Revisiting Concept, Definition, and Forms of Pedagogy

Vol-7 Issue-1 2021 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396

13500 www.ijariie.com 355

Revisiting Concept, Definition, and Forms of

Pedagogy

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Shah

Associate Professor

Sanothimi Campus

Tribhuvan University

Bhaktapur, Bagamaati Province 3, Nepal

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0533-1338

Abstract

Since in Greek agogos means leader, a paidagogos was a slave who led boys to school and back, but also

taught them manners and tutored them after school. In time, pedagogue came to mean simply teacher;

today the word has an old-fashioned ring to it, so it often means a stuffy, boring teacher. The

word pedagogy, though, is still widely used, and often means simply teaching. And pedagogic training is

what everyone majoring in education receives. Pedagogy most commonly understood as the approach to

teaching, is the theory and practice of learning, and how this process influences, and is influenced by, the

social, political and psychological development of learners. Pedagogy is the discipline of study related to the

field of education and teaching methods. Pedagogy as academic discipline has a very broad meaning.

Pedagogy is often thought of as the art or science of teaching. Some would say that this is somewhat limited

viewpoint, since in its origins and derivation pedagogy is a much broader concept, relating to the

development and all round development of the child. The major aim of the present article is to revisit the

concept, meaning, definitions, perspectives and form of pedagogy. For this purpose, I have made in-depth

study of the related literature during the course of the study. First of all this paper differentiate the term

pedagogue from teachers. Secondly, an attempt has been made to define the term pedagogy. This paper

further analyze the various aspects such as perspectives on pedagogy which comprises of the fixed

perspective, fluid perspective, and transformative perspective. Accordingly, three forms of pedagogy such as

traditional teacher centered pedagogy, progressive learner centered pedagogy and critical pedagogy have

also presented in this study. These three form of pedagogy further described on the basis of teachers’ role,

learners’ role and instructional practices. The present article explored the term pedagogue, pedagogy and

perspectives of the pedagogy. On the other hand, three major pedagogical approaches: the traditional

teacher-centered, the progressive student-centered and the critical pedagogy are also scrutinized in-depth. In

a nutshell, this article explored the concept, definition, form of the pedagogy.

Keywords: Pedagogy, teaching, learning, perspective on pedagogy, teacher centred teaching pedagogy,

learner centred teaching pedagogy, critical pedagogy

Pedagogue, Pedagogy and Teachers in Ancient Greece

Pedagogy has emerged in the educational literature in different countries (Alexander, 2008), at different

times (Hamilton, 2009) and, more often than not, with differing interpretations and agendas for different

people (Waring and Evans, 2015; Watkins and Mortimer, 1999). Since in Greek agogos means leader,

a paidagogos was a slave who led boys to school and back, but also taught them manners and tutored

them after school. In time, pedagogue came to mean simply teacher; today the word has an old-fashioned

ring to it, so it often means a stuffy, boring teacher. The word pedagogy, though, is still widely used, and

often means simply teaching. And pedagogic training is what everyone majoring in education receives

(www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 17 January, 2021). The term pedagogy has its roots in ancient Greek

and appears to have originated from various derivatives of the classical Greek word paidagogas: a

combination of the words for boy and leader based on the notion of a man (the household servant) having

responsibility for a child’s education and upbringing (Hamilton, 2009; Leach and Moon, 2008; Watkins and

Mortimore, 1999). The Greek word for child (usually a boy) is pais (the stem of this is paid), and leader

is agogus-so a paid-agogus or pedagogue was literally a leader of children. The word is derived from the

Greek paidagogia meaning ‘to lead a child’ which was, in turn, taken from paidagogos or ‘teacher of boys’.

In the Greco/Roman culture, a paidagogos was a slave responsible for the education of boys. The word



pedagogue was originally used to refer to the slave who escorted Greek children to school. Later, the

word pedagogue became synonymous with the teaching of our young.

In Ancient Greece, rich families would have many servants, often slaves, one of whom would be specifically

tasked to look after the children. Often these slaves would lead or escort the children to the place of

education. A pedagogue refers to someone who is capable of making a perfect match and succeeding in the

act of knowledge transfer. A natural pedagogue will use every opportunity to share their knowledge and

education to aid, assist or enlighten others. They will do this by adapting their teaching methods to the

intellectual capacity, the learning strategies and the individual needs of their students or learners. One fairly

limited definition of the word pedagogue is: a school teacher. Another less kind definition suggests that

pedagogues are people who instruct in a dogmatic or pedantic manner. We seem to have many views on the

nature of pedagogy and how it is conducted.

Various French and Latin interpretations of these Greek words eventually arrived at the term pedagogy

(Watkins and Mortimore, 1999). Hamilton (2009) explains that, in original Greek interpretations of

pedagogy, these pedagogues tended to work in one-to-one situations and were not only interested in learning

in a narrow sense, but they were also concerned with engaging wider educational agendas regarding the

child’s social, cultural, and moral development. Biesta and Miedema (2002) recognise this original form of

pedagogy as education in a wider sense and that the interest was with the cultivation of the person (p.173). In

ancient Greece there have been two notions to the concept of pedagogy. From the one hand, it has been

thought of as strongly connected to philosophy, based on the ethical purposes that lead the educational

activity. On the other hand, it carries the empirical and practical meaning which is inherent to Paideia,

understood as educating children for life, which reinforced the methodological aspect already present on the

etymological sense of pedagogy as means, path: the guidance of children.

A teacher is considered a bona fide pedagogue when they are capable of making a perfect match and

succeeding in the act of knowledge transfer inside or outside the classroom. In the best-case scenario,

students who are actively partaking and advancing in the learning experience are the end result of a

successful instructor’s pedagogy. And yet, if students are having trouble understanding the lesson, this does

not automatically mean that the teacher is a terrible pedagogue. There may be other factors involved, such as

a student who is ill or tired, or students who are distracted or not able to hear the teacher or see the

blackboard, etc.

Paidagogos is also mentioned three times in the various verses of Bible. In those verses, the word is translated

as tutor, guardian, or school master. In Denmark, a pedagogue is a practitioner of pedagogy. The term is

primarily used for individuals who occupy jobs in pre-school education (such as kindergartens and nurseries)

in Scandinavia. But a pedagogue can occupy various kinds of jobs, e.g. in retirement homes, prisons,

orphanages, and human resource management. These are often recognized as social pedagogues as they

perform on behalf of society. The pedagogue's job is usually distinguished from a teacher's by primarily

focusing on teaching children life-preparing knowledge such as social skills and cultural norms. There is also

a very big focus on care and well-being of the child. Many pedagogical institutions also practice social

inclusion. The pedagogue's work also consists of supporting the child in their mental and social development.

Hungary, the word pedagogue is synonymous with teacher; therefore, teachers of both primary and secondary

schools may be referred to as pedagogues, a word that appears also in the name of their lobbyist organizations

and labor unions. However, undergraduate education in Pedagogy does not qualify students to become

teachers in primary or secondary schools but makes them able to apply to be educational assistants.

Table 1

Pedagogic principles and practices-Ancient period

Ancient Cultures Pedagogy

Ancient Greece

(8th to 6th century B.C. to 600 A.D., into

the beginning of the early middle ages).

Rome, Hebrew culture, etc. (5th century

to 1300 BC)

Aristotle’s School (built at 350 B.C. and

later)

The distinction between teachers and pedagogues,

instruction and guidance.

Pedagogues (paidagogus): Moral supervision by the

pedagogue was significant in terms of status.

Subject Teachers (didaskalos)

Teaching methods based on reading and oral learning,

and conducted through repetition. Teaching, especially

in rabbinic schools, also included debate and practice.



Plato’s Academy (founded in 387 B.C.)

Encouraged an exploratory learning process where

teachers and students were co-travelers in a search for

truth. The teaching methods used reasoning and

questioning. Nothing was labelled as the final answer.

Education in the Vedic period.

Universities in Ancient Indian

subcontinent-beginning 8th century B.C.

and developing into ancient Indian

universities (Nalanda, Taxila,

Vikramshila, etc.)

4th century to the close of the 8th century,

under the Guptas and Harsha and their

successors, is a remarkable period in

India-age of the universities.

Memorisation with stress on pronunciation.

Focus on critical analysis and comprehension.

Contemplative pedagogy:

Sravana: listening to the teachings

Manana: reflection on the teachings

Nididhyãsana: the stage of meditation on the truth

Storytelling question and answer method.

Hands-on method.

Seminars.

Catechism-the pupil asking questions and the teacher

discoursing at length on the topics referred to him.

Chinese region.

Taixue (Imperial College) or Guozijian

(Imperial Academy).

Shang Dynasty (16th century B.C.- 11th

century B.C.), Western Zhou Dynasty

(11th century B.C.-771 B.C.), Sui

Dynasty (589-618) to the last feudal

dynasty, Qing Dynasty (1644- 1911).

Confucian thoughts: humanism, harmony and hierarchy,

benevolence (ren), righteousness (yi), wisdom (zhi),

loyalty (zhong) and altruism (shu).

A good teacher must be a good moral exemplar.

Education should be open to all (role modelling).

Oral instruction and teaching by example were the chief

methods of education. The molding of character was a

primary aim of education.

Sources: Young 1987, Longenecker 1983: 53; Smith 2006:201

Pedagogy entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1571 AD for the first time. In modern day usage it stands

for: ‘A place of instruction; a school, a college; a university’; ‘Instruction, discipline, training; a system of

introductory training; a means of guidance’; ‘The art, occupation, or practice of teaching. Also: the theory or

principles of education; a method of teaching based on such a theory’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2018).

Pedagogy is a contested term, unevenly received in pedagogical discourses in the English-speaking world and

continental Europe (Alexander 2008, Best 1998, Watkins and Mortimore 1999). While in continental Europe

pedagogy is regarded as a well-established academic discipline, in the English-speaking world, pedagogy,

which has received attendant criticisms about being a poorly defined and ill-conceived term, became

historically neglected (Watkins and Mortimore 1999, Simon 1981). Instead, in Britain and the US,

discourses of curriculum have become more prominent, which is reflective of the history of devolved

responsibilities for curriculum construction in that part of the world (Alexander, 2008). As a result, in Britain

and the US, pedagogy was made ‘subsidiary to curriculum’ (Alexander 2008, p.47).

Pedagogy is the discipline of study related to the field of education and teaching methods. Most of the

educationist consider pedagogy as academic discipline. Pedagogy as academic discipline has a very broad

meaning. It encompasses discourses of ‘health and bodily fitness, social and moral welfare, ethics and

aesthetics, as well as he institutional forms that serve to facilitate societies and individual’s pedagogical aims’

(Marton and Booth 1997, p.178 cited in Watkins and Mortimore 1999, p.2). To further illustrate this point,

Alexander (2008) uses an example of curriculum structure of a pedagogy degree at a Russian pedagogical

university, which includes courses on ‘general culture’ (e.g. philosophy, ethics, history, economics, literature,

art and politics); as well as foundations of psychology, physiology, child development, child law, and

preparation for subject teaching, or didaktika and metodika, which links all the elements of teaching together

(p. 46).

In its current usage, pedagogy as academic discipline is referred to as pedagogical sciences, as, for example,

in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, while initial teacher educators receive their degrees in the

‘pedagogy and methodology of teaching’ of a particular subject. This tendency of pedagogy as academic



discipline to unite under its banner a wide array of theories and discourses makes it open to criticisms, one of

which is, arguably, the lack of rigour in its conceptual apparatus and methodological approaches. The major

disagreement among educators and researchers who attempted to provide a definition of pedagogy is whether

pedagogy represents science or art. For some, there were enough grounds to argue that pedagogy cannot be

further removed from being a science, as it is nothing more that intuition, affect, a compilation of

interpersonal relations. Historically, pedagogy is associated with the ‘science of teaching’, which stems from

the works of Pestalozzi and Kant. However, it is Herbart who is considered the founder of the tradition of

‘pedagogy as science’. Herbart practised his work in Germany, but become influential in the US due to the

translation of his seminal book Allgemaine Pädagogik (1806), meaning ‘General Pedagogics’, which,

according to Hamilton (1999), was inadequately translated as the science of education.

Herbart viewed the ultimate goal of his philosophy as finding ‘the foundation of true psychological

knowledge’ (Herbart 1896, p. 21). The link between pedagogy and psychology is important here. It is

discussed in more detail in Best’s contribution, where the case of France is used to illustrate metamorphoses

of the term ‘pedagogy’ (Best 1988, p. 158-9). In the 1950s and 1960s, France witnessed the birth of a new

science-‘psycho-pedagogy’-which was subsequently replaced by ‘pedagogical sciences’ in the early 1970s.

This was considered to be a better alternative for an ill-conceived, newly coined psycho-pedagogy, which,

according to the many criticisms coming from the circles of French philosophers at the time, rested on a

shaky foundation and could not provide ‘adequate explanation of educational phenomena’ (Best 1988, p.

159). In Ukraine now, and in the Soviet Union previously, the legacy of the merger of the terms is still

evident in the widely used term ‘psychological-pedagogical’ (as in ‘psychological-pedagogical approaches’,

‘psychological-pedagogical characteristics’, etc.), which preface all things related to education and continue

to operate in pedagogical discourses in Ukraine without facing any significant challenges or objections from

the educational community. An important contribution, which cemented the Herbartian view of pedagogy as

science’ was Herbart’s approach to instruction, which he advocated should unfold in a series of stages:

The first Herbartian stage (clearness) entailed the analysis of previous notions and the addition of

new matter; the second stage (association) focused on the collation, comparing and contrasting

similar phenomena; the third stage (system) was directed towards the establishment of generalised

notions; and, at the final stage (method), practical applications were drawn from the results of the

earlier stages (Hamilton 1999, p.144).

Apart from his contribution to theory of instruction, Herbart put forward a number of other concepts that were

considered groundbreaking at the time. For example, in an attempt to move beyond a dual view of the

teacher’s task as one of either instruction or education, Herbart put forward the notion of erziehenden

Unterrichts-educating instruction (Biesta and Miedema 2002, p. 173). Other concepts, which were part of

Herbart’s theory, and which were later revived by his followers,2 are those of interest, ‘moral training’ and

didactics (Hamilton 1999, p. 144). However, it is Herbart’s epistemological position, which was premised on

‘metaphysics and mathematics, besides self-observation, experience and experiments’ (Herbart 1896, p. 21),

that contributed to the subsequent demise of his theories. De Garmo (1896) further illustrates Herbart’s belief

in metaphysics as a basis for psychology and Herbart’s assumption around moral judgments and ethics, which

contributed to his view of pedagogy as science. Herbart’s ideas were met with criticism in scholarly circles,

especially with the appearance of new pedagogical theories, such as those of John Dewey (Hayward and

Thomas 1903). Despite the criticism, Herbart’s ideas were revived later, but with a much lower momentum

than they had had before (Hamilton 1999) and, as this paper will demonstrate, they continue to shape

pedagogical thinking in Ukraine.

To address the shortcomings of the overemphasis on science in earlier iterations of the term pedagogy, the

term pedagogics, which stands for ‘science, art and principles of pedagogy’, was introduced in academic and

practitioner discourse in the late 18th century. While in linguistic terms, ‘pedagogy’ is used almost on a par

with pedagogics (Oxford English Dictionary 2018), in academic circles pedagogy is a more accepted term.

Best (1988) traces another metamorphosis of the term pedagogy, when the term didactics was first coined in

Germany and soon afterwards adopted in France in part as the attempt to address continuing criticisms of

pedagogy as an academic discipline. According to Best, ‘didactics’ was coined to denote ‘our understanding

of the relationship between the content that is taught, those who are taught and the teacher’ (Best 1988, p.

161). As a result of this split between pedagogy and didactics, ‘general pedagogy’ has become the

philosophy, the sociology and the social psychology of education, whereas specialised or subject pedagogy

has become didactics (Best 1988, p. 161).



According to Hamilton (1999), the European discourse of didactics is similar to the Anglo-American

discourse of pedagogy. He explains that ‘in both of its classical and Enlightenment senses, pedagogy denoted

the process of upbringing and the influences that might shape this human activity’ (Hamilton 1999, p. 136).

He further explains that since the 16th and 17th centuries, the terms pedagogy and didactics have been

circulating in conjunction. He illustrates this by referring to the Oxford English Dictionary issued in the

1970s where one of the definitions of pedagogy is the ‘art or science of teaching’, and one of the definitions

of didactics is the ‘science or art of teaching’ (Hamilton 1999, p. 137). This similarity between the concepts

was mirrored in their definitions provided a decade later. Simon (1981) defines pedagogy as the ‘science of

teaching embodying both curriculum and methodology’ (p. 125), and Gundem (1998) defines didactics as ‘a

science and theory about teaching and learning in all circumstances and in all forms’ (p. 6). Drawing on

McDonald (1992) and Marland (1993), Watkins and Mortimore (1999) move the debate around the

definition of pedagogy forward by proposing an alternative way of thinking about pedagogy, which is as

neither science nor art, but as a ‘craft’. It is in this sense that Eisner views teaching as improvisatory for ‘the

ends it (teaching) achieves are often created in process’ with a multiplicity of ever changing and

unpredictable circumstances in which teaching takes place (Eisner 1979, p. 153 cited in Alexander 2008, p,

51). Similarly, Brown and McIntyre view experienced teachers’ work as grounded in ‘a craft knowledge of

ideas, routines and conditions, which they map empirically in respect of pupils, time, content, the material

environment and teachers themselves’ (Brown and McIntyre, 1993 cited in Alexander 2008, p. 50).

The most recent contribution to the discussion of pedagogy, which revived the interest in this term in western

countries and beyond, is the work by Alexander, who views pedagogy as both the act and discourse

(Alexander 2000, p. 540). He defines pedagogy as ‘the act of teaching and body of knowledge, argument and

evidence in which it is embedded and by which particular classroom practices are justified’ (Alexander 2008,

p. 46). By attending to both meanings of the term pedagogy, Alexander brings out attention to ‘the bigger

picture’, whereby pedagogy ‘connects the apparently self-contained act of teaching with culture and

mechanisms of social control’ (Alexander 2000, p. 540).

Defining Pedagogy

Pedagogy is a widely contested term (Watkins & Mortimore 1999), nevertheless, simply put, the word

pedagogy means the science of teaching. According to Oxford Dictionary meaning, pedagogy is the method

and practice of teaching; a pedagogue is a teacher, a strict one. The encyclopaedia Britannica defines

pedagogy as the art, science, and profession of teaching. Pritchard and Woollard (2010), define pedagogy as

the heart of teaching. It is about rules and principles that guide effective and efficient activities which lead to

learning. Pedagogy is about teaching methods and principles of instruction. It is assisting students through

interaction and activity in the ongoing academic and social events of the classroom. “Pedagogy is the

performance of teaching with theories, beliefs, policies, and controversies that inform it” (Alexander, 2000,

p.540).

Arends (2001) defines pedagogy as ‘the study of the art and science of teaching’. Teacher as an artist need to

be innovative, flexible and imaginative so that he/she is not locked into any single teaching style. A teacher

needs to develop his /her unique and effective style which are constantly modified. Considering teaching

strictly as an art, however is too limiting (Elliott, Kratochwill, Cook, and Travers, 2000). Nature of

instruction and methods of inquiry into any discipline makes it imperative that teaching should also be

considered as a science. As teachers try out new instructional methods they act as scientists employing these

scientific methods in their inquiry steps: identification of the problem, formulating a logical series of steps to

reach a goal, gathering data and interpreting the data. In this way teaching is both art and science and is

specially so in today’s changing classrooms and in the quest for effective teaching learning practices.

Pedagogy is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the science of teaching. Alexander (2000: 540)

states: 'Pedagogy encompasses the performance of teaching together with the theories, beliefs, policies and

controversies that inforn1 and shape it'. Broadly speaking, pedagogy encompasses extensive areas that

individuals-‘pedagogues’ (teachers) and likewise policy-makers involved in the field of education must be

aware of. A model knowledge base for teaching according to Turner Bisset (2001), comprises of following:

subject knowledge-substantive and syntactic knowledge, beliefs about the subject; knowledge of the

curriculum; knowledge of different models of teaching; Pedagogical knowledge-both general and

pedagogical content knowledge; knowledge of learner - both cognitive and empirical; knowledge of self, that

is the teacher itself and knowledge of the educational contexts. Alexander (2000) further defined pedagogy as

“teaching, in any setting, is the act of using method x to enable pupils to learn y” and argued that any

definition of pedagogy must also take the learner into account. If a person is teaching, it must be the case that

someone is learning.



According to Watkins & Mortimore (1999), the ‘conceptions of pedagogy have become more complex over

time’ because, the knowledge base is continuously changing due to extensive research conducted to elucidate

how teaching and learning should be best conducted; understanding of a learner or a teacher is getting more

explicit, the differentiation of educational settings according to the level of learners; and educational contexts

have extended beyond the realm of school’ (p.3). While many definitions of pedagogy stated above express a

deeper meaning rather than superficial, they convey meanings about teaching and learning. One would

contemplate that if pedagogy is about teaching a learner or learning from a teacher, then teaching is

inextricable from learning. For this reason, Watkins & Mortimore (1999, p.3), define pedagogy as: “Any

conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another.”

The above definition thus extends the meaning of pedagogy by including learning in another that is the

learner. Any act of teaching is impossible without the learner, so as to say, that a learner is central to the

learning process. Pedagogy could then be defined as:

Pedagogy is an act or art of teaching and learning in which a teacher is a person who designs, plans

and devises any conscious activity to implement learning in another the learner, who is central to

the learning process.

It is the ‘conscious activity’ devised by the teacher (or any other person responsible) that determines how

learning is organized and implemented for learning to take place. The teaching and learning process during

any conscious activity must consider a variety of factors, such as the knowledge base, that is, type, age or

need of the learner; different pedagogical approaches of teaching and the instructional strategies that inform

the act or art of teaching. The aforesaid definition of pedagogy situates a teacher and a learner together in the

learning process. One of the reasons that pedagogy is a contested term is obviously because of the arguments

about how teaching and learning should be conducted as suggested by Watkins and Mortimore, (1999).

Whether a teacher and a learner should have some fixed roles or interchangeable roles in this act of a

conscious activity is debatable.

What constitutes pedagogy is complex and not easily defined. Even the definition of pedagogy appears to be

somewhat obscure. Watkins and Mortimer (1999) define it as ‘any conscious activity by one person designed

to enhance the learning of another’ (p. 3). In the same contest Alexander (2003) has his own preferred

definition which suggests that pedagogy requires discourse:

Pedagogy is the act of teaching together with its attendant discourse. It is what one needs to know,

and the skills one needs to command in order to make and justify the many different kinds of

decisions of which teaching is constituted. (p. 3)

Leach and Moon (1999) expand further on what may define pedagogy by describing a pedagogical setting as

‘the practice that a teacher, together with a particular group of learners creates, enacts and experiences’ (p.

267). In doing so they suggest that pedagogy is a joint activity in which the learner has an active role. This

offers a different perspective from previous definitions offered and draws in the social interaction between

teachers and learners. Many others: McNamara (1991), Brown and McIntyre (1993), Black and Wiliam

(1998) Ireson et al (1999), Bruner (1999) and Loveless (2002) acknowledge that the variables which help in

understanding teachers’ pedagogy are complex and suggest there are many factors that affect practice.

Teachers bring far more than just the latest government thinking on how they should teach into the classroom.

Practice may be affected, for example by the school environment, a teacher’s position in the school, previous

teaching experience, teacher training and a teacher’s own experience of learning. These are issues which need

to be considered when we talk about teachers’ learning at whole school rather than individual level.

Pedagogy is a widely contested term (Watkins & Mortimore 1999), nevertheless, simply put, the word

pedagogy means ‘the science of teaching’. According to Oxford dictionary meaning, pedagogy is the method

and practice of teaching; a pedagogue is a teacher, a strict one. The encyclopaedia Britannica defines

pedagogy as the art, science, and profession of teaching. Pritchard and Woollard (2010), define pedagogy as

the heart of teaching. It is about rules and principles that guide effective and efficient activities which lead to

learning. Pedagogy is about teaching methods and principles of instruction. It is assisting students through

interaction and activity in the ongoing academic and social events of the classroom. “Pedagogy is the

performance of teaching with theories, beliefs, policies, and controversies that inform it” (Alexander, 2000,

p.540).



Broadly speaking, pedagogy encompasses extensive areas that individuals-pedagogues’ (teachers) and

likewise policy-makers involved in the field of education must be aware of. A model knowledge base for

teaching according to Turner-Bisset (2001), comprises of following: subject knowledge- substantive and

syntactic knowledge, beliefs about the subject; knowledge of the curriculum; knowledge of different models

of teaching; Pedagogical knowledge-both general and pedagogical content knowledge; knowledge of learner-

both cognitive and empirical; knowledge of self, that is the teacher itself and knowledge of the educational

contexts. According to Watkins & Mortimore (1999), the ‘conceptions of pedagogy have become more

complex over time’ because: the knowledge base is continuously changing due to extensive research

conducted to elucidate how teaching and learning should be best conducted; understanding of a learner or a

teacher is getting more explicit, the differentiation of educational settings according to the level of learners;

and educational contexts have extended beyond the realm of school’ (p.3). While many definitions of

pedagogy stated above express a deeper meaning [rather than superficial], they convey meanings about

teaching and learning. One would contemplate that if pedagogy is about teaching a learner or learning from a

teacher, then teaching is inextricable from learning. For this reason, Watkins & Mortimore (1999, p.3),

define pedagogy as: “Any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another.”

The above definition thus extends the meaning of pedagogy by including learning in another that is the

learner. Any act of teaching is impossible without the learner, so as to say, that a learner is central to the

learning process. Thus, pedagogy is an act or art of teaching and learning in which a teacher is a person who

designs, plans and devises any conscious activity to implement learning in another the ‘learner,’ who is

central to the learning process. It is the ‘conscious activity’ devised by the teacher (or any other person

responsible) that determines how learning is organized and implemented for learning to take place. The

teaching and learning process during any conscious activity must consider a variety of factors, such as the

knowledge base, that is, type, age or need of the learner; different pedagogical approaches of teaching and the

instructional strategies that inform the act or art of teaching. The aforesaid definition of pedagogy situates a

teacher and a learner together in the learning process. One of the reasons that pedagogy is a contested term is

obviously because of the arguments about how teaching and learning should be conducted as suggested by

Watkins and Mortimore, (1999). Whether a teacher and a learner should have some fixed roles or

interchangeable roles in this act of a conscious activity is debatable. Pedagogy, when associated with terms

like traditional, is generally linked to old methods and functions of transmission approach; with progressive it

conveys interaction and becomes transactional and with critical, or radical, it brings empowerment and

becomes transformational.

Pedagogy describes all the learning and teaching that takes place within a socio-cultural context of the school

and its community with the teacher acting therefore as a culture broker (Stairs, 1995). However pedagogy is

only one part of what Bernstein (1971) called the three message systems of formal educational knowledge

which can be considered to be realized through education, the other two being curriculum and assessment.

Education at its best is when there is an alignment and coherence between these three. Alexander in 2008

writes that:

Pedagogy is not a mere matter of teaching technique. It is a purposive cultural intervention in

individual human development which is deeply saturated with the values and history of the society

and community in which it is located.

Pedagogy is best defined, then, as the act of teaching together with the ideas, values and collective histories

which inform, shape and explain that act (Alexander, 2005, p. 2). Pedagogy describes all the learning and

teaching that takes place within a socio-cultural context of the school and its community with the teacher

acting therefore as a culture broker (Stairs, 1995). However pedagogy is only one part of what Bernstein

(1971) called the three message systems of formal educational knowledge which can be considered to be

realized through education, the other two being curriculum and assessment. Education at its best is when

there is an alignment and coherence between these three. Alexander in 2008 writes that:

Pedagogy is not a mere matter of teaching technique. It is a purposive cultural intervention in

individual human development which is deeply saturated with the values and history of the society

and community in which it is located. Pedagogy is best defined, then, as the act of teaching together

with the ideas, values and collective histories which inform, shape and explain that act. (Alexander,

2005, p. 2)

Pedagogy is not only a system of information or subjects that are organised for students but an ordering of

social fields that defines the categories and distinctions that legitimate what is to be thought and taught about.



At its core therefore pedagogy can be viewed as a system of discipline ‘by which hierarchies-markers of

social distinction and aspirations-are established (Britzman, 1992, p. 136). For example the physical

arrangement of a class-room can suggest coercion, control and surveillance or cooperation and empowerment

(Britzman, 1992). Alexander (2001b, p.7) asks whether there is any ‘irreducible core of elements in teaching

which are universal in the sense that in some form they are replicated in any and every context and can

therefore form the basis for legitimate extrapolation from one context to another’. In particular the cultural

gap between a learners' everyday world and the world of school can result in unauthentic and ineffective

teaching and learning. The world of pedagogy, on the other hand, should mediate between the everyday

world and the world of school.

Pedagogy may be commonly defined as the art and science (and may be even craft) of teaching. However,

viewing pedagogy in this way fails to honour the historical experience and connect crucial areas of theory and

practice. To understand the term fully, it needs to be explored through the thinking and practice of those

educators who look to accompany learners, care for and about them, and bring learning into life

(Encyclopedia Britannica 2015). Teaching is just one aspect of their practice. In recent years, there has been

more intense and wider discussions on this term perceived from different directions. Freire, for instance, has

been seeking a pedagogy of the oppressed or critical pedagogy and has proposed a pedagogy with a new

relationship between teacher, student and society. As a result of the broader debates on pedagogy,

practitioners have been wanting to rework the boundaries of care and education via the idea of social

pedagogy; and perhaps most significantly, governments wanting to constrain the activities of teachers by

requiring adherence to preferred pedagogies (Smith 2012).

Alexander’s definition of pedagogy. Alexander has an extensive list of publications stretching three decades

on topics such as curriculum policy, pedagogy, classroom research, and initial teacher education. Alexander’s

(2001a) five country, cross-cultural comparison of classroom teaching transformed his interpretation of

pedagogy and inspired the definition featuring in many of his subsequent publications. Most influential for

the present study are Alexander’s ‘Essays on Pedagogy’ (2008a) and ‘The Quality Imperative and the

Problem of Pedagogy’ (2008b). While these publications generally use the same interpretation of pedagogy, I

will draw heavily upon Alexander (2008b), as this text contains a much more explicit and in-depth account of

his definition. Alexander (2008b) pedagogy is:

…the observable act of teaching together with its attendant discourse of educational theories,

values, evidence and justifications. It is what one needs to know, and the skills one needs to

command, in order to make and justify the many different kinds of decisions of which teaching is

constituted. (p. 29)

This definition embeds the teacher at the centre of pedagogy; it reveals teaching as an observable act that

involves the teacher making “many different kinds of decisions” by drawing upon a range of discourses and

by orchestrating diverse contextual influences in educational settings. Alexander’s use of this type of

language is consonant with three key ideas in the education literature.

There are similarities to the ideas of professional knowledge and professional practice initially outlined by

Hoyle and John (1995); that is, a professional is capable of operating in non-routine and unpredictable

environments by employing his or her judgment in a given situation to decide on the best course of action.

There are connections to the reflective ways in which teachers think and act (Pollard, 2002; Schon, 1983,

1991; Tarrant, 2013; Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan, 2003); that is, through reflection a teacher can

challenge his or her own taken-for-granted assumptions over time and bring new ideas to inform

classroom actions and events.

There is a convergence with research documenting expert teachers’ practices in education generally

(Sabers, Cushing, and Berliner, 1991) and in the physical education literature (Byra and Sherman,

1993; Schempp, Tan and McCullick, 2002); that is, expert teachers are better at interpreting complex

classroom events and responding accordingly in comparison to ‘novice’ teachers. Expert teachers are

more capable of responding in the immediate act of teaching as they have a repertoire of accumulated

actions, explanations, examples, and demonstrations that they can deploy in different classroom situations

(Borko and Livingston, 1989). More recently, distinctions have been made between adaptive expertise

and routine expertise (Earl and Timperley, 2014; Le Fevre et al., 2016; Timperley, 2011). ‘Adaptive

experts continually expand the breadth and depth of their expertise and are tuned into situations…adaptive

experts have the capability to identify when known routines do not work and to seek new information

about different approaches when needed’ (Timperley, 2011, p. 12). The preceding work of Entwistle and

Walker (2001), albeit in the context of higher education, concurs with Timperley and posits that teachers



can develop what they termed ‘strategic alertness”. In simple terms, ‘strategic alertness’ relates to the

teacher’s ability to exploit “chance events” with classes to create “springboards to significant learning. (p.

357)

On initially reading Alexander’s definition, one striking feature is the limited recognition of the learner(s) as

an integral part of this process. This stance contrasts with many definitions of pedagogy in the educational

literature where, influenced by contemporary theories of learning, a very prominent place is given to learners

and a less prominent role for the teachers (Biesta, 2012). In fact, the limited recognition of the learner in

Alexander’s definition was the source of my own initial resistance to his work. However, as we will see in

following paragraphs, in elaborating his ideas about pedagogy, Alexander (2008b) identifies ‘learners’ and

‘learning’ as part of the “attendant discourse” underpinning his definition.

Two inter-related frameworks explicate Alexander’s (2008b) definition of pedagogy: ‘pedagogy as ideas’ (p.

29) and ‘pedagogy as practice (p. 30). These frameworks support his definition and provide a transparent

account of the assumptions he is making in relation to pedagogy. Summarising these two frameworks in

subsequent paragraphs will not only provide the reader with a more complete account of Alexander’s work,

but also minimise the possibility of any misguided critiques based on an initial reading of his definition. In

the first of these frameworks, ‘pedagogy as practice’, Alexander (2008b) directly speaks to the ‘act of

teaching’ part of his definition. He reveals two central assumptions:

Teaching, in any setting, is the act of using method X to enable students to achieve Y” (p. 30);

Teaching has structure and form; it is situated in, and governed by, space, time and patterns of pupil

organisation; and it is undertaken for a purpose” (p. 31).

Looking at the second of these frameworks, ‘pedagogy as ideas’, Alexander (2008b) clarifies that this

specifically addresses the part of his definition that refers to teaching as informed by the “…attendant

discourse of educational theories, values, evidence and justifications”. Alexander (2008b) appears to employ

the term ‘discourse’ in a similar way to Bilton et al. (2002) to infer that an amalgam of ideas, concepts, and

assumptions becomes established as knowledge and this provides a frame to guide our decisions and actions

in the world. This overarching definition of ‘discourse’ provides a productive way of capturing the diverse

and inter-related influences that inform teachers’ practice. Alexander (2008b) identifies the following ideas at

the core of his definition of pedagogy: ‘children’, ‘learning’, ‘teaching’, and ‘curriculum’. However, he is

quick to recognise that three distinct contextual levels simultaneously shape and constrain attendant

discourse: the ‘self’ and classroom level, the school and policy level, the societal and cultural level.

In sum, Alexander (2008a) undergirds his definition of pedagogy with two explicit frameworks; as

‘pedagogy as practice’ and ‘pedagogy as ideas’. Central to fully grasping Alexander’s definition is to

recognise the complex interplay that exists within and between these two frameworks, showing not just

“...how ideas inform practice...which they do sometimes but not always, and even then in unpredictable

ways...but also how the practice in turn shapes the ideas…” (Alexander, 2008b, p. 32). Once I engaged with

Alexander’s work at a deeper level using these two complementary frameworks, I felt this account of

pedagogy resonated with my own personal experiences as a teacher. This complex definition reflected the

challenges of working in a busy physical education department and captured the difficulties of ‘bringing to

life’ a diverse range of ideas in my classroom practice. Beyond these personal commitments, there are a

number of other strong features of Alexander’s (2008a, b) definition of pedagogy.

Firstly, the two complementary frameworks provide a robustness that is absent in the majority of existing

education literature (Stones, 2000; Thiessen et al., 2013). Secondly, these two frameworks-pedagogy as

practice and pedagogy as ideas-each correspond to a different half of the ‘dualism’ identified in the research

literature by LeCompte (2009) and Lee (2003). Taken together they appear to bridge this gap by

acknowledging the complex and inherently messy nature of teachers’ classroom practice. Finally, recognising

that ‘ideas-inform practice-and-practice-informs-ideas’ (Alexander, 2008b) exemplifies the synergies

between these two frameworks and this transforms teachers’ classroom practice from a technical pursuit into

a more dynamic and thoughtfully driven process.

A possible misinterpretation of Alexander’s definition. It has been noted (p. 30) that Alexander’s (2008b)

pedagogy as practice framework makes two central assumptions about teachers’ classroom practice.

Alexander (2008b) delineates these two assumptions by discussing them as act, form, and frame. The act of

teaching is linked to his discussions of method raised in assumption one, while both frame and form coalesce

around the idea that teaching is structured in different ways across different settings as suggested in

assumption two. A brief account of pedagogy as practice in relation to act, ‘form’, and ‘frame’ is presented

below to provide further insight into Alexander’s interpretation of classroom practice:



Pedagogy as practice and the act of teaching. A teacher’s use of a particular ‘method’ is guided by a range

of inter-related concerns such as learning intentions, learning tasks, the activity pursued, the desired

interactions, and the teacher’s own judgement of the relevance of learning tasks and activities.

Pedagogy as practice and the frame and form of teaching. Lessons are framed by contextual constraints

(time, space, and class organisation) and individual teacher preferences (certain routines, rules, and rituals);

lessons are ‘formed’ conceptually and ethically (by larger schemes of work, education policy documents,

and societal values). Despite his elaboration efforts in the immediately preceding passage, where

Alexander explains the act of teaching involves drawing upon a range of interrelated concerns to decide on

the appropriate “method” for a given situation, readers unfamiliar with his work might believe that teachers

then implement this method in a relatively linear and straightforward way. Therefore, a reader could take

particular issue with assumption one where Alexander (2008b) makes the following claim: “Teaching, in any

setting, is the act of using method X to enable students to achieve Y” (p. 30).

It could be possible to interpret this ‘X achieves Y’ perspective as painting a linear and over-simplistic

picture of classroom practice on three counts. Firstly, it may suggest that by drawing on a range of inter-

related concerns to inform their practice, teachers will be able to find the ‘right’ method to ‘fit’ any classroom

situation. Secondly, having selected a particular method, one might infer that all pupils will engage with,

rather than actively resist, a teacher’s choice of method and learning activities. Lastly, it could portray

‘learning’ as a uniform process whereby all pupils will respond to a method in a particular way and therefore

progress towards the desired learning outcome in a relatively similar fashion.

Pedagogy as a Science

Many experts believe that the definition of pedagogy is not clear, as there is no systematic approach to this

issue, and opinions on its structure and interdisciplinary cooperation vary a lot. The terminology is often not

explained in a uniform way and pedagogy is often influenced by various theories. Still, many significant

characteristics shared by experts exist. Pedagogy is an independent social anthroposophic science (science

about humans). It represents an organised system of findings about educational processes and its results,

conditions and factors that determine the education, as well as the main agents of the process. Pedagogy

studies education in its versatility and diversity. Pedagogy describes, explains, compares, evaluates and

generalises the findings about pedagogical phenomena. It reveals and formulates the pedagogical principles

and rules which reflect the relationships and connections in educational practice. Based on these findings,

pedagogy proposes constructs and concepts (theories, models, plans) which are subsequently verified in

practice. The findings are thus specified and a pedagogical theory is developed, together with other fields

within interdisciplinary character.

In other words, pedagogy is a normative science (formulating norms, rules, principles and guidelines for

education and upbringing) and a descriptive science. It is also an explorative science (exploring and studying

new educational phenomena), as well as an explanatory science (identifying and explaining processes, results

and factors of education), which is an essential activity for pedagogy. And last but not least, it is a projecting

science (proposing new and more effective processes, resources or entire programmes). Sometimes, the

aforementioned attributes are ale described as functions of pedagogy. Pedagogy is concerned with all forms

and means of education (in family, at school, extracurricular and media effects) and pays major attention to

anthropogenic factors of education. Even though people have long been thinking about education, pedagogy

as an independent science was established only approximately in the mid-19th century.

Pedagogy is a science as it meets the following requirements:

Pedagogy has an object of study, i.e. education.

Pedagogy has its scientific theory: a verified, comprehensive and coherent set of findings from the field

classified in the scientific discipline structure. It operates with specific terms and uses a scientific language

(terminology).

Pedagogy has its own methodology, dealing with principles, strategies and procedures, tools and norms for

the functioning and development of objective findings and practical transformation of objective reality

phenomena. Pedagogy is concerned with all aspects of research, theoretical studies and innovation cycle

within theory, including research methods. It determines objective facts and formulates objective findings

about individual phenomena and processes in educational reality.

Pedagogy has formed its own infrastructure, i.e. a system in support of science which forms information

sources, associations, books and databases, research and educational workplaces where the relevant science

is taught. The system’s components are mutually linked and support the development of the science at



home and abroad in a complex manner. Pedagogical (teaching) professionals contribute to the development

of pedagogy by publishing the results of their research in various publications.

Pedagogy is a dynamic science as it uncovers new findings, thus deepening and expanding the field of its

research and responding to changes in the society and educational processes. It is noticed the changes in the

concept of pedagogy during the historical development in the context of the development of the methodology

of pedagogy. Traditional pedagogy described the opinions and concepts of pedagogical theoreticians who

were merely presenting their ideals on education without any support from research findings and/or practice.

Modern pedagogy is useful for the contemporary development of the science. It explains real phenomena of

upbringing and education through specific research procedures. In the past, pedagogy used to deal primarily

with the education of children whereas now its scope covers education of the entire population in terms of age

as well as various groups, e.g. professionals, persons with specific requirements, etc. Pedagogues even

contribute to the solving of social problems related to education.

Structure of the system of pedagogical disciplines. The findings about selected specialised topics in

pedagogy (i.e. upbringing and education) have deepened with the expanding knowledge in this field in the

course of the historical development (primarily during recent centuries). They assumed a relatively

independent scientific structure and later evolved into independent scientific disciplines. New disciplines

have emerged and continue to be added to the basic pedagogical disciplines (general pedagogy, general

didactics, history of pedagogy, special pedagogy, methodology of pedagogy, theory on school norms and

directives, comparative pedagogy). Pedagogical theory began to be applied to various other segments and

viewed from various angles and viewpoints. Pedagogical disciplines are thus gradually being classified in

new ways.

The findings about selected specialised topics in pedagogy (i.e. upbringing and education) have deepened

with the expanding knowledge in this field in the course of the historical development (primarily during

recent centuries). They assumed a relatively independent scientific structure and later evolved into

independent scientific disciplines. New disciplines have emerged and continue to be added to the basic

pedagogical disciplines (general pedagogy, general didactics, history of pedagogy, special pedagogy,

methodology of pedagogy, theory on school norms and directives, comparative pedagogy). Pedagogical

theory began to be applied to various other segments and viewed from various angles and viewpoints.

Pedagogical disciplines are thus gradually being classified in new ways.

Horizontal and vertical classification of pedagogical sciences. Horizontal classification takes into account

the content and specific focus of each pedagogical discipline, e.g.: general fundamentals of pedagogy;

methodology of pedagogy; general didactics; theory of teaching individual subjects (field and subject

didactics); education theory; theory of extracurricular education; school administration and management

theory; special pedagogy; history of pedagogy; and comparative pedagogy. Vertical classification is

governed by the age of the object of education covered by pedagogy, e.g.: preschool age pedagogy; school

age pedagogy (basic school, secondary school and tertiary school pedagogy); and pedagogy of adults

(andragogy, gerontopedagogy). Various other criteria are used in the latest attempts to systemise pedagogical

sciences:

Ontological criterion (e.g. pedagogy of preschool age, puberty, adolescence and adulthood)

Educational activity field criterion (e.g. leisure-time pedagogy, pedagogy of youth and children

organisations, etc.)

Historical criterion (e.g. pedagogy of the slave society, feudal society, bourgeois society)

Educational facility type criterion (e.g. preschool, school, after-school and extracurricular pedagogy)

Pedagogy can be divided it into constituted and non-constituted sciences. Constituted sciences have a

branched theoretical system which has been built for a very long time. Non-constituted sciences are only

building such a system. New sciences are usually formed through increased findings about a particular topic

or problem and their subsequent separation from traditional pedagogical sciences. At other times, they arise

from issues that have never been dealt with and need to be resolved (pedagogy of tourism, experience, etc.).

New sciences also emerge from interconnection of findings from various disciplines.

Contemporary experts stress that an interdisciplinary approach is required to review and analyse the subject

matter of pedagogy, i.e. education. Pedagogy applies theoretical conclusions to various sectors in practice, e.

g. education, economy, social issues, health and healthcare. At the same time, pedagogy needs to collaborate

with natural sciences, technical, medical and economic fields. These fields provide information (theoretical



and empirical findings), procedures and science and research methods for the analysis of education. Pedagogy

offers the same to other sciences, especially if they are analysing the relevant phenomena in a complex way.

Pedagogues have therefore recently agreed on the classification of pedagogical disciplines which takes into

account the current interdisciplinary nature of pedagogy. Pedagogical fields are structured according to the

integrating criterion as follows:

Basic disciplines: general pedagogy, general didactics, theory of education, special didactics (field),

theory on school norms and directives, history of pedagogy, special pedagogy.

Applied disciplines: e.g. preschool pedagogy, school pedagogy, secondary school pedagogy, pedagogy of

adults, military pedagogy, etc.

Boundary disciplines: e.g. pedagogical psychology, social pedagogy, economy of education, philosophy

of education, school management.

This structure and list of pedagogical disciplines is not final. The education segment is a living organism and

new disciplines continue to emerge. Discussions about the differentiation of pedagogical sciences continue.

Pedagogical theory and education in practice. Pedagogy as a science and theory helps to maintain a grasp

of the issues related to education and depicts important phenomena and facts. Pedagogy is the theoretical

foundation for the teaching practice and contributes to its development and perfection as it provides effective

resources for education (not only for family and school education, but in all spheres of human life).

Pedagogical theory and practice support each other. Pedagogical theory is verified in practice. Practice

provides experience and observations about educational reality. Practice provides new topics and problems

that the theory attempts to deal with. Practice is more versatile and changes more than the theory as it

responds to the specifics of the environment and the objects of education. Everyone realises that knowledge

of theory is not sufficient for a pedagogue to be successful in practice. It is necessary for the pedagogue to

have a positive attitude to people and to the pedagogical (teaching) activity. He/she cannot do without a

complex structure of knowledge, but practical skills and habits supported by pedagogical theory are equally

important.

Pedagogy is a social science concerned with education. It is a scientific discipline as it has its own subject

matter (object) of study, scientific terminology, research methodology and infrastructure. It is a normative,

descriptive, explorative-explanatory and projecting science. As a science, pedagogy is closely related to the

teaching practice. It is concerned with education which is a complex and complicated phenomenon, which is

why it also uses knowledge from other scientific areas. But pedagogy also provides underlying information to

other fields. Therefore, there are also boundary and application sciences next to the basic pedagogical

disciplines.

Perspectives on Pedagogy

Pedagogy, when associated with terms like traditional, is generally linked to old methods and functions of

transmission approach; with progressive it conveys interaction and becomes transactional and with critical, or

radical, it brings empowerment and becomes transformational. Waring and Evans (2015) explain that

existing knowledge paradigms in the social sciences have influenced conceptual orientations towards

understanding pedagogy; namely, the positivist, interpretivist, and critical paradigms. This three dimensional

framework is a fruitful way to represent the distinctions between different conceptual orientations to

pedagogy. Following Waring and Evans (2015) lead, the next section will present three pedagogical camps

similar to their positivist, interpretivist, and critical paradigm distinctions, which I will respectively term the

fixed camp, fluid camp and transformative camp. This review is required to draw broad distinctions between

different conceptualisations of pedagogy and identify the potential for one of these ‘camps’ to help address

the concerns raised by the present study.

The fixed perspective. Definitions of pedagogy often suggest it is the ‘science of teaching (Simon, 1985, p.

77). Tracking the notion of pedagogy as a science, reveals the extent to which this conceptual orientation has

endured over time (Hamilton, 1999). Scholars pursued the act of teaching in a particular way in the European

context from around the 17th century onwards (Hamilton, 1999, 2009; Simon, 1985, 1994). While these

European debates specifically retained the term ‘pedagogy’ for discussing wider educational matters (i.e.,

regarding the nature and purpose of education), the term ‘didactics’ was used to discuss ‘instruction’ and

‘method’ with a particular emphasis on the delivery of content knowledge in ‘school’ settings. For example,

the initial work of Comenius entitled ‘The Great Didactic’ and the subsequent work of Herbart entitled ‘The

Science of Education’ set out to capture the principles for a general theory of teaching. However, use of the



term pedagogy in these European countries started to be directly associated with the practices of school

settings (Davis, 2004; Hamilton, 1999, 2009).

Recognising the term pedagogy’s lack of historical grounding in the British context, Simon (1985) argued for

general principles of teaching similar to the ‘didactic’ tradition developed in Europe to drive educational

thinking and practice in school settings. He identified pedagogy...the ‘science of teaching as the way to

accomplish this proposition (p. 77). Importantly, in Simon’s (1985) work, there is almost a straightforward

substitution of didactic thinking for pedagogy and this distinction tends to reflect the way in which the term

pedagogy was adopted in the British context in the mid-to-late 20th century (Hamilton, 1999). These fixed

camp interpretations have endured despite concerns that pedagogy as a science confines the act of teaching to

a formulaic or linear process independent of prevailing social and cultural contexts (Watkins and Mortimore,

1999). Waring and Evans (2015) observe that “…the common interpretation of science is that allied to a

positivist paradigm…it negates any notion of consciousness on the part of the teacher or learner” (p. 27).

Therefore, this ‘fixed’ interpretation of pedagogy would be wholly inappropriate as a guide for the present

study given my interest in trying to unravel some of the complexities that LeCompte (2009) identified in

teachers’ day-to-day practice.

The fluid perspective. The instrumental logic that had long dominated didactics and the subsequent fixed

interpretations of pedagogy were increasingly critiqued from the late 19th

century onwards in European

contexts (Hamilton, 1999). Meantime, the translation of key educational texts into English in the mid-20th

century-such as Freire’s ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ (1971)-brought the term pedagogy to wider Anglo-

American awareness. These developments invited multiple streams of research to explore the term pedagogy.

Watkins and Mortimore (1999) identify three main streams of interest that individually started to recognize

the complexity of pedagogical activity:

The influence of different teachers and teaching;

The importance of the context where education takes place; and

The diversity of learners and learning.

A salient development for the fluid camp arrived when scholars, such as Alexander (2001; 2004; 2008),

started to advance definitions of pedagogy that recognised the dynamic interplay within and between (and in

some cases beyond) the ideas set out in the three main streams of research. Correspondingly, in the physical

education research literature, Armour (2011) advances a similar interpretation of pedagogy to that of

Alexander. She recognises the “multilayered” nature of the term pedagogy through the interplay between

teachers and teaching, learners and learning, and knowledge in, and of, the context where education takes

place. From such a perspective, Waring and Evans (2015) note that:

…if one were to consider science from an interpretive perspective…as socially constructed, creative,

uncertain…compared to a positivist perspective…the interpretations offered [of pedagogy] would be

opposing. (p. 27)

In general terms, I concur with Waring and Evans (2015) and recognise the potential for the ‘fluid camp’ to

paint a more “constructed, creative, and uncertain” picture of classroom practice that transcends a view of

teachers as simply deploying a set of general teaching principles in any or all situations. These ‘fluid’

conceptualisations of pedagogy, where teachers’ actions potentially enmesh with many local and wider

discourses and contextual influences, were crucial for the present study. Indeed, the work of Alexander

(2001a, b; 2004; 2008a, b) was a major catalyst and provided a means to start bridging the gap identified in

the existing research literature. I return to the ‘fluid camp’ shortly where the work of Alexander and his

definition of pedagogy are explored in more detail, but first it is important to finish this conceptual overview

by presenting ideas from the ‘transformative camp’.

The transformative perspective. The translation of Freire’s ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ (1971) not only

brought the term ‘pedagogy’ to wider Anglo-American awareness, but it also ignited interest in the extent to

which prevailing political and cultural contexts inform the many decisions that are made in educational

settings (Hamilton, 1999; Waring and Evans, 2015). Another landmark text at this time was Basil

Bernstein’s (1971) ‘On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge’ which featured an

exposition of the connections between education and politics. Coinciding with this increased interest in the

politics of education and in “radical change” (Ball, 2003), the combination of Freire (1971) and Bernstein

(1971) spawned decades of research using the term ‘pedagogy’ to uncover and transform the apparent

(re)production of knowledge in educational settings (Hamilton, 1999).



Writing in the physical education literature, Tinning (2008, 2010) arrives at the conclusion that pedagogy is

concerned with the (re)production of knowledge, values, attitudes, dispositions, subjectivities, and identities

associated with teaching practices. More specifically, Tinning’s concept of pedagogical work (Kirk and

Tinning, 1992; Tinning, 2008, 2010) exemplifies his place in the transformative camp. He defines this

concept in the following way to highlight the interrelated nature of curriculum and instruction:

Pedagogical work is the result of pedagogy…the purpose of which is to pass on or produce

knowledge, the idea of purpose or intention is important…It is not concerned with what particular

pedagogical practices are said to do, but rather is concerned with what knowledge(s), ways of

thinking, dispositions and subjectivities are actually (re)produced in/through particular pedagogical

encounters (Tinning, 2010, pp. 18-19).

The intention of pedagogical practices and the purpose of knowledge are key terms in transformative

interpretations of pedagogy. Foregrounding these terms-intentionality and purpose-leads us to not only

question the agenda of those individuals endowed with the power to make decisions in educational settings,

but also to challenge the ways in which these decisions can privilege some individuals and ostracise others.

Thus, Waring and Evans (2015) explain that the ‘transformative camp’ is:

…not a neutral landscape-it is very much about a socially critical agenda…framed by those power

relationships that revolve around how knowledge is conceptualized and therefore what knowledge is

valued, and how learners are positioned in relation to how that knowledge is created as part of the

pedagogical process. (p. 27)

For myself, I can see the merit in the transformative camp and recognise that there is further research required

in education (Waring and Evans, 2015) and physical education (Tinning, 2008, 2010) settings to transform

the status quo and promote a more equitable and democratic society. However, I return to Gallie’s (1956)

point about essentially contested concepts and argue that a radically transformative agenda is beyond the

scope of the current study. While not radically transformative, my interpretation of Alexander’s definition of

pedagogy is that it provides sufficient latitude to acknowledge the political ideologies embedded within

educational settings.

Forms of Pedagogy

Pedagogy refers to the interactions between teachers, students, and the learning environment and the learning

tasks. This broad term includes how teachers and earners relate together as well as the instructional

approaches implemented in the classroom. Pedagogical approaches are often placed on a spectrum from

teacher-centred to learner-centred pedagogy; though these two approaches may seem contradictory, they can

often complement each other in the realisation of educational goals-a teacher centred teaching (TCT) may be

useful to introduce a new theme, while a learner-centred teaching (LCT) approach may be necessary to allow

students to explore these ideas and develop a deeper understanding.

Pedagogy is often thought of as the art or science of teaching. Some would say that this is a somewhat limited

viewpoint, since in its origins and derivation (paidagogous=guide of children) pedagogy is a much broader

concept, relating to the development and all round development of the child. The distinction was put very

clearly Kant:

Education includes the nurture of the child and, as it grows, its culture. The latter is firstly negative,

consisting of discipline; that is, merely the correcting of faults. Secondly, culture is positive,

consisting of instruction and guidance (and thus forming part of education). Guidance means

directing the pupil in putting into practice what he has been taught. Hence the difference between a

private teacher who merely instructs, and a tutor or governor who guides and directs his pupil. The

one trains for school only, the other for life. (Kant 1900: 23-4)

Although in practice the distinction is not always clear-cut, the art of teaching is probably more accurately

characterised as Didactics-a term which is much more common in continental Europe than in the UK. The

concept is far from new, and is related in particular too many of the thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries

who clearly separated the activity of teaching (method) from both the content of what is taught (syllabus) and

the organisation of education. One of the most important proponents of didactics was John Comenius, the

great educationalist and linguist. In his Didactica Magna (1648) he sets out some basic principles for

teaching.



Another important figure in the development of a discipline of pedagogy was Herbart, although his influence

was felt more after his death and in particular at the turn of the 19th century. He argued that education was

more than the accumulation of knowledge and that the development of what he called character was

primordial. He strongly believed that all children are born with unique potential and that abilities are not

innate He also developed a frame-work for teaching which includes; preparation (relating new material to be

learned to relevant existing ideas/memories to stimulate the student's interest (prepare students to be ready for

the new lesson); presentation (presenting new material in the form of actual experience of concrete objects

(present the new lesson); association: comparison of the new idea with existing ideas to find similarities and

differences and thus implant the new idea in the mind of the student (associate the new lesson with ideas

studied earlier); generalization: procedures designed to take learning beyond perception and experience of the

concrete into the realm of abstract concepts (use examples to illustrate the lesson's major points) and

application: using the newly acquired knowledge so that it becomes an integral part of the life of the student

(test students to ensure they learned the new lesson).

Teacher-centred pedagogy positions the teacher at the centre of the learning process and typically relies on

methods such as whole-class lecture, rote memorization, and chorus answers (i.e., call-and-response). This

approach is often criticized, especially when students complete only lower-order tasks and are afraid of the

teacher. However, whole-class teaching can be effective when teachers frequently ask students to explain and

elaborate key ideas, rather than merely lecture. Learner-Centred Pedagogy approach has many associated

terms (e.g., constructivist, student-centred, participatory, active), but generally draws on learning theories

suggesting learners should play an active role in the learning process. Students therefore use prior knowledge

and new experiences to create knowledge. The teacher facilitates this process, but also creates and structures

the conditions for learning. Considerable research and advocacy has promoted learner-centred pedagogy in

recent years for economic, cognitive, and political reasons. Some research suggests this approach can be very

effective but it is also difficult to measure consistently. It is often challenging for teachers to shift from

teacher-centred pedagogy to learner-centred pedagogy, and so considerable support may be needed if this is

an important goal for a given education system. Learning-centred pedagogy is a relatively new term that

acknowledges both learner-centred and teacher-centred pedagogy can be effective, but teachers must consider

the local context, including the number of students in the class, the physical environment, the availability of

teaching and learning materials, etc. It suggests that teachers should be flexible and carefully adapt their

pedagogical approaches based upon the school environment.

There is great debate regarding the forms of pedagogy. Some of the scholars categorize the models of

pedagogy into two group-traditional teacher centred pedagogy and progressive learner centred pedagogy. At

the same time, some educationists laid more emphasis on the traditional teacher centred pedagogy,

progressive learner centred teaching pedagogy and critical pedagogy. In the present article, I described the

second three type’s pedagogy.

Traditional Teacher Centered Pedagogy Traditional teacher centred pedagogy refers to conventional methods of teaching and learning where the

teacher is the direct or sole authority responsible for educating a learner in a teaching/learning situation. In

traditional settings, the teacher is deemed respectable as well as knowledgeable-the giver of knowledge and

the learner is considered the receiver of knowledge. Pedagogy in traditional locales is mostly ‘teacher-

centered’ where the teacher orchestrates all the learning ‘telling students’ what to do, while the learner

follows the instructions, memorizes information, facts, in a do-as-directed approach. Bruner (1996) names it

folk pedagogy using didactic ways to incorporate learning as the most common practice (cited in Watkins &

Mortimore 1999, p. 15).

Traditional models of teaching and learning find compatibility within societies that value respect for

authority. The representation of a traditional learning environment is most often a disciplined, maybe dull and

boring classroom that offers limited amount of activity to a learner. Such traditional pedagogy appears to be

deeply rooted in ancient times when the transfer of religious and moral education, or long established

information and skills were imparted to future generations in order to better prepare them for life ahead. The

earliest known indigenous pedagogy in India (the context of this study) consisted of imparting ‘Vedas’,

knowledge of various types, in the ‘Gurukul’, the homes of Acharayas, by the ‘guru(s)’, the men of high

calibre in knowledge and spiritual progress, to the ‘Shishayas’ or ‘student(s)’, who would study and obey the

instructions of the Guru (Jayapalan, 2005). The service of the guru was considered to be supreme like a

spiritual father. A guru was a respected adult who inculcated in students a desire to learn and more

importantly was responsible for all round development (both moral and social skills) of his students. Guru

and shishaya exhibited a harmonious parent-son relationship. The highly disciplined environment of Gurukul



imparted training in self-control, self-respect, right conduct and cooperation to the shishayas. The mode of

teaching employed was mostly verbal and included recitation, discussion, illustrations with examples,

question and answer techniques for developing reasoning and memorization with emphasis on pronunciation

(Chand, 2004).

A more traditional approach to pedagogy is premised in the Skinner’s behaviourist view of learning

according to which learning is a change in behaviour. Behaviourist view of learning is concerned with

connections between stimuli and responses and the evidence of learning is measured as observable behaviour

and interpreted as competence, regardless, whether the knowledge learned makes any sense to the learner or

whether the learner is able to apply the acquired knowledge in any new situations (Brown, 2004; Woollard

2010). Behavioural approaches to teaching have been found useful to teach explicit sequential and factual

information or mastery learning. Nuthall and Wenglinsky (2002 as quoted in Uibu et al., 2010) indicate that

providing identical information to learners, not considering students’ individual differences, and not

modifying teaching to meet the individual growth and progress all exemplify traditional teaching practices.

Role of the teacher. In traditional forms of pedagogy, autocratic, authoritarian, coercive, meek dictators

(Kumar, 1991) are common slogans attributed to the teachers working within teacher-centered pedagogical

contexts. Teachers in traditional locales have a hierarchal role and are the only decision makers (Yoneyama,

2002) in the classroom. Teachers teaching to the transmission model exercise control vis-à-vis dictatorial

power over docile children in the classroom through prescribed syllabus and textbooks. Kim (2005), reports

that in Korean schools, teachers dominate the class with the over use of textbooks. Strictly following the

prescribed curriculum, and the textbooks, the teachers in traditional classrooms generally expound the subject

matter through whole class instruction (Darling, 1994), where two third of the talk for each lesson is

contributed by teachers (Flanders 1970 quoted by Wells, 2002). According to Guthrie (1990), formalistic

teachers lay emphasis on memorizing basic facts and principles and dominate the classroom by utilising most

of the instructional time to cover most of the content. In doing so, teachers conform to their common belief

that individual pieces of information are taught separately and tested through examination after ensuring that

the students have mastered the content taught. Nonetheless, the safe and speedy delivery of the content is

guaranteed by maintaining order in the classroom (Kumar, 1991). Interestingly enough the disciplinarians

according to Dunkin, (1977 as quoted by Guthrie, 1990) create enthusiasm and interest in the classroom and

above all have been warm and supportive in dealing with children.

Role of the learner. The role of the learner in a traditional classroom contrary to the dominant role of the

teacher is mostly passive. Learners [students] tend to obey the teacher and conform to prescribed types of

behaviour in the classroom. They are largely dependent on the teacher for obtaining information related to the

subject taught and essentially regurgitate the content learned through direct instruction by repetition and rote

memorization. Learners in traditional settings experience limited amount of teacher-student or student-student

interactions under the teacher’s control. The most predominant interactions are question/answer methods

sought as clarifications of the factual information presented through direct teaching.

Teaching learning strategies. Traditional models of teaching and learning that are often associated with

didactic teaching practices include: passive learning, rote learning, direct instruction, lectures, presentation of

the material, drill and practice, and whole class instructional approaches. Below, I provide a brief overview of

passive learning, direct instruction and rote learning.

Passive learning/transmission of knowledge. Traditional teacher-centered instruction is often portrayed as

inert, passive and transmissive pedagogic approach where learners passively imbibe the values, skills, and the

knowledge imparted by the authoritative teacher (Niyozov, 2008). It is believed that there is lack of

appropriate cognitive processing during passive learning (Mayer, 2001, 2008 as quoted in Tobias & Duffy,

2009) and there is passive reception of information, for example, of facts and concepts by the students which

are transmitted by the teachers. Teacher-centered instruction tends to focus on cognitive domains at the lower

levels like receiving, responding, remembering or understanding information (Arends, 2001, as quoted in

Woolfolk et al., 2006). Wherever existent, the traditional milieus are characterized by polarized descriptions,

for example, Bowles and Gintis (1976, as quoted in Parr, 2005, p. 221) call it the ‘Mug and Jug’ approach

referring to the traditional approach to learning as passive with the teacher as the expert and fountain of all

the knowledge and the student as the recipient of this knowledge [Mug]. Similarly, Yoneyama (2002)

describes the autocratic paradigm existent in Japan as ‘mechanical, instrumental and competitive’ (p.73).

Chung (1998, quoted in Bray, 2003, p. 169) refers to Chinese and Indian schools as “examination oriented-

book education” and rote learning places.



Freire (1970) calls traditional pedagogy as the banking concept of education (p.72). Freire’s banking concept

of education regards learners as empty receptacles or depositories which are filled by teachers, the depositor.

The knowledge from the teacher is received, memorized and repeated by the learner which becomes the

knowledge, thus transmitted. History, for example, in such settings is taught as facts, rather presented as

immutable truths, and moreover, mnemonic regurgitation of the same facts by learners does not encourage in-

depth contextual understanding (Kincheloe 1993, as quoted in Hyslop-Margison & Dale, 2010). In other

words, information presented as facts does not encourage discussion or engage a learner to understand the

content through thinking. According to Hyslop-Margison and Dale (2010), learners passively adapt and

conform to existing social structures under someone else’s direction. Inevitably, such learning contexts mould

students into the patterns prescribed by the society, and a prevailing socioeconomic structure is promoted “by

providing a minimally skilled workforce and by ensuring the existence of a minimally literate class

guaranteed to maintain class divisions” (p.134). A passive compliance infused through instrumental education

does not indicate that learners-the future citizens are able to master, control, or lead the direction of the

society (Lankshear, 1993 quoted in Hyslop-Margison & Dale, 2010). To sum up in Dewey’s words, a

traditional pedagogical approach does not pay attention to the “powers and purposes of those taught.

Traditional pedagogical contexts provide little room for dialogue which would be advantageous in building

mutual trust between a teacher and a learner, hence better learning. Freire believed that the traditional

pedagogical approach impedes the existential development and agency of learners (Freire as quoted in

Hyslop-Margison & Dale, 2010); the teacher does all the telling which alienates a learner from the context of

learning of which he/she should be the core. Learners in such instrumental learning milieus are treated as

objects of functional literacy rather than subjects, who could speak, reason through dialogue. According to

Kim (2005), traditional teaching devalues learners’ independent thought process. When asking learners

questions, “most teachers seek not to enable them to think through intricate issues, but to discover whether

student knows the ‘right’ answer” (p.2). Uibu et al., (2011) report that traditional teaching is the preferred

method of teaching in primary classrooms in Estonia where teachers focus more on academic development.

Direct instruction and rote learning enhance students’ cognitive performance and academic achievement in

addition to having a positive impact on students’ language competences and mathematics skills. In Estonia

primary teachers use rote practices: memorization, recalling and drilling for achieving good results. Teachers

may otherwise prefer direct teaching methods to overcome the overload of curriculum and ensure fast

implementation of the curriculum.

Direct instruction. Direct Instruction or Explicit Teaching (Rosenshine, 1979, 1986) is a teaching approach

that allows learners to learn content when teachers provide explicit or direct information (Larson & Keiper,

2011). Direct instruction or didactics is also referred to as active teaching by Good (1983a) and is a simple

method that involves teacher explanation, demonstration and interaction with students (Woolfolk et al.,

2006). Teacher-centered direct instruction is most appropriate for teaching basic skills such as mathematical

computation, science facts, reading, grammar and vocabulary rules (Rosenshine & Stevens 1986 as quoted in

Woolfolk et al., 2006). Chall (2000), after analyzing results of many years of educational research at different

times, has established that direct instruction is a helpful mode of instruction for students with learning

disabilities and for struggling or at risk learners at all social levels. Also, direct instruction as a traditional

pedagogy produced higher achievement among students as compared to progressive pedagogy (Hollingworth

& Ybarra, 2008). Furthermore, direct instruction allows learners to connect ideas together for appropriate

understanding (Anderson 1989 b in Woolfolk et al., 2006). A strong criticism of direct instruction is the

passivity that it renders to the learner as a result of teacher doing most of the talking, presenting information

and doing much of the cognitive work for the students (Woolfolk et al., 2006).

Rote Learning. Rote learning includes repeating, recalling, memorization and copying facts into the exercise

books (den Brok et al. 2004; O’Sullivan 2006; see Perry, Donohue, and Weinstein 2007 as quoted in Uibu

et al., 2011). Though rote learning is effective for learning such things as foreign vocabulary, periodic table,

lines in a play or speech (Blakemore & Frith, 2005); it is less helpful in encouraging deeper processing,

organizing and integrating of information. Rote learning is good for retention, but poor for transfer (Good,

2008, p172). Rote memorization creates static, passive knowledge as learners memorize actual words without

actually understanding the context. “Howard Gardiner has been a strong critic of rote memorization” as it

does not bring understanding and obviously students cannot apply memorized knowledge to new situations

(Woolfolk et al., 2006, p. 262).

Progressive Learner Centered Pedagogy

The onset of modernization transformed Western society’s outlook about pedagogy in general by recognizing

the importance of the learner in the learning process. In other words, the birth of progressive pedagogy or



student-centered pedagogy, was a consequence of discontentment toward traditional education mostly

because of the passive role that it imparted upon the learner (Dewey, 1938). Student centered or progressive

education that places a child [learner] at the center of learning builds on the earlier works of Rousseau,

Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey and Kilpatrick. Student centered or progressive education that places a child

[learner] at the center of learning builds on the earlier works of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey and

Kilpatrick. The substantive theoretical grounding in the earlier part of the twentieth century of what was

called child-centered [or learner or student-centered] and now known as ‘constructivist learning’ is largely

attributed to the woks of, Piaget, Vygostky, Bartlett, Bruner, the Gestalt Psychologists as well as the

educational philosophy of Dewey and Freire (Woolfolk et al., 2006; Bowers, 2007). Constructivist-informed

approach to pedagogy can be distinguished from traditional approach by its emphasis on actively engaging

the learner in the learning process. ‘Constructivism’ emphasizes the active role of the learner in the

construction of knowledge through either individual or social learning activities. Children [learners] actively

construct the world through natural processes of play and discovery learning is taken to the lengths of

evoking the notion of the child as a ‘lone scientist’ (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999). Active-learning, student-

centered pedagogies according to Ginsburg (2006) have been endorsed by researchers and policy makers

around the world.

Constructivism encompasses a wide range of theoretical approaches to learning. Constructivist pedagogy

generally employs cognitive-constructivist or social-constructivist perspectives. Cognitive-constructivism,

which initially evolved from Piaget’s work, conceptualizes learning as a constructive process. “Piaget’s

fundamental insight was that learners [individuals] construct their own understanding” (Woolfolk et al. 2006,

p.38) based on an “individual’s experience and prior knowledge” (Lowenthal, & Muth, 2009, p.178). The

cognitive view stresses that active learners initiate experiences, seek information to solve problems, and

reorganize what they already know to build new insight and make decisions (Woolfolk et al., 2006). Uibu, K.

et al, (2011), mention that cognitive-constructivist approaches to pedagogy involve active knowledge

building, meaning making, deep understanding, critical thinking, and simulation of questioning. During

knowledge building each individual in Piaget words has to be an agent of their learning process.

Social-constructivist theory, as it is generally known, has been greatly influenced by the work of Russian

psychologist, Vygotsky who emphasized the role of language, culture and social interactions on cognitive

development. Constructivism as an approach to pedagogy, focuses directly on the learner and is based on the

assumption that learning involves “negotiating understanding through dialogue or discourses shared by two

or more members of the community of people who are pursuing shared goals” (Brophy, 2002, p.1). Learning

occurs through the construction of meaning in social interactions within cultures, and through language

(Lowenthal & Muth, 2009). Vygotsky underscored the importance of interactions between children and

adults or experienced peers (Jarvis, 2005, p.28). In Vygotsky’s view, conversation and interactions take place

between members in a cultural setting allowing them to share their thinking with adults or more able peers-

parents and teachers. During interactions language serves as an essential tool “for expressing ideas and asking

questions, the categories and concepts for thinking, and the links between past and future” (Woolfolk et al.

2006, p.45). Language primarily serves as a tool for communication and later as a psychological tool of

higher mental functions of thinking, reasoning and problem solving. A child [learner], according to the social

constructivist standpoint is an active agent who first co-constructs the ideas with adults during shared

activities [interactions] and later internalizes the co-created ideas by constructing his/her own meaning,

representations and understanding (Woolfolk et al., 2006).

Constructivist classroom contexts make use of scaffolding to support shared learning activities, for example,

assisted learning or guided participation. ‘Scaffolding’, described by Bruner (1976) means adult assistance,

or support that adults provide children to understand a concept exactly or accurately and later children are

able to work on their own. For example, providing prompts or clues, reminders, right encouragement at right

time, or breaking the problem into steps at the beginning and eventually allowing the students to solve the

problems on their own. Cazden (1983) describes ‘vertical scaffolding’ as adults asking children questions

during reading to provide more information which helps with language development as it extends their

understanding. Direct observation of scaffolding used by a teacher during whole class discussion includes

cueing the learners to “listen for”, “think about”, “listen to the story and be ready to share” and helping the

struggling learners to respond by helping them to express their responses (Brophy, 2006, p 7). Gallagher

(1999, as quoted in Kincheloe & Horn, 2007) mentions successful scaffolding results in change in learner’s

mastery which means increased performance on a particular task.

Vygotsky laid the foundations for teaching as ‘assisted performance’ (Turner Bissett, 2001) where teachers

or more able peers assist learners in the ‘Zone of Proximal Development-ZPD’. Zone of Proximal



Development is the catch phrase used in Vygotskyian constructivist view which means an area where a

learner cannot solve a problem alone or unaided, but can be successful under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more advanced or capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Learners derive maximum benefit when

assistance is provided firmly within the ZPD (Siraj-Blatchford, 1999). Shared or joint activities create

context for interaction between learners and adults or more able peers. During interactions the more advanced

partner helps the learner use the existing ability to achieve a desired higher level of competence (Gauvain,

2005). Shared problem solving, Vygotsky believed, also brings about cognitive development. According to

Wells (2002), participants in a joint activity of any scope and complexity nearly always differ in their

knowledgeable skills so they can assist as well as learn from each other when doing different tasks. “Sharing

task responsibility for thinking about and carrying out a cognitive activity as research has shown (Gauvain &

Rogoff, 1989) brings more learning as it encourages joint understanding and inter-subjectivity

(Rommetveit,1985) allowing learners to understand the cognitive problem from someone else’s perspective”

(Gauvain, 2005, p.28).

Social constructivist approaches to teaching have been applied to a broad range of subjects. According to

Brophy (2002), many authors synthesized the best practices in teaching subjects like beginners reading,

content area reading and literature studies, writing, number, geometry, biology, physics, chemistry, earth

science, history, physical geography, cultural studies, citizenship education, and economics. They cited

learning as meaningful and accessible for use when it was socially negotiated in the learning communities of

the classroom. Studies conducted by Kim (2005) on 76 grade six students have concluded that constructivist

teaching is more effective in terms of the academic achievement of students. Also, studies conducted by

Armburster et al., (2008) after redesigning undergraduate introductory biology for majors and non-majors

students between 2006-2008, indicate learner-centered pedagogy and interactive learning activities increase

student performance which are consistent with earlier studies conducted by Ebert-May et al., 1997; Knight

and Wood, 2005; Freeman et al., 2007 and Walker et al., 2008.

Role of the teacher. Teachers who teach using a constructivist-informed approach to pedagogy are often

described as facilitators, guide on the side (Gagnon and Collay, 2006), co-constructors of knowledge,

friends, discussion leaders, model, coach (Wells, 2002) and monitor of groups. In the following sections, I

explore these roles further.

Teacher as facilitator. As a facilitator, the role of the teacher is to involve learners in problem solving

situations (discovery, experimentation, problem solving or role play) to enhance collaboration and promote

social and cognitive development (Nuthall 2002; Ota, Berdondini, & Kutnick 2007 as quoted in Uibu. et al.,

2011). Watkins and Mortimore (1999) suggest that the teacher as a facilitator does not only mean a non-

directive teaching style, but stresses the importance of a range of teaching approaches that address particular

learning goals and the specific needs and wants of different learners in particular contexts. They further

suggest that facilitators need to be able to: promote autonomous learning by encouraging the learners to

define their own goals and purposes, help learners to understand how they learn best and use this knowledge

to make their learning as effective as possible, create an environment in which the views of all learners are

valued and explored, enhance self-esteem and challenge learners’ own views, and more broadly, promote the

concept of critical reflection within a supportive environment. Teachers provide a variety of resources and

supports for the learners (Feldman& Mcphee, 2008). Constructivist teachers “assist, monitor and guide

students in knowledge building as well as in expanding their independence and social competencies” (Uibu et

al. 2011, p.93). In addition, “teachers encourage students to interact with one another, promote students

interests and initiatives in order to find meaningful links between academic learning and real life situations”

(Uibu et al. 2011, p 93).

Teacher as discussion leader. As discussion leaders, teachers pose questions, seek clarification, promote

dialogue, and help groups recognize areas of consensus or disagreement (Brophy, 2002). Teachers encourage

free discussion through generation of new ideas and inviting students’ questions and answers (Kim, 2005) or

testing their own thoughts or their peers’ ideas. In other cases, teachers facilitate learners in generating ideas

about a topic prior to presenting new information. Highly facilitative teachers make use of dialogue for

discussion. Teachers using constructivist informed pedagogy encourage learners to engage into a range of

different dialogues with them and with other learners. Teachers pose open ended questions that offer learners

of varying abilities a point of entry into the topic to be learned. More sophisticated students can opt for

complex responses and less sophisticated students can work at different levels, for example, students with

limited reading abilities can only draw the representation of the answer or describe their ideas in a story

(Gagnon and Collay, 2006, p. 41).



Teacher as model. Teachers establish a positive learning environment and exhibit a respectful behaviour.

They are spontaneous and expressive, and above all, consider students’ feelings and praise them often

(Feldman& Mcphee, 2008). They create a respectful environment for discussion by encouraging the learners

to respect each other’s ideas/inputs and use other’s ideas after analysis and reflection.

Teacher as co-constructor of knowledge. Teachers, to a certain extent, leave their expert roles and share

authority with the learners. Wells (2002), in association with other teacher researchers at OISE/University of

Toronto, recognized teaching and learning as an enterprise of inquiry that is dialogically co-constructed by

the teachers and the students together. The key components, according to Wells, are: creating communities

characterized by inclusiveness equity and caring; prioritizing knowledge building and understanding through

inquiry; encouraging collaboration between students and teachers and among students; involving the whole

person in the activity (mind and body, feelings, values and rational thinking); and valuing student

contributions to the activity in progress so that knowledge is constructed and not delivered unilaterally. A

specific example of knowledge construction as explained by Brophy (2002) includes the use of real and

personal examples by the teacher “to articulate and illustrate major understandings in ways that legitimize

students’ feelings and encourage them to share their insights” (p.10). Additionally, student-teacher

interactions exemplify the effort by the teacher to involve learners in metacognitive self-talk to help students

reflect on how they know what they know or the implication the learning has on each one of them.

Role of the learner. Learning does not simply occur by transmitting information from the teacher to the

child’s brain. Instead, each child constructs his or her own meaning by combining prior information with new

information, such that the new knowledge provides personal meaning to the child” (Cobern, 1993). Since its

inception, a constructivist-informed approach to pedagogy has profoundly elevated the status of a learner as

one who is actively involved in the construction of knowledge in any learning situation. Active involvement

of the learner should encompass both physical manipulation and mental manipulation of ideas (Woolfolk et

al., 2006). An active learner may have a multiplicity of roles such as being:

An active participant who is consciously engaged in the learning process and regularly interacts with the

teacher as well as other learners in the social construct of the classroom;

An active thinker who thinks individually to derive meaning for self and collaboratively to construct social

meaning with others, and also one who thinks critically about his/her learning;

An active challenger who asks questions, challenges others’ ideas, responds to others’ questions through

well thought out answers;

An active communicator, who confidently communicates with others and effectively enters into a dialogue

with teacher and peers, creates meaning by way of interactions with others;

An active problem solver who launches inquiry when presented with realistic/authentic problems to find

solutions; and

Active initiators who negotiate, challenge, reason, justify and provide feedback to other ideas (during

collective discussions presented by other members of the learning community).

Teaching learning strategies. Progressive learner-centered pedagogy adopts a numbers teaching learning

activities. It includes active learning, inquiry learning, problem based learning, cooperative learning, dialogue

and instructional conversations and cognitive apprenticeship which are described in the following sections.

Active learning. Transaction is interaction between two or more people and transactional education is a

curricular process in which students use dialogue and interactions to reconstruct knowledge (Niyozov, 2008).

“Transaction involves active learning”, where learners can choose the activity they want to learn (Kirkland et

al., 2007, p. 137). Transactional teaching involves the integration of the pupil’s concerns and interests with

teachers’ pedagogical goals (Cooper & McInytyre, 1996 as cited in Turner-Bisset, 2001). Allen and Tanner

(2005) define active learning as “seeking new information, organizing it in a way that is meaningful, and

having a chance to explain it to others” (Ambruster et al., 2009, p. 1). When students are placed at the center

of instruction, it promotes a learning environment that is more acquiescent to metacognitive development

necessary for the learners to become independent and critical thinkers. Learner-centered approaches seek to

provide and promote the most productive, enriching, and supportive environment for learning (Feldman &

Mcphee, 2008). Five specific teaching approaches that place the learner at the centre of learning and reflect

transactional active learning are: Inquiry learning; Problem-based learning, Cooperative Learning, Dialogue

and Instructional Conversations; and Cognitive Apprenticeship.

Inquiry learning. In Dewey’s view inquiry is a central aspect of constructivism. Curiosity leads to inquiry;

Dewey described the inquiry learning format in 1910 (Woolfolk et al., 2006), and J. Richard Schuman

formalized inquiry by suggesting the following model (Feldman & Mcphee, 2008, p. 329): teacher presents a



situation; students work in groups; gather information; identify variables; hypothesize and test relationships;

organize data; and propose improvements. According to Wells (2002), inquiry is a stance towards experience

and information-a willingness to wonder, ask questions and an attempt to answer questions through various

means and to present findings to one’s peers for critical review and improvement. Further, the aim of inquiry

is to foster each student with life-long disposition of agentive action and collaborate with others in seeking

understanding for an effective and responsible action.

Problem-based learning. Dewey developed the idea that problem solving should be an integral part of the

student [learner]-centered curriculum. The teacher presents real problems to students and the students launch

an inquiry to solve the problem. Cooperation and discovery problems can be generated by students to ensure

relevance and purpose, and problem solving can develop social skills and thinking skills (Mulcahy 2007).

Feldman and Mcphee (2008), suggest the need for teachers to teach questioning skills to students using

Bloom’s taxonomy of questioning and thinking that include, knowledge, comprehension, application,

analysis, synthesis and evaluation; convergent and divergent questions that permit a range of acceptable

responses or open questions that push learners to delve deeply into the topic.

Cooperative learning. Cooperative learning which traces its roots back over 100 years has been frequently

used in classrooms since 1970 to support constructivist-informed pedagogy. Johnson, Johnson and Holubec

(1993, quoted in Jacobs et al. 2002) define cooperative learning as the instructional use of small groups so

that the students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. Jacobs et al., (2002) define

cooperative learning as principles and techniques for helping students work together more effectively, while

Bartlett (2006) defines the purpose of cooperative learning is to ensure that individuals within the group take

responsibility for their own learning and for other learners within the group. Cooperative learning increases

academic success and satisfaction of the students as a result of positive student-student interactions or

student-instructor interactions (Astin, 1993; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995 as quoted in Bartlett, 2006).

According to Woolfolk et al. (2006), cooperative learning symbolizes the constructivist viewpoint in multiple

ways: group discussions allow participants to rehearse, elaborate and expand their knowledge, thus

conforming to information processing theorists’ views. Piaget’s constructivist approach finds benefits of

group interactions in creating disequilibrium and cognitive conflict which lead' a learner to question his/her

understanding and suggest new ideas. Vygotsky’s outlook of cooperative learning values the importance of

social interactions within groups. Social interactions during cooperative learning provide social support, and

scaffolding for learning gives rise to higher mental functions, for example, reasoning, comprehension and

critical thinking which first originate during group discussions and are later internalized by learners.

According to Johnson and Johnson (1999) there are five fundamental elements that define a true

cooperative group (Woolfolk et al., 2006, p.335): face-to-face interaction; positive; interdependence;

individual accountability; collaboration skills; and group processing. During face-to-face interactions,

learners in cooperative learning groups rely on positive interdependence of all group members; that is, shared

goals link group members (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Each member of the group is individually responsible

for his/her share of the group work and needs to know the material. Group members monitor the group

progress as well as the relationships between the group members to ensure effective working of the group

(Woolfolk et al., 2006). Cooperation and collaboration are two vital elements for highly effective groups and

are symbiotic in the sense that “without cooperation there is no collaboration; collaboration fosters

cooperation. Cooperation is a positive relationship between pupils that is characterized by support and

helpfulness” (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010, pp. 26-27), while collaboration is the process whereby

individuals not only work together, but are involved in “sharing, discussion, argument, reflection and often

negotiation” (Richey et al., 2011, p.134).

Pritchard and Woollard (2010), describe physical and cognitive aspects of cooperative activity. The

cognitive aspects imply learners help each other to learn by doing (skill), showing (skill), telling (knowledge),

and explaining (understanding). Loaning, giving, hiring and taking turns comprise physical sharing activities.

Results of recent literature survey by Roseth et al., (2008 as quoted in Pritchard & Woollard) on academic

and social impacts of interactive classroom practices indicate evidence of few empirical studies. The results,

however, suggest that young adolescents involved in cooperative learning show positive peer relationships

and higher academic achievement. Group work provides open and relaxed settings for the learners, allowing

them to learn from each other and encouraging them to think. Group work offers inclusive arrangement by

grouping low and high level learners together to accomplish a learning goal. Cooperation and collaboration in

small group settings also impacts learners’ self-confidence because of the fact that each learner’s experience

and knowledge is considered valuable in constructing new knowledge (Coultas, 2007).



Cooperative learning structures such as Student Team Learning Methods are based on the concept of

individual accountability, team rewards and equal opportunities to the learners. Student Team Achievement

Divisions (STAD), Teams Games Tournaments (TGT), and Jigsaw II are used for different subject levels

across multiple grade levels. Cooperative Integrated Reading Composition (CIRC) is used for reading,

writing and instruction (grades 2-8) and Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) for mathematics (grades 3-5).

Other cooperative learning activities that actively engage a learner are: Jigsaw I & II; Learning Together;

Constructive Controversy, Peer Tutoring, Reciprocal Peer tutoring, Reciprocal Questioning, Scripted

Cooperation, and Group Investigations, all of which emphasize interaction, investigation, and synthesis of

information (interpretation) (Zingaro, 2008).

Dialogue and instructional conversations. Dialogue means conversation between two or more people.

Littleton and Howe (2010) describe that dialogue is a highly inclusive concept encompassing all exchanges

where one individual addresses another and the second replies. Within a classroom context, the nature and

quality of the classroom talk becomes educational dialogue and when analysed through Freire’s standpoint it

empowers a learner with a voice, and thus becomes a medium of transformation. From a constructivist

standpoint, dialogue in the form of ‘classroom talk’ is vital for interactions that allow a teacher-learner or

learner-learner to negotiate understanding and construct meaning during the process of learning. Peer

dialogue involves the exchange of differing opinions in the service of joint goals (Howe, 2010). Studies on

peer dialogue conducted on students 10-12 years old learning about evaporation and condensation and force

and motion through group work concluded that peer dialogue can promote cognitive growth. Interactions

during peer dialogue are valuable as children express contrasting opinions in pursuit of joint goals (Littleton

& Howe, 2010).

Dialogic inquiry as a potential pedagogical approach for classroom interaction fits in the constructivist milieu

as it promotes learner agency and active participation employing learners’ “funds of knowledge”

(Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010, p.48). A dialogic inquiry approach as a medium for ‘participatory

pedagogy’ in a contemporary classroom emphasizes students’ communication and collaboration skills and

calls for genuine student engagement in productive interactions. Participation through classroom interactions

becomes “a socially constructed phenomenon with each member of a classroom community having a

participatory role. Participatory roles are obvious during interactions and the actions that each member takes,

what each is accountable for, how each member is engaged in the interactions and above all how each

member responds, interprets and constructs meaning from the ongoing interactions” (Kumpulainen &

Lipponen, 2010, p.50). Alexander (2006) refers these pedagogical practices as “collective, reciprocal,

supportive, cumulative and purposeful” (quoted in Littleton & Howe, 2010, p.49). According to Littleton

and Mercer (2007), an essential component of dialogic inquiry in a classroom is that members build openly

and freely on each other’s knowledge and experiences, and in so doing they further their collective thinking

about the topic or issue in question. Dialogic inquiry is connected to Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory; that

knowledge is constructed as a result of meaningful interactions between members of a community [classroom

in this context]. “The local, moment-by-moment classroom interactions thus signal what counts as learning,

participating and communicating” (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010, p.51).

Empirical studies conducted on 13 grade three Finnish students in Helsinki, with emphasis on social

interaction and discourse as tools for learning and thinking, have highlighted the ways in which learners’

agency is manifested in classroom interactions. The preliminary study observation by Wells (1999) had

students working as a community of dialogic inquirers in academic tasks that comprised mostly of collective

discussions and small group activities. Using the socio-cultural approach of thinking together in the

classroom situation provided students with greater opportunities to communicate, collaborate and learn.

During collective exploration of a statement that had been brought to focus by one of the learners, the role of

learners was that of active agents in the classroom discussion who are “mutually accountable for constructing

shared knowledge” (Boaler & Greeno, 2000 as quoted in Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010, p.53). In this

event of active engagement, students flexibly interchange their positions as teachers and learners, “helping

and guiding one another when needed, using each-others’ support” (ibid., p.55) and collaborating in their

zones of proximal development. Teachers in such locales negotiate their authority as they retreat from their

expert roles and share authority with the learners.

Classroom practices that allow learners to engage in dialogue and communications using a relational

approach were studied by Kutnick and Colwell (2010) in quasi-experimental design focused on children 5 to

7 years of age. Relational approaches focus on the importance of positive relationships, facilitation of social

interaction for productive dialogue and cognitive development, and also explore how positive relationships

promote dialogue. The findings of the studies that indicate development of a relational approach among



learners using group work allowed for higher co-regulated communication through mutually supported

dialogue, greater academic and cognitive development and also increased focus on the tasks. In addition,

Kutnick and Colwell (2010) point out that group work helped the learners to establish new social and

academic alliances. An increased opportunity to learn from each other enabled them to be self-reliant,

requiring less teacher guidance and more importantly the learners were able to relinquish their inhibitions like

shyness and become more assertive. Quiet learners who would not otherwise talk in whole class instruction

spoke in smaller group situations.

Instructional Conversation (IC), a term coined by Tharp and Gallimore in 1988, is an approach of

constructivist learning that includes joint activities where teachers, mentors or parents assist learners of all

ages through action and talk to those aspects of the activity that they cannot yet manage alone (Wells &

Haneda, 2005). This approach makes use of Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development where

students need to approach problems in their ZPD and teachers or other learners provide scaffolding through

interactions and conversations (Woolfolk et al., 2006). To promote learning, instructional conversations make

use of instruction while conversations make use of the dialogue about shared experiences; “instructional

conversations pertain to guiding learners to increased sophisticated levels of understanding by encouraging

expression of students’ ideas and by building upon the information students provide regarding experiences

they have had” (Goldenberg, 1991; Gallimore, 1988 as quoted in Lundy, 2008, p. 41). A result of the

naturalistic studies examined by Many (2002) describes that instructional conversations between teachers and

learners or between learners occur as scaffolding while learners construct meaning from the texts. Although

instructional conversations should provide ample time and support for rich discussion, the finding suggests

that instructional conversations function in diverse ways and support learning within the learner’s zone of

proximal development (Lundy, 2008).

Cognitive apprenticeship. Cognitive Apprenticeship involves a relationship between an expert and a less

experienced learner, and follows the century old history of apprentice working alongside a master to learn

skills, trades or crafts. Apprenticeships provide powerful teaching and learning opportunities that benefit both

the master as well as the apprentice (Woolfolk et al., 2006; Pritchard & Woollard, 2010). In Cognitive

Apprenticeship, the master is an expert guide and model who prepares an apprentice (learner) through guided

participation to learn any concept, and more so teaching the apprentice to take more responsibility until

he/she is able to function independently. The master in the Cognitive Apprentice model must possess

knowledge, skills, understanding and more importantly Pedagogical Content Knowledge to coach, tutor, and

scaffold the apprentice through modelling, feedback, hints and reminders. The apprentice, on the other hand,

must first observe, enact and practice knowledge, and skills, with the master’s help. For learners an important

aspect of the Cognitive Apprenticeship model is to articulate, reflect and explore the learned material in order

to become independent (Woolfolk et al., 2006; Pritchard & Woollard, 2010). During any apprenticeship

learning event, a learner appropriates the knowledge, skills and values over time (Rogoff, 1995, 1998 as

quoted in Woolfolk et al., 2006). Apprenticeship situations make use of language and modelling: language

serves as an effective tool of expression and modelling provides learners a means of copying or adapting the

actions of the master (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010). Cognitive Apprenticeship inside the classroom focuses

on cognitive skills and can be applied to teaching reading comprehension, writing, and mathematical problem

solving. Woolfolk et al., 2006 describe that mathematical problem solving uses Cognitive Apprenticeship

processes such as planning, implementation, verifying, and altering the behaviour based on the validity of

their solutions. Additionally, masters make repeated use of what, why and how questions to guide the

apprentice’s thinking, hone their metacognitive awareness and help them in regulating their behaviour.

Critical Pedagogy Critical Pedagogy is often attributed to Freire. His perspective on education is rooted in a concern for human

beings, the central tenet being empowerment of the underprivileged through education. Critical pedagogy is

known to educators around the world since the publication of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1967

and its subsequent translation in 1970 (McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007). McLaren (2000) defines critical

pedagogy as ‘a way of thinking about, negotiating and, transforming the relationship among classroom

teaching, the production of knowledge, the institutional structures of the school and the social material

relations of the wider community, society and nation-state’ (Monchinski, 2008, p.2). According to Kincheloe

(2008), ‘critical pedagogy is a perspective towards education that is concerned with questions of justice,

democracy, and ethical claims’ (p.7). Critical pedagogy in its humanistic approach to education challenges

the reproductive role of schools and considers schools as the sites of social and economic mobility (Duncan-

Andrade & Morrell, 2008). Critical pedagogy deems that modern schooling upholds and reproduces the ideas

of the dominant capitalist class. Schools pass onto individuals “a system of values, attitudes, behaviours,

beliefs and morality that supports or reproduces the established social order and the class interests that



dominate it” (Braa & Callero, 2006, p.358). Processes that can contribute to this reproduction within the

classroom include:

The use of a hidden curriculum in classrooms that conditions the students to conform to the hierarchical

structures of power,

In authoritarian classrooms the students are conditioned to develop into passive and obedient members of

society who can be ‘easily manipulated workers and passive apathetic citizens, and

Schools promote existing social order by excluding certain forms of knowledge that might include asking

critical questions regarding inequality, oppression, exploitation, imperialism, class struggle or labour

movement.

In addition to challenging the reproductive role of education, critical pedagogy emphasizes the emancipatory

potential of education by facilitating social change through counter hegemony that serves to oppose ideas and

values of the dominant class. Important concepts of critical pedagogy are discussed as follows:

Problem posing education. Critical pedagogy, referred to as problem-posing education by Freire, responds

to the “essence of consciousness” of women and men as conscious beings (Freire, 2000). Duncan-Andrade

and Morrell (2008) mention that, contrary to the banking model of education, Freire considers critical

pedagogy as problem-posing education which allows individuals to think critically about their place in the

world. They come to understand the world as something which is not rigid but transforming. Furthermore,

problem-posing education is education for freedom where teachers work in partnership with students and

both share knowledge, and the teacher is ready to accept solutions from the students. Critical pedagogy deals

with the concept of ‘praxis’ that involves action and reflection (Monchinski, 2008; Duncan-Andrade &

Morrell, 2008). It involves thinking before an action and reflection after an action on part of students and

teachers, alike. The ‘action-reflection’ cycle includes five steps: identify a problem; analyze the problem;

create a plan of action; implement the plan of action; and analyze and evaluate action (p.25). In this process,

students in the role of social agents understand the problems facing them and their communities; they come

up with solutions and implement them. Through reflection they revisit their plan of action, revise and re-

implement it to reach a full solution (Duncan Andrade & Morrell, 2008).

Empowering education. One of the contemporary developers of critical pedagogy, Ira Shor (1992),

describes “empowering education” as a critical democratic pedagogy for self and social change that is built

upon reciprocal relationship between a teacher and a student. Empowering education believes that the self

and society create each other; it promotes personal growth as “an active, cooperative and social process” and

relates this personal growth to public life by “developing strong skills, academic knowledge, habits of

inquiry, critical curiosity about society, power, inequality and change” (Shor as quoted in Duncan-Andrade

& Morrell, 2008, p.29). Empowering education overtly condemns traditional education in that students are

powerless and education develops them as powerless adults; it does not measure cognitive skills and the

teachers and students feel disengaged from the curriculum.

Critical literacy. Critical literacy lies at the heart of Freire’s vision for effective pedagogy (Duncan-

Andrade & Morrell, 2008). Beck (2005) mentions critical literacy as “an attitude towards texts and

discourses that questions the social, political and economic conditions under which those texts were

constructed” (p.2); it helps in meaning making of different sources of information, for example, multimedia,

complex visual imagery, music, sounds, or the virtual worlds. According to Beck (2005) the goal of critical

literacy is development of responsible citizens who are able to confront social inequalities and take action

against injustices. Critical literacy means “using language in all forms to solve problems, engage in complex

thinking, and to communicate” (Kinnucan-Welsch, 2010, p. 239). Using critical literacy as an interpretation

of a text, an individual constructs and deconstructs meanings from multiple perspectives. Use of critical

literacy in classrooms includes the skillful use of questioning, choice of texts and creating space for students

to explore an emancipatory stance in relation to the text. Within the critical literacy context, students achieve

true literacy not by decoding texts or absorbing facts and information, but by critically thinking about what

they are learning and applying it to their lives (Provenzo, 2009). Critical literacy involves a democratic and

dialogic process where students’ voices and dialogues serve as the main tools with which students reflect on

and construct meaning from different texts and discourses. During social interactions individuals use dialogue

as an important tool to interpret meanings from different sources. Meaning making during dialogue raises

critical awareness and allows students to think critically and take action (Beck, 2005; Provenzo, 2009).

Critical thinking. Critical thinking as stated by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a thinking that

recognizes an enduring harmony between the people and the world without any dichotomy. According to

Freire (2000), it is a thinking which considers reality as a process or transformation, but not a fixed entity.



Critical thinking does not separate itself from action as it accepts temporality without the fear of any risk.

Such thinking is based in the existence of dialogue, and Freire believes a true dialogue cannot exist without

critical thinking. Dialogue is communication and if there is no communication, then there can be “no true

education” (p.93). Moon (2008) calls critical thinking an aspect of the activity of thinking, and defines it as,

“a form of learning in that it is a means of generating new knowledge by processing existing knowledge and

ideas using what we have called the tools of manipulation of knowledge” (p.33). These tools for the

manipulation of knowledge include: critical analysis, understanding, synthesis, reflection, evaluation,

appraisal, review, appreciation, management, awareness and care. The representations of critical thinking

include: “Oral (debate, discussion and other oral representations); written (critical reports, reviews, critique,

satire, essays, and metaphors); and graphic (cartoon, pastiche, and sketch) (Moon, 2008, p.30). Deep critical

thinking involves analytical thinking; it is not surface-description of issues. It “relies on an understanding of

knowledge as constructed and related in its context”. In addition, in-depth critical thinking is directly related

to the level of epistemological development of the thinker.

Conclusion

The present article examined the term pedagogue, pedagogy and perspectives on pedagogy. On the other

hand, three major pedagogical approaches: the traditional teacher-centered, the progressive student-centered

and the critical pedagogy also explored in the present article. The elaboration of different pedagogical

approaches differentiated their transmission, transactional and transformation characteristics and also

described specific teaching methods generally employed by the teachers to support each approach. This

article laid more emphasis on the defining the concept of pedagogy, definition of pedagogy and form of the

pedagogy.

Reference

Alexander, R. J. (2000/2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Alexander, R. J. (2001b). Border crossings: Towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative education, Vol.

37: 4, pp. 507-523.

Alexander, R. J. (2003). Talk in teaching and learning: international perspectives. New perspectives on

spoken English 26-37.

Alexander, R. J. (2004). Still No Pedagogy? Principles, pragmatism and compliance in primary education.

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 34: 1, pp. 7-33.

Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy (Keynote Address).

10th International Conference: Education, Culture and Cognition: intervening for growth,

International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology (IACEP). University of Durham,

United Kingdom.

Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic thinking: rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialogos.

Alexander, R. J. (2008). Essays on Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Alexander, R. J. (2008a). Essays on Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Alexander, R. J. (2008b). Education for all, the quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy. University

of Sussex: CREATE.

Ambruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active leaning and student-centered pedagogy

improve student attitudes and performances in introductory Biology. Department of Biology.

Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

Anderson, C. A. (1989). Temperature and aggression: Ubiquitous effects of heat on the occurrence of human

violence. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 74-96.

Arends, R. I. (2001). Exploring teaching: An introduction to education. New. York: McGraw-Hill

Companies.

Arends, R. I. (2001). Learning to teach (5th

Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of

measuring nontechnical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, Vol. 28, No. 10, p. 644-

657.

Armour, K. M. (2011). Sport pedagogy: An introduction for teaching and coaching. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 18:

2, pp. 215-228.

Bartlett, J. (2006). Facilitating professional learning; the knowledge, attitude and skills required for effective

ICTPD facilitation. Dissertation, Otago University.

Beck, A. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(5), 392-400.



Bernstein, B. (1971). On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.),

Knowledge and Control: New directions for the sociology of knowledge (pp. 47-69). London:

Collier-MacMillan.

Best, F. (1988). The metamorphoses of the term pedagogy: Prospects. Quarterly Review of Education, Vol.

XVIII, No 2, 157-66.

Biesta, G. J. J. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher.

Phenomenology and Practice, Vol. 6: 2, pp. 35-49.

Biesta, G. J. J. and Miedema, S. (2002). Instruction or pedagogy? The need for a transformative conception of

education. The Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 18, pp. 173-181.

Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Lawson, T., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. and Webster, A. (2002).

Introductory sociology. (4th

Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons for education. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.

Boaler, J. & Greeno, J.G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics Worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.),

Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 171-200). Westport CT:

Ablex.

Borko, H. and Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by

expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26: 4, pp. 473-498.

Bowers C. A. (2007). The false promises of constructivist learning: A global and ecological critique. New

York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Bowles S, Gintis H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. London: Routledge and Kegan.

Braa, D., & Callero, P. (2006). Critical pedagogy and classroom praxis. Teaching Sociology, 34(4), 357-369.

Bray, M. 2003. Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring: dimensions, implications, and government

responses. Series: Ethics and Corruption in Education. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Britzman, D. (1992). Decentering Discourses: Or, the Unleashing of Unpopular Things. In K. Weiler & C.

Mitchel (Eds.), What schools can do: Critical pedagogy and practice (pp. 151-175). Albany: SUNY

Press.

Brophy, J. (2002). Introduction. In Jere Brophy (Ed.) Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and

constraints. Advances in research on teaching, 9, ix-xxii, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Brophy, J. (2006). Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and

qualifications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (5), 529-537.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Brown, s., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1976). Prelinguistic prerequisites of speech. In R. Campbell and P. Smith (Eds.), Recent

Advances in the Psychology of Language 4, (pp.199-214). New York: Plenum Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1999). Prologue to the English edition of the collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. In P. Lloyd, & C.

Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: Future directions (Vol. IV; pp. 42-441).

Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.

Byra, M. and Sherman, M. A. (1993). Pre-active and interactive decision making tendencies of less and more

experienced pre-service teachers Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 64, pp. 46-55.

Cazden, C. (1983). Adult assistance to language development: scaffolds, models and direct instruction. In R.

P. Parker and F. A. Davies (eds.), Developing Literacy. Delaware: International Reading

Association.

Chall, J. S. (2000). Foreward. Adams, M. J. The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the

classroom? New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Chand, T. (2004). Development of education system in India. New Delhi, India: Anmol Publications.

Cobern, W. W. (1993). Constructivism. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4 (1), 105-

112.

Coultas, V. (2007). Constructive talk in challenging classrooms: Strategies for behaviour. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Darling, J. (1994). Child-Centred education and its critics. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of Teaching: A Genealogy. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

De Garmo C. (1896). The significance of Herbart for secondary and higher education. Educational Review,

11, 42-3.

den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student

outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407-442.



Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience & Education. New York, NY: The Kappa Delta.

Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory

to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang.

Earl, L. and Timperley, H. (2014). Challenging Conceptions of Assessment. In V. Klenowski and C. Wyatt-

Smith (Eds.) Assessment for Quality Learning (pp. 325-337). Amsterdam: Springer.

Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C. A., and S. Allerd (1997). Innovation in large lectures-Teaching for active learning

through inquiry. Bio Science 47(9): 601-607.

Eisner, E. W. (1979). The use of qualitative forms of evaluation for improving educational practice.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(6), 11-19.

Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T. R., Littlefield Cook, J. and Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology:

Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd

ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2015). School and library subscribers. https://www.britannica.com/

topic/education (Accessed 26 October 2016).

Entwistle, N. J. and Walker, P. (2001). Strategic Alertness and Expanded Awareness within Sophisticated

Conceptions of Teaching. Instructional Science, Vol. 28, pp. 335-361.

Feldman, J., & Mcphee, D. (2008). The science of learning and the art of teaching. (1st ed.) New York, NY:

Thomson Delmar Cengage Learning.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, Continuum.

Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., and Wenderoth,

M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life

Sci. Educ. 6, 132-139.

Gagnon, G. W., and Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design: Key questions for teaching to

standards. (p. 41).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 56, pp.

167-198.

Gauvain, M. (2005). Sociocultural contexts of learning. In Mynard, A. E. and Martini, M. I. (Eds.), Learning

in cultural context: Family, peers and school. International and Cultural Psychology Series. New

York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media Inc.

Gauvain, M., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Collaborative problem solving and children’s planning skills.

Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 139-151.

Ginsburg, M. (2006). Challenges to promoting active learning, student centered pedagogies. American

Institute for Research under the EQUIP1LWA. U.S. Agency for International Development

Cooperative. Agreement no. GDG-A-00-03-00006-00.

Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom application. Washington, DC: Center

for Applied Linguistics/National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language

Learning.

Good, T. L. (1983). Classroom research: A decade of progress. Educational Psychologist, 18 127-144.

Good, T. L. (2008). 21st century education: A reference handbook. Vol.2. (p.172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Gundem, B. B. (1998). Understanding European Didactics-An Overview. Didactics (Didaktik, Didaktik (k),

Didactique). Oslo: University of Oslo. Institute for Educational Research.

Gutherie, G. (1990). To the defense of traditional teaching in lesser developed countries. In Rust, V. D. &

Dalin, P. (Eds.) Teachers and teaching in the developing world. (pp. 119-132) New York & London:

Garland Publishing.

Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture and

Society, 7(1), 135-152.

Hamilton, D. (2009). Blurred in Translation: Reflections on Pedagogy in Public Education, Pedagogy,

Culture and Society, Vol. 17: 1, pp. 5-16.

Hayward, F. H. and Thomas, M. E. (1903). The Critics of Herbartianism: And other matter contributory to

the study of the Herbartian question. London: S. Sonnenschein.

Herbart, J. F. (1806). The Science of education: Its general principles deduced from its aim and the aesthetic

revelation of the world. Translated by Felkin, H. M. and Felkin, E. (1892). London: Swann

Sonnenschein.

Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2009). Explicit direct instruction (EDI): The power of well-crafted, well-

taught lesson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin press and Data WORKS Educational Research.

Howe, C. (2010). Peer dialogue and cognitive development: A two way relationship. In Littleton, K. &

Howe, C. (Eds.). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction. New

York, NY: Routledge.



Hoyle, E. and John, P. (1995). Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. London: Cassell.

Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Dale, J. A. (2010). Explorations of educational purpose: Paulo Freire: teaching

for freedom and transformation: The philosophical influences on the work of Paulo Freire (pp. 25-

33). Dordrecht, NLD: Springer.

Ireson, J. Mortimore, P., & Hallam, S. (1999). The common strands of pedagogy and their implications. In

Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. Ability grouping in Education (pp. 30-39, pp46-51).

Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A. & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher’s source book for cooperative learning:

Practical techniques, basic principles and frequently asked questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Jarvis, M. (2005). The psychology of effective teaching and learning. Cognitive development and learning.

Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic learning (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (First edition published 1975).

Jayapalan, N. (2005). History of education in India. (pp. 5-6).New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers &

Distributors.

Kant,I (1803) Ueber Pädagogik. (Translated by Churton A (1900). Kant on Education. Boston. Available on

line at https://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/356/0235_Bk.pdf

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd

Ed.). New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L., & Horn, R. A. (Eds.). (2007). The Praeger handbook of education and psychology (Vol. 4).

Westport: Praeger Publishing.

Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2010). Critical literacy. In T. Hunt, J. Carper, T. Lasley, & C. Raisch (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent. (pp. 240-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-

concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, Education Research Institute 6(1),

7-19. Korea: Chungnam National University.

Kirk, D. and Tinning, R. (1992). Physical education pedagogical work as praxis, Paper Presented at the

American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.

Kirkland, L., Aldridge, J., & Kuby, P. (2007). Integrating environmental print across the curriculum, PreK-

3: Making literacy instruction meaningful. Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298-

310.

Kumar, K. (1991). The meek dictator: The Indian teacher in historical perspective. In Entwsitle (Ed.). Hand

book of educational Ideas and practices. (pp. 154-162). London: Routledge.

Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry.

In Littleton, K & Howe, C. (Eds.) 2010. Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting

productive interaction. (pp. 48-63). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kutnick, P., & Colwell, J. (2010). Dialogue enhancement in classrooms: Towards a relational approach for

group working. In Littleton, K & Howe, C. (Eds.) Educational dialogues: Understanding and

promoting productive interaction. (pp. 192-215) New York, NY: Routledge.

Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. (1993). Critical literacy and the postmodern turn. In C. Lankshear, P McLaren

(Eds.), Critical Literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern. Albany: SUNY Press, pp379-420.

Larson, B. E. & Keiper, T.A. (2011). Instructional strategies for middle and secondary social studies:

Methods, assessment and classroom management. New York, NY: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).

Leach, J. and Moon, B. (2008). The Power of Pedagogy. London: Sage.

LeCompte, M. D. (2009). Trends in Research on Teaching: An Historical and Critical Overview. In L. J. Saha

and A. G. Dworkin (Eds.) International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp. 25-

60). Dordrecht: Springer.

Lee, A. (2003) How the Field Evolved. In S. Silverman and C. Ennis (Eds.) Student Learning in Physical

Education: Applying Research to Enhance Instruction (pp. 9-33). (Second Edition). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Le Fevre, D., Timperley, H. and Ell, F. (2016). Curriculum and Pedagogy: The Future of Teacher

Professional Learning and the Development of Adaptive Expertise. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward and J.

Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, Volume 1 (pp. 309-

324). London: Sage.

Littleton, K. & Howe, C. (Eds.). (2010). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive

interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.

Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2010). The significance of educational dialogues between primary children In

Littleton, K & Howe, C. (Eds.). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive

interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.



Loveless, A (2002). A Literature Review in Creativity, New Technologies and Learning: A Report for Future

lab. Bristol: Future lab (available online at www.futurelab.org.uk/litreviews)

Lowenthal, P., & Muth, R. (2009). Constructivism. In E. Provenzo, & A. Provenzo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

the social and cultural foundations of education. (pp. 178-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Lundy, M. M. (2008). The nature of questioning moves used by exemplary teachers during reading

instruction. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Florida.

Macnamara, D. (1991). Subject knowledge and its application: problems and possibilities for teacher

educators, Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 113-128.

Marland, P. W. (1993). A review of the literature on implications of teacher thinking research for preservice

teacher education. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 51-63.

Martin, D. J., Jean-Sigur, R., & Schmidt, E. (2005). Process-oriented inquiry-A constructivist approach to

early childhood Science education: Teaching teachers to do science. Journal of Elementary Science

Education, Vol. 17(2), (pp. 13-26). Kennesaw State University.

Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McDonald, J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

McLaren, P. (2000). Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of possibility. In F. Stanley., H. Mark., P. McLaren & B.

Robert. (Eds.), Freirean pedagogy, praxis and possibilities: Projects for the new millennium (pp. 1-

22). New York: Falmer Press.

McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). (Eds.). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York, NY: Peter

Lang Publishing, Inc.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Definition of pedagogy. Retrieved 17 January, 2021, www.merriam-

webster.com.

Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Monchinski, T. (2008). Critical pedagogy and the everyday classrooms. Explorations of Educational

Purposes Series (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Springer.

Mulcahy, D. E. (2007). John Dewey. In Kincheloe, J. L. & Horn, R. A. Jr. (Eds.). The Praeger Handbook of

Education and Psychology. (Vol. 1). (p.72). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Niyozov, S. (2008). Understanding pedagogy: Cross-cultural and comparative insights from Central Asia. In

Mundy et al., (Eds.), Comparative and International Education: Issues for Teachers. (pp. 133-159).

New York: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. & Teachers’ College Press.

Nuthall, G. (2002). The cultural myths and the realities of teaching and learning. New Zealand Annual Review

of Education, 11, 5-30.

O’Sullivan M (2006). Lesson observation and quality in primary education as contextual teaching and

learning processes. International Journal of Educational Development 26(3): 246–260.

Parr, A. (2005). Becoming performance art. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Perry, K. E., Donohue, K. M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). Teaching practices and the promotion of

achievement and adjustment in first grade. Journal of School Psychology, 45(3), 269-292.

Pollard, A. (2002). Readings for Reflective Teaching. (2nd

Ed.). London: Continuum.

Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New


Provenzo, E. (2009). Critical literacy. In E. Provenzo, & A. Provenzo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the social and

cultural foundations of education. (pp. 193-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Oxford English Dictionary (2018). Available at http://www.oed.com/ (accessed 6 May 2019).

Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New


Qin, Z., D. Johnson, and R. Johnson. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive Efforts and Problem Solving.

Review of Educational Research 65 (2): 129-143.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory,

research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic

behavior control. In Wertsch, J. V (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition. Vygotskyan

perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge University Press.

Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson, & H. J. Walbert (Eds.),

Research on teaching: concepts, findings and implications (pp.28-57). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching (3rd

ed.) (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.



Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S. and Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized

simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, Vol.

28, pp. 63-88.

Schempp, P., Tan, S. and McCullick, B. (2002). The Practices of expert teachers. Teaching and Learning,

Vol. 23, pp. 99-106.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Schon, D. A. (1991). The reflective Turn: Case studies in and one educational practice. New York, NY:

Columbia University.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Simon, B. (1981). Why no pedagogy in England? In B. Simon and W. Taylor (Eds.), Education in the

eighties: the central issues. London: Batsford.

Simon, B. (1985). Does Education Matter? London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Simon, B. (1994). The state of educational change: Essays in the history of education and pedagogy. London:

Lawrence and Wishart.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1999). Early childhood pedagogy: Practice, principles and research. In Mortimore, P.

(Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. (pp. 20-45). London, UK: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

Smith, M. K. (2012). What is pedagogy?’ The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education.

(https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-pedagogy/.) Retrieved: March 16, 2019].

Stones, E. (2000). Iconoclasts: Poor pedagogy. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research

and Pedagogy, Vol. 26: 1, pp. 93-95.

Tanner, K. and Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong

answers-Teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education, 4, pp.112-117.

Tarrant, P (2013). Reflective practice and professional development. London: Sage.

Thiessen, D., Campbell, E., Gaztambide-Fernandez, R., Niyozov, S., Anwaruddin, S., Cooke, C. and

Gladstone, L. (2013). Perspectives on Pedagogy, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 43: 1, pp. 1-13.

Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. London: Open University Press.

Tinning, R. (2008). Pedagogy, Sport Pedagogy, and the Field of Kinesiology, Quest, Vol. 60: 3, pp. 405-424.

Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research. London: Routledge.

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Routledge/Taylor &

Francis Group.

Tsangaridou, N. and O’Sullivan, M. (2003). Physical education teachers’ theories of action and theories-in-

use. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 22, pp. 132-152.

Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and Pedagogy to lead the Profession. London, UK:

David Fulton Publishers, Ltd.

Uibu, K., Kikas, E., and Tropp, K. (2011). Instructional approaches: differences between kindergarten and

primary school teachers. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(1),

91-111. London: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of

children, 23(3), 34-41.

Walker, G. E., C. M. Golde, L. Jones, A. C. Bueschel, and P. Hutchings. (2008). The Formation of Scholars:

Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waring, M. and Evans, C. (2015). Understanding Pedagogy: Developing a Critical Approach to Teaching

and Learning. London: Routledge.

Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: what do we know? In Mortimore, P. (Ed.), Understanding

pedagogy and its impact on learning. London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge

building. In Brophy, J. (Ed.) Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (Advances

in Research on Teaching, Vol. 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 1-41.

Wells, G., & Haneda, M. (2005). Extending instructional conversations. In Clifford, R. O'Donnell, Lois

Yamauchi (Eds.). Culture & context in human behavior change: Theory, research, and applications

(pp.152-163). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N.E. (2006). Educational psychology. (3rd

ed.). Toronto, ON:

Pearson Education Canada, Inc.

Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Behaviourism. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-pedagogy/



Yoneyama, S. (2002). The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance. (Reprint) Nissan Institute/Routledge

Japanese Studies Series. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.

Zingaro, D. (2008). Group investigation: Theory and practice. Retrieved 02-06-2011 from: http:

//www.danielzingaro.com/gi.pdf.

The end

………………………………………………………………….……..

Documents

Revisiting Concept, Definition, and Forms of Pedagogy