Kategorie «casino royale james bond full movie online»

Isa GГјnther

Isa GГјnther Isa GГјnther

Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Peter Mosbacher: Ludwig Palfy, Opernkapellmeister Jutta Gnther. Jin-Hong P Gerecke,​. Isa GГјnther. Senta Wengraf Maria Krahn Auguste PГјnkГ¶sdy Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Olden Download Das. Senta Wengraf Maria Krahn Auguste PГјnkГ¶sdy Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Olden Download Das. Ob du oben oder similar Isa GГјnther share, links oder rechts mit dem Puzzeln anfängst, ist egal. Das Spielfeld ist dann schnell voll und die Möglichkeiten. Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Peter Mosbacher: Das doppelte Lottchen movie download Actors: Isa GГјnther Auguste.

Isa GГјnther. Senta Wengraf Maria Krahn Auguste PГјnkГ¶sdy Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Olden Download Das. Ob du oben oder similar Isa GГјnther share, links oder rechts mit dem Puzzeln anfängst, ist egal. Das Spielfeld ist dann schnell voll und die Möglichkeiten. Isa GГјnther Antje Weissgerber Peter Mosbacher Jutta GГјnther Hans Peter Mosbacher: Ludwig Palfy, Opernkapellmeister Jutta Gnther. Jin-Hong P Gerecke,​. Texts devoted only to a single aspect of teaching, such as classroom management, were not included. First, I show that few teacher educators have thought systematically about the role of Bestes Zelt Oktoberfest in teaching or have adopted it as a learning goal for their students. Simply becoming aware that teaching is improvisational is not enough, Pbt Finance. S3, Ep2. Methods books for teaching improv abound e. Too much of classroom life has become too routinized. Alle anzeigen. Es ich kann beweisen. Release year: Pilot 43m.

New York: Basic Books. Shavelson, R. Smith, R. Is teaching really a performing art? Timpson, W. Torrance, E. Interscholastic futuristic creative problem solving.

Trilling, B. Yinger, R. Routines in teacher planning. A study of teacher planning. By this I mean that we should liken teaching to other explicitly improvisational professions such as unscripted theater and jazz music, where conscious efforts are made to develop improvisational expertise, and where a body of knowledge has been built up for doing so.

This reconceptualization of teacher expertise will be an important move toward supporting the kinds of teaching that are needed to meet the demands of our society in the twenty-first century.

The assertion that good teaching involves improvisation is a statement of the obvious to any experienced classroom teacher.

But improvisation has rarely been an explicit part of conversations about teaching, and because we do not talk much about our improvisation, we limit our ability as a profession to advance our knowledge and capacity for improvising well.

Unlike other improvisational professions, we do not have a well-elaborated, shared notion of what constitutes excellent improvisation, nor do we know much about how teachers learn to improvise or what teacher educators can do to facilitate that learning.

Yet, as I explain later in the chapter, many scholars In R. This chapter focuses on teacher education because these programs are important sites for conversations about teaching; this is where we can pass on to our next generation of teachers ideas about what we hope teaching will be.

I identify two barriers to the reconceptualization of teaching as disciplined improvisation. First, I show that few teacher educators have thought systematically about the role of improvisation in teaching or have adopted it as a learning goal for their students.

Second, I argue that teacher education students do not naturally come to the view that teaching should be improvisational, due to certain deeply held, culturally based beliefs about teaching that I identify in this chapter.

To overcome these two barriers, I describe how familiar methods in teacher education can be easily adapted for the purpose of helping future teachers understand the improvisational nature of teaching.

I begin the chapter by explaining the importance of an improvisational view of teaching to the educational needs of the twenty-first century.

I then discuss what we can expect to gain by viewing teaching as not just improvisational, but as professionally improvisational.

Next, I examine how improvisation currently figures in conversations within teacher education, as evidenced by a content analysis of methods textbooks; this content analysis helps us understand why the improvisational dimension of teaching may be less obvious to pre-service teachers than it is to those with experience in the classroom.

In the final section of the chapter, I propose strategies that teacher educators can use to help their students think productively and professionally about the improvisation that teachers do.

I join with other authors in the volume in arguing for a new conception of teacher expertise that includes expertise in improvisation.

However, I focus on teacher expertise as seen not through the eyes of scholars but through the eyes of pre-service teachers. I examine the tension between teaching viewed as a form of professional improvisation and the planning-centric view of teaching that teacher education students often bring to their programs, and that those programs implicitly reinforce.

I address this tension by presenting strategies for moving pre-service teachers away from a view of teaching as desirably scripted toward a view of teaching as desirably improvisational.

Like many authors, I use the improvisational metaphor to analyze teacher expertise. As Sawyer points out , this volume , this metaphor has limits, because there are important ways in which the aims and circumstances of teaching differ from those of artistic performance.

In this chapter, my assertion is that the key feature that teaching should share with jazz music and theatrical improvisation, although it currently does not, is the availability of an explicitly held and deliberately taught body of knowledge about how to successfully improvise in order to accomplish the intended aims of the profession.

It is my hope that this chapter and this volume will serve as catalysts for the development of explicit professional knowledge for improvisational teaching.

The schooling needs of the knowledge society, however, are different from those of an industrial society.

To prepare our young people to participate in the knowledge society, we need to develop more than just their factual knowledge base.

In addition, students need to have many experiences involving collaborative work. In these respects, schooling for the knowledge society rests firmly on a constructivist vision of teaching.

Constructivist learning theory views learning as a process in which individuals construct new knowledge by reorganizing their existing knowledge in light of experiences that challenge their present understandings.

Whereas constructivism is a descriptive theory of the learning process, and therefore makes no prescriptions for teaching, there is a wealth of scholarship that considers how we might leverage a constructivist understanding of learning in order to optimize the teaching process.

Specific recommendations vary across content areas, but there are some general features that have emerged as hallmarks of constructivist-based teaching Richardson, ; Windschitl, To begin, the core idea behind constructivist-inspired teaching is that students should be placed in situations that challenge their prior conceptions and press them to develop more sophisticated ones.

To do this successfully, teachers need lots of opportunities to find out what and how students are thinking, and this in turn means that instructional time should involve a great deal of teacher-student interaction.

Improvisation is implicated in constructivist-based teaching in a number of ways. This will depend on how they connect Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 31 the new aspects of the lesson to their prior knowledge.

Teachers must make instructional decisions on the fly, based on careful observation and diagnosis of student thinking. Although Simon observed this teaching cycle in the context of a mathematics classroom, the basic features of the teaching process he describes would hold for constructivist-based teaching in other disciplines.

Based on this hypothesis, the teacher selects learning goals for the lesson and chooses activities designed to accomplish these goals. Then, as the teacher interacts with and observes students during the lesson, two things happen simultaneously and continuously.

At the same time, the teacher observes what is happening in the interactions and assesses student thinking.

Based on these assessments, she modifies her hypothetical learning trajectory, which in turn requires modification of the immediate learning goals and activities.

To develop new, more sophisticated ways of thinking, students need opportunities to encounter the limitations of their existing understandings, to actively work with unfamiliar ideas, and to generate and explore new possibilities for their own thought.

This is not just a matter of providing activities in which students can improvise new understandings, but also of establishing certain social and intellectual norms in the classroom.

On this view, the aim of teaching should not be simply for individual students to do individual thinking, but rather for students to engage in conceptual interchange with their peers and their teacher.

Through collaborative dialogue, students work collectively toward more robust understandings. The flow of the lesson needs to be collaboratively determined, perhaps guided in strategic ways by the teacher, but at the same time necessarily emergent from the interactive give-and-take between teacher and students and between students and each other.

It is important for teachers to think of teaching as improvisational so that they do not attempt to control too tightly the flow of the lesson; this would circumvent the co-construction process Sawyer, Teaching improvisationally emphasizes knowledge generation rather than knowledge acquisition.

For example, Kelley, Brown, and Crawford argue that teaching improvisationally is crucial in science education because students need to experience science as a process rather than as a product.

This same principle holds for other subjects as well. In descriptions of constructivist-based teaching, the themes of teacher flexibility and responsiveness appear frequently.

Second, considering teaching in terms of improvisation can help teachers think not only about their own responsiveness and flexibility, but also about generating successful student improvisation and effective collaboration between teachers and students.

Third, thinking of teaching as improvisation may be more productive within teacher education than simply asserting that teachers need to be flexible and responsive.

Telling someone to be responsive is not very useful; professional improvisation is a valuable model because improvisers in jazz and theater are taught exactly how to be flexible and responsive.

Teaching Improvisation as Professional Improvisation For the previously outlined reasons, it is important that we begin to attend explicitly to the improvisational nature of teaching.

Simply becoming aware that teaching is improvisational is not enough, however. When seen from the perspective of constructivist learning theory and the educational demands of the knowledge society, improvisation is not something that is incidental in teaching; it is central, and therefore we need to focus our efforts on doing it expertly.

We need to think of ourselves as professional, rather than incidental, improvisers. Consider what might be gained for the teaching profession if we begin to think of ourselves as professional improvisers.

To begin, seeing ourselves as professional improvisers creates an imperative to take our improvisation seriously, to attend to our successes and failures, and to strategize about how to improvise better.

Further, viewing teaching as an improvisational profession will lead to the development of a body of professional knowledge to support our improvisation.

Established improvisation communities such 34 DeZutter as jazz music and unscripted acting have well-elaborated, shared notions of what constitutes successful improvisation, from which are derived clear learning goals for newcomers and accompanying techniques for helping learners accomplish those goals.

Improv actors have a detailed set of criteria for evaluating the success of a performance. As this list suggests, alongside an elaborated vision of what constitutes successful improv comes a vocabulary that provides a shorthand for talking about the components of that success and for talking about failures.

These things then translate into learning goals for those who are new to the profession. These guidelines reflect the accumulated wisdom of the community about what works to make a satisfying experience for the audience.

And because the guidelines are teachable, they prevent newcomers from having to create from scratch the strategies and skills needed for success.

No one expects novice actors to be good at improv right away. Over its sixty-year Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 35 history, the improv community has developed a wealth of methods for teaching improv acting, and the great improv teachers such as Paul Sills and Del Close are venerated as much, if not more, than the great performers.

Methods books for teaching improv abound e. Similar types of knowledge can be found in the jazz community; see Berliner, We need a similar body of knowledge in the teaching profession, including a well-elaborated vision of good improvisational teaching, a shared vocabulary, learning goals for new teachers, and accompanying techniques for developing improvisational ability.

One way to make progress toward these ends is to mine the wisdom of other improvisational communities. Several scholars have already begun work of this type.

Improv actors use games and other frameworks as scaffolds for successful improvisational performances. Such structures impose parameters within which the improvisation occurs, and this serves to cut down to a manageable range the amount of improvisation necessary to produce a coherent performance.

Sawyer suggests that teachers need to design classroom activities with a similar idea in mind. Activities need to allow students intellectual space to construct their own knowledge while at the same time scaffolding the construction process.

Sawyer 36 DeZutter also notes that it will be helpful to train teachers in some of the techniques used by theatrical improvisers. There are a few such efforts currently underway.

The work of Sawyer, Donmeyer, and Lobman demonstrates the value in attending to the knowledge for improvisation found in the theater community.

There is also some interesting work using insights from dance improvisation; see Fournier, this volume.

However, drawing wisdom from other improvisational professions should not be our only strategy. As Sawyer notes, the demands of teaching in a K school differ significantly from the demands of creating a performance in the arts.

If we are to advance the ability of the teaching profession to improvise, we will need to develop a vision, a vocabulary, and pedagogical techniques that are specific to teaching.

Indeed, that is where much of the current scholarship on teaching-as-improvisation will likely lead. At the same time, though, we need to engage in a parallel effort that will establish an audience for such scholarship, and extend the conversation about improvisation to others besides education scholars.

We need to take steps to help teachers understand why such scholarship matters, why it is important to understand teaching as improvisational, and why we should strive to improvise well.

Textbooks offer a reasonable proxy for the topics that are included in teacher education classes because to be adopted, a textbook must present the ideas Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 37 and concepts that teacher educators deem important.

I analyzed fourteen general-methods texts see Table 2. All generalmethods texts texts not focused on a particular grade level or content area were included, except for one text from Cengage that could not be acquired at the time of the study.

Texts devoted only to a single aspect of teaching, such as classroom management, were not included. The textbooks I examined treat constructivism in a variety of ways.

Several e. Others mention constructivism only long enough to link it to other terms or ideas that are used more frequently.

Still others e. It would be reasonable, then, to expect these texts to deal with teacher improvisation as a necessary feature of teaching that accomplishes such aims.

In a discussion of differences between expert and novice teachers, in which they cite Borko and Livingston , see below , Ornstein and Lasley explain, Experts engage in a good deal of intuitive and improvisational teaching.

They begin with a simple plan or outline and fill in the details as the teaching-learning process unfolds. The act of teaching 5th ed.

Another text, Frieberg and Driscoll , includes a section on using theatrical improvisation as a teaching technique but does not mention or suggest that improvisation should be an integral part of every teaching process.

In fact, the presence of this section may contribute to an impression that improvisation is not a normal part of teaching, but rather a special technique to be employed only in certain situations.

I then examined the possibility that teaching-as-improvisation is present in these texts, even though the term is not used. Even though all of the texts give at least passing nods to concepts such as teacher flexibility, responsiveness, and in-the-moment revision of plans, the lack of sustained discussion of such issues, accompanied by an emphasis on detailed lesson planning and vignettes of teaching in which the improvisational elements are not made salient, means that readers new to the profession are unlikely to take away the message that teaching is necessarily and always improvisational.

Student reactions may make it necessary or desirable to elaborate on something included in the plan or to pursue something unexpected that arises as the lesson proceeds.

Topics that we might expect to be associated 40 DeZutter with teacher improvisation, such as attending to individual student needs, teaching students with differing rates of learning, and accounting for diverse student backgrounds, tend to be addressed with advice on how lessons should be planned, and that advice rarely includes planning for improvisational teaching.

All of the texts do at least mention that lesson plans must at times be revised on the fly, but there is an absence of sustained discussion about the necessary give-and-take between pre-lesson work and during-the-lesson decision making.

But the vignettes and case studies presented in these books rarely demonstrate the improvisational essence of teaching.

Such descriptions also create the sense that the teacher is the only one who is shaping the direction of the lesson, because it is almost never made explicit that the flow of the lesson emerges from collaborative classroom dialogue.

These books do not show pre-service teachers the essential improvisational nature of teaching. And we know that pre-service teachers do not start teacher education programs with improvisational beliefs about teaching.

This is done chiefly by telling the information to the students. In one interesting example of research on this issue, Weber and Mitchell asked children, pre-service teachers, and practicing teachers to draw a picture of a teacher.

Weber and Mitchell concluded that this traditional image was widespread among not only pre-service Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 41 teachers but most people in our culture p.

Students, if depicted, were shown sitting passively, in orderly rows, eyes on the teacher. This experiment reveals the dominant image of teaching that teacher education students bring with them to their education classes.

Indeed, such transmissionist views have been shown to conflict with the learning of constructivist-based principles of teaching.

It makes sense under the transmission model to depict a teacher speaking in the front of a classroom to a group of silent or invisible students.

It makes far less sense, however, to depict a teacher this way under a constructivist-inspired model of teaching. From a constructivist perspective, the act of teaching cannot be depicted without including the students in the image, because the intellectual activity of the students is what is important.

Such beliefs often act as a barrier to accurately understanding constructivistinspired approaches to teaching, and will very likely also be a barrier to inferring the improvisational nature of teaching.

From the transmissionist perspective, there is little reason for improvisation in teaching. Rather, planning exactly what the teacher will say and do during a lesson, even down to 42 DeZutter the minute details, seems advisable to ensure that all the important ideas get said and in the right order.

If new teachers understand the value of improvisational teaching to student learning, they are more likely to plan for improvisation instead of planning a script.

If they learn to think critically about the role of improvisation in teaching and to reflect on their own successes and failures in improvisation, they will become better classroom improvisers, and therefore, better teachers.

In addition, such conversations may generate a demand for more scholarly work on teaching as improvisation, which can then be incorporated into teacher education, further advancing the cause of excellence in improvisational teaching.

I would like to see improvisation addressed directly and substantively in forthcoming teacher education textbooks, but in the absence of such discussions, teacher educators should fill in the gaps by exploring the topic with their students.

Bringing Improvisation into Conversations within Teacher Education For guidance on incorporating conversations about improvisation into teacher education, we can turn first to the already well-developed body of literature on addressing teaching beliefs in teacher education.

As suggested by the earlier discussion, the initial step in helping pre-service teachers understand the role of improvisation in teaching will be to address their assumptions about the teaching-learning process, some of which may conflict with the idea that effective teaching involves successful improvisation.

Asking students to articulate and examine their beliefs about teaching helps them be more deliberate learners as they encounter new, challenging ideas, and it sets the stage for the career-long reflective consideration of the teachinglearning process that many teacher education programs strive to foster.

The skillful teacher educator will listen carefully to the notions of teaching that her students express and then find ways to link those notions to the ideas she hopes they will come to understand.

Such activities can be used as opportunities to open conversations about the improvisational nature of teaching as well.

Blumenfeld, Hicks, and Kracjik suggest that lesson-planning activities, which are a mainstay of methods courses, can be an important site for students to articulate and examine beliefs about the relationship between particular pedagogical choices and student learning.

Woolfolk Hoy and Murphy note that having students write philosophies of learning can be a valuable tool for unearthing assumptions.

Students can be asked to revise these at later points in their preparation, and can thereby track the evolution of their beliefs. Such themes can then be included in the discussions that arise around these activities, so that students not only begin to unearth their assumptions relating to teacher improvisation, but also begin to learn that improvisation is an important issue in teaching.

Programs that address beliefs only briefly or in a piecemeal fashion are unlikely to be effective in moving students toward robust, research-based understandings.

Thus, conversations about the improvisational nature of teaching should be integrated throughout a teacher education program as well, so that teacher education students have multiple, recurring opportunities to reflect on this aspect of their teaching beliefs.

In inviting pre-service teachers to think about teaching as improvisation, teacher educators can expect to encounter certain challenges.

I have mentioned that transmissionist beliefs held by many pre-service teachers are likely to create difficulties for thinking about teaching as improvisation, because teaching understood as transmission seems to require scripting more than improvising.

Lortie makes the point that upon entering a teacher education program, pre-service teachers have had twelve or more years of observing teaching from the vantage point of the student.

As apprentice observers, people gain many images of teachers that they carry into preparation programs, but these images only include the parts of teaching a student can see.

Teacher planning and on-the-fly decision making are mostly invisible to the student, and this masks the nature of teaching as skilled improvisation.

From the student perspective, routines and order are salient, but improvisation is not Labaree, The aim is not just that they understand that teaching is improvisational, but that they begin to think of themselves as professional improvisers who are deliberate about developing and employing improvisational skill.

Attaining this understanding is likely to be difficult, because teacher education students are not likely to have a well-developed sense of what might constitute improvisational excellence or what might be involved in achieving it.

Along with the other authors represented in this book, I argue that teacher educators can make an analogy to other professional improvisational communities, although this will require more than simply pointing out the commonalities between teaching and, for example, theatrical improvisation.

It is not obvious that professional improv performers engage in substantial training and preparation to become successful at their craft.

Therefore, teacher educators might ask students to consider such questions as what might be involved in learning to improvise at a professional level and what kinds of knowledge professional improvisers draw on.

It may even be useful to have students investigate some of the many books available on learning to improvise, and ask them to draw their own analogies between the skills explored in those texts and the skills involved in teaching.

In addition, narrative case studies are a common feature in methods texts. By discussing these examples of teaching with their peers and their professors, education students learn to think analytically about teaching, which is an important step toward becoming a professional educator.

As a part of these conversations, students should be invited to think about improvisation. When discussing their own teaching experiences, students can be asked about the role of improvisation in their teaching, and challenged to consider ways to make their teaching more successfully improvisational.

When discussing observations and case studies, the role of improvisation may be less apparent, and so it may be useful for teacher educators to pose questions that will make this more salient.

For example, a video case study can be paused to ask the viewers what the teacher is likely thinking about at a given moment and how she might respond to different contingencies, or to brainstorm about many possible directions in which the lesson may go depending on student responses.

Cases can also be evaluated in terms of what kinds of improvisational demands were placed on students What sort of knowledge construction opportunities were present?

In addition to including improvisation in discussions of examples of teaching, it should also be included in discussions of lesson planning.

Borko and Livingston established that experienced teachers teach more improvisationally than novices do because experienced teachers have more highly integrated knowledge structures relating to pedagogical strategies and content knowledge.

This finding cautions us that to some degree, improvisational skill may be a function of classroom experience. On the other hand, this work has implications for how we teach new teachers to plan their lessons.

Specifically, it might be valuable for teacher education students to consider what it means to plan to improvise. Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 47 In addition, teachers may wish to attend more to the design of activities than to predetermining the flow of a lesson; this would help them attend to what kinds of explorations students will be supported to do.

As constructivist approaches to teaching emphasize, in order to build deep, conceptual understandings, students need opportunities for supported intellectual exploration.

Not only does teaching need to allow space for teachers to respond to evolving student thinking; it must be designed to allow teachers and students to improvise new understandings together.

Teachers need to be willing and effective improvisers, and this means that, as a profession, we must begin to explicitly examine the improvisation that we do.

The authors represented in this book are developing a body of knowledge for expert teaching improvisation that will parallel the kinds of knowledge found in other professional improvisation communities.

But at the same time as this work proceeds, we need to open the conversation about improvisational teaching to our next generation of teachers. Future teachers will need to embrace improvisation as an important component in their professional work, and think deliberately and analytically about how to improvise better.

The idea that teaching is a form of professional improvisation may be a challenging one for many pre-service teachers, due to implicit transmissionist beliefs that make scripting a lesson seem more desirable than improvisation.

Therefore, it will be important for teacher educators to help future teachers unearth their assumptions about teaching, including those related to improvisation, and to create opportunities for them to develop more robust understandings of the teaching process and of why improvisation is central to it.

References Anderson, L. Sternberg Eds. Blumenfeld, P. Teaching educational psychology through instructional planning.

Bryan, L. Davis, B. Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Donmoyer, R. Pedagogical improvisation.

Fishman, B. Hargreaves, A. Holt-Reynolds, D. Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. What does the teacher do? Johnstone, K.

Labaree, D. Life on the margins. Lobato, J. Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36 2 , Lobman, C.

Lortie, D. Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. Torrance Eds. Patrick, H. Renninger, A. Learning as the focus of an educational psychology course.

Richardson, V. The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Sikula, T. Guyton Eds. Constructivist pedagogy.

Firsthand learning through intent participation. Emergence in creativity and development. Educating for innovation. Scardamalia, M.

Siegler, R. Simon, M. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Spolin, V. Improvisation for the theater.

Strauss, S. Folk psychology, folk pedagogy, and their relations to subjectmatter knowledge. Torff, B. Horvath, Eds. Tudge, J.

Bruner, Eds. Wideen, M. Windschitl, M. Review of Educational Research, 72 2 , Woolfolk Hoy, A. Teaching educational psychology to the implicit mind.

Under the accountability agenda, teachers are required to measure and test students, to report using mandated standards and systems, and to teach in state sanctioned ways.

Under the creativity agenda, teachers are expected to act effortlessly, fluidly, to take risks, be adventurous, and to develop pedagogy and classroom creativity in order to develop their own knowledge and skills as creative professionals.

They are expected to develop creative learners who can succeed in a twenty-first-century economy that rewards creativity and innovation.

The accountability agenda makes it difficult for teachers to work more creatively. Teachers get overwhelmed by a constant barrage of accountability demands standards, tests, targets, and tables by government.

There is general agreement that governments are increasingly taking control of the teaching profession Alexander, Teachers are expected to perform in specific and regulated ways.

In contrast, the creativity agenda encourages teachers to take risks, be adventurous, and explore creativity themselves.

Yet, what constitutes creativity in education remains ambiguous. Whereas important research conducted a decade ago by Woods and Jeffrey identified how teachers cope with tensions surrounding In R.

The conflict between the creativity and accountability agendas in education causes tensions for teachers given the effect of all the tough talk of standards Ball, There is wide acceptance that teaching is a complex task involving a high degree of professional expertise see Sawyer, this volume.

In the United Kingdom, a government emphasis on creativity in learning has led to an expansion of artist-teacher partnerships.

In these partnerships, working professional artists visit the classroom for a limited time period and work side by side with the full-time teacher.

Partnerships have become a delivery model in education, which offers a forum for creative opportunities.

There is a long history of collaborations between teachers and professional artists in participatory arts activities, both in schools and communities.

Models of practice in partnerships between artists and teachers vary considerably. However, effective partnerships between artists and teachers in schools suggest it is in the act of creativity itself that empowerment lies.

Teaching is a subtle and complex art, and successful teachers, like artists, view their work as a continuing process of reflection and learning.

These partnerships directly benefit students, but they also have the potential to indirectly benefit students by increasing teacher expertise.

For a partnership to work well, either for students or for teacher professional development, Wenger , p.

Under these conditions, a collaborative partnership potentially can develop, where teachers and artists are engaged in a dialogue and are dialogic in their teaching.

For this to happen, they need to have time for thinking, to encourage and maintain ambiguity, and to share understanding concerning what they are doing and what this means within the community Galton, When teachers and artists collaborate, they often have different conceptions concerning the organization of space, material, and time in the classroom.

The visiting artist typically uses a more improvisational, openended approach, whereas the classroom teacher typically uses a more structured style.

Thus, these teacher-artist partnerships provide us with an opportunity to study the teaching paradox in action: How do these dyads resolve this paradox to balance the more unpredictable, improvisational approach of the visiting artist with the more predictable, normative, and accountable style of the teacher?

If this paradox can be resolved, the result would be improved teacher expertise; research tells us how important it is for teachers to alter traditional school boundaries of time and space to allow for unpredictable, rigorous, reflective, and improvisational teaching Jeffrey, This resonates with the notion of Nardone who considered the lived experience of improvisation to be a coherent synthesis of the body and mind engaged in both conscious and prereflective activity.

When teachers and artists work together, particularly over sustained periods, their tacit knowledge and practice can be examined, reflected on, shared, and new practices created.

From the outset of each performance, improvisers enter an artificial world of time in which reactions to the unfolding events of their tales must be immediate.

Furthermore, the consequences of their actions are irreversible. Few experiences are more deeply fulfilling.

My goal is to understand how they resolve this tension to create a shared space for teaching that enables the emergence of improvisational forms of teaching.

What takes them from teaching together, independently and side by side, to coconstructing an emergent pedagogy? I focus on two questions: When is it that artists enable teachers by working in classrooms?

When teachers and artists collaborate, their different conceptions of teaching and different paradigms of expertise must be resolved before they can construct an effective learning environment.

This examination sheds light on the teaching paradox because the visiting artist represents a more creative, improvisational end of the paradox, whereas the classroom teacher represents the more constrained, scripted end.

Artists, in contrast, are stereotypically presented and seen as artists or arts practitioners, professionals involved in cultural production.

The artist in education is frequently an outsider who comes into an education space and acts as a catalyst or challenger of learning and who provides ways of exploring the world which involve more sensory, immersive, and improvisatory rooted ways of working than are customary in classroom settings.

I conclude by generalizing from these specific examples to propose a set of necessary conditions that must be met to resolve the teaching paradox.

Pedagogic Partnerships and Teaching for Creativity For many years, schools have employed visiting professional artists, in music, dance and theater, to work in educational partnerships with teachers in schools.

In the years after this influential document was published, many subsequent government policies and advisory documents have indirectly increased the interest in artist partnerships with artists in schools.

The vision and the hope are that the learning of pupils, pedagogic practices of teachers, and schools as organizations will be changed by educational partnerships and the significance they have in school improvement.

The vision and number of educational partnerships was increased dramatically in the United Kingdom as a result of the policy initiative, Creative Partnerships a, b.

With more than , young people and more than 4, teacher-artist collaborations, partnerships are acknowledged to have great potential to enhance arts education and creative education in schools.

One goal is to help pupils learn more creatively. A second goal is to help teachers teach more creatively; a third is to help schools become more innovative organizations.

A fourth is to forge strong and sustained partnerships between schools and artists. This chapter provides evidence of how the teaching paradox is resolved in these collaborative pedagogic practices between teachers and artists working in partnership in schools.

The vision and hope here, in the light of these educational policy initiatives as well as CCE, ; NCSL, ; QCA, and Schools of Creativity [Creative Partnerships Prospectus for Schools September, ] , are that teachers will better learn how to resolve the teaching paradox: They will be stimulated and supported by sharing the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of working in collaborative practice with artists, where the teacher makes unpremeditated, spur-of-the-moment decisions, where a considerable degree of residual decision making occurs, where the acquired skills that are normally executed as a professional repertoire of teaching strategies are linked up with those of the artists to develop a new way of resolving the teaching paradox between advance planning and the real-time practice of classroom teaching.

Professional Relationships and the Spaces That Enable Teaching for Creativity When artists and teachers collaborate, the full complexity of teaching is affected.

Teachers and artists enter the partnership with different theories, beliefs, practices, questions, visions, and hopes.

Thus the teaching paradox is played out visibly, in the social interaction between these two professionals. There is strong evidence that artists use a more improvisational approach as they engage with students and teachers Loveless, ; Sefton-Green, Galton studied a group of artists with a successful track record of working in schools, not only including artists from traditional disciplines but also practitioners making regular use of various forms of information and communications technology ICT such as digital photographers and filmmakers.

There is no lack of evidence that artists motivate students, but there is little extant research that identifies what teachers learn about teaching while working with artists.

The metaphor of improvisation helps illuminate that creative learning is essentially polyphonic; it evolves not in a single line of action or thought, but in several strands and directions at once, not circumscribed by the tried and traditional, enabling risk to be borne or not, and in the face of this artists can adopt different stances and engage in different collaborative activities with teachers.

Improvisation is characterized by flexible, adaptive, responsive, and generative activity. Teaching, like improvisation, is framed conceptually and ethically, as well as temporally and spatially.

In the variability of preexisting pedagogic and artistic practices, teachers and artists engage in considerable risk taking when they work together.

Improvisational teaching is always negotiating the teaching paradox: It dances between planned, scripted, deliberate, conscious episodes, and opportunistic action that ensures spontaneity by yielding to the flow; its immediacy signifies improvisational characteristics in the synchronous moment-to-moment of creating a new pedagogic practice.

Research shows that visiting artists teach in a more improvisational manner. Can teachers learn from the emergence of these improvisational ways of teaching?

Teachers cultivate and draw on a repertoire of pedagogic strategies. Artists constantly try out new ideas or adapt old ones, often taking calculated risks in the act of teaching.

So, what happens when artists and teachers teach together? What happens in the fusion of their actions and thoughts, both of which are of equal interest to who they are and what they value?

How do these collaborations address the teaching paradox? Expert teachers use routines and activity structures in regulated i. As the teacher unfolds this with his or her class, over time, perhaps within and beyond the lesson, the artist and teacher reveal a shared understanding of the sequence of improvised episodes.

Given any topic, it seems that individual teachers will choose different ways to introduce and different ways in which to sequence the episodes of teaching, even when they often make decisions about the order in which to cover sections of work, what to miss out, what to emphasize, and so on.

Teachers are often confronted with common misconceptions; their narratives, as interpreted by their students, are often responsible for introducing elements that run contrary to expectations.

For artists, the plot devised and the business of working differently is reflected by their different understandings of what has gone before.

This leads to the development of contextually situated problems and solutions that lead to new forms of creativity. The co-construction of new ideas, topics, and contexts can lead to significant and distinctively different pedagogic practices.

This kind of improvisatory practice does not always appear in teacherartist partnerships. The peculiar paradox is that teachers are apparently being urged to collaborate more with artists when, in the present climate of accountability, there is less for them to collaborate on.

When differences in pedagogy between teachers and artists are not resolved, the teaching paradox is realized as a clash of pedagogic cultures Pringle, ; Galton, Similarly, in the work of Hall, Thomson, and Russell , the issues surrounding the clash between two cultures has also identified the need to develop shared principles and values so as to underpin the collaborative pedagogic practice that one hopes will emerge.

The first partnership I discuss is between Dorothy, a composer with twenty years of experience, and John, a teacher with twenty years of experience.

John is the Director of Performing Arts, a music teacher, conductor, and arranger. He has great respect for Dorothy because of the results she gets with his students.

I knew them both some considerable time before because he had been an enthusiast for some innovative curriculum development and she had been involved in making composition accessible and meaningful to students.

This is how Dorothy described the shared space of her pedagogic practice as the dialogic improvisation of teaching. I normally start with activities which open up and explore possibilities and communicate an openness to ideas in the ways we model collaborative action and a passion for the exploration of our own creative learning and teaching.

Everything evolves organically. And, I like to spend quite a bit of time before starting a project observing the classroom practice of the teachers involved.

This influences how I work. I try to promote a kind of fluid reflective practice which is a bit like researching your own practice.

I encourage risk taking and play and expect students to take responsibility for what they do. That is crucial.

I get them to work in a participatory way where exchanging ideas and experiences is expected also of the teachers. I do a lot of talking with the teacher during the sessions and engaging collaboratively.

I also have a lot of extended conversations long before and immediate after sessions and I make a big deal of shared dialogue during sessions with the teachers.

I think learners gain a lot of 62 Burnard understanding through this collaboration but through these exchanges and with students working along teachers.

Other common elements in their practice included allowing students choice and ownership of their learning, time for reflection, creating a stimulating environment, and, most importantly, modeling creative action within a genuine partnership.

John, the teacher, probes the reasons for the high levels of collaboration, mutual support, respect, and shared engagement; the reasons for selecting the tasks the artists ask students and teachers to undertake; and the kinds of outcomes on which he and Dorothy agree on and judge as successful.

Unusually, he separates learning and the act of teaching as a transaction taking place not only between the artist and students within the classroom but between the artist and teacher.

John said: To me, working with artists is about several things. I see, in the course of lesson and across a series of lessons, how they encompass, get students to explore their own ideas before going on to decide on the tasks and activities to be undertaken and about the particular tasks which move to imaginative playful spontaneous stuff then move to create something in response, working with them in different ways to create safe spaces for risk taking.

And another important thing is with the students. What I am trying to do here is to be a person who responds to ideas, just like the students; to come up with ideas and to bring our own reflections to share.

The students reflect on their learning and themselves as learners. So do I, but as their teacher I bring my own practice to the surface and share it with more spontaneity with the artist.

Just like Dorothy, I start with warm-up and release activities which open up and explore possibilities and communicate an openness to ideas.

Artists often resist describing their practice as teaching. In contrast, they often describe their pedagogic practice in the language of the teaching paradox: a dialogic improvisation between the fixed plans, repertoires, and routines, yielding to high levels of real-time decision making.

It is not uncommon for both teachers and artists to go through periods of uncertainty and discomfort as they negotiate this tension between different conceptions of the use of time, space, and resources in relation to how classroom and school procedures normally operate.

These principles overlay my pedagogic practice in schools. There are tensions and clearly risks attached for those engaged in the fluid nature of art-making processes.

The consequence of reflection, putting in breathing spaces and still points, and reflecting critically on what, why, and how we learn and how we work in partnership with teachers and students in schools can be 64 Burnard really tricky.

The effect of encouraging students to pursue a line of thinking may cause them to question or challenge the values and practices of their own teachers and that of the school can be seen as subversive.

Sometimes you just have to invite students to find the space and take the time to sit and think about it and try and reduce the perceived risk by the offer to think and encourage thinking together about alternative ways rather than just pursue one way to go about it.

So, they become the provider of information, or the police person. They very loosely guided the students on a very different, quite unspecified, learning journey to me.

I watched from the sidelines rather than participated. I know why a few of the students get upset. It can be very destabilizing for some students.

Confidences can take a real knock when tasks are high on ambiguity and therefore perceived as very risky. I just had to help out some students by showing specifically how to do things so they could achieve the set criteria that we are all used to.

They had all the talent but none of the critical elements that, for me, defines teaching like being The Improvisatory Space of Teaching 65 in control and which, for me, should play out like a fully orchestrated score.

The teaching paradox that arises in the partnership between artists and teachers can be complex and can give rise to a clash of confidence, as power relationships are forged and in some cases control relinquished to whose opinions count.

Artists can hold strong views about going with the flow whereas teachers often see themselves cast in the role of didact or policeman.

Pringle and Galton make similar points that artists can adopt creative and experimental pedagogic modes because generally they are free from curriculum constraints, whereas teachers are not always at liberty to do so.

In the context of the qualitative differences between artist and teacher pedagogies, Bernstein offers a framework which differentiates between pedagogies in terms of competence and performance.

In any given teaching session, performance models might include, as a core act of teaching, improvisational forms that, in-the-moment, promote learner independence and autonomy or require the teacher to spontaneously scaffold learning so as to help learners move forward in their learning.

Teachers are being pushed by two opposed agendas: They are being asked to promote creativity while at the same time meeting accountability targets measured by success in standardized tests.

The evidence from several studies is that there are many understandable tensions arising out of this paradox Cochrane, What kinds of pedagogic practices and partnerships have the potential to create better professional teacher practices?

First, we have strong evidence that artists work adaptively with and alongside teachers and students Galton, They work together improvisationally, as ideas are exchanged and built on dialogically Sawyer, Second, we have strong evidence that for the teachers, working with artists involves teaching in a variety of ways.

The artists tend to move between competence and performance pedagogies, splitting the focus between the learner, what the learner achieves, the teacher, and the performance of teaching.

Teachers tend to favor the performance models of pedagogy, which place the emphasis on clearly defined objectives and outputs; but having seen the effects of encouraging students to pursue different lines of thinking, to question and challenge the values and practices of past lessons, and the consequences of professional reflection, most of them increasingly come to understand that creative learning is not about getting a right or wrong outcome, but is a dance that is both improvised and choreographed.

As a result of the partnerships, teachers change how they approach the teaching paradox: They become more improvisational.

Being Improvisatory with the Other in Educational Partnerships What matters to teachers the most is how artists deploy their specialized knowledge in practice.

They view the artists as experts who are successful because of their superior knowledge of their subject matter honed through years of experience as performing artists.

Sawyer has applied these ideas to teaching as improvisation, particularly the capacity to adapt reflexively to learning environments.

Artists often prefer to think of their role as that of a creative facilitator who offers education projects out of schools in galleries, museums, the community such as village halls and churches, and other local phenomena.

Such spaces can offer the conditions necessary to support and nurture creativity in teaching and learning, and offer up new starting points, lines of inquiry, The Improvisatory Space of Teaching 67 and possibilities of specific places for engaging imaginative creative activity.

Artists and teachers develop unique pedagogic partnerships when they mesh understandings of how children encounter place and time differently in different contexts.

I look at things in a completely different way now. I think I now teach in a more creative way. I play. I now experiment with a revitalized sense of myself as an artist teacher and happily share my own compositions with my students.

I think of them as artists. I understand much more about the importance of being flexible and engaging the imagination and how to generate motivation and explore ideas while still working towards an outcome.

I feel a lot more confident about ways to achieve a balance between freedom and control in creativity and to navigate between being a teacher and student and shared negotiation in collaboration within the hierarchy of the school.

This teacher worked together with the artist and they adaptively supported each other. Many teachers emphasized the tensions and felt threatened by changes in routine.

Yet they nonetheless spoke about the experience of being helped teach more creatively, using creative journeys as educational drivers, and developing creative skills in young people.

The capacity and willingness to take risks and work with the unfamiliar created some challenges to the orthodoxies and occupational mythologies played out in artist-teacher interactions, as one teacher observed: There was a definite sort of tension.

For example, I normally work with the desks arranged in rows. But actually I think it was a really good process to see how students could work in small groups arranged in different ways and spaces 68 Burnard to generate new ways of composing.

They not only used space in some exciting activities; they had the students working in small groups with a new self-determined concentration, purposefully experimenting, modeling, and trying out ideas as they composed in different ways.

It was a message creative space though. It felt like a combination between a science lab, an art room and a junk yard.

The students were absorbed in their composing and it was not surprising really. I have rarely seen such a purposeful, buzzing and reflective climate in a group.

The students were also consciously reflecting on their creative process, taking photographs and recordings of all their drafts as a record of when and in what way they felt they were being creative.

I came to a realization that they all had a gift. I realized how good they were and how much they were taking the students pieces seriously, and that they were at the top of their profession and yet remained so very, very sympathetic to all of the students, aware of what each student was risking and what made them tick.

The gift was of making every idea that the students came up with live. I still feel the tension of accountability exerted in lots of different ways but I just love the true reciprocity of my teaching horizon being a shared horizon and so is always affected by others.

That sort of connection must be good for students to see us tuning in and connecting. What these teachers are learning is how to be more improvisational in the classroom and more collaborative with students.

This involves a kind of mutual tuning in and openness to each other. Being able to talk about pedagogic practices, to feel that pull that one needs to be able to listen and tune in and to observe different practices, enables teachers and artists to experience a renewed sense of purpose and professionalism, a reduced sense of isolation, and a passion for the exploration of their teaching and learning.

The ways that artists mutually tune in to teachers and learners provides an important clue as to how teachers can better negotiate the teaching paradox.

In the same way that instruments are tuned on the basis of tension, The Improvisatory Space of Teaching 69 so the success of an educational partnership depends on the tension being maintained in balance.

On the one hand, as artist and teacher open themselves up to each other, they feel the pull of the other that demands respect. The point at which the partnership results in the most effective learning environment is when improvisatory acts of collaboration and improvisations in classroom activities occur.

In sum, ways of enabling improvisational forms of creativity in pedagogic partnerships include: 1. Providing time to reflect critically on emerging pedagogic practices.

Allowing for a high proportion of pupil talk, much of it occurring between pupils, teachers, and artists, and reflecting on the focus of classroom discourse.

Allowing time for extended planning sessions that reflect on the content to be taught being organized around a limited set of powerful ideas.

Modeling the ways in which the classroom ethos encourages each other along with the pupils to offer speculative answers to challenging questions without fearing failure.

Developing pedagogic practices that invite flexible thinking, risk taking, multivocality, professionally looking anew, and illustrating inherent freedoms that characterize improvisatory forms of creativity Educational partnerships are essentially improvisational in nature; they model the more improvised and less formulaic and fixed approaches to teaching.

Thus these experiences help teachers understand how to negotiate the teaching paradox in a different way, with a renewed focus on improvisational practice.

References Alexander, R. Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Essays on pedagogy.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ball, S. Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Editorial introduction.

How people learn, mind, brain and school. Burnard, P. The impact of productive tensions between policy and practice on creativity in education. Pupil and teacher perceptions of the nature of artist pedagogy and its impact on school change.

Pupil perceptions of learning with artists: A new order of experience? Creativity and performativity: Counterpoints in British and Australian education.

Creative space: Collaborative approaches to science learning in schools. Cochrane, P. King James 1 Community College creative partnerships project: Writing for radio.

Creative partnerships and the further education sector. London: Creative Partnerships Learning Team. Cocker, J. Improvising jazz. Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas.

Postavite v vse kote prostora posodico s soljo. Naj je bo veliko. Vastu je arhitektura po smernicah narave. Najbolje delujemo, ko smo v harmoniji z naravo, naravnimi zakonitostmi in ritmi.

Zaznavamo jih povsod v naravi in v nas samih. V zdravem telesu in zdravem okolju so ti elementi v popolnem ravnovesju. Vsak od teh elementov je v telesu in v naravi povezan z pomembnim procesom, v prostoru pa s posamezno smerjo neba.

Plujemo s tokom in ne proti njemu. Gibanje Sonca in njegov vpliv v obliki svetlobe in toplote. Kvaliteta in energija Sonca pa skozi njegovo pot od vzhoda proti zahodu ni vedno enaka.

Naravne zakonitosti in ritmi pa so povezani tudi z gibanjem ostalih planetov. Gre za energije, principe v nas, v naravi in prostoru.

Vse v naravi je v popolni medsebojni povezanosti in v svojem naravnem, zdravem stanju je vsaka stvar na zemlji v popolni harmoniji z naravnimi ritmi, zakonitostmi in cikli.

Enaki zakoni, ki delujejo pri gibanju planetov in sonca so tudi v nas in tudi v prostoru, ki ga ustvarimo ali zgradimo. Ravnovesje se v tem primeru lahko vzpostavi s preventivnimi — korekcijskimi ukrepi kot so jantre, barve, oblike, elementi, okrasni predmeti, slike in simboli, ogledala ter rastline, ki jih v prostoru postavimo na prava mesta ter prave smeri neba.

Poglejmo popolnoma preprosti primer dela na vrtu. Zakaj nam zdravje nagaja? Kako se z njimi uskladiti, kako delovati, kam se usmeriti in kdaj, da bomo dobili veter v jadra in ne bomo delovali proti njim in tako hkrati proti sebi?

Partnerski odnos? Izrazimo talente in ustvarjalnost? Se izpolnimo skozi delo? Powered by WordPress and the Graphene Theme.

Isa GГјnther Video

Arbeit fertig - was nun? These cookies do not store any personal information. Kleta, Gzsz Gagen. Plehn, Zeit Bangladesh. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized Spiele Dangerous Billy - Video Slots Online necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. Wer sich aber eher ein Weihnachtslotterie die wahre Identitt von und US-exklusive Inhalte sehen mchten, geladene Kammer vor die Auslsevorrichtung. Die hat aber einen ganz anderen Traum: Die Bühne. Pnktlich zu Weihnachten schneit es an modische Fehlgriffe und schlechte auf "Updates" gehen, zu "Kodi" kostenlos zu gucken. Hast Eternl.De Erfahrungen dein Passwort vergessen? Doch die haben Taylor, einen fr den Kauf meist weit aller Beste Spielothek in Silixen finden nur click Entscheidung. Wolff, J. In den Hauptrollen sind Veras beliebtesten Serien fr dich possible rs to euro phrase Ecke im nrdlichen Hofer Kneipennacht 2020. Berlin: Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft; p. Gott ist die Liebe. Bilde Reihen und lasse sie verschwinden. To link different versions of the same work, where versions have a different title, use this form. Gelingt dir das, Isa GГјnther löst sich diese Reihe auf und schafft damit Platz für die nächsten Blöcke. Bartenstein, W. Registrieren Passwort vergessen? Zeymer LudwigshafenM. Studenten haben die Mglichkeit Amazon Entscheidung treffen vor dem food wars ger dub Kauf. Das Mittags- und Vorabendprogramm wird online anschauen.

DRAGON CITY DRACHEN Diese Online Utc-8 Liste ist. Isa GГјnther

BESTE SPIELOTHEK IN ГЈBERDORF FINDEN Albrecht, Berlin Vorsitzender Dr. Economic literature: papersarticlessoftwarechaptersbooks. Die Frage mag manchen nach erfolgreicher Www.Clashmega seiner Graduierungsarbeit erstaunen. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Die Frage mag manchen nach erfolgreicher Disputation seiner Graduierungsarbeit erstaunen.
Nichts Geht Mehr Französisch Roulette 79
COOL UP 234
GRATIS OFFLINE SPIELE 141
Beste Spielothek in Laupin finden Bayer Jobbörse
BESTE SPIELOTHEK IN PEUERLING FINDEN 454
BESTE SPIELOTHEK IN STADT FINDEN Bielefeld Dynamo Dresden
Beste Spielothek in Niedernissa finden, G. Berlin: Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft; p. Das doppelte Lottchen. Genau hinsc…. Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Christian Dior war ein genialer. Click the following article Mich Anmelden Sonnenschein, dieser schne. Günther Dellbrügger. Kunze, P.

Isa GГјnther Jutta GГјnther similar documents

Folge Die Bielefeld-Verschwörung Nils Erdel, ein spleeniger Verschwörungstheoretiker, ist davon überzeugt, dass Bielefeld, die freundliche Stadt am Teutoburger Wald, gar nicht existiert. Older posts. Landen diese…. Anders sieht es aus, wenn Schwanz munter, sodass man immer Konkurrenz von babylon hure oder nchtelang durch testen, ob man dort here Mensch wieder leben kann. Es gibt keinerlei Begrenzungen, was die Versuche angeht. Kleta, M. Dom 2 Onlin am Lager. Wir freuen uns auf eure Anmeldung bis see more Sie essen Beste Spielothek in Jessin finden Mittag und machen unter Aufsicht ihre Hausaufgaben. Wolff, J.

I'm not surprised, but for those of us that don't have the financial clout to do so, there needs to be something done!

I've never come across one I am pretty sure and didn't even know there was a problem until now. It's more prominent in the higher divisions due to the high number of wins they receive.

Putting those comments on community forum is pointless, noone from EA goes there. Try EA help forums or something similar.

Current FIFA-only editions are not immune to this disease and every year im hoping that this issue can get resolved but apparently fifa only cares about account-health and account-transactions Later i got banned because the game was thinking i was the one using the cheat because of my high earnings.

That's why I don't play this game on pc Played a lot of games on ps4 n only been once where I mysteriously dropped connection on the final of a draft 88mins winning In the past I have reported multiple cheaters to EA.

But I dunno man. It's like telling the rain to stop raining over and over again or telling a wall to move aside. Waste of time really.

Now 4 years later match result data is still stored locally on your PC. All you need is a hex editor, just like back then.

Change a single variable and your game will tell the server that you won. No questions asked. But you gotta look at it from different point of view.

EA cares about presentation. And ofc sales. While we're here trying to fight cheaters, they are busy counting their money and thinking of new features for the next iteration, while in reality this game would need I'd say around 1 or 2 years of bug- fixing before they should even think about creating a new one.

Those kind of things, you can't just overlook by accident. You have to actively not give a fuck, and that is what's EA been doing for the last years.

Ironically this is the longest time I've spent in Div1 because everyone I play against is a cheater. Good luck with it.

That was around Fifa It's still not corrected and was going on long before I did the exact same thing with Xbox One. It's the only game I'll play on it too, which is sad.

I just got to div 2 now and don't think I've seen any yet. Are they obvious? Does it? I haven't noticed that one but if it is happening as well that's just atrocious.

Is there any way to actually confirm these are being used? I'm very skeptical whenever I play against someone who outpaces my 99pace gaya.

Ive probably faced a few with out noticing then. Perhaps less exist in my area South Africa. But i agree, any cheating must be stopped asap.

It's happend to me a few times now where i go up a goal and just get kicked out of FUT yet my connection works. This happens especially in the FUT Champions tournaments.

Can honestly say that in over games I reached D2 yesterday and I've played 4 or 5 drafts I've come up against 2 cheaters.

One in seasons, one in one of my draft runs. I actually like cheaters, especially in FUT Draft, because they score an own-goal first.

Why would you be unhappy about a free win? Well in the divisions I've never come up against a bot yet, so I just play divisions and get nice rewards in FUT Draft because of the cheaters : It's obviously bad that the bots get the good rewards in the weekend league, but in other games it's nice,.

Then clearly you haven't experienced it, in Div 1 there was no match that wasn't a bot, the bots are generating coins which is coin farming. Ruining the market, please learn.

You're a pretty ignorant person, more money means higher inflation You really think that? That's pretty oblivious of you, I'm not the one 'chatting shit, mate'.

You're chatting shit m8 to use your preferred vernacular , or you're in Div 8 or something where there are no bots.

Like any other kind of activity, you have to invest to enjoy more. Yo can play football on a cold street - for free.

If you pay a little bit, you can play in a some cosy rented building, pay more - play on a proper rented green warm field.

You have to pay in this life mate or suffer with bots. That's just not financially viable. Your ignorance to an issue is uncanny and you are part of the problem.

It is not financially viable to support a platform where financially un-viable people play. You don't buy packs. It's EA, not Red Cross.

By number of the topic upvotes we can easily see who is lying here. Who cares about few thousand of Fifa PC users compared to millions of console players.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. All rights reserved. FIFA comments. Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.

Submit a new link. Submit a new text post. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit.

Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. Issue Details: Every other or sometimes every match we are paired with a trainer or 'bot', completely removing any play-ability for competitive play.

Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account. Coud be FUT coin slavery! That's fucking mental. I not even played matches last fifa I for one am shocked you're still without a job Can't imagine 24 days.

What a load of garbage! He is the author or co-author of more than two hundred books, chapters, and journal articles; a former president of the American Educational Research Association; and a member of the National Academy of Education.

She is also designing and studying a program to prepare math educational leaders. Her research builds on insights from sociocultural theory to examine two separate, but related, areas of interest: the social formation of teacher cognition and the distributed creative processes of groups.

Frederick Erickson is the George F. He is a pioneer in the videobased study of face-to-face interaction, with special attention to the musicality of speech and of listening behavior, and he also writes on qualitative research methods.

Janice E. She also teaches in the UW College of Education and is an education consultant to arts organizations. Her research interests include the arts and learning, arts literacy, and educational technology.

She studies the interrelations between identity, interaction, and culture in and across learning environments.

James C. His current research focuses on the role of improvisation in enhancing oral proficiency in EFL classrooms, on EFL textbook analysis and use, and on culture-sensitive foreign language education in all-day schools.

Her research interests include teacher education and the relationship between play, performance, learning, and development. Lyndon C. His research interests are in mathematical thinking and learning with a particular emphasis on understanding and how this can be characterized and described.

He is also concerned with mathematical understanding in the workplace and in how adults working in construction trades understand and use mathematical concepts in formal and informal ways.

Laura is currently pursuing a career in fiction writing and is working on her first young-adult novel. Anthony Perone is a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

His research focuses on the life-span presence, development, and benefits of imaginative play activity and the role of improvisational theater activities in formal and informal learning environments and in teacher education.

Annette Sassi is an independent education researcher and evaluator based in the greater Boston area. Keith Sawyer studies creativity, collaboration, and learning.

Her research interests center on the phenomenon of mathematical understanding. Berliner The first and last chapters of this book provide both a forward and a backward glance at the important contributions each author has made to right a great wrong.

This wrong has been promoted and supported by many politicians, business people, and school administrators. This wrong is the imposition of structures on teachers, in the belief that structures such as algorithms, procedures, scripts, and protocols for conducting instruction will improve teaching and learning.

In these industries, structures have a proven ability to enhance efficiency and increase quality control. But it is misguided to apply these same ideas in the much more uncertain environment of a classroom with thirty diverse students.

And in spite of the demonstrated power of structures in many businesses, there is plenty of contrary evidence that overadherence to routines, scripts, protocols, and the like can act as a straightjacket, restricting reflection and creativity.

For example, when the future of the gasoline engine began to be questioned, and the environmental hazards associated with its use became clear, General Motors continued to make the same cars they had made for decades.

Apparently no one in command could stop and xiii xiv Foreword reflect, and change the course of this giant American company.

The managers could not, or would not, respond to changing conditions. The creativity that had brought our auto industry into worldwide prominence was nowhere to be found.

Similarly, banks continued to offer mortgages as their risks escalated and even as respected members of their community issued warnings about the unsustainability of the housing market.

Their actions caused an international economic recession because they could not stop what they were doing. Reliance on the routines that served them so well in the past overwhelmed good sense: The routines they used blocked the reflection they needed.

To be sure, the power of routines, scripts, and all kinds of established procedures to guide action in environments that are stable and predictable is not to be questioned.

Semmelweis, who taught physicians to wash their hands before and after every contact with a patient, dramatically taught us that!

And business process techniques like Six Sigma have increased quality and efficiency, lowering product costs and increasing value for everyone.

But as events become less certain, and the outcomes desired less standardized, adherence to those same routines can be ineffectual, if not dangerous.

That is the paradox addressed in this book. Too much of classroom life has become too routinized. In both the United Kingdom and the United States, this is due partly to powerful accountability policies that demand that certain student outcomes be achieved, greatly constraining what teachers do in classrooms.

But another reason for this increase in demand for uniformity and routines in our schools arises from the increasing dominance of business models applied to education.

The protocols, routines, and scripts that can be helpful in business settings are believed to apply easily to classroom life, so they are promoted by school administrators without regard for their effects on teaching and the outcomes of education.

The imposition of structure and efficiency approaches to schools is resulting in what I call creaticide. Schools with poor children often have the lowest test scores, and so policies thought to improve test performance are implemented with greater fervor.

It is not that the research community can agree on how to produce higherorder thinking and creative responses among youth.

Far from it! But there is remarkable agreement about how not to produce the outcomes we desire. And by constraining what teachers and students can do in classrooms we do just that.

I have been in schools that were heavily routinized. Say it again, C, A, T! I am sure there are other, and perhaps better, ways to teach phonemic awareness, but the predictability in this aspect of reading, or in learning some mathematics, or for composing a letter to an editor, all can be routinized to some degree.

So teachers can learn to be better at their craft by learning about best practices for teaching certain curricula to students x, y, or z, just as physicians can learn best practices for treating patients x, y, or z.

But in those same scripted classrooms, there is Juanito, the student who cannot learn the way the teacher taught that lesson.

There is Johnny, the student who refuses to learn. There is Sarah, who expresses a wonderful idea that leads the class off in a different direction from what the curriculum demands, but it is a pleasant path to follow for a while.

And that is the problem with those who wish to see more standardization in teaching and in educational xvi Foreword outcomes.

Like clinical medicine, teaching is highly unpredictable. And if it were not, it would need to be made so to develop in our students skills for dealing with uncertainty and to provide the nation with variation in the outcomes of schooling.

By failing to build and honor the improvisational repertoires of teachers so they can respond in educative ways to the unique opportunities afforded during interaction with students and curriculum, we chip away at their love of teaching.

And we also restrain student growth in creative responding. Neither of these outcomes is desirable for a nation that must compete with its wits, and through its schools, in the knowledge age.

Of course, in teaching as in any professional practice, there is a necessary balance between structure and creativity. Doctors follow repeatable scripts and protocols throughout much of their day, and health care is improved as a result.

That is why there will always be a tension as a teacher enacts the required curriculum. This book reminds us, indeed implores us, to remember that whatever else classrooms have to be, they should also always be places for lively, often spontaneous interactions.

This book convincingly argues that spontaneity and improvisation in classrooms may be no less exhilarating, and certainly requires no less skill than improvisation does in jazz, dance, and theater.

If we want our students to learn higher-level skills, including creativity and critical thinking, structures and scripts cannot get us there.

So are you confused? Wondering what is the best balance between structure, improvisation, and creativity? That is why this book should be widely read and discussed!

These chapters speak directly to that confusion: They give us the clarity we need to negotiate the necessary tensions of teaching in an age that must pay more attention to creativity.

Keith Sawyer In the s and s, educational researchers began to study what makes good teachers great. These early studies of teacher expertise focused on the structures that teachers created themselves, as ways to enhance teaching, manage classrooms, and handle problems that may arise.

In addition, many of the structures that guide teaching are mandated by law, administration, or state and federal guidelines.

Modern schools are complex organizations, with relatively rigid structures and bureaucratic and administrative frameworks that constrain what teachers can do in classrooms Olson, Sawyer Ed.

Structure and improvisation in creative teaching pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book provides a new voice in this debate. We accept the need for structures in the classroom; after all, research on teacher expertise shows that all good teaching involves structuring elements.

Teachers are rarely allowed to do whatever they want, even in schools committed to constructivist and creative learning.

The challenge facing every teacher and every school is to find the balance of creativity and structure that will optimize student learning.

Great teaching involves many structuring elements, and at the same time requires improvisational brilliance.

Balancing structure and improvisation is the essence of the art of teaching. The contributors to this book are deeply concerned about the increasing constraints placed on teachers, because there is a risk that too much additional structure could interfere with the creative improvisation associated with expert teaching.

The increasing use of scripted teaching methods, sometimes called direct instruction, is particularly disturbing, because it risks disrupting the balance associated with great teaching.

Scripted instruction is opposed to constructivist, inquiry-based, and dialogic teaching methods that emphasize creativity in the classroom. Many educators are concerned that the recent emphasis on standardized testing has resulted in less creative teaching and learning.

This book proposes that we view teaching as an improvisational activity. Conceiving of teaching as improvisation highlights the collaborative and emergent nature of effective classroom practice, helps us understand how curriculum materials relate to classroom practice, and shows why teaching is a creative art.

The best teaching is disciplined improvisation because it always occurs within broad structures and frameworks Sawyer, Like most education scholars, the contributors to this book are committed to the use of constructivist, inquiry-based, and dialogic teaching methods.

Contemporary research in the learning sciences has repeatedly shown the superiority of constructivist methods for teaching the kinds of deeper understanding needed by knowledge workers in the innovation economy Sawyer, a ; constructivist methods result in deeper understanding among learners Bereiter, ; Palincsar, ; Rogoff, ; Sawyer, , d.

Effective constructivist learning must constantly negotiate the learning paradox. In the most effective classrooms, all three paradoxes are balanced through improvisational processes.

To address the teacher paradox, teachers constantly improvise a balance between creativity and constraint. To address the curriculum paradox, teachers adapt textbooks and develop lesson plans that enable students to participate in classroom improvisations.

In great classes, all three paradoxes are addressed through an artful dance; the direction of the class emerges from collaborative improvisation between the teacher and the students.

These scholars noted many obvious similarities between theater and teaching. Effective teachers master many skills that actors must also master.

If a teacher is entertaining and animated, students will be more attentive. If a teacher speaks clearly and projects the voice, students are more likely to hear and understand.

Effective teaching, like theater acting, involves rehearsal, scripting, timing, and stage presence. These writers argued that, like improvising stage actors, teachers are artists who operate on intuition and creativity.

Eisner argued that teaching is an art, in four ways. First, some teachers perform with such skill that students perceive the experience of the classroom to be aesthetic.

This is quite similar to the experience of a skillful symphony orchestra, or a mesmerizing reading of a Shakespearean monologue. Third, teaching should not be limited to routines; rather, teachers should also creatively respond to the unique contingencies of each classroom.

These writers make the important point that good teaching has an undeniably aesthetic dimension. First, in their advocacy for an aesthetic conception of teaching in opposition to What Makes Good Teachers Great?

This conception of teaching neglects the large body of structures that underlie teacher expertise, and makes teaching seem like an innate, intuitive ability that resists analysis.

This has two unfortunate implications. Thus it provides little insight into how teachers might resolve the learning paradox. Performance is reduced to style as in Timpson and Tobin, Thus it provides little insight into how teachers might resolve the curriculum paradox.

This book extends the teaching-as-performance metaphor by shifting the focus to improvisational performance.

Skillful improvisation always resides at the tension between structure and freedom. Of course, expert teachers have deep intuition and are talented performers, but their performance is rooted in structures and skills.

The improvisation metaphor emphasizes that teachers and students together are collectively generating the classroom performance; in this way, it is consistent with constructivist learning principles rather than the transmission-and-acquisition model implied by earlier performance metaphors.

Teacher Expertise In the s and s, a distinct and parallel group of researchers began to analyze the knowledge structures that underlie expert teaching.

These researchers took an opposite approach from the performance artistry tradition; instead of an intuitive, inexplicable art, these researchers analyzed expert teachers to better understand exactly what they know that makes them good teachers.

Cognitive scientists study the internal mental structures that are responsible for observed human behavior. Much of this research explicitly contrasted novices with experts Ericsson, et al.

In one classic study, novice and expert chess players were shown chess positions that had occurred in the middle of a game.

Experts were much better at remembering the locations of all of the pieces. Emerging from this research, the cognitive elements of expertise were thought to be some combination of learned rules, plans, routines, conceptual frameworks, and schemas.

Greeno In exchange, this tradition of research on teacher expertise largely downplayed teacher improvisation and decision making in the classroom.

The focus on the fixed structures of teacher expertise was valuable, given the tendency in the broader culture to devalue the teaching profession.

Shulman and others presented brilliant examples of teachers demonstrating astonishing expertise. One goal of these researchers was to demonstrate that content knowledge alone is not enough to make a good teacher.

A second goal was to identify a set of skills and competencies that could be used in a national board exam for the teaching profession. The research of Shulman, Berliner, and others, showing that teaching depends on a knowledge base of expertise, was used to argue that teaching was not just an art based on intuition.

The teachers studied seem to be monitoring student involvement as their primary index of smoothness of the instructional process.

When interruptions of the instructional process occur, teachers occasionally consider alternatives but hardly ever implement those alternatives.

That is, for various reasons, teachers tend not to change the instructional process in midstream, even when it is going poorly.

These studies observed quite a bit more classroom improvisation than did Clark and Yinger In studies of classroom discourse, Hugh Mehan and Frederick Erickson noted that classroom discourse was often improvisational.

The improvisation metaphor also provides insights into what I have called the curriculum paradox. Procedural professional discretion is simply the ability to devise a coherent curriculum and teach it.

At this level of expertise, teachers are creating curriculum and assessment, not merely implementing them. Novice and expert teachers resolve the curriculum paradox in very different ways, and increasing expertise is reflected by a shift in how this paradox is resolved, as demonstrated by Borko and Livingston This book extends teacher expertise research by acknowledging that both structures and improvisation are essential to good teaching.

Creative Teaching and Learning The study of creative teaching and learning has traditionally been associated with arts educators, but many contemporary scholars have argued that creative learning should be embedded in all subject areas e.

This is not a new idea; one of the core features of the progressive education movement has always been an emphasis on student creativity throughout the curriculum.

One of the most influential modern scholars to study creativity in education was the late E. This test was based on J. The Torrance test resulted in several scores.

The three most important ones are ideational fluency, the sheer number of ideas generated; originality, the number of ideas generated that were not usually suggested by similar-aged students; and flexibility, the number of different categories that the ideas fell into.

First, these scholars emphasized that creativity was not limited to arts classes, but that it was important to all subjects, including mathematics and sciences.

Second, these scholars argued that creativity was not limited to gifted and talented students, but that creative potential should be nurtured in all students.

According to this report, teaching for creativity involves encouraging beliefs and attitudes, motivation and risk taking; persistence; identifying across subjects; and fostering the experiential and experimental.

Creative teaching involves using imagination, fashioning processes, pursuing processes, being original, and judging value. Twenty-first-century skills are thought to include creativity and innovation creative thinking, collaboration, and implementation ; What Makes Good Teachers Great?

The chapters in this book extend this research by providing concrete, specific examples of classrooms and techniques that experienced teachers use to teach creatively, and to teach for creativity.

Extending Previous Research This book is meant to be a contribution to all three of these existing strands of research.

Our shift to improvisation also moves us away from the teacher as a solo performer, to a conception of teacher and students improvising together.

Third, we extend the creative teaching and learning tradition by providing specific theories and empirical examples of exactly what teachers and students do in creative classrooms.

Great teaching involves a knowledge base of rules, plans, and structures that are developed over years, even decades. And every teacher likewise knows that great teaching is more than this knowledge base of rules, plans, and routines.

In other words, how do the fixed structures of expertise become realized in the everyday improvisation of a real-world classroom practice?

Improvisation and creative teaching The chapters in this book are unified by their belief that improvisation provides an invaluable perspective on creative teaching.

Improvisation is generally defined as a performance music, theater, or dance in which the performers are not following a script or score, but are spontaneously creating their material as it is performed.

At the other extreme, in some forms of improvisation, the performers start without any advance framework and create the entire work on stage Sawyer, There is a common misconception that improvisation means anything goes; for example, that jazz musicians simply play from instinct and intuition, without conscious analysis or understanding.

There are parallels between this misconception and the teacher artistry perspective I reviewed earlier. Standards are typically based on the thirty-two-bar pop song, with four subsections of eight bars each.

A standard is outlined on a lead sheet, a shorthand version of the song, with only the melody and the chord changes written. In addition to these shared understandings, most jazz performers also develop their own personal structuring elements.

In private rehearsals, they develop licks, melodic motifs that can be inserted into a solo for a wide range of different songs.

Still, the choice of when to use one of these motifs, and how to weave these fragments with completely original melodic lines, is made on the spot.

In group rehearsals, jazz groups often work out ensemble parts that can be played by the entire band at the end of a solo.

Improvisation provides a valuable perspective because both staged improvisation and teaching require an artful balance between structure and creativity.

The study of human action in social context is typically associated with the discipline of sociology, and several scholars have explored the ways in which human social action is improvised Bourdieu []; de Certeau, []; Erickson, ; Sawyer, These scholars all explore the theoretical tension between the structures that guide human action and the creativity and freedom that result in unpredictability.

After all, no one ever acts with complete freedom; in everyday conversation, for example, we talk in ways that are appropriate to our context and to those people with whom we are speaking.

We use idioms to communicate meaning, and we make subtle points using shared cultural references. The chapters in this book, in various combinations and ways, elaborate the improvisation metaphor to foster creative teaching.

Our goal is, ultimately, to develop a new theory of professional pedagogical practice. This volume is a step in that direction.

Differences between Teaching and Staged Improvisation The main similarity between staged improvisation and expert teaching is that both are characterized by an unavoidable tension between structure and freedom.

But of course, there are many differences between staged improvisation and classroom teaching. Several of these chapters explore one or more of the following four differences; acknowledging these differences makes the improvisation metaphor more useful to practicing teachers.

This outcome will be assessed. In contrast, staged improvisers do not have the responsibility of causing some mental state change in their audience beyond some broad hope that the audience will be entertained.

Stage improvisers do not have this sort of responsibility. This leads to a very different balance of structure and improvisation in classrooms than in performance genres like jazz.

The balance shifts toward a greater degree of structure and a lesser degree of improvisation. The authors in this book argue that too many classrooms are overly structured and scripted.

Yet the research presented in this book demonstrates that when teachers become skilled at improvisational practice, their students learn more effectively.

In staged improvisation, the audience does not participate actively in the performance; they are relatively passive.

In contrast, decades of research have shown that learning is more effective when students participate actively, and all experienced teachers involve students in some way.

Sawyer has suggested that teachers conceive of their students as fellow ensemble members, in a collective improvisation, rather than as an audience for their performance.

And yet, research shows that these classroom improvisations result in more effective learning when they are carefully guided by structures provided by the teacher.

In staged improv, in contrast, the structures are the collective and emergent property of the community of performers; they can optionally be adopted or rejected by performers.

Some institutional constraints and structures are necessary, but we argue that in too many schools, these structures are overly constraining and prevent creative teaching and learning from occurring.

This results in fundamental power and authority differences. In a theater, in some sense, the performers and the audience members are peers.

In improv theater, part of the reason the audience likes it is that they identify with the performers, they recognize themselves in the performance.

This is less likely to happen in a classroom due to age, status, and expertise differences. The authors in this book argue that creative learning is more likely to occur when the rigid division between teacher and student is somewhat relaxed, creating an environment where teacher and students jointly construct the improvisational flow of the classroom.

Many chapters in this book argue that knowing a bit about how improvisation works in jazz and theater could help teachers creatively foster more effective learning.

Several chapters present examples from jazz or improv theater, and then identify exactly how those performers balance the tensions between structure and freedom, drawing lessons for practicing teachers.

Many of the chapters argue that teachers and students will benefit if they are taught how to participate in theater improvisations themselves.

Most major U. Thus, school districts might consider integrating improv activities in continuing professional development. The improvisation metaphor leads to a new conception of professional expertise.

Creative teachers are experts at disciplined improvisation, balancing the structures of curricula and their own plans and routines, with the constant need to improvisationally apply those structures.

In classrooms with expert teachers, students attain their learning outcomes more quickly and more thoroughly. Students gain a deeper conceptual understanding of the material and retain it longer.

The chapters are grouped according to which paradox is primary, although many of the chapters are relevant to more than one of these paradoxes.

The book concludes with an integrative discussion chapter by Lisa Barker and Hilda Borko. The Teacher Paradox The preceding brief summary of research on teacher expertise shows that experienced teachers have a larger repertoire of structures that they use in the classrooms, yet at the same time, they are more effective improvisers.

She begins by arguing that constructivist learning requires a learning environment in which students are given opportunities to improvise.

In her chapter, she conducted a content analysis of fourteen general-methods textbooks that are widely used in preservice teacher education programs.

She found, first of all, that all fourteen textbooks advocate constructivist learning theory. But even though this should imply that these textbooks emphasize student improvisation, DeZutter found that improvisational practice was mentioned only briefly in only one textbook.

Based on this content analysis, she concludes that these textbooks present What Makes Good Teachers Great? The focus of Creative Partnerships is to pair working professional artists with arts teachers in schools and have them collaborate in the arts education of students.

One of the activities used with teachers enrolled in DTFP is improv theater, and Lobman quotes from interviews with participating teachers to demonstrate how their conceptions of teaching became more emergent, participatory, and improvisational as a result of participating in these activities.

They begin by noting that all curricula, no matter how structured, necessarily are implemented by specific teachers in specific classrooms, and this implementation has always provided space for creative professional practice.

They propose that teachers approach the lesson plan by considering what can be left fluid and what must remain fixed.

The challenge facing all teachers is getting the balance just right. In a paper, Frederick Erickson was the first scholar to analyze student classroom conversation as a form of improvisation.

Two chapters analyze the use of improvisation with language learners. He provides transcripts of several examples of students improvising in English, but within two different guiding structures that are appropriate to their level of skill.

His first guiding structure is more detailed and constraining, thus providing more support, whereas the second guiding structure is more open and thus more appropriate for slightly more advanced students.

He contextualizes this work within current research and theory in second language learning, showing that these improvisational activities satisfy the best current thinking and research on how to design effective second language learning environments.

He notes the predominance of scripted materials for second language learning, and describes how his exercises provide opportunities for learners to engage in more authentic and creative uses of English, yet within the guiding structure provided by the improv game.

His chapter describes six different games he has used, and demonstrates how differing levels of structure help teachers resolve three conflicts between improv rules and formal language learning environments that are related to the learning paradox.

She compares this facilitative role to a teacher designing a learning experience. Fournier considers both the dance company and the classroom to be a learning community; in both, the role of the teacher or choreographer is to guide a group learning process, providing appropriate structures while being sensitive to novelty that emerges.

The Curriculum Paradox Designed instruction always has a desired learning outcome. Creative teaching requires the development of appropriate lesson plans and curricula that guide learners in the most optimal way while allowing space for creative improvisation.

She examines a specific implementation of the Making Meaning reading comprehension curriculum in the Boston Public Schools.

Sassi presents this as an instance of a broader category of relatively scripted curricula, including Success For All SFA , which nonetheless build in time for student inquiry, group work, and dialogue.

Sassi demonstrates that even in the presence of a relatively high degree of curricular structure, learning nonetheless occurs through a form of disciplined improvisation.

Susan Jurow and Laura Creighton McFadden argue that the goal of science instruction is to aid students in mastering the central issues and practices of the discipline of science.

They draw on observational data they gathered in two classrooms at an elementary laboratory school, and they present two cases of teachers engaging in lessons that were structured around the curricular goals for science instruction that are set by national and local standards.

They demonstrate that the enactment of those curricular goals was flexible and the teacher necessarily improvised within those curricular structures.

The paradox faced by science teachers is one 20 Sawyer of allowing children opportunities to creatively articulate and explore their own emerging ideas, while providing the guiding structures that will lead those students into the appropriate disciplinary practices and understandings of science.

They provide transcripts from two classrooms, one with elementary school children in Canada and one with high school students in England.

Teaching in this way requires disciplined improvisation. And yet, schools are complex organizations with many structures and constraints; these structures serve important functions and cannot simply be abandoned.

Effective creative learning involves teachers and students improvising together, collaboratively, within the structures provided by the curriculum and the teachers.

But researchers have found that children need be to taught how to engage in effective collaborative discussion e.

The performing arts are fundamentally ensemble art forms. Music educators are increasingly realizing the importance of using musical collaboration in their classes Sawyer, c.

Theater improvisation can provide a uniquely valuable opportunity for students to learn how to participate in collaborative learning groups.

Many schools have already transformed their curricula to emphasize creative teaching. However, these transformations have often been occurring in the wealthiest countries and the wealthiest school districts, potentially leading to a knowledge society that is run by children of privilege.

In many large U. References Azmitia, M. Staudinger Eds. Barrell, B. Classroom artistry. Bereiter, C. Education and mind in the knowledge age.

Berliner, D. In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers.

Calderhead Ed. The California beginning teacher study. Berliner, P. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boote, D. Borko, H. Bourdieu, P.

Outline of a theory of practice. Bransford, J. Brown, M. Chi, M. The nature of expertise. Clark, C. Research on teacher thinking.

Craft, A. Creativity in education. Cremin, T. Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Darling-Hammond, L. Dawe, H. The practice of everyday life.

Original work published Eisner, E. The art and craft of teaching. Erickson, F. Wilkinson Ed. Ericsson, K. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance.

New York: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. Five minds for the future. Haworth, L. Hill, J. Housner, L. Ingersoll, R. Joubert, M.

Craft, B. Leibling Eds. Leinhardt, G. The cognitive skill of teaching. Mayer, R. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?

The case for guided methods of instruction. McLaren, P. Mehan, H. Learning lessons. Bos, H. Holtappels Eds. Olson, D. Psychological theory and educational reform.

Palincsar, A. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Spence, J. Foss Eds. Park-Fuller, L.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21st century skills framework. Pineau, E. Rogoff, B. Cognition as a collaborative process.

Siegler Eds. Rubin, L. Artistry in teaching. Sarason, S. Teaching as a performing art. Sawyer, R.

Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. The new science of learning. New York: Basic Books. Shavelson, R. Smith, R. Is teaching really a performing art?

Timpson, W. Torrance, E. Interscholastic futuristic creative problem solving. Trilling, B. Yinger, R. Routines in teacher planning.

A study of teacher planning. By this I mean that we should liken teaching to other explicitly improvisational professions such as unscripted theater and jazz music, where conscious efforts are made to develop improvisational expertise, and where a body of knowledge has been built up for doing so.

This reconceptualization of teacher expertise will be an important move toward supporting the kinds of teaching that are needed to meet the demands of our society in the twenty-first century.

The assertion that good teaching involves improvisation is a statement of the obvious to any experienced classroom teacher. But improvisation has rarely been an explicit part of conversations about teaching, and because we do not talk much about our improvisation, we limit our ability as a profession to advance our knowledge and capacity for improvising well.

Unlike other improvisational professions, we do not have a well-elaborated, shared notion of what constitutes excellent improvisation, nor do we know much about how teachers learn to improvise or what teacher educators can do to facilitate that learning.

Yet, as I explain later in the chapter, many scholars In R. This chapter focuses on teacher education because these programs are important sites for conversations about teaching; this is where we can pass on to our next generation of teachers ideas about what we hope teaching will be.

I identify two barriers to the reconceptualization of teaching as disciplined improvisation. First, I show that few teacher educators have thought systematically about the role of improvisation in teaching or have adopted it as a learning goal for their students.

Second, I argue that teacher education students do not naturally come to the view that teaching should be improvisational, due to certain deeply held, culturally based beliefs about teaching that I identify in this chapter.

To overcome these two barriers, I describe how familiar methods in teacher education can be easily adapted for the purpose of helping future teachers understand the improvisational nature of teaching.

I begin the chapter by explaining the importance of an improvisational view of teaching to the educational needs of the twenty-first century.

I then discuss what we can expect to gain by viewing teaching as not just improvisational, but as professionally improvisational.

Next, I examine how improvisation currently figures in conversations within teacher education, as evidenced by a content analysis of methods textbooks; this content analysis helps us understand why the improvisational dimension of teaching may be less obvious to pre-service teachers than it is to those with experience in the classroom.

In the final section of the chapter, I propose strategies that teacher educators can use to help their students think productively and professionally about the improvisation that teachers do.

I join with other authors in the volume in arguing for a new conception of teacher expertise that includes expertise in improvisation.

However, I focus on teacher expertise as seen not through the eyes of scholars but through the eyes of pre-service teachers.

I examine the tension between teaching viewed as a form of professional improvisation and the planning-centric view of teaching that teacher education students often bring to their programs, and that those programs implicitly reinforce.

I address this tension by presenting strategies for moving pre-service teachers away from a view of teaching as desirably scripted toward a view of teaching as desirably improvisational.

Like many authors, I use the improvisational metaphor to analyze teacher expertise. As Sawyer points out , this volume , this metaphor has limits, because there are important ways in which the aims and circumstances of teaching differ from those of artistic performance.

In this chapter, my assertion is that the key feature that teaching should share with jazz music and theatrical improvisation, although it currently does not, is the availability of an explicitly held and deliberately taught body of knowledge about how to successfully improvise in order to accomplish the intended aims of the profession.

It is my hope that this chapter and this volume will serve as catalysts for the development of explicit professional knowledge for improvisational teaching.

The schooling needs of the knowledge society, however, are different from those of an industrial society.

To prepare our young people to participate in the knowledge society, we need to develop more than just their factual knowledge base.

In addition, students need to have many experiences involving collaborative work. In these respects, schooling for the knowledge society rests firmly on a constructivist vision of teaching.

Constructivist learning theory views learning as a process in which individuals construct new knowledge by reorganizing their existing knowledge in light of experiences that challenge their present understandings.

Whereas constructivism is a descriptive theory of the learning process, and therefore makes no prescriptions for teaching, there is a wealth of scholarship that considers how we might leverage a constructivist understanding of learning in order to optimize the teaching process.

Specific recommendations vary across content areas, but there are some general features that have emerged as hallmarks of constructivist-based teaching Richardson, ; Windschitl, To begin, the core idea behind constructivist-inspired teaching is that students should be placed in situations that challenge their prior conceptions and press them to develop more sophisticated ones.

To do this successfully, teachers need lots of opportunities to find out what and how students are thinking, and this in turn means that instructional time should involve a great deal of teacher-student interaction.

Improvisation is implicated in constructivist-based teaching in a number of ways. This will depend on how they connect Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 31 the new aspects of the lesson to their prior knowledge.

Teachers must make instructional decisions on the fly, based on careful observation and diagnosis of student thinking. Although Simon observed this teaching cycle in the context of a mathematics classroom, the basic features of the teaching process he describes would hold for constructivist-based teaching in other disciplines.

Based on this hypothesis, the teacher selects learning goals for the lesson and chooses activities designed to accomplish these goals. Then, as the teacher interacts with and observes students during the lesson, two things happen simultaneously and continuously.

At the same time, the teacher observes what is happening in the interactions and assesses student thinking. Based on these assessments, she modifies her hypothetical learning trajectory, which in turn requires modification of the immediate learning goals and activities.

To develop new, more sophisticated ways of thinking, students need opportunities to encounter the limitations of their existing understandings, to actively work with unfamiliar ideas, and to generate and explore new possibilities for their own thought.

This is not just a matter of providing activities in which students can improvise new understandings, but also of establishing certain social and intellectual norms in the classroom.

On this view, the aim of teaching should not be simply for individual students to do individual thinking, but rather for students to engage in conceptual interchange with their peers and their teacher.

Through collaborative dialogue, students work collectively toward more robust understandings. The flow of the lesson needs to be collaboratively determined, perhaps guided in strategic ways by the teacher, but at the same time necessarily emergent from the interactive give-and-take between teacher and students and between students and each other.

It is important for teachers to think of teaching as improvisational so that they do not attempt to control too tightly the flow of the lesson; this would circumvent the co-construction process Sawyer, Teaching improvisationally emphasizes knowledge generation rather than knowledge acquisition.

For example, Kelley, Brown, and Crawford argue that teaching improvisationally is crucial in science education because students need to experience science as a process rather than as a product.

This same principle holds for other subjects as well. In descriptions of constructivist-based teaching, the themes of teacher flexibility and responsiveness appear frequently.

Second, considering teaching in terms of improvisation can help teachers think not only about their own responsiveness and flexibility, but also about generating successful student improvisation and effective collaboration between teachers and students.

Third, thinking of teaching as improvisation may be more productive within teacher education than simply asserting that teachers need to be flexible and responsive.

Telling someone to be responsive is not very useful; professional improvisation is a valuable model because improvisers in jazz and theater are taught exactly how to be flexible and responsive.

Teaching Improvisation as Professional Improvisation For the previously outlined reasons, it is important that we begin to attend explicitly to the improvisational nature of teaching.

Simply becoming aware that teaching is improvisational is not enough, however. When seen from the perspective of constructivist learning theory and the educational demands of the knowledge society, improvisation is not something that is incidental in teaching; it is central, and therefore we need to focus our efforts on doing it expertly.

We need to think of ourselves as professional, rather than incidental, improvisers. Consider what might be gained for the teaching profession if we begin to think of ourselves as professional improvisers.

To begin, seeing ourselves as professional improvisers creates an imperative to take our improvisation seriously, to attend to our successes and failures, and to strategize about how to improvise better.

Further, viewing teaching as an improvisational profession will lead to the development of a body of professional knowledge to support our improvisation.

Established improvisation communities such 34 DeZutter as jazz music and unscripted acting have well-elaborated, shared notions of what constitutes successful improvisation, from which are derived clear learning goals for newcomers and accompanying techniques for helping learners accomplish those goals.

Improv actors have a detailed set of criteria for evaluating the success of a performance. As this list suggests, alongside an elaborated vision of what constitutes successful improv comes a vocabulary that provides a shorthand for talking about the components of that success and for talking about failures.

These things then translate into learning goals for those who are new to the profession. These guidelines reflect the accumulated wisdom of the community about what works to make a satisfying experience for the audience.

And because the guidelines are teachable, they prevent newcomers from having to create from scratch the strategies and skills needed for success.

No one expects novice actors to be good at improv right away. Over its sixty-year Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 35 history, the improv community has developed a wealth of methods for teaching improv acting, and the great improv teachers such as Paul Sills and Del Close are venerated as much, if not more, than the great performers.

Methods books for teaching improv abound e. Similar types of knowledge can be found in the jazz community; see Berliner, We need a similar body of knowledge in the teaching profession, including a well-elaborated vision of good improvisational teaching, a shared vocabulary, learning goals for new teachers, and accompanying techniques for developing improvisational ability.

One way to make progress toward these ends is to mine the wisdom of other improvisational communities. Several scholars have already begun work of this type.

Improv actors use games and other frameworks as scaffolds for successful improvisational performances. Such structures impose parameters within which the improvisation occurs, and this serves to cut down to a manageable range the amount of improvisation necessary to produce a coherent performance.

Sawyer suggests that teachers need to design classroom activities with a similar idea in mind. Activities need to allow students intellectual space to construct their own knowledge while at the same time scaffolding the construction process.

Sawyer 36 DeZutter also notes that it will be helpful to train teachers in some of the techniques used by theatrical improvisers.

There are a few such efforts currently underway. The work of Sawyer, Donmeyer, and Lobman demonstrates the value in attending to the knowledge for improvisation found in the theater community.

There is also some interesting work using insights from dance improvisation; see Fournier, this volume. However, drawing wisdom from other improvisational professions should not be our only strategy.

As Sawyer notes, the demands of teaching in a K school differ significantly from the demands of creating a performance in the arts.

If we are to advance the ability of the teaching profession to improvise, we will need to develop a vision, a vocabulary, and pedagogical techniques that are specific to teaching.

Indeed, that is where much of the current scholarship on teaching-as-improvisation will likely lead. At the same time, though, we need to engage in a parallel effort that will establish an audience for such scholarship, and extend the conversation about improvisation to others besides education scholars.

We need to take steps to help teachers understand why such scholarship matters, why it is important to understand teaching as improvisational, and why we should strive to improvise well.

Textbooks offer a reasonable proxy for the topics that are included in teacher education classes because to be adopted, a textbook must present the ideas Professional Improvisation and Teacher Education 37 and concepts that teacher educators deem important.

I analyzed fourteen general-methods texts see Table 2. All generalmethods texts texts not focused on a particular grade level or content area were included, except for one text from Cengage that could not be acquired at the time of the study.

Texts devoted only to a single aspect of teaching, such as classroom management, were not included. The textbooks I examined treat constructivism in a variety of ways.

Several e. Others mention constructivism only long enough to link it to other terms or ideas that are used more frequently. Still others e.

It would be reasonable, then, to expect these texts to deal with teacher improvisation as a necessary feature of teaching that accomplishes such aims.

Em FuГџball Halbfinale metaphor of improvisation helps illuminate that creative learning is essentially polyphonic; it evolves not in a single line of action or thought, but in several strands and directions at once, not circumscribed by the tried and traditional, enabling risk to Spiele Legends Of Troy - Video Slots Online borne or not, and in the face of this artists can adopt different stances and engage in different collaborative activities with teachers. Still no pedagogy? Students, if depicted, were shown sitting passively, in orderly rows, eyes on the teacher. A fourth is Isa GГјnther forge strong and sustained partnerships between schools and artists. We accept the need for structures in the classroom; after all, research on teacher expertise shows that all good teaching involves structuring elements. Dissertation, Saybrook Ziehungen Aktion Mensch. Kein Problem!

Kommentare 2

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *