Learning to teach history in New Zealand secondary schools: Preservice teachers reflect on their practice

Myra Kunowski

Abstract

The primary focus of the study reported in this article was to trial the effectiveness of cases as a teacher—education tool with a class of preservice history teachers completing a one-year graduate diploma in secondary teaching. The collaborative critical analyses of cases, in a learning community of peers, enabled the teachers to develop their pedagogical content knowledge for history teaching, and helped them to make connections between their teacher-education programme and teaching practice in schools. The methodology engendered enthusiasm and motivation for linking educational principles and understandings from current history education research to their teaching. The article argues that teaching with cases also provides opportunities for overcoming criticisms that teacher education is too theoretical, uninteresting and removed from classroom experience.

Introduction

An important component of learning to teach involves integrating the theoretical framework developed in teacher-education courses with practical experience in schools. Institutions offering initial teacher-education programmes acknowledge that this endeavour constitutes a challenge during their work with student teachers (Kane, 2005).

For teacher educators, making these connections also requires that what prospective teachers are learning incorporates new ideas about knowledge, encompasses understanding of current research on teaching and learning and addresses the needs of a different generation of students in the 21st century. While meeting these objectives, educators must also counter claims that teacher-education programmes are too theoretical, inaccessible and unrelated to the real world of the classroom (see, for example, Cameron, 2004; Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002; Ministerial Advisory Council on the Quality of Teaching, as cited in Vick, 2006).

Situated learning for preservice teachers in New Zealand occurs during teaching practicums over a limited number of weeks. They must then draw on this experience during discussions of pedagogy and curriculum in their teacher-education classes. School-based teaching practice is a constructive professional learning experience when the preservice teachers’ course work underpins the practicum, and they have the opportunity not only to implement pedagogy and knowledge of learning, but also to reflect on their practice and receive feedback from associate teachers (teachers in secondary schools with responsibility for mentoring student teachers). In other situations, teaching experiences for preservice teachers are less successful. The demands of today’s busy school environment can mean that student teachers do not receive the degree of support from associate teachers that they need or would like (White, 2006). Further concerns for teacher educators are highlighted in findings of a review of New Zealand research regarding the practicum that suggest “student teachers do not necessarily learn to teach in ways that research would define as quality teaching” (Cameron & Baker, 2004, p. 69). This is reinforced by the findings of a series of studies located in secondary schools (Haigh & Ward, 2004) in which “visions of associate teachers working (with student teachers) in social constructivist and collaborative frameworks were only partially realised” (p. 145).

Case-based teaching is one methodological tool that has been advocated since the late 1980s to help teacher educators bridge the theory–practice divide (Merseth, 1996; L. Shulman, 1992, 2004). Cases that contain attributes of both theory and practice enable preservice teachers to examine complex real-life classroom situations outside the school and to practise thinking like a teacher (Kleinfeld, 1992; J. Shulman, 1992). When situated in professional education courses, the use of teaching cases also has the potential to bring about cognitive change in prospective teachers and thereby help reform pedagogical practices (Sykes & Bird, 1992; Wasserman, 1994).

This article reports on a case study examination of case-based teaching in a New Zealand teacher-education course for preservice history teachers. The intent of part of the teacher-education course was to provide these teachers with teaching cases, in which they themselves were participants, that would allow them to (i) examine the pedagogical and subject-related issues arising from teaching secondary school history, (ii) develop their pedagogical content knowledge and (iii) make links between current educational theory and research and their teaching experiences. The article begins by discussing the literature relating to case-based teaching with preservice teachers and to learning in a community of professional colleagues. A description of the study, and an elaboration of the students’ group-based examination and critical analysis of each teaching case, follows. The article concludes with a discussion of the outcomes of the collaborative learning. The study outlined here became in itself an example of a “teaching case” within my own practice as the teacher educator.

Teaching with cases

Interest in case-based methodology in teacher education grew in the 1990s as teacher educators in the United States began exploring the use of cases in teaching, encouraged by professional organisations and the publication of books featuring cases and case methods.

Outcomes of case learning

Cases can be used as exemplars to illustrate educational principles and theories or to acknowledge and discuss best practice (Shulman & Mesa-Bains, 1993; Shulman & Sato, 2006). They can also be employed to help teachers develop skills of critical analysis, problem solving and strategic thinking (Kowalski, Weaver, & Henson, 1994; Silverman, Welty, & Lyon, 1992; Wentz, 2001).

A series of empirical studies (Harrington, 1995; Levin, 1995; Lundeberg & Scheurman, 1997; Moje & Wade, 1997) emphasise that the value of collaborative discussion and debate about cases lies in the way they give learners knowledge and understanding of alternate conceptions of teaching. Lundeberg and Scheurman’s (1997) study, however, did not demonstrate case analysis to be the optimal way to increase teachers’ knowledge, although they considered that “performances of thought elicited during case analysis, and especially repeated analysis of cases, makes this a viable method for integrating both the formal and the practical knowledge of preservice teachers” (p. 795). In addition, Anderson and Bird (1995) and Moje and Wade (1997) found that although prospective teachers learnt new ideas about teaching when using case methods, teaching with cases for the purposes of promoting change in teachers’ epistemological and philosophical beliefs was difficult.

However, some strong supporters of case methods contend that they are very effective in educational settings because they encourage and develop the habit of reflective practice (Harrington, Quinn-Leering, & Hodson, 1996; Kleinfeld, 1992; J. Shulman, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Other case proponents emphasise their value for developing individual professional knowledge, such as pedagogical content knowledge (Wilson, 1992).

Community of learners

Sykes and Bird (1992) foresaw that the process of developing cases for teacher education would be a way of providing “a natural site for collaboration among researchers, teacher educators and teachers … [that could] serve as a crucial activity in the formation of new professional communities” (p. 521). Communities of practice are advocated by Ball and Cohen (1999) because they give teachers “the opportunity to engage together in conversations, provide a means of representing and clarifying understandings, use their own and others’ experiences to develop ideas, learn about practices and gain a more solid sense of themselves as contributing members of a profession” (p. 17). This approach fits well with preservice teacher training because an important part of learning to teach is learning to think and act like a teacher and thereby become acculturated into the teaching community.

Using cases for teaching is based on the concept that knowledge is constructed, is built on prior knowledge and is constantly being formed and transformed through interaction with colleagues and with practical experience (Harrington, 1995; Merseth, 1996). The importance of the role of professional peers in teacher learning is reinforced by L. Shulman (2004) who asserts that “learning from experience is nearly impossible without the scaffolding of others, their alternative views, their complementary perspectives, their roles as active listeners and critical friends” (p. 480).

Pedagogical content knowledge

L. Shulman (1992, 2004) and Wilson (1992) suggest that teaching with cases provides a constructive approach to developing the pedagogical content knowledge of subject teachers. This knowledge, which teachers must acquire if they are to teach effectively, enables them to hook students into a subject, build on students’ prior knowledge, anticipate students’ preconceptions of a subject and understand where learning difficulties may arise (Grossman, 1990; L. Shulman, 2004; Wineburg & Wilson, 2001). Using cases in a collaborative group discussion to learn about teaching presents opportunities for stimulating thinking and discussion, not only about issues related to the teaching of subject matter, but also about the difficulties subject teachers may confront and the strategies they might use to facilitate student learning.

The study

The primary focus of the study reported here was to trial the effectiveness of cases as a teacher-education tool with a class of preservice history teachers. The specific objectives for the case-based teaching were to develop the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for history teaching, increase their learning about current research in history education and help them make connections between their teacher-education programme and their teaching practice in the classroom.

Participants

The participants in the study were a teacher-education course group of 16 prospective secondary school history teachers who were completing a one-year graduate diploma in teaching. Half of the class were recent history graduates in their early 20s. Four of these had latterly decided on teaching as a career and had not included relevant university papers in their undergraduate study that would have provided the substantial subject knowledge needed to address school history curriculum topics. The other half of the class were in their late 20s and early 30s; three had travelled overseas and five were embarking on a second career. Some members of this group were concerned about having inadequate subject knowledge for history teaching because they had graduated some years previously and had not maintained their professional reading of history.

The history education course

The history education course at the university where I teach encompasses pedagogical knowledge, current research and theories of learning, curriculum implementation and assessment methods. Content knowledge is addressed only in the context of teaching and learning strategies and in assessment activities. The expectation that prospective teachers will continue to develop their history subject knowledge as well as acquiring curriculum knowledge and pedagogical knowledge within a short time frame is, in my experience, very demanding for beginning teachers. I therefore considered that using teaching cases would increase the students’ exposure to subject-discipline knowledge, a prerequisite for developing the pedagogical content knowledge necessary for their teaching.

The case model and method

The case model used in this study was promulgated by L. Shulman (2004) as an alternative to the business-school model of open-ended problem-solving cases. Shulman suggests that teaching cases associated with subject matter form a particular genre of case that require a narrative with particular attributes. These distinguish this form of instructional case from those that are purely anecdotal accounts. His model of an instructional case incorporates four attributes:

1.&;&;&;&;the intention: the purpose or plan of action

2.&;&;&;&;the chance: a glitch or interruption to the plan brought about by the unexpected

3.&;&;&;&;judgement: the need to deal with the uncertainty or the element of surprise

4.&;&;&;&;reflection: examination of and thinking about the actions taken to deal with the unexpected.

As the group of preservice history teachers were about to embark on their second teaching practicum, I set them a teaching assignment that could be developed into an educative case. The assignment, constructed to incorporate the four components of L. Shulman’s model, involved planning a history lesson, teaching the lesson in the classroom and preparing a postlesson reflective commentary. They were asked to include in their respective lesson plans the knowledge, ideas and skills to be taught; appropriate teaching strategies; and expected student learning outcomes. In the written reflective commentary they were to provide a detailed account of what had taken place during their lessons, with particular regard to critical events, surprises and/or unexpected happenings that had required them to adapt or modify the original plan. The student teachers were asked to appraise the judgements they made and actions they had taken to deal with any unforeseen situations. Finally, they were to evaluate their original plans in terms of making amendments that could improve the lessons.

The prospective teachers carried out the set assignment during their teaching practice and on completion gave me all their written material. I chose the work of three students that highlighted aspects of subject-matter teaching and related pedagogical issues that regularly arise in beginning history teachers’ classrooms. I asked these students for written permission to use their material, and guaranteed that I would not disclose their identities at any stage of preparation or use of the narratives. When crafting the students’ work as exemplar cases for teaching purposes, I took cognisance of Merseth’s (1996) caution that cases developed solely from the efforts of preservice teachers can prove ineffective if they do not reflect educational teaching objectives and current pedagogical thinking. I therefore appended questions to each case to guide the analyses and group discussion.

The cases were presented to the 16 students in a teacher-education session soon after they had completed their practicum. They were asked to critically analyse and reflect on the experiences reported. These discussions were tape-recorded, with students’ permission; I also made notes as a participant observer. As the students deliberated and focused on the guiding questions for the case examinations, they also considered the question: “What is this a case of?” The purpose of this question, according to L. Shulman (2004), is to “stimulate students to initiate the intellectual work that makes cases powerful tools for professional learning” (p. 466).

The section of the teacher-education course relating to case-based teaching was a mandatory component. All members of the class were required to complete the assignment involving a planned and delivered lesson and a reflective commentary; however, they could choose whether they wished me to develop their material into a teaching case. All group members were expected to participate in the collective examination of the cases in class and to complete an evaluation survey at the end of the history course.

Results

Most lesson plans were well constructed. The reflective commentaries from some of the prospective teachers did not contain the depth and detail I had hoped to gather, but the data provided from others were rich enough to develop into exemplar history teaching cases.

Using the cases as a teacher-education tool

Case A

The first case reported the planning and implementation of a history lesson about the Great Depression in the United States. The well-structured lesson plan contained a good balance of teacher and student activity and a variety of primary resources, including a newspaper article and photographs from the time. The plan came adrift in the classroom when the prospective teacher realised she had insufficient content knowledge to provide adequate answers to challenging student questions. Her reaction was to rush through explanations about the causes of the Depression and then direct the students to copy notes from a textbook so that she could avoid further teacher–student verbal interaction.

In her reflective account, the student teacher admitted to having only a superficial content knowledge of the 1930s event. Her lack of understanding of the historical relationship of cause and effect left her unable to discuss key ideas accurately or convincingly with the students in her class. When planning the lesson she had thought that, given she would be teaching a lower ability group, she had only to remain ahead of the students in the textbook and find some interesting primary resources to make the lesson come alive. That opportunity was lost, however, when she could not weave the news article and photographs appropriately into the lesson content so that the students could see their relevance and purpose. The young teacher was aware that she did not achieve her teaching objectives and that the students gained little conceptual understanding of the causes and effects of an economic depression and were left very confused.

The preservice teachers quickly identified the case as an example of “limited subject-matter knowledge”. Comments included: “You have to know your subject even with a lower level class”, and “She was not comfortable with content.” Several in the group, who were struggling with updating their understanding of history and familiarising themselves with school curriculum topics, empathised with the student who featured in the study: “This really saps your confidence.”

The group recognised the inadequacy of the strategy she used to cope with the situation. Suggestions for modifying or adapting the lesson in the short term included refocusing the class from teacher to students by using smaller group activities for examining the resources, and having the class answer set questions via a student pair/share activity. The consensus reached was that prospective history teachers need to possess substantial subject-matter knowledge for teaching so that they can provide accurate information, ask and answer student questions, use primary and secondary resources competently and maintain personal confidence in front of a class.

Case B

This history lesson focused on the social legislation brought in by the Liberal Government in New Zealand in the 1890s, recognised as advanced in the world at that time. The preservice teacher had prepared only a very sketchy lesson plan and his delivery began shakily. There was no starting activity to capture student interest nor was there an overview of the period being considered. He divided the students into “expert” groups, each of which was provided with a series of questions relating to a section of the Liberal legislation. The groups did not settle quickly, they had difficulty understanding the questions that they were investigating and they were reluctant to participate effectively. Having no strategies for retrieving the situation he decided to continue the activity and to allow the students to dictate the way the lesson progressed.

In his self-evaluation, the student teacher said that he had tried to set up a student-centred lesson but that it had gone “off course”. He indicated that planning was a fundamental cause of the problem, that he needed to think more carefully about drawing students into a lesson, and that each set of group questions was not set at a level appropriate for 15-year-olds. He was aware that his delivery was unsatisfactory, but in his reflection he was unable, on his own, to decide what else he could have done differently in the classroom.

In this case of “poor planning” and “lack of pedagogical content Knowledge” the collaborative group of preservice teachers reinforced the importance of dealing with the issues that the teacher himself had identified as leading to little effective learning. They discussed beginning history teachers having unrealistic expectations of “the amount of complex material that can be covered in one lesson”, that planning requires “breaking the lesson into manageable chunks appropriate for the class level” and that “a good starter is needed to stimulate interest in the content area”. The dialogue traversed pedagogical issues as well as subject matter and ways to make it understandable for young students.

The group considered that the lack of explanation of historical concepts and ideas such as “arbitration”, “mortgage” and “lease-in-perpetuity” was what “led to students being unable to accurately answer the questions they had to address in their jigsaw groups and the consequent disruptive behaviour”. The student teacher’s limited awareness of what history students might find difficult demonstrated “a lack of experience and pedagogical content knowledge” that was reflected in his “not having thought carefully about strategies for making the material interesting and comprehensible”. It was acknowledged that the co-operative learning activity jigsaw would have been a creative and manageable approach if the teacher had prepared the task thoroughly and been more explicit with procedural instructions in the classroom.

There was general agreement that this case was a very constructive learning experience. As one member of the group said, “… The lesson that leads from one disaster to another is the nightmare of most beginning teachers”, a view strongly endorsed by the rest of the group. They concluded that the opportunity to think collaboratively about history classroom issues in this way was most worthwhile for them as practitioners.

Case C

The third instructional case was based on teaching a lesson about the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. The teacher had prepared a comprehensive lesson plan that indicated good subject knowledge, an ability to break down key ideas and events into manageable sections and a variety of resources and learning activities to stimulate and retain student interest. During classroom delivery, the chance element that disrupted the lesson was the initial lack of student enthusiasm and indifferent participation. The starting activity of an email message a student had received from a Vietnam veteran was intended to bring an element of reality into the history lesson. But the lengthy, meandering communication resulted in waning student interest. This was followed by a monotonic and error-ridden student reading of an account of the My Lai massacre, and the lesson quickly lost impact and momentum.

Sensing that the session was going awry, the teacher moved to avert further problems. He completed the reading himself and shifted to a class note-taking exercise with key questions to be addressed. After 10 minutes the class had re-focused, and the teacher continued the session with a cartoon interpretation exercise on “Vietnamisation”, followed by a class discussion on United States President Nixon’s involvement in the war.

In his reflective commentary, the teacher said that although he had missed early opportunities for captivating students, the adaptation of his original plan had been successful in allowing him to regain direction of the lesson. He concluded that most of his learning objectives for the students had been met, and he gained satisfaction that he had stimulated their thinking when he heard students leaving the classroom still discussing issues raised.

The collaborative group identified this case as a successful example of “knowledge of learners” and “teacher adaptability”. They were impressed with their peer’s preparation and organisation, which included providing written lesson intentions at the beginning of the session and including a variety of oral, visual and written activities appealing to different learning styles of students. Several recommendations for modifications and improvement were put forward. One was to “set time limits on things you want students to read”. Another was to “derive impact from an oral account of an historical event [by having] the teacher choose a good reader, do it yourself or check what is available on YouTube”. The consensus in this case was that the prospective teacher had demonstrated the attributes of an effective practitioner. He was seen as “having good antennae”, “possessing the ability to amend the plan and change direction without losing sight of lesson objectives”, and “thinking quickly on his feet and getting the whole class re-engaged”.

Evaluation of case learning

In the anonymous end-of-course evaluations completed by all the students who participated in this study, “learning by case” was frequently mentioned as being one of the most valuable sessions. The questionnaire responses suggested that the prospective teachers regarded the reinforcement of history discipline knowledge and theoretical understandings of pedagogy, learning and learners, as extremely helpful and constructive. All commented that they considered they were better prepared for developing their pedagogical content knowledge for history teaching. Six who had made mistakes similar to those disclosed in the three case studies felt they had particularly benefited from critical analyses of the problems and the sharing of ideas and suggestions. Twelve of the 16 indicated awareness that cases do not always produce one “right” answer, but that the opportunity for them as beginning teachers to listen to the perspectives of others induced thinking about alternative approaches and allowed them to identify an answer or strategy that they found personally applicable.

Discussion

Each case analysed by the students participating in this study confronted issues arising out of teaching history, which was the area of teaching of particular importance to them. The difference between the quality and depth (in terms of insight and possible solutions to problems) of the preservice teachers’ individual written reflective commentaries on their classroom lessons, and the group’s collaborative examination of their classmates’ experiences at a later date, supports Putnam and Borko’s (2000) suggestion that reflecting on teaching practice in a meaningful setting outside of the classroom “may afford reflection and critical analysis that is not possible when acting in the setting” (p. 8).

What the student teachers learnt

My personal written observations, the tape-recordings of the case-based sessions and course evaluation comments all strongly indicated that the preservice teachers enjoyed discussing real-life classroom situations. Interest and motivation were stimulated by the fact that the cases portrayed early ventures into the classroom by real people—the prospective teachers themselves. The case discussions provided students with an opportunity to engage in conversation, thoughtful discourse, critical examination and debate with their peers. They felt that they were actively involved in a learning process that would be valuable for their future practice. Inevitably, the discussion and analysis of the cases raised ideas, issues and questions beyond pedagogical content knowledge. The nature and complexity of the classroom was highlighted by matters relating to the teaching of history becoming entwined with pedagogical practice, knowledge of learners and classroom management. The students reported a heightened awareness of the difficulty of separating issues. They also agreed that analytical and decision-making skills are necessary for teachers to make thoughtful judgements leading to appropriate actions.

What I learnt from reflecting on my own case

My trial with case teaching was an educative “case” in itself. I had set out my plan or intention in the clearly detailed student assignment. The glitch, or element of surprise that emerged, was that some of the data I received were not as well developed as I had anticipated, although there was sufficient to construct instructional cases of typical issues confronting beginning history teachers. A further unexpected element was the realisation that constructing well-crafted case narratives that accurately reflected each student teacher’s classroom experience was quite complex and time consuming.

My reflection also highlighted issues for future consideration in my practice. First, I can no longer assume that prospective teachers easily develop pedagogical content knowledge without considerable help and facilitation. Second, the multiplicity of issues confronting teachers in today’s classrooms suggests that teacher educators must address a wide range of coping strategies that beginning teachers can implement when faced with the surprises or glitches that can upset their carefully planned lessons. Third, it is not realistic to assume that student teachers understand the concept of reflection without careful instruction and elaboration on how to meaningfully evaluate and reflect on their practice.

Implications for teacher education

Unless preservice teachers receive adequate support from associate teachers and visiting tutors during teaching practicums, reflective evaluation of their teaching will be done in isolation and can be of limited value. The findings of this study support the idea that teacher-education settings that allow preservice teachers to analyse and reflect on teaching experience in collaborative groups, where they can exchange views and perspectives, are very effective as a means of helping these teachers build on their own understandings and conceptions of teaching and then apply that new knowledge in their future teaching practice.

A feature of secondary school teaching today is uncertainty and unpredictability in the classroom. A teacher-education programme therefore must develop not only competent subject teachers, but also teachers with the knowledge and capacity to respond to unexpected and unforeseen situations. To accomplish these objectives, preservice teachers require practice in critically analysing problems and making judgements about pedagogical and subject-related issues that rest on sound educational principles. As prospective teachers progress from conceptualisation to application, they begin to understand that a theoretical frame is an important underpinning to their practice, and that their teacher education connects with the reality of the classroom.

Conclusion

This study, which used case methodology to consider the pedagogical and subject-related issues arising in the teaching of history in secondary schools and to determine the usefulness of cases for developing the pedagogical content knowledge of prospective history teachers, supports the claims of researchers and educators such as Jay (2004), Sykes and Bird (1992), Merseth (1996), J. Shulman (1992) and L. Shulman (2004) that teaching with cases is potentially a valuable methodological tool in teacher education because they illustrate a variety of educational principles and teaching dilemmas.

As Grossman (2005) observed in her review of studies of case methods for the American Educational Research Association, it is difficult to isolate the effects of case learning from other teacher-education experiences. However, what was demonstrated in this present study was that the approach provides an effective methodology for capturing interest and increasing motivation and enthusiasm in teacher-education sessions. It also provides evidence for Jay’s (2004) contention that “the process of reflecting on cases of practice in a course setting as part of teacher education [allows] preservice teachers to practise integrating their pedagogical thinking with the guidance of their instructors—moving from thinking like a classroom observer to thinking like a teacher” (p. 49).

Teaching with cases also provides opportunities for overcoming the criticisms of prospective teachers, and some inservice teachers, that teacher education is too theoretical, uninteresting and removed from reality. It is an effective instructional tool because it links theoretical understandings with practice, and teacher education with the school classroom. When preservice teachers can learn not just from experience but also from collaborative reflection on their own practice and the practice of others, then it is fair to claim that the teacher education they are receiving is centred in the actual world of teaching.

References

Anderson, L., & Bird, T. (1995). How three prospective teachers construed three cases of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 479–499.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, M. (2004). Quality of initial teacher education: Analysis of New Zealand Teachers Council documentation. Wellington: Ministry of Education and New Zealand Teachers Council.

Cameron, M., & Baker, R. (2004). Research on initial teacher education in New Zealand: 1993–2004. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. (2002). An ethic of care: Effective programmes for beginning teachers. Available from http://www.dest.gov.au/default.htm

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report on the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Haigh, M., & Ward, G. (2004). Problematising practicum relationships: Questioning the ‘taken for granted’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 134–148.

Harrington, H. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203–214.

Harrington, H., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–37.

Jay, J. K. (2004). Variations on the use of cases in social work and teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 35–52.

Kane, R. (2005). Initial teacher education policy and practice: Final report. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Learning to think like a teacher: The study of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 33–49). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kowalski, T. J., Weaver, R. A., & Henson, K. T. (1994). Case studies of beginning teachers. New York: Longman.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 63–79.

Lundeberg, M. A., & Scheurman, G. (1997). Looking twice means seeing more: Developing pedagogical knowledge through case analyses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(8), 783–797.

Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722–744). New York: Macmillan.

Moje, E. B., & Wade, S. E. (1997). What case discussion reveals about teacher thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 691–712.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, J. H., & Mesa-Bains, A. (Eds.). (1993). Diversity in the classroom: A casebook for teachers and teacher educators. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shulman, J. H., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2006). Mentoring teachers towards excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of case. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S. (2004). Just in case: Reflections on learning from experience. In L. Shulman (Ed.), The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, knowing, learning and learning to teach (pp. 463–482). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyon, S. (1992). Case studies for teacher problem-solving. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 457–521). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Vick, M. (2006). “it’s a difficult matter”: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 181–198.

Wasserman, S. (1994). Using cases to study teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 602–611.

Wentz, P. J. (2001). The student teaching experience: Cases from the classroom (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

White, S. (2006). Student-teachers’ experiences of situated learning within the primary school classroom. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 3(2), 1–11.

Wilson, S. (1992). A case concerning content: Using case studies to teach subject matter. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 64–89). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wineburg, S., & Wilson, S. (2001). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. In S. Wineburg (Ed.), Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past (pp. 155–172). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

The author

Myra Kunowski is a senior lecturer in history and social studies education at the College of Education, University of Canterbury. Her research interests include history education, curriculum implementation, classroom practice and preservice teacher education. She has been involved with national curriculum development and assessment of history and formerly taught history and social studies in New Zealand secondary schools.

Email: myra.kunowski@canterbury.ac.nz