Towards Productive Disciplinary Engagement of Prospective Teachers in Educational Psychology : Comparing Two Methods of Case based Instruction

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
1
Towards Productive Disciplinary Engagement of Prospective Teachers in
Educational Psychology: Comparing Two Methods of Case-based Instruction
Randi A. Engle and Robert B. Faux
Although the use of cases for instruction is increasingly popular in educational psychology courses
for prospective teachers, systematic research on how to best use them is just beginning. This paper
contributes to this growing area of research with a design-based research project that used a comparative
case study design. Specifically, we compared case discussions from two different sections of the same
educational psychology course for student teachers, each taught by one of the authors. Case discussions
in one section were characterized by broad participation but little grounding in psychological theory while
those in the other section were characterized by strong use of psychological theory, but much narrower
participation. We then used a set of principles for facilitating productive disciplinary engagement to help
explain these differences, further testing and developing them. Each instructor's way of using cases had
both positive and negative effects on the embodiment of the principles and thus on the nature of the
student teachers' resulting engagement in discussions about them. We close by discussing the implications
of the study for future research, theory development and the use of case discussions, especially in relation
to how they can be reconfigured to better balance student authority with disciplinary accountability.
Keywords: case-based instruction, student engagement, educational psychology, teacher education
Hughes, Engle, & Smith, 2003; Sutton,
While it is commonly agreed that educational
2003); and
psychology courses should help prospective
teachers bridge theory and practice, discussion
• can allow pre-service teachers to reflect
continues in the field about how to best do that
on how they might solve typical classroom
(e.g., Anderson et al. 1995; Kiewra & Gubbels,
problems before having to face them in
1997; Shuell, 1996; Snowman, 1997; Woolfolk
the full press of a real classroom.
Hoy, 2000). One approach that has become
increasingly popular is case-based teaching
In addition, teaching effectively with cases can
(Johnson & Morgan, 2003; Ormrod, 2000;
provide a model of the kinds of constructivist
Shulman, 1992; Sudzina, 1997, 2000).
teaching that many would like prospective
teachers to learn (Sudzina, 1997).
More specifically, previous research in teacher
education has suggested that case-based
Although case-based instruction is popular for
instruction may be a particularly promising way of
these and other reasons, there is little systematic
addressing the theory-practice gap because
research on how to best use cases in educational
cases:
psychology courses (Lundeberg, Levin, &
Harrington, 1999; Sudzina, 1997). However,
• often depict realistic classroom situations
there has been a growing movement by
that illustrate psychological concepts and
educational psychology instructors to document
thus help to deepen teachers’
their use of cases with the kind of precision that
understanding of them (Allen, 1994;
supports reflection on the possible consequences
Ormrod, 2000);
for teachers’ learning (Allen, 1994; Faux, 1999;
Lundeberg & Scheurman, 1997; Ormrod, 2000;
• may illustrate concepts from multiple
Sudzina & Kilbane, 1994; Sudzina, 1997, 2000).
theories, allowing teachers to compare
and synthesize them (Merseth, 1991;
In this paper, we contribute to this effort by
Ormrod, 1998)
presenting a design-based research project (e.g.,
Brown, 1992; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, &
• can provide teachers with compelling
Schauble, 2003; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc,
visions of effective practices (Stein,
2004; Design-based Research Collective, 2003)
in which we used a comparative case study
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
2
design (Dion, 1998; Mahoney & Goertz, 1994;
e n g a g e m e n t .
P r o d u c t i v e
disciplinary
Yin, 1989) to systematically compare the teaching
engagement occurs when students are strongly
of two sections of educational psychology in
engaged in a discussion, when that discussion
which cases were used to support classroom
makes strong contact with the academic discipline
discussions in contrasting ways. Although both
or disciplines that they are learning about, and
sections used the same textbook, introduced
when intellectual progress is made over the
student teachers to the same set of theories, and
course of the discussion. Productive disciplinary
used written cases, there were differences
engagement is viewed as a crucial prerequisite
between the sections in how cases were
for learning, one which complements evidence
incorporated into the overall course design
derived from pre/post measures by providing
(Sudzina, 1997) and how case discussions were
information about the learning process that can
facilitated (Levin, 1999). We look at the effect of
be observed during a discussion itself.
these differences on the nature of student
teachers’ substantive engagement in the case
In this study, we are extending the notion of
discussions. Neither section achieved the kinds of
disciplinary engagement in two ways. First, we are
substantive engagement that the instructors were
studying engagement in a new discipline,
hoping for, though the discussions in each
educational psychology, which complements
section fell short in different ways. To explain
previous studies that focused primarily on
these differences, we extend a theoretical
science, mathematics, and literacy (e.g.,
framework for explaining productive disciplinary
Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004; Engle, 2004;
engagement (Engle & Conant, 2002) that has
Engle & Conant, 2002; Leinhardt & Steele, 2005;
been previously applied to student discussions in
Webster & Conant, 2003). Second, we extend
science, mathematics, and literacy (Cornelius &
the notion of disciplinary engagement to also
Herrenkohl, 2004; Webster & Conant, 2003). By
include substantive engagement that is not
using this theoretical framework, we hope to
disciplinary in nature by considering how
make three key types of contributions: (1) provide
prospective teachers also used practitioner
theoretical explanations for the empirical
discourses around schooling (Gee, 1999) to
differences that we found in the quality of the
discuss classroom cases. In particular, this study
discussions,
(2)
p r o v i d e
theory-based
provides the opportunity to consider the degree
recommendations for how the course and our
to which prospective teachers did and did not
teaching of it could be re-designed to support
coordinate the discourses of
classroom
better case discussions, and (3) in so doing,
experience with the discourse of educational
develop the theoretical framework further,
psychology, allowing us to consider the extent to
providing additional empirical evidence for its
which the case discussions had allowed them to
utility.
productively bridge theory and practice.
In the next section, we briefly present the
No matter what kind of productive disciplinary
Engle & Conant (2002) framework and explain
engagement is at issue, Engle and Conant
how we plan to extend and test it through this
(2002) argued that four principles need to be
study. This is then followed by a description of
realized in a learning environment to support it.
the course, the data that we collected in our two
We briefly outline each principle below.
sections, and the methods we used to analyze
those data. Next we turn to findings about
Principle 1: Problematizing Content
differences in student teachers’ engagement in
case discussions in each section of the course. In
The core idea behind problematizing content
the core of the paper, we then use the Engle &
is that instructors should encourage learners to
Conant (2002) framework to explain these
raise problems, questions, proposals, challenges,
differences by analyzing the effects of the
and other intellectual issues, rather than
different instructional choices the instructors
expecting learners to simply assimilate facts,
made. Finally, we close by addressing the
procedures, and other “answers.” This principle is
implications of our analysis for theory, for future
consistent with constructivist pedagogy,
empirical research, and for future use of cases in
especially as espoused in the science and
other educational psychology courses for
mathematics reform literature (Hiebert et al.,
prospective teachers.
1996; Lemke, 1990; Warren & Rosebery, 1996).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Engle and Conant (2002) proposed four
principles for fostering productive, disciplinary
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
3
beginnings, it was possible to consider what
Principle 2: Giving Learners Authority
might be involved in getting these principles
established in new classroom situations. Second,
Engle & Conant’s (2002) principle of authority
all previous studies examined cases in which
refers to a number of aspects of learners’
productive disciplinary engagement was attained
discourse and relationships to problems in a
during class discussions; the issue in these
discipline; here we focus on two. First, learners
studies was whether the principles would be
need to have an active role, or agency, in
useful in explaining these successes. In contrast,
defining, addressing, and resolving disciplinary
productive disciplinary engagement was not fully
problems (Cobb, 1997; Lampert, 1990a, 1990b).
achieved in either section studied here. Thus, if
Second, learners’ authority is enhanced when
the theory is valid, we should find that one or
they are positioned as stakeholders by being
more of the principles was not fully embodied.
publicly identified as the authors of the claims,
Given that both instructors were familiar with the
approaches, explanations, designs, and other
framework before teaching the course, it was
responses to problems that they pursue
possible that productive disciplinary engagement
(Lampert, 1990a, 1990b; O’Connor & Michaels,
had not occurred despite the fact that the
1996; Toma 1991; Wertsch & Toma, 1985).
principles had been embodied (cf. Mahoney &
Goertz, 2004).
Principle 3: Holding Learners Accountable to
Others and to Disciplinary Norms
METHODS
Holding learners accountable to others and to
This study systematically compared
disciplinary norms means that the instructor and
discussions about classroom cases within two
other members of the learning community foster
sections of an educational psychology course
learners’ responsibility for ensuring that their
offered to prospective teachers enrolled in a
intellectual work is responsive to the content and
Masters of Arts in Teaching program. One was
practices established by intellectual stakeholders
taught Monday evenings by the first author and
inside and outside of their immediate learning
the other was taught Tuesday evenings by the
environment (Resnick & Hall, 2001) as well as to
second author. Below, we provide information
relevant disciplinary norms. The accountability we
about the design of the course, the students and
refer to here is an internal accountability in which
instructors who participated in it, the data that
learners’ influence within their learning
were collected on it, and the analyses of those
environment is affected by how well they
data.
“account” for how what they are doing is
responsive to both what others have done, and
Course Design
community norms for good practice (Lerner &
Tetlock, 1999).
Similarities Between the Sections
Principle 4: Resources
This educational psychology course was re-
designed by the authors and two colleagues in
This final principle focuses on the need to
the School of Education the summer before it
provide students with fundamental resources
was offered in order to achieve two goals of
such as sufficient time and relevant intellectual
interest to the M.A.T. program: first, to establish
tools, and the like to enable them to productively
some standardization between the sections; and
engage in the kinds of disciplinary or other
second, as part of that standardization, to
substantive work that they are being asked to do.
emphasize classroom cases as an integral
component of instruction.
This study provides a particularly helpful
forum for testing and developing the Engle &
With respect to standardization, both sections
Conant (2002) principles because of two key
were organized around the same two overarching
contrasts between the circumstances of this study
psychological topics, which were presented in the
and those that preceded it. First, this study
same order: motivation, then learning. Within
allowed investigation of what might be involved in
each topic, both sections also introduced the
getting the principles established in a new class.
same set of psychological theories. For
In previous research, classroom norms relevant to
motivation, student teachers in both sections
the principles had already been established by
learned
about
behaviorist,
cognitive,
the time classroom discussions were recorded
contextualist, and social cognitive theories. For
and analyzed. Because this study focused on
learning, they were introduced to information
two sections of a course from their very
processing, Piagetian, and sociocultural theories.
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
4
Students in both sections were assigned to read
Most students who took the educational
similar excerpts from the same textbook (McDevitt
psychology course were enrolled in a one year,
& Ormrod, 2002). The instructors also both
full-time Master of Arts in Teaching program at a
assigned students to write short weekly reflection
mid-Atlantic university. During the school year,
papers, which contributed the same percentage
these students served as full-time student
to students’ final grades.
teachers while also taking a full load of four
required courses, each course meeting once a
One key goal of the course, featured
week for 15 weeks. Many of these student
prominently in both syllabi, was for student
teachers had taken one or more psychology or
teachers to be able to use a variety of
development courses as undergraduates, so
psychological theories to address realistic
most were familiar with some relevant theories
educational problems; discussions of classroom
(especially behaviorism and Piagetian theory).
cases were a primary instructional strategy
chosen to achieve this goal. Written cases were
The Monday section included 36 student
drawn from two compilations: Greenwood, Fillmer,
teachers, with 26 specializing in elementary
and Parkay (2002) and Jackson and Ormrod
education, 9 in secondary social studies, and 1
(1998). In both sections, student teachers were
practicing teacher who was an M.A. student in
first taught educational psychology content and
mathematics education. The Tuesday section
then required to analyze cases provided by the
included 23 student teachers, with 11 specializing
instructors. Cases were typically first analyzed in
in secondary science, 11 in foreign languages
small groups of four or five, which was then
(one with previous teaching experience), and 1
followed by a whole class discussion. Finally, the
from a music education master’s program at a
last third of each course was devoted to final
nearby university.
projects in which the student teachers
researched, wrote, and orally presented a case
This difference in the intended teaching
from their own classrooms that they were asked
areas of student teachers in the two sections also
to analyze using at least two of the psychological
may have been a factor in the differences that
theories covered in the course.
emerged in case discussions. Although we did
not know it at the time of the course, the local job
Differences between the Sections
market was particularly competitive at this time for
students in the elementary education program
While many efforts at standardizing the
and almost as competitive for students in the
course were successful, differences in how each
social studies education program. Student
section was conducted were inevitable given that
teachers in both programs, concentrated in the
two different instructors and groups of students
Monday night section, felt a great deal of
were involved. The most salient differences were
pressure to get high grades in order to have a
in the number of cases used, the sources of
chance of getting a teaching position. In contrast,
these cases, and their relationship to other
students in the foreign language education
activities in each section (see Table 1). For
program typically achieved 100% placement in
example, the Monday instructor used nine cases
entry-level teaching positions locally while
taken from both case books, while the Tuesday
students in the science education program were
instructor used six cases taken exclusively from
likewise assured of finding a position, if not
Greenwood et al. (2002). Most of the cases used
locally, then in other parts of the country. The
in one section were not used in the other; only
potential impact of these differences will be
two happened to be selected by both instructors.
discussed more fully later in the paper.
In addition, in the Monday section, the instructor
consistently chose cases that were closely linked
Both sections were taught by part-time
to theories the students had just learned about.
instructors with PhDs in educational psychology.
In the Tuesday section, such links were not
It was the first lead teaching experience for the
consistently apparent. Later in the paper we will
first author who taught the Monday section. The
specifically address how these and other
second author, who taught the Tuesday section,
differences in the sections may have affected the
had taught undergraduate educational
nature of the engagement that the student
psychology eight times and taught one previous
teachers demonstrated in each section’s case
offering of this course for MAT interns in which
discussions.
cases had been used.
Course Participants
Data Collected In Each Section
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
5
The primary data used for purposes of this
the initial codings was one way to guard against
paper are videotapes of the class meetings from
such bias. In addition, the information that these
each section, with a focus on excerpts during
codings provided about the frequencies of
whole-class discussions of the cases. The
various events over time helped prevent us from
Monday instructor videotaped the
case
focusing exclusively on one or two striking
discussions during the Tuesday section while
incidents, something that was very easy to do.
various individuals taped the Monday section.
Instead, we began to see how such events fit
These videotapes were augmented by the
within a much larger distribution of occurrences.
following other data sources: fieldnotes,
At the same time, however, we do grant that
overheads, handouts, course syllabi for each
these kinds of quantitative measures often make
section, relevant textbook passages, the written
simplistic assumptions about the nature of
cases the student teachers analyzed, and any
discourse that does not allow them to capture
instruction sheets they were given to guide them
many important nuances (e.g., Schegloff, 1993).
in their analyses before discussion.
However, we decided that in this situation their
benefits outweighed their costs. Having a base of
Data Analyses
initial findings about the nature of student
teachers’ engagement that we could rely on, we
We performed two sets of analyses, which
could then turn to some more interpretive and
required repeated viewing of the videotapes by
nuanced analyses in order to explain them.
both authors and sometimes a research assistant
and frequent references to the other data
Coding of the Student Teachers’ Participation
sources mentioned above in order to better
in the Case Discussions. First, as a basic
interpret what was going on. The first set of
measure of the student teachers’ levels of
analyses focused on documenting any
engagement in the case discussions, we coded
differences in the student teachers’ substantive
the proportion of student teachers who
engagement in the case discussions in each
participated in each discussion and how
section. The second set of analyses focused on
frequently they did so. The first author and/or a
explaining the observed differences by analyzing
research assistant watched the videotapes and
how different instructional choices affected the
recorded whenever each student teacher made a
degree to which the Engle & Conant (2002)
substantive contribution to the discussion. A
principles were embodied in each section.
substantive contribution was defined as an
utterance or series of utterances that was
Analyses of the Student Teachers’ Engagement
presented by the student teacher as being
in the Case Discussions
somehow relevant to the case being discussed. It
included everything that the student teacher said
For purposes of assessing the nature of the
until another student teacher began making a
student teachers’ engagement in the case
substantive contribution. To be coded as making
discussions, we coded three aspects of it and
more than one contribution to a discussion, a
collected examples relevant to one other aspect.
student teacher would need to have said
Our analyses focused on the degree to which the
something else that was separated by a
student teachers were engaged in the
contribution made by at least one other student
discussions and the degree to which that
teacher. Thus, a student teacher’s response to
engagement made contact with both educational
any comments or queries that the instructor might
psychology and practitioner discourses.
have made was counted as being part of the
However, as it was clear that none of the
same contribution. Therefore, this is a fairly
discussions had fully achieved such disciplinary
conservative, low-inference measure of how
engagement, there was little point in measuring
widely and how often student teachers
the degree to which the discussions were also
participated in each discussion.
productive as, by definition, this would be limited.
From this coding, we computed three
We began with three relatively low-inference,
measures: the percentage of student teachers
quantitative coding schemes to address the fact
who contributed to each discussion, the average
that we were serving as both the researchers and
number of contributions made per student
the instructors whose teaching outcomes were
teacher, and the mean number of new
being assessed. As instructors, each of us had a
contributors per minute of discussion. The first
deeply personal stake in how the results would
two measures were expressed as proportions per
come out. As researchers, we wanted to make
student teacher to take into account the fact that
sure that these obvious biases did not delude us.
the Monday section had more students than the
Reducing the complexity of inference needed in
Tuesday section. Correspondingly, the last
measure was calculated on a per minute basis to
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
6
take into account the fact that the case
Coding of the Student Teachers’ Use of Their
discussions varied widely in length both within
Classroom Experiences. Consistent with our goal
and between sections. On average, case
to expand the Engle & Conant (2002) framework
discussions in the Monday section lasted
to consider substantive engagement in important
somewhat longer (µ = 24 min 58 sec; SD = 11
discourses beyond disciplinary ones, we also
min 22 sec) than those in the Tuesday section (µ
coded student teachers’ use of their own
= 19 min 26 sec; SD = 7 min 26 sec), although
classroom experiences during the
case
there was more than enough variability within
discussions. To do this, we identified all
sections so that this mean difference was not
references to classroom experiences in the two
statistically reliable (t(13) = 1.05, p = .31).
comparable pairs of case discussions, Which is
Higher? and The Little Engine that Couldn’t.
Coding of the Student Teachers’ Use of
These references were almost always at a larger
Educational Psychology Terms. This second
grain size than the educational psychology terms
coding was intended to give us a quick measure
identified in the previous coding. Instead of
of the degree to which the student teachers’
specific terms that referred to classroom
engagement with the case discussions was
experiences, student teachers would most often
grounded in the discipline of educational
relate a story from a classroom in which they had
psychology. To do this, we adapted a coding
taught or been a student, usually connecting it to
methodology used by Lundeberg and
issues from the case that was being discussed.
Scheurman (1997) and looked for evidence that
Each such new story from a new individual was
the student teachers had used educational
coded as a new reference to classroom
psychology terms that had been presented in
experiences. Given the differences in grain size
class when discussing the cases. Since some
between references to educational psychology
cases are likely to encourage use of more
versus to classroom experiences, even if
educational psychology terms than others, we
equivalent attention was paid to both sources,
focused our coding for this analysis on the two
one might expect fewer numbers of references to
cases that that were discussed in both sections:
classroom experiences than to educational
The Little Engine that Couldn’t and Which is
psychology terms.
Higher?, both from Greenwood et al. (2002).
Drawing on relevant textbook chapters, lecture
Observations About Student Teachers’
notes, course handouts, and the case itself, we
Positioning of Their Contributions to the
first constructed lists of psychological terms that
Discussions. Finally, while reflecting on case
the student teachers could have drawn on in their
discussions after facilitating them and then
analyses of each case. For example, included in
coding the videotapes of them afterwards, we
our list of 109 terms for the motivation-oriented
were struck by one additional aspect of the
case, The Little Engine That Couldn’t, were terms
student teachers’ engagement that appeared to
like “learned helplessness,” “reinforcement,” and
differ between the sections: how the student
“attribution.” We then identified when, if at all,
teachers typically positioned their contributions to
student teachers had used each term during the
the case discussions. Specifically, some
discussion, with repetitions of a term during the
positioned their contributions as representing
same teacher contribution counted only once
their own conclusions about the issues raised by
because that concept had already been
the case while others seemed to be trying to give
introduced. For terms like “motivation” and
"right answers," or the conclusions they thought
“expectation” that are used both in common
the instructor was looking for. We decided to look
parlance and in a more technical sense in
for evidence relevant to this issue as we believe
educational psychology, we listened carefully to
that students are more likely to use knowledge in
what the student teachers said about the terms
the future if they have a greater degree of
to determine whether they were being used in a
ownership over it (see Engle, in press).
technical sense, only coding the term as
disciplinary if it was clear that this was how it was
Analyses of Instructional Choices Affecting the
being used. Although we recognize that students'
Embodiment of the Principles
use (or non-use) of technical terms does not
necessarily reflect their degree of understanding
Having documented the extent and nature of
of the concepts to which they refer, coding of
the student teachers’ engagement in the case
such terms did provide an efficient and reliable
discussions in each section, the next analytic
measure of the degree to which the student
step was to explain these patterns by analyzing
teachers had adopted one fundamental element
how three of the four principles in the Engle and
of the discourse practice of educational
Conant (2002) framework were embodied in each
psychology, namely its terminology.
class section. We decided to focus just on the
principles of problematizing, authority, and
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
7
accountability for purposes of this analysis, as
there were already so many issues involved in
RESULTS
successfully embodying these three that
consideration of whether sufficient resources had
Differences in Student Teachers’ Disciplinary
been provided to the students was somewhat
Engagement in Case Discussions
moot.
Student Teachers’ Participation in the Case
However, as we continued to be concerned
Discussions.
about our personal interests inappropriately
leading us to particular interpretations, we
decided to begin our analysis by first
Student teachers’ overall participation in
documenting differences in observable
case-based whole group discussions differed
instructional choices and only then considering
quantitatively in each section. As shown in Table
the potential impact of each of these choices on
1, on average a higher percentage of student
the embodiment of the principles in each section.
teachers contributed to case discussions in the
In addition, we felt that instructional choices
Tuesday section (µ = 57.6%, SD = 8.1%) than in
would be a unit of analysis that would be likely to
the Monday section (µ = 38.1%, SD = 12.1%), a
correspond to the level at which other instructors
statistically reliable result (t(13) = 3.40, p < .01).
make decisions about how to use cases in their
However, there was no significant difference
instruction while still providing helpful illustrations
between sections in the mean number of
of what it might look like to embody (or not quite
contributions made per student teacher in each
embody) each principle.
discussion (µMonday = 0.93 vs. µTuesday = 1.07; t(13) =
0.70, p = .50). There was also a marginally
significant trend in the direction of more new
Specifically, in this analysis we considered the
contributors per minute in the Tuesday
potential impact of differences between the
discussions (µ = 0.74, S D = 0.21) than the
sections on four types of instructional choices:
Monday discussions (µ = 0.56, SD = 0.19; t(13) =
the instructors’ choices of which cases to discuss,
1.80, p = .09). Putting these results together, it
their methods for introducing case discussions,
appears that a smaller proportion of student
their methods for responding to participants’
teachers usually contributed to any one case
contributions to the discussions, and their grading
discussion in the Monday section, but that each
practices. We analyzed the impact of each of
contributor may have contributed somewhat more
these instructional choices on the embodiment of
frequently than in the Tuesday section. These
the principles of problematizing, authority, and
levels of participation are significantly higher than
accountability. Finally, we considered how this
the mean participation of 26% found in a
might help us understand differences in how the
previous study of 20 university humanities and
student teachers engaged in case discussions in
social science classes (Nunn, 1996), with the
each section.
Monday section roughly corresponding to the 75th
percentile and the Tuesday section to the 90th
percentile of classes in that study. However,
given that most classes in the Nunn study
devoted only one or two minutes to class
discussions, our interpretation is that the Tuesday
discussions were characterized by fairly solid
levels of participation while the Monday
discussions varied from rather low to relatively
solid levels of participation depending on the
discussion.
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
8
Table 1. Student teachers’ participation in the case discussions in each section
Week
Case
Theories most
Theories just
Length
% of sts.
Inputs
Inputs
relevant to case
discussed in
(min.)
contributing
/min.
class
/stud.
MONDAY SECTION
3
“Throwing
Social-cognitive
Social-cognitive
42:30
44%
1.31
0.38
Tantrums”
3
“Distracting
Social-cognitive
Social-cognitive
21:47
28%
0.53
0.46
Influence”
4
“The
Cognitive-
Cognitive-
26:36
53%
1.17
0.72
Perfectionist”
motivational
motivational
5
“The Bulletin
Two above plus
Two above plus
41:41
60%
1.24
0.48
Board”
Behaviorism
Behaviorism
6
“The Little
Three above plus
Three above
26:24
33%
0.73
0.42
Engine That
Contextualism
plus
Couldn’t”
Contextualism
7
“Learning the
Information
Information
26:44
41%
1.22
0.48
Lines”
processing
processing
8
“Pollution”
Piagetian
Piagetian
13:56
24%
0.55
0.50
9
“The Research
Vygotskian
Vygotskian
12:23
35%
0.47
0.97
Paper”
10
“Which Is
All 3 theories
All 3 theories
12:44
26%
1.19
0.68
Higher?”
above
above
Monday Means
24:58
38%
0.93
0.56
Monday SDs
11:22
12%
0.35
0.19
TUESDAY SECTION
2
“Glory That Was
Cognitive-
Cognitive-
17:40
57%
0.87
0.74
Greece”
motivational
motivational;
Behaviorism
3
“The
Social-cognitive;
Social-cognitive;
24:47
57%
1.26
0.52
Comedienne”
Behaviorism
Cog-motivational
4
“The Little
Three above plus
Contextualism
14:36
65%
1.00
1.03
Engine That
Contextualism
Couldn’t”
7
“To Retain or
None (focus on
Piagetian
32:00
70%
1.74
0.50
Not to Retain”
social dev. level)
8
“Withdrawn
Behaviorism;
Vygotskian
13:50
52%
0.91
0.89
Wanda”
Social Cognitive;
Cog-Motivational;
Contextualism
9
“Which is
Info. Processing,
Information
14:08
46%
0.63
0.78
Higher?”
Piagetian,
Processing
Vygotskian
Tuesday Means
19.26
58%
1.07
0.74
Tuesday SDs
17.27
9%
0.39
0.21
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
9
Student Teachers’ Use
o f
Educational
differences in the lengths of the discussions,
Psychology Terms in the Case Discussions.
there was still more use of psychology terms in
the Monday discussions than the Tuesday
The frequency and types of references to
discussions (1.43 vs. 0.56 terms per minute, and
disciplinary knowledge during the case
0.90 vs. 0.42 unique terms per minute).
discussions also differed between the sections.
As shown in Table 2, student teachers used more
Overall, from analyzing the two comparable
educational psychology terms during both of the
pairs of discussions, it appears that there was
two comparable discussions in the Monday
more explicit use of educational psychology
section than they did in the Tuesday section. In
concepts in the Monday section than in the
particular, in both Monday discussions, student
Tuesday section. In addition, our observations of
teachers used more educational psychology
the rest of the case discussions in both classes
terms (µMonday = 15.5 vs. µTuesday = 6.0) and they did
are consistent with this pattern of more use of
so more often (µMonday = 25.0 vs. µTuesday = 8.0).
disciplinary terms and concepts in the case
Normalizing these measures to take into account
discussions on Monday as compared to Tuesday.
Table 2. Use of educational psychology terms in each section during discussions around two cases
# Times
# Unique
Unique
Terms per
Length
# Teacher
terms
terms
Terms
terms
teacher
Case
Section (min.)
inputs
mentioned
mentioned
per
per min.
contribution
min
“The Little
Mon.
26:24
24
26
16
0.98
0.61
1.08
Engine
That
Couldn’t”
Tues.
14:36
23
7
5
0.48
0.34
0.30
Mon.
12:44
37
24
15
1.88
1.18
0.64
“Which Is
Higher?”
Tues.
14:05
15
9
7
0.64
0.50
0.60
Mon.
19:34
30.5
25.0
15.5
1.43
0.90
0.86
MEANS
Tues.
14:21
19.0
8.0
6.0
0.56
0.42
0.45
Student Teachers’ Use of Their Classroom
references to such classroom experiences on
Experiences
Tuesday but none on Monday. Similarly, when
discussing The Little Engine that Couldn’t, there
We found somewhat opposite differences
were five references on Tuesday but only two on
between the sections in the extent to which
Monday. This last difference is particularly notable
student teachers used their own classroom
given that the Monday instructor (but not the
experiences—either as students or as student
Tuesday instructor) had explicitly told the student
teachers—in discussing the two common cases.
teachers beforehand that solving the challenging
In particular, student teachers in the Tuesday
problems in this case would require that they
section seemed to draw liberally on their
draw on their “practitioner expertise.” In our
classroom experiences in discussing the cases,
experience, this general pattern held in the rest
while references to personal classroom
of the cases discussed in each section (with
experiences or other forms of clinical expertise
perhaps even fewer references to classroom
were rare in the Monday section. For example,
experiences in the other Monday discussions).
when discussing Which is Higher?, there were six
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---

Disciplinary Engagement in Case Discussions
10
Student Teachers’ Positioning o f
Their
that student teachers face in actual teaching
Contributions to the Discussions
situations. They are from seven to eight pages
long, are written in the form of a play script, often
We noted one more qualitative difference in
include additional data such as student exam
student teachers' discussions around the cases
scores or demographic information, and provide
in the two sections. In the Monday section,
many details, only some of which are relevant for
student teachers often did not seem to be
addressing the multifaceted problems in the
presenting what they personally thought about
cases. In contrast, the Jackson and Ormrod
either the case or the theories, but instead what
(1998) cases are only one to three pages long,
they thought the instructor would consider a
are written in the form of a focused narrative with
correct application of theoretical concepts to the
quotations, and do not include additional data or
case in question. It was not unusual for student
extra details. Some of these cases depict
teachers to seek out feedback from the instructor
relatively effective teaching practices, but most
about whether what they had said about the
present problematic classroom situations, some of
case was correct or not, and to judge their own
which are resolved by the end of the case. All of
contributions in terms of a correct/incorrect
the Jackson and Ormrod cases were explicitly
judgment scheme. In contrast, in the Tuesday
designed to illustrate one or two particular
section, student teachers usually appeared to be
psychological theories, with a chart at the
offering their personal ideas about the cases.
beginning of the book identifying which cases are
There were more frequent uses of phrases like “I
relevant to which theories. The Greenwood et al.
think,” “I believe,” and the like, in which student
(2002) cases also include a list of potential
teachers explicitly associated themselves with
theoretical concepts to consider in analysis, but
particular knowledge claims (Engle & Conant,
the instructors removed these lists from the cases
2002). Thus, when the Tuesday night student
before presenting them to the student teachers.
teachers made use of any psychological
concepts, one got the sense that the concepts
The Tuesday instructor exclusively used the
they had used were ones that they personally
longer, more complex cases from Greenwood et
believed were valid, rather than ones they were
al. (2002), while the Monday instructor used six
adopting temporarily for purposes of impressing
cases from Jackson and Ormrod (1998) and three
the instructor and doing well in the class. This
from Greenwood et al. (2002). In each topical
difference is important, because one might
section of the course, the Monday instructor
expect student teachers to be more likely, in their
started with mostly Jackson and Ormrod (1998)
future teaching, to use concepts that they had
cases and ended with a Greenwood et al. (2002)
more personal ownership over than those that
case after multiple theories had been introduced.
they had adopted temporarily for practical
In the Monday section, case discussions always
reasons (see Engle, in press).
followed class sessions in which the specific
theories relevant to that case had been
DISCUSSION:
discussed while in the Tuesday section there
P
were many different relationships between the
OSSIBLE EFFECTS OF
theories just covered in class and those most
FOUR INSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES
relevant to analyzing the cases (see columns four
and five of Table 1). In the motivation portion of
We now turn to considering how four different
the Tuesday section, there was considerable
instructional choices—which cases to discuss,
overlap between the theories just discussed in
how to introduce case discussions, how to
class and those relevant to analyzing the cases;
respond to student teachers’ contributions during
but in the learning portion of that section, in two
d i s c u s s i o n s ,
a n d
i n s t r u c t o r s ’
grading
of the three discussions (To Retain or Not to
practices—might have affected the embodiment
Retain and Withdrawn Wanda) there was little
of the Engle and Conant (2002) principles, and
connection between the theories that had been
thus the different patterns of engagement we
just discussed and those that were relevant to
found in each section.
the cases. Part of the reason for this is the
Tuesday instructor felt it was more difficult to find
Choice of Cases to Discuss
cases in his preferred casebook Greenwood et al.
(2002) that were both interesting and realistic,
The instructors had available to them cases
and helpful for illustrating specific learning
from the Greenwood et al. (2002) and Jackson
theories.
and Ormrod (1998) casebooks. The Greenwood
et al. (2002) cases claim to reflect the most
There were a variety of likely effects of these
difficult or most frequently experienced problems
different choices of cases to discuss on the
embodiment of three of the Engle & Conant
June, 2006
Teaching Educational Psychology, Vol. 1:2

---