Advertisement

An Introduction to Focusing on Practice

  • Rohit SettyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the South Asian Education Policy, Research, and Practice book series (SAEPRP)

Abstract

This chapter explores the path to crafting the volume and the relationships between chapters. The chapter also delves into how the editors view this book’s place among the practices of teaching and teacher-education literature. The chapter posits that the professionalization of teaching and teacher education in South Asia will arguably serve as a linchpin in enhancing children’s educational opportunities. Finally, our hope for how to read the book and render it into practice is also addressed.

References

  1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the moral and intellectual. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 7, 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Britzman, D. P. (2012). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1904). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dyer, C., Choksi, A., Awasty, V., Iyer, U., Moyade, R., Nigam, N., … Sheth, S. (2004). District institutes of education and training: A comparative study in three Indian states (No. 12847). London, UK: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
  12. Dykstra, C. (1991). Reconceiving practice. In B. Wheeler & E. Farley (Eds.), Shifting boundaries: Contextual approaches to the structure of theological education (pp. 35–66). Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). Chapter 1: The knower and the known: The Nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franke, M. L., & Chan, A. (2008). Learning about and from focusing on routines of practice. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.Google Scholar
  16. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.Google Scholar
  19. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A Guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Human Resource and Development. (2012). Vision of teacher education in India: Quality and regulatory perspective report of the high-powered commission on teacher education constituted by the Honorable Supreme Court of India (Vol. 1). New Delhi: Department of School and Literacy, MHRD, GoI.Google Scholar
  25. Mukunda, K. (2009). What did you ask at school today?. Noida, India: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  26. National Curriculum Framework (NCF). (2005). New Delhi: National Council for Educational Research and Training.Google Scholar
  27. National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education. (2010). Towards preparing professional and humane teacher. New Delhi: National Council for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  28. Pollock, S. (1985). The theory of practice and the practice of theory in Indian intellectual history. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105(3), 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramachandran V., Pal, M., Jain S., Shekar S., & Sharma J. (2008). Teacher motivation in India. Jaipur, India: Educational Resource Unit.Google Scholar
  30. Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6–30). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  31. Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. The School Review, 79(4), 493–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Setty, R. (2013). Being explicit about modeling: A first person study in India (Unpublished dissertation).Google Scholar
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, H., Thompson, V. A., & Smithburg, D. W. (1950). Public administration. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.Google Scholar
  38. Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Setty & Associates InternationalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations