a transactional model of college teaching

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2007, Volume 19, Number 2, 130-139 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 A Transactional Model of College Teaching David M. Dees Kent State University Salem Campus Albert Ingram, Cindy Kovalik, Mary Allen- Huffman, Averil McClelland, and Lisbeth Justice Kent State University College teaching is a complex endeavor, which can be difficult to understand. Teacher reflection has become one means of comprehending the intricacies associated with teaching and learning. An abundant literature base examines individual elements of teaching, but looking at individual elements may encourage reflection on just a part of the process. The Teaching/Learning Transactional (T/LT) model provides a framework to guide reflection. This paper outlines the components of the model and provides a case study that represents its application. The T/LT model encourages teacher reflection that views teaching holistically. It is designed to encourage dialogue that frames teaching as a complex encounter of the human experience. Changing the language we use to discuss teaching may serve to deepen our understanding of this complex act, and in turn, improve our overall practice. Teaching is a complex act. In an effort to identify the nature of this complex endeavor, teacher reflection has become a common approach to studying teaching (Bolton, 2001; Calderhead & Gates, 1993; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Schön, 1983, 1987; Shulman, 1986; Strong-Wilson, 2006; Valli, 1992; van Mannen, 1977; Zeichner, 1994; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Teacher reflection has focused mainly on the development of primary and secondary teachers. More recently, however, teacher reflection has been explored within the context of the scholarship of teaching in a university setting (Brookfield, 1995; Kreber, 2005; Lyons, 2006; McAlpine, Weston, Berthiaume, Fairbank-Roch & Owen, 2004; Richlin, 2001). Due to its interpretive nature, reflection can be a difficult process to teach to and model for others (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Ward & McCotter, 2004). Some authors contend that teacher reflection in higher education often lacks intellectual rigor and sophisticated analysis (Bleakly, 1999; Ecclestone, 1996; Rodgers, 2002; Rogers, 2001). The Teaching/Learning Transactional (T/LT) model proposes a framework for reflection that allows for a critical examination of teaching in higher education that is systematic yet sensitive to an aesthetic understanding of teaching and reflection. Quality teaching requires a sense of artistry (Barrell, 1991; Dawe, 1984; Dees, 2000; Dees, Campbell, Jones, Pennock & Samad, 2003; Eisner, 1979; 2002; Gage 1978). Teaching artistry necessitates a “thinking-in-the-moment” mentality that is sensitive to the shifts and changes that occur within the classroom. Similar to other artistic endeavors, teaching artists reflect on their work before, during, and after the moment to inquire into aspects of the experience that are meaningful and transformative. When this reflective process is done well, there is an aesthetic dimension to teaching that heightens the experience for both teacher and student (Bundy, 2003; Eisner, 2002, 2006; Fenner, 2003). Thus, teaching artistry is cultivated through a pre-, in-the-moment and post-event awareness of the educational experience. Likewise, teacher reflection requires this complex reflective thinking. Russell Rogers’ (2001) analysis of reflection in higher education notes that there is a common theme in the timing of reflection. He writes There are two major time-aspects to the experiences upon which individuals reflect – reflection in the moment (called reflection-in- action or contemporaneous reflection) and reflection after the fact (called reflection-on-action or retrospective reflection)…most of the methods to foster reflection…in the literature of higher education are focused on retrospective reflection (p. 54). Due to the ease of documentation, including journals and critical incidents, retrospective reflection has dominated much of the study of teaching in higher education. Reflection-in-action as identified by Schön (1983/1987), however, highlights an appreciation and understanding of the awareness of in-the-moment tacit choices that are so important to the artistry of teaching. Schön (1983) writes “reflection-in-action…is central to the art through which practitioners sometimes cope with the troublesome ‘divergent’ situations of practice” (p. 62). Making tacit knowledge known is difficult, and a model of reflection that encourages thoughtful inquiry before, during and after the event requires a unique frame for understanding the teaching/learning experience. The goal of the T/LT model presented here is to provide a framework to guide teacher reflection before, in-the-moment, and after the event, that recognizes the complexity of the act of teaching, is sensitive to the aesthetic dimensions of both teaching and reflection, and provides a context to examine tacit decisions made during the act of teaching. The T/LT model is designed Dees et al. Transactional Model 131 to present a qualitative description of the key elements that occur during the teaching process, bring these elements out into the open, and then encourage reflection and discussion regarding the experience. Naming, describing, and understanding the many facets of teaching can be daunting. Historically, in an effort to deal with this task, some scholars of teaching have pulled the elements apart from the act as a whole and studied each specific piece in isolation. Literature on assessment, teaching style, and classroom environment can be found in abundance in bookstores, libraries, and professional journals. Although informative, this approach to understanding teaching may miss much of the complexity and aesthetic intricacies of the act as a holistic enterprise. Without question, to be an effective teacher one needs to understand assessment, instructional strategies, and many other topics. When one teaches and reflects on teaching, however, these elements are connected to many other issues that affect the overall process. Assessment, learning style, environment, content knowledge, and the rest, all interact in the teaching event. Increasingly, there is a growing interest in understanding that interaction and how teachers reflect on it (e.g., Palmer, 1998; Timpson, 1999). The T/LT model encourages teacher reflection and research that view teaching as a holistic experience. Developed from the perspective that inquiry needs to appreciate the complexity of human learning, this T/LT model posits teaching as a transactive process in which all of the elements involved in the teaching event interrelate, connect, and influence the classroom experience (Dewey, 1933, 1938; Dewey & Bentley 1949; Eisner, 1994). The model promotes holistic inquiry into classroom occurrences. It challenges reflection that focuses on specific aspects of the art of teaching, and encourages inquiry that analyzes teaching from a more complex perspective that includes thoughts and observations before, during, and after the event. The Transactional Model of Teaching The teaching/learning transaction is placed at the center in our model (Figure 1). Here “transaction” means the “back and forth” or “to-and-fro” quality of the teaching/learning experience so that each element of the model is not treated as a discrete and disconnected piece. Instead, individual elements expand and contract in the teaching moment as the context and the experience change. If the overall instructional transaction is the container, then the relative size of each piece within the container expands or diminishes as the transactions themselves change and develop. The transactional quality of teaching is true of both face-to- face and online transactions. Although the starting points and relative importance may differ, the set of elements that comprise a transaction is similar for each of these teaching situations. For example, an instructor may consciously focus on the fact that his or her students will be required to apply a specific concept during a professional assessment. At the moment when that concept is taught and discussed, assessment, style, mode, and content all interact and affect how the instructor will teach the given concept. Thus, there is a dynamic in-the-moment shifting of the elements as the teaching/learning transaction occurs. In the T/LT model, teaching and learning are seen as two facets of one entity rather than as two separate entities. One of the primary aspects of quality teaching is the creation of an environment conducive to student learning. Without learning, teaching is merely an act of self-gratification. Quality teaching is the joining together of both teacher and student in the learning process. As educators, we learn both with and from our students. Thus, to characterize the interconnections between teaching and learning, these two concepts are represented together in an effort to capture the transactional nature of the quality teaching experience. In Figure 1, guiding questions that represent each individual category are presented. These questions are not necessarily the only questions we should consider within an element. They serve as starting points to begin the process of reflection. Individuals may develop and use their own questions that are relevant to their particular situation. The questions shown are meant to represent the inquiry perspective that encompasses a transactional understanding of teaching and learning. Students have their own understandings and expectations of teaching and learning that may conflict, complement, or intersect with the teacher’s understandings and expectations. The teacher’s teaching/learning transaction model is a complex and interactive web that can interact with the students’ teaching/learning perceptions to create an intricate and interrelated network of joint understandings and expectations as the teaching event ensues. It also may be true that both the student’s and the teacher’s models will grow in complexity, subtlety, and power over time. As we develop ways to understand both teacher and student models, we may be able to examine these changes. It is often said that tertiary level faculty members may begin by teaching the way they were taught. Often, this translates into lecture classes dominated by teacher talk (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). Similarly, students often come to college with limited and naïve expectations about the roles of students and teachers (Miller, Bender & Schuh, 2005). If we are thoughtful and dynamic in changing our models of the teaching/learning transaction, our changes should, over time, be reflected in changes in Dees et al. Transactional Model 132 FIGURE 1 Teaching/Learning Transactional Model how our students view the learning/teaching process. Thus, this teaching model provides a guide to purposeful reflection that is aimed at increasing both our students’ and our own understanding of the teaching/learning event. The T/LT model is designed to be used as a pre-, in-the-moment, and post-teaching event reflection guide. Before the teaching event, educators can use the model and the guiding questions to identify the complications and possibilities associated with teaching a certain concept in a specific manner within a given class. During the event, teachers can use the model as a way to monitor and categorize the individual thought processes and educational choices that occur while teaching. After the experience, the model is designed to serve as a guide for retrospective reflection encouraging the educator to consider the multiple and complex elements associated with the success or failure of a teaching experience. It can also serve as a guide for planning the next such experience. The following section of this paper highlights the individual model elements. In each section a brief description of the element is given. Additionally, references are provided to guide the reader to further and more developed discussions of that particular issue. However, it is important to remember that each element needs to be considered and reflected on with reference to the other components of the model. The Model Elements Teacher. The “teacher” element of the model includes the personal history, expectations, and beliefs of the individual teacher. This element is the self- reflective and autobiographical part of the T/LT model. Teacher beliefs are a primary element in any instructional transaction (Ayers, 1995; Cole & Knowles, 2000; Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes, 2005; Schönwetter, Sokal, Friesen, & Taylor, 2002; van Manen, 1991). This element encourages reflection that focuses on how personal perspectives, history, and beliefs about higher education impact decision-making processes. For example, if I have been socialized to believe that the role of a professor is to disseminate the “truth” of my content, I will define my role in the classroom quite differently from when I see myself as a guide who provides learning experiences that encourage the construction of knowledge about the content by the students. Both perspectives have strengths and Dees et al. Transactional Model 133 weaknesses. The goal of the model is to encourage reflection on how your personal beliefs influence the teaching transactions that occur in your classroom. Quality teaching requires reflection as an on-going process. Thus, the teacher component of the model highlights the importance of reflection along several dimensions: a) Understanding how our own life stories impact our practice. b) Identifying our awareness of the in-the- moment factors that affect student learning. c) Identifying how an individual teacher defines the role of a teacher in the process of learning. Each of these dimensions impacts the definition of our teacher self and continues to shift and change with life experience. Thus, the dimensions require continuous reflection. Style. The classroom manifestation of the teacher element is style. In the T/LT model the style element identifies the overall interpersonal climate of the classroom that is created by the teacher’s behaviors, actions, and overall personality (Fenstermacher & Soltis, 1992; Grasha, 1996; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Lowman, 1995; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006). Like trying to define a work of art, this is a complex and intuitive process that has long escaped in-depth study in higher education. Due to the culture of higher education that privileges the content domain as the primary purpose of a professor’s work, many scholars have not considered the importance of the “feel” and “tone” of the educational encounter. After spending an hour and fifteen minutes in a dreary, monotonous classroom, however, one quickly sees the impact that style can have on the teaching/learning transaction. Teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and philosophies are revealed in our classroom transactions with students. How we use humor, how we react to student questions or challenges, and a host of other variables all make up the style element of the T/LT model. Together they challenge us to examine our humanness as witnessed in our classroom attitudes towards students, content, and education in general. Mode. The “mode” element identifies how the teacher chooses to design the experiences through which the students can learn the material. By mode we mean how the teacher translates the content and other factors into strategies, activities, and other elements of teaching. Lecture mode may be far different from discussion mode or a problem-based learning mode. As teachers, we have a growing repertoire of teaching methods available to us (Barkley, Cross, & Howell Major, 2005; Davis, 1993; Halpern, 1994; Herrington & Herrington, 2006). We must identify instructional strategies, learn how to use them effectively, and implement them. Although such instructional strategies are of critical importance to an instructional transaction, it is important to note that their ultimate effectiveness still depends on their interaction with the other elements of the teaching/learning transaction. Content. The “content” element of the model addresses both the actual content of what is being taught (i.e. knowledge, information, and/or specific skills) and the pedagogical issues associated with teaching in a specific field of study. Most disciplines in higher education have traditions and knowledge about how they are best taught (Martin, Porsser, Trigwell, Ramsden & Benjamin, 2002; Shulman, 1986; 1987). In addition, educational research points to the fact that different kind of goals and objectives should be taught in different ways (Bain, 2004; Fink, 2003; Weimer, 2002). Basic concepts, for example, may be better learned differently from advanced problem solving in a field. The content element of the model examines the interplay between content knowledge and pedagogical practice. Learner. The “learner” aspect of the model identifies issues of learning style, student expectations, motivation, and metacognition. The learners themselves are a key part of the instructional transactions. Students bring to a situation a set of styles, abilities, expectations, and attitudes that surely affect how the transaction proceeds (Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Gardner, 1983; Hativa, 2000; Kolb, 1984; Phillips & Soltis, 1998; Sarasin, 1998; Zull, 2002). Any teacher with more than minimal experience has found that what worked in a class in the morning can lead to a pedagogical disaster in a section of the same course in the afternoon. A different set of students may react completely differently to our most carefully laid plans. Environment. The “environment” element deals with the space where the experience takes place. It includes a host of factors that may exist in the physical, social, or even virtual environment for learning and teaching. In the physical environment we may find factors such as the seating arrangements (whether the room allows the students to be grouped and arranged in a variety of ways, or is more rigid), the technology available (teacher's station with projector, Internet access, as well as wireless access and power supplies for student laptops), or basic human comforts, such as appropriate heating, cooling, or lighting (Bartlett, 2003; Douglas and Gifford, 2001; Niemeyer, 2003). The social environment may reflect the size of the class, its composition, and the relationships that develop among students and between students and instructor. Converting a course to an online format does not remove the environment factor but does change it. The virtual environment may include the software and interface used to enable students to gather information and communicate. Different systems may work in very Dees et al. Transactional Model 134 different ways and, therefore, have effects on how a specific instructional transaction takes place. An example might be the differences in online discussions experienced through various systems, such as chat rooms, graphical chat rooms, and asynchronous discussion boards. Assessment. The “assessment” component of the model clarifies how the ways we try to identify student knowing clearly impact the teaching experience. It is important, however, not to separate assessment too sharply from the learning/teaching transaction, as naïve teachers may tend to do. There are several reasons for thi