Using an extended food metaphor to explain concepts about pedagogy

Using an extended food metaphor to explain concepts about pedagogy

Noeline Wright

Abstract

It is anathema for educators to describe pedagogy as having a recipe—it is tantamount to saying it is a technicist process rather than a professional one requiring active, informed decision making. But if teacher educators are to help novice teachers understand what pedagogy is and how it can be understood, there must be a starting point for pedagogical knowledge to shape both the understanding and design of appropriate curriculum learning. To address this challenge, I argue that food-preparation processes and learning how to competently cook are analogous to grasping how pedagogy—which is also about process, design, and making knowledge knowable—facilitates learning about teaching specific curriculum knowledge. To do so, I use evidence from an initial teacher education (ITE) cohort lecture on pedagogy as a case study. In essence, viewing pedagogy through the lens of food and recipes may help make some abstractions of pedagogy more concrete and make some principles of pedagogy more accessible to novice teachers as they learn to design learning.

Introduction

One-year graduate initial teacher education programmes

Secondary graduate ITE programmes in New Zealand can be generally characterised as high intensity within a short time frame (of less than a calendar year), with a steep trajectory. Wilson and McChesney (2013) suggest that preservice teachers “are a unique subset of teachers, because they are at the beginning of their teaching careers and are learning to plan using relatively unfamiliar curriculum materials” (p. 103). Thus there is little developmental time for pre-service teachers to increase familiarity with what pedagogy means in curriculum design and practice terms, yet it is critically important for novice teachers to understand that “Mere content knowledge is likely to be as useless pedagogically as content-free skill” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8).

Broadly speaking, it is common for graduates entering the University of Waikato secondary graduate 1-year programme, which provides the exploratory case study for this article, to expect that their ITE programme is about learning how to “deliver” what they know, for conceptions of pedagogy tend to be, at most, nascent, or, as Ryan and Healy (2009) suggest, “naive epistomological beliefs” (p. 424). Thus the shock of discovering that education is a discipline with its own theories and practices involving understanding how learning occurs, and the role of a teacher in fostering that learning, can be profound for some of these beginner teachers. While subject resources and discipline knowledge form part of the “material medica of pedagogy, the pharmacopeia from which the teacher draws those tools of teaching that present or exemplify particular content” (Shulman, 1986, p. 10, italics original), it is pedagogy which helps them know how to make this material medica accessible.

Finding a common starting place

A starting place for developing ITE students’ knowledge about pedagogy is critical, for as Lim and Chan (2007) argue, the preservice stage is critical for beginning to shift perceptions of pedagogy. A starting place—that is, a place of prior connection—resonates with Vygotsky and Cole’s (1978) theory about the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), since using prior knowledge as a basis is a key way to add to and grow a learner’s conceptual knowledge. As Lakoff and Turner (1989) and Lakoff and Johnson (2003) argue, metaphors are one way of locating and connecting the unknown to the known, for “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, p. 4). A metaphor that hooks into prior knowledge, therefore, is likely to be highly influential in individuals’ abilities to “see” or “get” a new concept more easily. Beginning with some kind of common ground upon which to build new understandings is thus crucial if new knowledge is to take hold in the learner. And, when pedagogy is at stake, it is important to get right.

However, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) argue that while metaphors are beneficial, they have limitations—they cannot be whole replacements, only partial:

... if ideas are objects, we can dress them up in fancy clothes, juggle them, line them up nice and neat, etc. So when we say that a concept is structured by a metaphor, we mean that it is partially structured and that it can be extended in some ways but not others. (p. 14, italics original)

In other words, there is a proviso that applies to developing an extended metaphor about pedagogy in relation to food—that it too will have limitations. The extended metaphor is, however, intended to serve as an introduction to conceptual thinking about pedagogy, not the whole idea or whole practice; it is the starting point, because starting is often the hardest step, and, for beginning teachers, learning how to interpret curriculum requirements for learners in terms of pedagogical design can pose difficulties.

There are precedents for metaphors that describe aspects of learning. One of these is the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs, n.d.), which uses the visual metaphor of components of a house to illustrate the components of structuring understanding and learning to know. Basically, it illustrates the journey from novice to expert in terms of putting pieces of knowledge together through describing the “Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome ... as a means of classifying learning outcomes in terms of their complexity, enabling us to assess students’ work in terms of its quality not of how many bits of this and of that they got right” (Biggs, n.d.). This is an inspiration for creating a way of understanding how ITE students can develop their conceptual thinking about pedagogy.

Lakoff (1992) argues that “as soon as one gets away from concrete physical experience and starts talking about abstractions or emotions, metaphorical understanding is the norm” (n. p.). In other words, we try to make sense of complex stuff in ways that make it accessible to others. The conceptual understanding of pedagogy fits this argument. Petrie and Oshlag (1993), for example, argue that “metaphor is one of the central ways of leaping the epistemological chasm, between old knowledge and radically new knowledge” (p. 580), describing the way we hang new knowledge and understanding on to what we already know in order to make the necessary intellectual and knowledge leaps. Those who learn to be teachers also need something to hang their subject content onto, if they are to design learning experiences.

To frame the concept of pedagogy, food recipes can work as an analogy, for as Jones notes, “Recipes have a clearly defined structure that, once learned, allows you to very quickly create the starting point for an idea” (2014, p. 13). So, for novice teachers, having a sense of what a pedagogical structure might look like and what it means in terms of designing lessons, is likely to be a help rather than a hindrance in addressing specific learning curriculum requirements for learners. The next section explores food as an extended metaphor for pedagogy.

Arguing for food as a metaphor

Food is a common ground/starting point for all learners, since we all eat. With the plethora of cooking shows available on various media, exposure to ideas about cooking is hard to avoid. Food is thus a reasonably safe starting place as a metaphor about pedagogy. It has potential in bridging gaps between curriculum content and designing learning opportunities. Recipes are a kind of pattern, and patterns can be understood as a known organisation of events, structures, chronologies, processes, or methods. Jones (2014) argues that patterns:

... do not rely on typologies or frames in that they can be rich collections of information presented in a particular way—they are in many ways descriptions or narratives of common problems and solutions that emerge from real-world cases. (p. 10)

Thus curriculum documents can be described as patterns attempting to explain how specific concepts and associated knowledge are arranged for learning purposes. While Jones explored patterns in terms of research, his ideas resonate with a comparison of pedagogy, patterns, and food. Pedagogical design and practice is by its nature not fixed, but necessarily responsive to students’ learning needs. However, it is possible to discern consistent patterns of lesson design in balancing teacher-centric curriculum instruction and student-centric activities. Thus, through extending a food metaphor to the specifics of a recipe and the role of a cook, we can “translate elements of information and knowledge” (Jones, 2014, p. 12)—including theories—into more concrete and usable understandings of pedagogy.

Downes’ 21 April 2014 blog post, for example, conceptualised theories as answering “why-questions. They identify underlying causes, influencing factors, and in some cases, laws of nature” (para 7). To some extent, a curriculum document attempts to do that. So finding ways to connect preservice teachers to both theory and practice is very important if they are to engage in evidence-led curriculum practices in schools.

To that end, I have used the overarching idea of food as a metaphor. For example, the extended metaphor includes reference to recipes, food preparation, and the role of the chef/cook to explain pedagogy and the role of a teacher. It is also important to note that I examine this idea situated as an initial teacher educator teaching within the identified case study ITE programme. I am interested in connecting ITE students with the concept and practice of pedagogy, and so exploring how the extended food metaphor aids that connection is the focus of this study. This means finding a starting place that is a ZPD lever, within which to initiate an examination of metaphor and pedagogy. The food metaphor, as the overarching frame of reference, fits this aim.

Applying the food analogy

The context for implementing the food analogy is a lecture to an entire secondary ITE cohort (n = 85), deliberately preceding both a tutorial session and their first 6-week practicum. The purpose of the lecture is to remind them of the power and importance of pedagogical design in structuring meaningful learning. This is my only lecture to the entire cohort, even though I teach them all, but in another capacity and in smaller groups at a time.

The lecture is titled “Understanding pedagogy through the metaphor of food”. In it, I invite the cohort to comment on particular aspects of the lecture via a backchannel “room” (TodaysMeet). This backchannel microblogging forum offers students opportunities to share comments. These comments are written and can be archived for later review. Beforehand, the cohort are asked to bring a wifi-enabled device to class (for those without one, loan devices are available). There are four main purposes to this backchannel. It is intended to:

1.demonstrate how learners can actively participate and contribute to constructing meaning and thinking about what is taking place

2.demonstrate how ideas of inclusion and voice can be interpreted and enacted

3.give voice to their perspectives and gauge the extent of engagement in the expected learning and thinking processes implied in the lecture design

4.create data for analysis.

These purposes are made explicit to the cohort at the start of the lecture, keeping in mind Loughran’s (2010) argument that such openness about intent is critical to the development of pedagogical content knowledge (often referred to as PCK).

The lecture begins with Bud Blake’s comic strip, I Taught Stripe to Whistle (1974, 6 May).¹ The comic strip illustrates in simple terms what the discipline of pedagogy is about: that delivery of content is not linear, nor is it assured in terms of intended outcomes—summed up in the comic strip’s final speech bubble that reads, “I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned it.” This point frames the rationale for the metaphor: that what we think we teach is not always what is learned. The comic strip infers that the relationship between teaching and learning can be tenuous, which is why careful pedagogical design to interpret curriculum requirements is important for teaching and learning.

Pedagogical design is therefore a crucial step if intended learning has any chance of success. As Mayes and De Freitas (2004) suggest, pedagogical design is about “placing the learning and teaching activities at the heart of the process” (p. 6). The responsibility for teaching does not stop at the delivery of information, but focuses on approaches that help learners develop and internalise new knowledge, skills, and understanding. This involves a teacher internalising a deep understanding of learning theories and their practice, in order to precipitate learners’ conceptual thinking. As Mayes and De Freitas argue, “For good pedagogical design, there is simply no escaping the need to adopt a theory of learning” (2004, p. 6).

This is the rationale for choosing an extended metaphor about food. What follows in Table 1 are components of a recipe and a pedagogical design, showing connections in order to make the latter more tangible to preservice teachers. The rest of the lecture is spent explaining why these elements are important to pedagogical design, and how novice teachers’ own progression to expert teacher might be understood via this extended food metaphor.

Table 1. Recipes and pedagogy

Because linking theory to practice is often conceptually difficult for preservice teachers, Table 1 makes more concrete some of the more abstract elements of pedagogy, since understanding the relationship between theory and practice is a critical part of the pedagogical design puzzle. Doing (action) has often been privileged over knowing (understanding), for the following mantra is often heard: “Give me something I can teach tomorrow.” Developing deep thinking and learning across a range of fields is, however, what education is supposed to be about rather than replicating doing. Teacher education essentially attempts to make explicit the subterranean foundations of what “doing” means. The intent is to make it easier for teachers to use pedagogical design principles that support learning for specific groups of learners. This is why it’s so important to understand the teacher’s role in facilitating learning rather than simply delivering lessons.

This brings me back to food as a metaphor. Understanding deeply what good pedagogical practices look like takes time and practice, just as becoming a competent cook takes time and practice. For example, novice cooks tend to stick closely to what a recipe prescribes because they do not have deep knowledge to draw on that would help them adapt, substitute, or alter the recipe for different contexts or circumstances. For novice teachers, teaching is usually about content and delivery and managing student behaviour. They rely on lesson plans and seldom deviate from them because they lack the experience to adapt, substitute, or alter it. A focus on content, delivery, and behaviour is also less troublesome than focusing on the less tangible but important aspirations of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), such as conceptual cognitive processes and social cohesion.

An extended metaphor of food offers access to the deep thinking teachers apply when designing learning to stimulate the deep thinking of their students—what Leslie (2014) calls epistemic curiosity (deep learning) and diversive curiosity (hunger for the new). Epistemic curiosity requires persistence, effort, patience, and a desire to understand something deeply. Take, for instance, how we know how to make meringues or cakes, and why meringue or cake recipes are so similar in their processes. Know-how is about both the doing and the why of the doing. Over time, cooks have experimented with different ways of making a meringue or cake. This “trying out” is a research process, where some cakes or meringues end up better than others, so some processes are replicated while others are discarded. Over time, these processes are both the theory and practice of cake or meringue making, shared as part of the wisdom of cooking well. Some cooks, therefore, were curious enough to think about distilling the patterns of successful cake or meringue making and document them. Understanding teaching and learning has a similar trajectory of theorising through trial, error, curiosity, documenting patterns, and sharing this knowing.

Understanding learning to teach through learning to cook

Bittman (2011) described four stages of learning to cook by characterising cooking behaviours from novice to expert. Stages of learning to teach can be understood similarly, and so Bittman’s stages were included in the lecture on pedagogical thinking. Bittman argues that when cooks are novices, a key characteristic is slavishly following recipes and becoming anxious if there are deviations or hiccups, such as not having an ingredient, for such cooks have no capacity to improvise because they don’t yet have enough knowledge or experience to know how to plug such a gap. In teaching terms, this might be a new teacher saying something like, “Where’s the unit/lesson plan?” Or “Tell me what to teach and I’ll do it.” Such a novice will find it hard to adjust a lesson to the vagaries of the classroom climate or fully understand students’ learning needs. Like the novice cook, new teachers will rely on content and managing behaviour, rather than understanding learning processes or drawing on pedagogical content knowledge. When something unexpected happens, they have little capacity to accommodate it.

At stage two, however, the cook is developing greater awareness of his or her own preferences, and will start comparing and synthesising elements of recipes, adapting them to suit circumstances—but in safe, predictable ways. This might mean substituting a lemon for a lime in a recipe—which is within the boundaries of the known and the safe. A teacher at such a stage might be able to teach the same thing to two classes, and use slightly different resources for each. This teacher recognises that the student groups are different, perhaps needing to work at a different pace, for each group is likely to have different needs. This suggests an awakening to learners’ needs, but this teacher is still operating within the safe boundaries of the tried and true.

A stage three cook, Bittman says, becomes more curious, possibly seeking out more and more cookbooks to learn from and ingredients to experiment with. Such a cook might read cookbooks in bed, rely less and less on specific details in recipes, but be more alert to the processes and theories of cooking methods and products. Such cooks are developing a metacognitive awareness of the field, focusing much more on a diner’s experience of the food as well as feeding their own curiosity about trying new foods. A teacher operating at such a stage would be focusing on knowing more about pedagogical processes, developing their pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). They are likely to read widely about their curriculum area and ways others teach it, in order to experiment themselves. This teacher will be open to new resources and tools to support learning, and be more focused on what students need as learners. This teacher will strive to find the best mix for designing effective lessons, sharing ideas in the staffroom, and especially among learning area colleagues. They will ask questions and engage in some theorising, wondering, and reflecting on their own practices.

Stage four indicates greater maturity and expertise. This cook has a wide repertoire to call on, is able to design a dish around ingredients, and, without knowing what the final dish may look like, know what will harmonise for a satisfying eating experience. A wise and experienced teacher is similarly skilled at adapting pedagogical design to meet contextual and student demands, often, it seems, effortlessly and at will. And, like a skilled cook, this expert teacher will constantly evaluate their practice by checking for learning and how well things “taste”. This teacher knows what the learning has to aim for, and is unafraid to experiment with resources, pedagogical strategies, and tools. This teacher will also have a good idea of the goals in mind, but will be happy to alter the route if need be. Teachers operating in this expert range will also be secure in their pedagogical content knowledge.

As I’ve (Wright, 2011) noted elsewhere, experienced teachers (stage four) have greater capacity to undertake experimentation than less experienced teachers. In my mLearning study, all of the participant teachers had at least 10 years’ teaching experience. They could “accommodate the ‘pain of failure’” (p. 583) because they had enough pedagogical experience to adjust what they did at a moment’s notice. In other words, they were more likely to exhibit a “greater focus on students” (Petit & Kukulska-Hume, 2007) than perhaps less experienced teachers could. And while these teachers’ practices “contradict a commonly asserted belief that ‘older’ teachers are resistant to technological change” (Wright, 2011, p. 583), their pedagogical strength points instead to the value of experience and accrued pedagogical wisdom, much as a cook develops in being able to abandon the recipes and cook intuitively—perhaps theorising on the run.

Through the analogy of food, it is much easier to see how pedagogy is not an instant fix or a takeaway meal, but instead, a slow-cooked, rich feast that requires some preparation. The metaphor also makes clear that pedagogy, like the creation of good food, is always an experiment in action, and relies on the recipient to judge its value; it can go wrong at any minute. The 2013 winner of the television cooking competition Masterchef New Zealand, for example, described himself as a very “experimental cook” (Devine, 2014) because that is how he extends himself, saying:

Don’t be afraid to try new things. Don’t worry if things don’t work out. Don’t judge yourself too much. Follow what feels right, that’s when things go well. (p. 5)

If that idea is extended to learning about how to teach and to do it well enough that there is regular, positive impact on learners, then it illustrates something of the complex nature of the relationship between teaching, learning, and reflective practice. As Pachler, Bachmair, and Cook (2010) and Pachler, Cook, and Bachmair (2010) suggest, education is both complex (adjective) and a complex (noun) that is increasingly mobile. It marks the “fluidity, provisionality and instability” (Pachler, Cook, & Bachmair, 2010, p. 2) of learning. Highly aware, skilled, and experienced teachers are more likely to cope with such complexity, whether as a noun or adjective. When teaching episodes are consciously and deliberately developed and reflected on, learners are more likely to have a satisfying and academically rewarding experience, deepening their subject-specific conceptual knowledge.

Such deliberate development and reflection led me to examine the value of this lecture to the ITE students’ thinking about pedagogy and themselves as teachers, since it is a lecture that has been refined each year. The methods, analysis, and findings are addressed next.

Evidence basis and discussion

With ethics approval, two methods were used to collect data for analysis in relation to the lecture case study. First, the cohort (n = 85), were asked to complete a GoogleForm survey seeking feedback regarding the value of the concept to their understanding of pedagogy once the lecture was complete. Second, I reviewed the archived text from the TodaysMeet backchannel. In the survey, I asked for a combination of paragraph responses or item selection choices that were either scales or a continuum. For example, one question was “How well did the table comparing pedagogy with a recipe help you understand the components of good pedagogy?” Four options were offered: Really difficult—made no sense to me to Really easy, made perfect sense. The results of this question indicated that no-one, out of the 46 replies, thought the table was meaningless or made no connections to their understanding. The highest number of responses indicated that the analogy had merit (24 of the 46), while 15 believed that it made very good sense to them, choosing the Really easy, made perfect sense option. It suggests that the details of the comparison resonated with the majority of the survey respondents.

Another question asked, “I talked about praxis in relation to how we know how to make a meringue through both practice and theory-making. Did that explanation help you make sense of the important link between theory and practice?” Respondents chose one of four points from Not at all to I get it now. The metaphor made at least partial sense to 11 respondents, while 24 found it made at least reasonably good sense to them, and 9 thought it was a really easy way to understand the concept of praxis. One chose Not at all.

A third continuum question sought to know the value of understanding the stages of learning to teach through the stages of learning to be a good cook. The question asked: “How well did this help you see aspects of your own trajectory as teachers?” Responses indicated a positive influence, with respondents feeling they could position themselves somewhere in one of the four stages.

As well as the documented data outlined above from the survey, a small number of students (less than 10) made a point of verbally commenting on the value of the lecture as they exited the lecture theatre, mentioning factors such as that it clarified theories and concepts they had already been exposed to, but not yet made sense of. This verbal feedback is characterised by statements such as (not verbatim, for they were jotted down after the fact):

•That made really good sense to me, thank you.

•I’m so glad you used food—I get it!

•I really enjoyed that lecture, thank you.

•That was a great comparison—I teach food—it all made sense.

In one of the paragraph answer questions of the survey, respondents were asked to note what they would say to someone who asked about the point of the lecture. Three comments are selected to represent the flavour of the feedback:

•“[It] provided a tangible metaphor for pedagogy, so was valuable for me to remember these theories.”

• “Provides clarity and structure to the ideas and knowledge we have been forming to date. Helped put the concepts in place.”

•“I was able to develop a clearer, more succinct understanding of designing learning and pedagogical approaches as a result of a very interactive lecture.”

There was one outlier, however. One respondent was almost entirely negative, noting that the lecture was irrelevant on almost all counts. Comments from this person included: “I honestly didn’t take much in other than the first slide and the video clips” and “The lecture was probably at the wrong time of the day and week for me ... because it wasn’t interactive I was not engaged and only really listened to the 2 x video’s [sic]”, However, this person did not choose 1 (the least satisfactory) for any of the 4-point scale items. I highlight this set of “outlier” comments because it shows that educators are seldom successful at reaching all learners all the time. As the Bub Blake comic strip iterated, there is no certainty that desired learning will occur.

In the survey, one person remarked on having “done” metaphors already and saw no point in revisiting it. Perhaps this indicates something of the way in which conceptualising learning as compartmentalised items to tick off loses sight of how deep learning happens, which is an effect of iterative and recursive exposure to ideas and concepts across various scenarios and contexts over time. Perhaps this preservice teacher is operating at stage one of Bittman’s (2011) continuum, not yet connecting learning processes with understanding content. Perhaps, too, this comment highlights what Loughran (2010) argued: that until a teacher has some experience teaching, the experience of teaching has only ever been uni-directional—from the perspective of a student rather than a teacher.

Overall, responses through both the survey and the backchannel reflect Lakoff’s (1992) idea of metaphor relating to thought. Lakoff discusses a relationship between metaphor and conceptual ideas in terms of one mental domain and its links to another. However, backchannel responses to the food and pedagogy metaphor context provided more clues to how the cohort reacted to the content and concepts of the lecture. They were encouraged, through the posing of open questions at various points of the lecture, to add their perspectives, engaging in conversation around the ideas.

The subsequent tutorial (which other lecturers took in smaller groups) provided further opportunities for the ITE students to examine their thinking in relation to those ideas, hopefully adding to their mental models as they linked mental domains. However, what happened in those tutorials, and what has happened subsequently on practicum, is largely unknown for no data were gathered from those contexts. It is a yawning chasm in this attempt to examine what any impact on thinking about pedagogy and curriculum design might be, particularly over a longer term than the moment of the lecture, and thus, along with the time-span of evidence gathering, is a limitation of this small study. It is moot how generalisable the findings are, but they may yet resonate with ITE educators in different contexts.

Addressing this disconnect between the lecture and any long-term impact requires a different sort of project to better understand any effects on preservice teachers’ pedagogical thinking as they apply their knowledge to designing learning when they leave their ITE programme. It also requires interviews to probe preservice teachers’ thinking about pedagogy, preferably at two stages—when they start their ITE programme, and when they leave. And yet, given the hurly-burly of the single year these preservice teachers have for this programme, inserting and exerting yet more pressure on this cohort may be counterproductive. Perhaps a project tracking teachers in their first 3 years might succeed in making good sense of how well notions of pedagogy can be understood through the components of a recipe (Table 1) or through the stages of learning to cook and how these understandings have traction in newly graduated teachers’ thinking and practices. Then we might make a robust case for metaphorical understandings that deeply influence pedagogical and curriculum practice. As Shulman (1986) argues, “Case knowledge is knowledge of specific, well-documented, and richly described events” (p. 11) that link theory and practice. This link is what ITE must constantly aim for.

Conclusion

The intention of this article was to examine one instance of how pedagogy could begin to be explained via the extended metaphor of food, recipes, and becoming a competent cook. I argue that it may support ITE students to better grasp the concept of pedagogy and the role of the teacher by hooking into common prior knowledge and modelling how this can be explicitly leveraged. Explaining the conceit of the extended metaphor as a starting place for thinking about pedagogy may make it useful for other teacher educators, who can trial its applicability in different contexts. Notwithstanding the limitations of the evidence and context addressed here, I contend that it is important to find ways (such as extended metaphors) to make inroads into ITE students’ thinking about and understandings of pedagogy. The postscript indicates something of the food metaphor’s potential in this regard.

Postscript: In a later lesson with some of this cohort (about 3 months later, and after their first practicum), I informally asked if my pedagogy lecture had had any longer term effect on their thinking. Those present argued that the metaphor of the four stages of becoming a competent cook was very reassuring for understanding their trajectory as teachers: they could see that moving through the four stages was a long-term evolutionary process and this reduced their anxiety about not yet fully knowing about being a competent teacher. This shows promise, and invites further exploration of the value of an extended food metaphor that helps preservice teachers unpack key ideas about pedagogy, thus adding to their learning and development.

References

Biggs, J. (n. d.). SOLO Taxonomy. Retrieved from: http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/

Bittman, M. (2011). Finding myself in the kitchen. In J. Donohue (Ed.), Man with a pan: Culinary adventures of fathers who cook for their families (pp. 91–100). Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Devine, D. (2014, 12 April). Cooking with gas. Waikato Times, Your Weekend, p. 5.

Downes, S. (2014, 21 April). Connectivism as learning theory. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.nl/2014/04/connectivism-as-learning-theory.html?m=1

Jones, D. (2014). Why recipes?: Introduction. In A. Williams, D. Jones, & J. Robertson (Eds.), BITE: Recipes for remarkable research (pp. 8–13). Retrieved from: https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/other-books/bite/

Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~israel/lakoff-ConTheorMetaphor.pdf

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lim, C. P., & Chan, B. C. (2007). microLESSONS in teacher education: Examining pre-service teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Computers and Education, 48(3), 474–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.005

Leslie, I. (2014). Curious: The desire to know & why your future depends on it. London: Quercus Editions.

Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge.

Loughran, J. J. (2010). What expert teachers do. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Retrieved from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/outcomes.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.

Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Bachmair, B. (2010). Appropriation of mobile cultural resources for learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2010010101

Petit, J., & Kukulska-Hume, A. (2007). Going with the grain: Mobile devices in practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 17–33. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/pettit.html

Petrie, H. G., & Oshlag, R. (1993). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 579–609). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, M. E., & Healy, A. H. (2009). It’s not all about school: Ways of disrupting pre-service teachers’ perceptions of pedagogy and communication. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 424–429. Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/18436/1/c18436.pdf

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, S., & McChesney, J. (2013). Navigating and noticing: Preservice teachers’ journeys in planning mathematics programmes. Curriculum Matters, 9, 102–119.

Wright, N. (2011). mLearning in a New Zealand secondary school: A case study. The International Journal of Learning, 18(1), 575–587.

Note

The author

Noeline Wright spent 20 years teaching in secondary schools before embarking on a doctorate and becoming a teacher educator at the University of Waikato. There, she teaches part of an undergraduate paper, the secondary graduate cohort, and the Masters of Teaching and Learning. Her research interests tend to focus on the intersection of digital technologies and pedagogy in secondary school and ITE contexts.

Email: n.wright@waikato.ac.nz

¹http://rave.ohiolink.edu/archives/ead/OhCoUCR0048. This specific strip is located at: JUB.7.460. See also information at: http://comicskingdom.com/tiger