Social sciences and the key competencies: A practitioner reflects
Lyn Lewis
Abstract
This article explores the way in which a teacher educator worked with a group of undergraduate student teachers to use social sciences as a vehicle for developing three key competencies. While the study is primarily practitioner focused, it does include student perspectives of the learning process. The argument is made that preservice student teachers, who will be expected to teach through key competencies in the classroom, should be experiencing learning through key competencies in their teacher-education programme. Not only will they understand the process of teaching through the competencies, but their learning experiences will serve as useful future reference points when similar expectations are made of their students.
Introduction
The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) includes five key competencies alongside eight learning areas, with an expectation that teaching learning-area content and developing key competencies will be closely interconnected. Such a connection has been shown to be the case in the school sector, particularly amongst “early adopter” schools (Hipkins & Boyd, 2011). However, in the initial teacher education (ITE) sector, where preservice teachers are prepared for classroom practice, my experience is that the key competencies are a distant cousin to the learning area, as they are largely ignored in curriculum studies or methods courses. Once in the classroom, these graduates will be expected to translate their curriculum theory into practice through the lens of the key competencies. This article, based in practitioner research, considers a learning activity which integrated three key competencies into social sciences curriculum content. The focus was on learning through key competencies while more traditional social sciences pedagogical content knowledge was backgrounded. My aim is to provoke teacher educator colleagues to recognise and respond to the silence which exists regarding preparing preservice teachers in relation to the key competencies.
A brief consideration of the literature
The concept of competencies in education can be tracked over the past 50 years, and their meaning and application has been widely debated and critiqued (Hunter, Keown, & Wynyard, 2010; Reid, 2006). The set of key competencies described in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), while related to the essential skills described in the Ministry of Education’s 1993 New Zealand Curriculum Framework, are in fact far more complex (Hunter et al., 2010). They owe their origin to the Defining and Selecting Key Competencies Projec. (DeSeCo) initiated by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in 2005 (Barker, 2008; Hipkins, 2006a). A scrutiny of The New Zealand Curriculum reveals mention of the key competencies in various parts of the document. While they are described as “both a means and an end” and as “the key to learning in every learning area” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 12), nowhere is their expression in the aspirational front end explicitly linked to the more traditional learning areas in the back end of the document (Hipkins & Boyd, 2011). It thus might appear to the reader that the key competencies are in fact not key to learning, but are just a recommended consideration! Curriculum designers in ITE programmes must, of necessity, take cognisance of the curriculum framework within which their graduates will practice. However, such weak messages about integrating key competencies in learning-area content run the risk of ITE that does not adequately prepare preservice teachers for the complexity and depth of understanding required, nor give them the means of applying this understanding to authentic practice. In reality, faced with the competing demands of a crowded curriculum, teacher educators called on to make decisions about how best to prepare preservice teachers with the pedagogical content knowledge related to a specific learning area may not perceive key competencies as a central focus for their work.
For those considering working with key competencies, various approaches are possible. Reid (2006) suggests that at worst they can be used to maintain the status quo by naming the key competency while keeping a focus on content. At best they can enact transformation of curriculum in “socially-just and democratic ways” (p. 60) as students are prepared to function in and on the world through a combination of knowledge, skills, and capabilities. Reid (2006) recommends, for greater authentic practice, a shift towards the educator “selecting knowledge content with reference to its role in developing a competency, not solely as an end in itself” (p. 54). Hipkins and Boyd (2011) go even further when they introduce the idea of key competencies as active agents of curriculum change with as-yet-unrealised potential to link the front and back ends of the curriculum document.
The Social Sciences learning area offers particular opportunity for learning through key competencies. Hipkins (2005) reinforces Reid’s (2006) point regarding the potential of key competencies to transform and develop positive citizenship attributes. Hipkins (2006a) illustrates this point through an analysis of authentic social contexts in which the key competency participating and contributing can be used as education for citizenship. The development of personal and professional social literacies might build positive citizenship outcomes evidenced in social action and social justice in a democratic society.
An exploration of the literature on New Zealand key competencies and curriculum revealed some work focused on specific key competencies such as thinking and using language, symbols and texts (McChesney & Cowie, 2008), while other authors focused on key competencies, in particular, curriculum areas such as outdoor education (Bilcliff, 2011), the arts (O’Connor & Dunmill, 2005) and language and mathematics (Bailey et al., 2010). Apart from Baldwin’s (2009) paper on planning at school level and Hunter et al.’s (2010) ITE study, also related to planning, there appears to be a paucity of literature on social sciences and key competencies, particularly with reference to ITE.
The Teacher Research Movement is a phenomenon of the past three decades and includes the methodologies of practitioner research, action research, participatory research, and self-study (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Connell & Campbell, 2007). One of the strong themes identified within the movement is the teacher-educator group as an inquiry community. Teacher educator research aims to inform practice and student learning, as well as contribute towards the production of knowledge on the practice of teaching. It also might transform university culture by challenging traditional pedagogies (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The professional learning gleaned from my project takes a small step in this direction.
Theoretical framework and methodology
This qualitative study draws on naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) through an interpretive approach which aims to understand the internal reality of the subjective experiences of the teacher educator. Furthermore, this is insider research, focused on a self-study involving systematic intentional inquiry (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007; Cochrane-Smith & Lytle, 1999) of own practice. With this in mind, an acknowledgement of the subjective role of self in the project is necessary and I declare myself as a middle-aged, European, and female researcher in a New Zealand university context.
While my own professional learning and greater self-knowledge was an intended outcome, the focus of the study is not on the self per se, but on the space between self and the arena of practice (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). Improving my practice is “second order” to the student learning, my “first order” issue of practice (Somekh & Lewin, 2005). Self-study through journaling was selected as the way of representing and understanding my experience over time and in a particular context (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Regular journal entries were recorded over the course of a semester, with particular in-depth reflections at “nodal moments” of professional learning (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). To reflect the student teacher voices an informal evaluation involving a short questionnaire was administered at the end of the semester.
The study
Fifty-four second year Bachelor of Education (primary) student teachers at Auckland University of Technology (AUT University) participated in the curriculum paper “Social Sciences”. This paper has always had a strong pedagogical basis in the content strands of The New Zealand Curriculum, so the move to a key-competency-based approach was innovative. My main focus question was: how could key competencies be used innovatively to enrich the learning experience of preservice teacher education students in social sciences?
The three key competencies managing self, relating to others, and participating and contributin. were to be the “means and the end” of learning, with social sciences a partner in the process. This was achieved through a group community project involving social action, contextualised through the competency participating and contributing. Student teachers, working in self-selected groups, were required to set personal goals related to managing self and relating to others, which were to be achieved during the process of the group project. The student teachers were then to self-appraise through a written reflection and provide evidence in the form of an appropriate artefact. Each student teacher was required to present an engagement with the group community project through a visual narrative represented by uploaded photographs in an eportfolio (electronic portfolio), with a self-appraisal task uploaded as two files. Eportfolios are a particularly appropriate tool for working with key competencies as they support reflective thinking (Milman, 2005); allow for self-appraisal, which draws on a synthesis of theory and practice (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005); and record growth and development over time (Barrett, 2005).
The key competency experience
Five significant reflection points in the process are explored, each representing a nodal moment of professional learning for myself as the teacher educator.
Nodal moment 1: Introducing the key competency approach
Student teachers were aware of the existence of the key competencies but had not previously had these as a focus in a curriculum learning area. Through a PowerPoint presentation, the component parts of the competencies were explored and application of the key competencies within social science contexts was richly demonstrated. As illustrated in the following extract from my journal, the student teachers remained neutral and unconvinced of the value of teaching and learning through the key competencies:
I thought my PowerPoint presentation would have excited the student teachers far more than it did. They seemed unmoved and a number were quite distracted at times. Certainly there is not an apparent appreciation of the shift towards a more authentic learning and teaching approach for the student teachers themselves. It might be that I have an idea of what I’m expecting as an outcome, whereas for them it is about empty and superficial words at this stage. Some of them even voiced their negative feelings about yet another group project.
The expectation that preservice student teachers would automatically make links between theory and future professional practice was misplaced. The notion of an innovative learning task to enrich the student teachers’ learning experience was not received as such by the group. I found the professional learning from this session to be extremely challenging to my teacher identity, which was accustomed to regular affirming feedback on my presentation style. It became obvious to me that teacher personality was not enough to persuade the student teachers of the learning outcomes of this activity.
Nodal moment 2: Group workshop sessions
Two scheduled workshops were incorporated into the programme to accommodate group time for planning and preparation for the community project. The first emerging issue related to selection of a personal goal. This was partly due to the superficial interpretation and understanding of the key competency itself. It took a while for the student teachers to realise that managing self was not just about behaviour, but about engagement with learning (Hipkins, 2006b); relating to others was not necessarily only viewed from an individual’s perspective, but could also be related to the group responsibility for the individual. The freedom to select any appropriate goal for personal learning created a sense of vulnerability and insecurity for some student teachers. This feeling was reinforced when the student teachers sought to identify and plan artefacts as evidence of achievement. For some, the responsibility of self-directed and self-monitored learning was a new experience and one that caused discomfort. My journal entry following this session summarised the sense of empowerment felt by stronger student teachers and disempowerment felt by those who were more dependent on the approval of the teacher educator:
I noticed today that some groups quickly assembled and after discussion about an appropriate project and the organisation of such, they moved onto the setting of individual goals. Immediately there were cries of: ‘How do we do this? It’s too hard using the key competency,’ and ‘Is this OK as a goal?’ They were looking to me to affirm their choice of goals or to direct them. I stressed the need for individual goals that would stretch them as individuals, drawing attention to the fact that ‘learning’ was the key criteria against which they were to self-assess achievement, and not to look to me for approval or acceptance of a goal. Some still tended towards the obvious outcomes, such as a person with strong leadership skills setting a goal of being a supportive team member. However, it was very interesting to note some personal risk-taking, such as one student teacher pushing herself to give blood, another with a phobia of personal photographs decided to allow a photo to be taken and to publish this in her eportfolio, and yet another aiming to persevere at the task regardless of the distractions.
After reflection on the previous session I had decided to play far less of a directive role and hand over responsibility for solving problems to individuals and their groups, thus encouraging them to become more autonomous and self-directed. Many student teachers remained unconvinced of the possibilities for learning and teaching through key competencies embedded within the activity. For some, there was a glimmer of insight and understanding of the potential for enhanced learning and teaching, but for many this continued to be a task required by the teacher educator. Again I found the professional learning from this session difficult. I felt downhearted as I was excited by the potential outcomes of the activity, but felt powerless to ignite that same spark in some student teachers. Positive engagement with the activity needed to be invested by the individual and group. That shift came in the following session and it was through peer sharing.
Nodal moment 3: Spontaneous group sharing session
One group returned from their weekend keen to share their experiences. While this was unplanned, the exemplar of work and the enthusiasm of the group served as an important model for others. The narrative in my journal entry sums up the atmosphere of this session:
I got XX to show her eposter and then each of her group related something of their weekend experience. It was inspirational! They presented with passion, reporting on their time with a group of elderly, very fit and focused nature lovers, who were laying bait traps for rats which were threatening protected birds. They shared their individual goals and how, being aware of the goals for each member of the group, they were able to support each other to achievement … Their goals were highly individualistic in terms of growing competencies, and what was interesting was to see these always at the forefront during the weekend, there was no intention to quickly complete the goals and then enjoy the task, it was for them an integrated part of the experience. For me, as the lecturer, the enthusiasm of their presentation, the competition for ‘air space’ to share the experience and the fact that the task was completed weeks before the deadline, was more than I had expected. This certainly served as a good model (and motivation) for the rest of the class.
On reflection, the exemplar and shared lived experience served to shift the group far more convincingly towards a positive approach to the learning than I was able to do as the teacher educator. Experiential learning for preservice student teachers is no different in its learning outcomes from that which we plan for children in classrooms, yet it is my experience that so often at tertiary level we teacher educators fail to move far from the theory, expecting instead that student teachers will create the bridge into their professional practice. After the presentation during this session, albeit a vicarious experience for the majority of the group, confidence levels soared and students went about the work with a more positive attitude. I felt energised by what could only be termed “excited anticipation” within the class to engage in the activity. This left me feeling confident that student teachers would work autonomously towards achievement. In fact, the next time I was to encounter the learning activity was at the point of submission of their eportfolio. I was not sought out for support, which I took to be a positive indication of confident student teacher engagement.
Nodal moment 4: Submission of eportfolios
The individual nature of each eposter was striking. Even though group members had similar photographs, the selection of images, individual design and presentation gave each its own character. This was largely because the learning criteria stated that the focus was on personal learning associated with the goal. Much of the self-appraisal offered insights into the student teachers themselves, and it was not always the obvious academic who wrote most convincingly about their learning, as I reflected in my journal:
I have to admit that unlike much of the repetitive essay reading one does in this job, I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the eportfolios and reading the diverse reflections related to achievement of goals. The feedback which I thought might be difficult because of its personal context was far easier than anticipated. Because the focus was on the student teacher identifying their learning and presenting a convincing case for the achievement of the goal, I found it easy to use this as my feedback focus. The selection of artefacts was fascinating and most creative. Some wrote journals, others were creative and sought references from group members, while many used photographs to illustrate goal achievement. The visual evidence of the community project in terms of participating and contributing was fascinating. In one case a member had arrived late for the project and fortunately had acknowledged such, for she was missing from the visual record during that time as evidenced in her group members’ eportfolios!
The effort that student teachers had invested in the design and creation of the eportfolio was more than expected and this spoke of the obvious engagement and pride many had in their relationship with the activity. Expression and articulation of insights into their own competency and personal transformation through the learning experience was heartening in many cases. Even the academically weakest student teacher was able to demonstrate a level of engagement and learning through the key competencies not seen previously in their written work. As a teacher educator, I was well satisfied by the level of achievement demonstrated by the student teachers and proud of their personal and professional growth evidenced through their reflective writing.
The final step for me in evaluating the learning activity was to talk with the student teachers about their experience. This was done through small groups discussing the benefits and challenges of their group experience and also done by individual student teachers evaluating the task and process through a short questionnaire.
Nodal moment 5: Student teacher and group evaluations
My reflection after this session is in sharp contrast to the initial observations early in the course:
I am blown away, not one single participant, not one group had any negative comment to make about this assignment, bar the need for a higher word limit for the reflection so they could further explore their learning! The experience has for many been transformational, both personally and professionally. Many have stated that they had not previously engaged in anything related to community, but this authentic experience has motivated them to volunteer on a more regular basis. On a professional note, I was particularly impressed at how many made the connection between their experience of participating and contributing and their intentions for their future classroom practice. What I had hoped to hear after the first session was now being aired by many. This is the way to teach and learn social sciences; not only through authentic experiences, but through personal and applied work in key competencies.
In the following section I present some of the feedback from the student teacher evaluation to illustrate their perspective of learning through key competencies. A number talked about their personal learning; for example, one stated: “I’m now so aware of how key competencies fit into my life”, while another said: “I found that learning through doing was almost effortless, I learnt a lot of relevant stuff both about myself as well as what I can use in the classroom.”
Many commented on the value of engaging with community, and one student teacher made links with her professional practice: “Was great to give something back to the community and I felt that this activity pushed me to go outside my comfort zone and inspired me to include community work as a teacher.”
Another student teacher went so far as to say: “I can use the practical project for learners to develop higher order thinking to link to action and behaviour to develop and grow as significant, contributing citizens.”
While classroom application was not a focus of this activity, student teachers automatically transferred their learning as reflected in these comments: “It opened my eyes to what our children face when we ask them to complete group work,” and “Helped me know how to teach through key competencies and what children would experience when they engaged in this.”
I probed the elements of the goal-setting task and found that the majority of student teachers experienced the setting of personal goals and the identification of evidential artefacts at the planning stage to be the most challenging aspect of the task.
The groups were asked to comment on the way in which the key competencies related to how they were as a group. I was interested to know how the group dynamics might have differed from the experiences they had with collaborative or co-operative tasks. In this instance, the group activity provided a context for individual achievement of goals. Their responses were insightful, particularly as they aligned closely with my earlier professional observations about student teacher autonomy. Individuals (and indeed groups as a whole) became centred on supporting one another, while also assuming responsibility for their own task achievement. The group responses which follow reveal a greater awareness of action/task relationship, triggered by the focus on key competencies, as well as a recognition of growing relationships through group ownership of the activity, which bonded members who previously might not have known one another:
We became mindful of our actions and how they relate to the key competencies, whereas normally they are part of our instinctive/subconscious work ethic.
We really enjoyed being given the responsibility to organise our project ourselves as well as being able to interact with each other outside of uni and with people in the community.
My professional learning following this final session with the student teachers was the humbling realisation of what I have always known in theory: student-directed and autonomous practice combined with authentic experiences will yield far deeper learning outcomes than can be provided by a teacher-directed presentation. My objectives for the project had more than been realised, yet this had been achieved through assuming a professional role that I had not anticipated. My view of who I was as a teacher was profoundly disrupted.
Discussion
In reflecting on the value of using the key competencies to enhance the learning and teaching of preservice student teachers in social sciences, particularly in terms of their preparation for teaching, five themes emerged. As student teacher learning was my first order of learning from practice, this is the obvious place to start.
Theme 1: Personalised learning experiences for student teachers
The key competencies enabled student teachers to be more self-directed. This was achieved through goal-setting and the attendant evidenced achievement. Thus, they reported that even in the midst of their engagement with the community project, their personal goals focused their actions and thoughts around key competencies. Goal-focused thinking relates to increased motivation, perseverance and engagement with the task. This highly specific thinking tool is recognised to be of value in learning (Blackburn & Hakel, 2006). Reflection and self-appraisal related to personal and professional learning are further cognitive tools with potential to transform learning (Pedro, 2005). For some student teachers, the insights at a personal level, and the expression and representation of self through reflection, triggered a deeper learning experience than that experienced through traditional academic essay writing. The range of skills demanded of student teachers through this learning task included active participation, involvement in decision making and often problem solving.
The visual medium of the eportfolio reflected student teacher decision making through selection of images, while layout and design added a creative dimension to the visual narrative. Some commented that they could not hide behind a page of theoretical words; they had to put themselves into their reflective writing and eportfolio visuals. They felt, to a degree, “exposed” to their teacher educator, as their eportfolio
(re)presented their “self”.
Theme 2: Professional learning for student teachers
The transfer of learning to future professional practice in the classroom was immediately made by all student teachers, despite the activity focus on a personal learning experience. The student teachers had no difficulty in making links with social sciences for social action and citizenship, with some declaring their intention to continue their community involvement. They strongly felt that having had this experience as a teacher, they would know how to support their students through a similar experience and would be more realistic in their expectations. Although I articulated the value of learning through key competencies during the introductory session, the abstract words I spoke only became meaningful and relevant following the experience. This represents a significant point for reflection on the preparation of student teachers for classroom practice.
Theme 3: Innovative self-assessment
The nature of the self-assessment, with its focus on key competencies within an authentic learning context (the community project), was successful at several levels. First, at the level of student involvement in assessment. Hipkins (2006b) contends that involvement in real-world contexts leads to authentic participation This was demonstrated by the student teachers’ self-appraisal of goal achievement. Furthermore, Delandshere (2002) lays down the challenge that the purpose of assessment should be inquiry into learning. Such metacognition by the student requires that they are involved in the assessment context as well as being their own assessor of learning. Assessment related to key competencies should not be about recording indicators, criteria, marks, grades, or rubrics, but about rich descriptions, examples, accounts, and narratives (Hipkins, 2007). The learning that these student teachers related to their task aptly illustrates this point.
Secondly, at the level of assessment detail—such as seeking support to justify arguments— student teachers commented on the value of being able to draw from their own experience as evidence of achievement. University students become reliant on seeking support for argument and critique from theory and research. While there was some need to reference literature, particularly relating to key competencies, here the major source of learning was of a personal nature. Thus this opportunity opened up a deeper well of insight into personal capabilities and how these might translate into practice and vice versa.
Theme 4: Authenticity of key competencies in practice
A focus on key competencies deepened intrapersonal and interpersonal engagement. Student teachers described groups as different from those they had experienced in other co-operative or collaborative assignments. They noted that being aware of individuals’ goals and then supporting their achievement acted as a kind of “glue” in bonding members. Many groups commented on the value of establishing relationships and working together outside the university environment in a range of unusual contexts, such as cleaning animal enclosures at the zoo, planting sand dunes on Waiheke Island, assisting with a mailout from the Salvation Army or cleaning a marae. These provided rich settings for group interaction. The fact that group members were dealing with personal competency goals aimed at taking them outside their comfort zone meant that the level of engagement between group members was deep and personal, often opening up areas of vulnerability and trust.
Some groups acknowledged difficult group dynamics around issues of organisation when the leader was shy or lacking in leadership skills but had set leadership of the group as a personal goal. In such instances, frustrations were expressed in reflective writing by all members, including the leader, yet often with a degree of understanding and an intention to problem solve based on a deeper understanding of the key competency relating to others. Overall, the value of the three key competencies that were the focus of the learning activity—managing self, relating to others and participating and contributing—became meaningful realities rather than empty words to these groups. For future teachers who will need to teach through the key competencies, such experiences were recognised as being invaluable as authentic learning.
Theme 5: The role of the teacher educator
As my journaling reveals, my ability to bring about the intended learning outcomes through lecturing or workshops was limited. A waning of the power position I would normally hold in class accompanied my intentional distancing from direct intervention following the “disastrous” initial session, so as to encourage greater mutual support within groups. This was accelerated during the spontaneous sharing by one group with the class, when I noticed a distinct shift in power as peers proved more successful in motivating and supporting the engagement of their peers with the activity. Group autonomy became stronger. My role lay in initiating the project, providing prompts where necessary, monitoring progress from an objective distance and trusting the groups to take charge of their own learning. Consequently, individual responsibility for learning became a meaningful reality. For tertiary students, indeed for all students, such a shift towards student-centred learning is to be celebrated. This success was evidenced in the group projects as well as in the individual eportfolio entries.
Regular journaling to inform my self-study has deepened my understanding of my work as a teacher educator and it has enabled me to release my student teachers to more empowering and engaging experiences of learning. The value of the reflective inquiry, particularly during the nodal moments of professional learning, led to a reassessment of who I am as a teacher and, more importantly, to consider Bullough & Pinnegar’s (2001) comment that such insight needs to inform how I need to change my way of being a teacher educator. Feldman (2003) adds an additional challenge to this insight when he suggests that such an existentialist orientation revealed through self-study leads one towards a political and moral imperative not only to improve practice, but to do so in a particular direction that will impact on the culture of the university. I feel moved to share my professional learning experience with colleagues at my university and further afield in the hope of shifting culture.
Concluding thoughts
In this project key competencies were a means and an end. The means or process aspect enriched and enhanced the delivery of what could have been just another theoretically based curriculum area. Instead, key competencies were used as the vehicle to cover the content of social sciences, as well as the destination in terms of learning outcomes for student teachers. This experience has demonstrated that key competencies and the learning areas do not need to be uncomfortable acquaintances, but can have a close relationship when embedded and interrelated to bring deeper learning opportunities and experiences for student teachers just as they may for school-level students.
Of particular significance to the student teachers was their learning as an exemplar for their future teaching. As an educator, I am confident that these student teachers will translate their key competency experience into classroom practice with a passion and deep understanding for the value of learning through the competencies. They will have confidence based in a personal credibility and will understand the expectations they hold for their students. Considering the range of learning opportunities presented by a project of this kind, the positive response of the student teachers and their keenness to translate their experience into professional practice, the model of embedding curriculum learning areas into key competencies should be one that is far more visible in preservice teacher education programmes.
References
Bailey, J., Blakeney-Williams, M., Carss, W., Cowie, B., Hawera, N., & Taylor, M. (2010). Exploring the front end of New Zealand curriculum in student teacher education: An example from language and mathematics education. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(1), 65–78.
Baldwin, R. (2009). Developing the key competencies in social sciences. Retrieved from Te Kete Ipurangi: http://keycompetencies.tki.org.nz/content/download/694/4927/file/KCsinsocialsciencesdoc
Barker, M. (2008). The New Zealand Curriculum and preservice teacher education: Public document, private perceptions. Curriculum Matters, 4, 7–19.
Barrett, H. (2005). The REFLECT Initiative: White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/reflect/whitepaper.pdf
Bilcliff, G. (2011). Key competencies and outdoor education—A match? “What are students saying?” New Zealand Physical Educator, 44(2), 15–18.
Blackburn, J., & Hakel, M. (2006). Enhancing self-regulation and goal orientation with eportfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on eportfolios (pp. 83–89). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defence of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74.
Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. American Educational Research Association, 30(3), 13–21.
Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Connell, R., & Campbell, C. (2007). Researching education. In R.Connell & C. Campbell (Eds.), Education, change and societ. (pp. 301–325). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Delandshere, G. (2002). Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1461–1484.
Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 26–28.
Hipkins, R. (2005). Thinking about the key competencies in the light of the intention to foster lifelong learning. set: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 36–38.
Hipkins, R. (2006a). The nature of the key competencies: A background paper. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Hipkins, R. (2006b). Key competencies: Challenges for implementation in a national curriculum. In Key competencies: Repackaging the old or creating the new?: Conference proceedings, April 2006. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Hipkins, R. (2007). Assessing key competencies: Why would we? How could we. Wellington: Learning Media.
Hipkins, R., & Boyd, S. (2011). The recursive elaboration of key competencies as agents of curriculum change. Curriculum Matters, 7, 70–86.
Hunter, P., Keown, P., & Wynyard, J. (2010). Connecting key competencies and social inquiry in primary social studies pedagogy: Initial teacher education students’ planning decisions and reflections. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(1), 49–64.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McChesney, J., & Cowie, B. (2008). Communicating, thinking, and tools: Exploring two of the key competencies. Curriculum Matters, 4, 102–111.
Milman, N. (2005). Web-based digital teaching portfolios: Fostering reflection and technology competence in preservice teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 373–396.
Ministry of Education. (1993). New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
O’Connor, P., & Dunmill, M. (2005). Key competencies and the arts in the New Zealand curriculum. Available from Te Kete Ipurangi: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/NZC-resource-bank/The-arts/Supporting-materials#resource-1113
Pedro, J. (2005). Reflection in teacher education: Exploring pre-service teachers’ meanings of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 6(1), 49–66.
Reid, A. (2006). Key competencies: A new way forward or more of the same? Curriculum Matters, 2, 43–62.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (Eds.). (2005). Research methods in the Social Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.
Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (2005). The diffusion of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Issues of initiation and implementation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 37(4), 422–433.
The author
Lyn Lewis is Deputy Head of the School of Education at AUT University. Lyn has a long involvement in teaching social sciences as a curriculum subject to preservice student teachers. She is particularly interested in innovative pedagogical approaches and has recently worked with and researched eportfolios in curriculum and professional papers.
Email: lyn.lewis@aut.ac.nz