussions of non-rehearsing teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 95, 103125.
  33. Hammerness, K.M.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Bransford, J.; Berliner, D.; Cochran-Smith, M.; McDonald, M. How teachers learn and develop. In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do; Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 358–389.
  34. Kennedy, M. The role of preservice teacher education. In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Teaching and Policy; Darling-Hammond, L., Sykes, G., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 54–86.
  35. Hauser, M.; Kavanagh, S.S. Practice-based teacher education. In Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019.
  36. Schutz, K.M.; Danielson, K.A.; Cohen, J. Approximations in English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 81, 100–111.
  37. Ericsson, K.A. Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In The Pursuit of Excellence in Education; Ferrari, M., Ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 21–55.
  38. Meneses, A.; Nussbaum, M.; Veas, M.G.; Arriagada, S. Practice-based 21st century teacher education: Design principles for adaptive expertise. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 128, 104118.
  39. Nesje, K.; Lejonberg, E. Tools for the school-based mentoring of preservice teachers: A scoping review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 111, 103609.
  40. Kennedy, M. Parsing the Practice of Teaching. J. Teach. Educ. 2016, 67, 6–17.
  41. Philip, T.M.; Souto-Manning, M.; Anderson, L.; Horn, I.; Carter Andrews, D.J.; Stillman, J.; Varghese, M. Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core:” How the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 70, 251–264.
  42. Zeichner, K. The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. 2012, 63, 376–382.
  43. Luciano Beltramo, J.; Stillman, J.; Struthers Ahmed, K. From Approximations of Practice to Transformative Possibilities: Using Theatre of the Oppressed as Rehearsals for Facilitating Critical Teacher Education. New Educ. 2020, 16, 25–44.
  44. Munson, J.; Baldinger, E.E.; Larison, S. What if … ? Exploring thought experiments and non-rehearsing teachers’ development of adaptive expertise in rehearsal debriefs. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 97, 103222.
  45. Allen, D.W. A new design for teacher education: The teacher intern program at Stanford University. J. Teach. Educ. 1966, 17, 296–300.
  46. Ismail, S.A.A. Student Teachers’ Microteaching Experiences in a Preservice English Teacher Education Program. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2011, 2, 1043–1051.
  47. Ogeyik, M.C. Attitudes of the Student Teachers in English Language Teaching Programs towards Microteaching Technique. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2009, 2, 205–212.
  48. Higgins, A.; Nicholl, H. The experiences of lecturers and students in the use of microteaching as a teaching strategy. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2003, 3, 220–227.
  49. Ralph, E.G. The Effectiveness of Microteaching: Five Years’ Findings. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Educ. (IJHSSE) 2014, 1, 17–28.
  50. Remesh, A. Microteaching, an efficient technique for learning effective teaching. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2013, 18, 58–63.
  51. Allen, D.W.; Clark, R.J. Microteaching: It’s Rationale. High Sch. J. 1967, 51, 75–79. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40366699 (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  52. Allen, D.W.; Ryan, K. Microteaching; Addison-Wesley: Massachusetts, MA, USA, 1969.
  53. Limbacher, P.C. A Study of the Effects of Microteaching Experiences Upon the Classroom Behaviour of Social Studies Student Teachers; American Education Research Association: New York, NY, USA, 1971.
  54. Ward, B.E. A Survey of Microteaching in NCATE-Accredited Secondary Education Programs. Research and Development Memorandum, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford University. 1970. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED046894 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  55. Ferguson, S.; Sutphin, L. Analyzing the Impact on Teacher Preparedness as a Result of Using Mursion as a Risk-Free Microteaching Experience for Pre-Service Teachers. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2022, 50, 432–447.
  56. Hamidi, N.B.; Kinay, I. An Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Opinions about Micro Teaching Course. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 2021, 17, 226–240. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1318397.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2022).
  57. Fernández, M.L. Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 351–362.
  58. Ledger, S.; Fischetti, J. Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the Classroom. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 36, 37–54.
  59. Benton-Kupper, J. The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education 2001, 121, 830–835.
  60. Burnaford, G.; Fischer, J.; Hobson, D. (Eds.) Teachers Doing Research; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.
  61. Berthoff, A.E. The teacher as researcher. In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change; Goswami, D., Stillman, P., Eds.; Boynton Cook: Upper Montclair, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 28–39.
  62. Cochran-Smith, M.; Lytle, S.L. (Eds.) Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
  63. Franke, M.L.; Kazemi, E. Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory Into Pract. 2001, 40, 102–109. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477271 (accessed on 13 February 2022).
  64. Goffree, F.; Oonk, W. Educating primary school mathematics teachers in the Netherlands: Back to the classroom. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 1999, 2, 207–214.
  65. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
  66. Sullivan, P.; Mousley, J. Learning about teaching: The potential of specific mathematics teaching examples presented on interactive media. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Valencia, Spain, 8–12 July 1996; Puig, L., Gutierrez, A., Eds.; International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Valencia, Spain, 1996; pp. 283–290.
  67. Mergler, A.G.; Tangen, D. Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre-service teachers. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21, 199–210.
  68. Msimang Mothofela, R. The Impact of Micro Teaching Lessons on Teacher Professional Skills: Some Reflections from South African Student Teachers. Int. J. High. Educ. 2021, 10, 164–171.
  69. Jacques, D. Learning in Groups—A Handbook for Improving Group Work, 3rd ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2000.
  70. Şen, A.I. A study on the Effectiveness of Peer Microteaching in a Teacher Education Program. Educ. Sci. 2009, 34, 165–174.
  71. Sevim, O.; Suroglu Sofu, M. The Effects of Extended Micro-Teaching Applications on Foreigners’ Views on Motivation, and Process of Learning Turkish. Int. J. High. Educ. 2021, 10, 135–150. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1310414.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  72. Darling-Hammond, L. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006.
  73. Woolfolk Hoy, A.; Burke Spero, R. Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2005, 21, 343–356.
  74. Minton, D. Teaching Skills in Further and Adult Education; MacMillan Press Ltd.: London, UK, 1997.
  75. Cajkler, W.; Wood, P.; Norton, J.; Pedder, D. Lesson Study: Towards a collaborative approach to learning in Initial Teacher Education? Camb. J. Educ. 2013, 43, 537–554.
  76. Bell, L.A. Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, 2nd ed.; Adams, M., Bell, L.A., Grifn, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 11–14.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback