Productive Pedagogies: Through the Lens of Mathematics Education Graduate Students

Zita I. Dales and Elson P. Salvan

Bukidnon State University
Malaybalay City

Introduction

Productive pedagogies are common framework that teachers can choose and develop
strategies in relation to what they are teaching, with considerations to the backgrounds of their
students as well as their learning styles. It serves as a guide for teachers on how to teach the new
generation of students, what new teaching approaches are appropriate in order to develop their
21st century skills.

The 21st century is characterized by people living in a technology and media-suffused

environment. To become effective citizens and workers of the 21st century, one should exhibit a
range of functional and critical thinking skills. As emphasized in the K to 12 framework of the
Reformed Philippine Educational System, each student should be holistically developed with the
21st century skills that includes learning and innovation skills, information/media/technology
skills, and life and career skills. These skills at the moment are developed or enhanced if
teachers push through their graduate school enrollment as part of the requirements in teaching
Senior High School.

The graduate school of Bukidnon State University whose goals and objectives support the
mission of the institution to develop competitive professionals who are committed to build a
sustainable life for all through quality instruction, offers masters’ and doctorate degree programs
in teacher education to enhance the teaching abilities and capabilities of these teachers. During
the first semester of school year 2016-2017, there were a total of 364 officially enrolled graduate
students. Of this number, 40 are in the mathematics education program. These students are
handled by nine graduate school teachers.

Teaching is associated with academic outcomes. Concerns raised in the research about
teacher quality have led to look into the quality of the graduate students who are teaching in the
Senior High Schools of their understanding of the framework after its introduction. These
pedagogical practices has been categorized into four dimensions known as productive
pedagogies classified by Lingard, et al. (2001) as intellectual quality, connectedness, supportive
classroom environment, and recognition of difference.

Classrooms with high intellectual quality help students perform well academically.
Connectedness provides an opportunity for students to connect their lives with the curriculum
and its content making it more relevant by providing them with meaningful experiences. The
supportive classroom environment is necessary for students to engage themselves in their studies

1
as influence by the nature of the activities they undertake ensuring that students are able to
achieve the learning objectives. Recognition of the diversity of learners emphasizing respect for
others help create positive human relationships conducive for learning as a community, (Ahmad
& Shaari et al., 2012; Hayes, et al., 2006; and Boaler, 1997). The teachers’ central role is
recognized in improving learner outcomes. So, the focus of this study was on the activities,
strategies and behavior of the graduate students to demonstrate how they enable student
engagement and practices in the classroom.

Conceptual Framework

Productive pedagogies framework provides essential features of effective teaching. It

promotes the provision of high quality education for all students, and especially students from
disadvantaged backgrounds (Lingard, et al., 2001). They added that for students to demonstrate
high level of outcomes they must be provided with a learning environment that stimulates
intellectual activity, coupled with supportive classroom environment, recognition of differences
among students, and connectedness. Materials used in the class should connect with the
students’ various worlds so that students become engaged in the learning process. There is also
ample evidence that supportive classroom environment is critical for the achievement of high
level outcomes of students. Teachers who recognize student diversity could easily provide
activities achieving positive social outcomes. Figure 1 presents the framework of the study.

2
 Figure 1. Productive Pedagogies Framework

Intellectual Quality. The intellectual quality dimension of the Productive Pedagogies

model stresses the importance of all students, regardless of background and perceived academic
ability, being presented with intellectually challenging work (Darling-Hammond, 1997;
Newmann & Associates, 1996; Sizer, 1996; Boaler, 2002; Sarra, 2006; Perry, Steele, & Hilliard
III, 2003). Challenging work is of particular importance for students from traditionally
underachieving backgrounds, for example, Indigenous students and students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. There are many structural practices in schools, for example
streaming, which work against all students experiencing intellectually challenging work (Boaler,
1997; Boaler, William, & Brown, 2000; Ireson, Hallam, & Plewis, 2001; Wiliam &
Bartholomew, 2004).

3
 Connectedness. Concerns have been expressed that new forms of curricula and
pedagogy that appear to focus on making classes relevant for students often reflect a dumbing
down of lessons and also do not extend students’ access to cultural capital by relying upon what
they already know and on their own cultures. This is particularly likely to be the case when the
curriculum is designed to accommodate the needs of low achieving students. However such an
approach is problematic, for as Darling-Hammond (1997) has argued: “Active learning aimed at
genuine understanding begins with the disciplines, not with whimsical activities detached from
core subject matter concepts as some critics of hands-on learning suggest, and it treats the
disciplines as alive, not inert” (p. 107). As with the productive pedagogies work, she claims there
has to be a focus on developing students’ deep-understanding in worthwhile and meaningful
contexts and that this will require students to use higher order thinking that goes beyond simple
recall, recognition, and reproduction to analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and production of ideas
and performances.

Supportive Classroom Environment. Providing all students with intellectually

challenging classrooms is critical for improving academic outcomes. However, adoption of this
approach has at times taken a conservative turn in overlooking the importance of relationships.
In arguing for the creation of a supportive classroom, the productive pedagogies framework
suggested that students be given a voice in the classroom in order to have some say over the
direction that activities take within various units of work, that explicit criteria be provided to
students so that expectations are clear, and that a classroom environment is created where
students are prepared to take risks with their learning. While care is central to good teachers’
work (Lingard et al., 2001), Hargreaves (2003) has stated that, “Care must become more than
charity or control: it must become a relationship in which those who are cared for (pupils or
parents) have agency, dignity and a voice” (p. 47). In developing positive and mutually
supportive relationships, the importance of breaking down the power imbalances between
teachers and students is particularly important, given many students’ resistances to being
overpowered and controlled (Keddie & Churchill, 2004; Martino & Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2003;
Mills, 1996, 1997). Much has been made about the need for explicit criteria in the classroom and
the ways in which those familiar with the mores and nuances of what makes a “good” student
have an advantage over students who are not at ease with the schooling process (Bourdieu &
Passeron, 1977; Cope & Kalantsiz, 1995). However, explicit expectations have to be both related
to students’ schoolwork and to their performances of being a good citizen – and here we broaden
the notion of a good student to include one who is concerned not just about academic
achievement but also with being a positive member of a democratic community. This is taken up
in the next dimension.

Recognition of difference. Recognition of difference dimension of Productive

Pedagogies is the one aspect of the model that has been the source of much debate (Ladwig,
2007; Lingard, 2007). The study noted that teachers were not committed to valuing students’
difference, but that at times they were afraid of getting it wrong – and this was especially the
case in relation to Indigenous issues (Lingard et al., 2001). Classroom practices that work with
the difference dimension facilitate students’ exposure to understandings of the ways in which
power works to construct particular forms of domination and subordination. Its presence in
classrooms will also enable students to become aware of the ways in which various factors

4
including gender, race/ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status affect their identities
(Frankenstein, 1997, 2001; Gutstein, 2003). To a great extent the presence of this dimension in a
classroom enables teachers to teach for democracy; that is to provide students with the skills and
knowledge necessary for them to act as responsible members of a democratic community
(Malloy, 2002; Skovmose & Valero, 2002).

Statement of the Problem

This study explored the introduction of productive pedagogies framework to the

Mathematics Education graduate students during the first half of the semester and looked into its
implementation during the second half of the same semester in their Methods of Teaching
Mathematics subject at Bukidnon State University during the school year 2017-2018.

Methodology

The methodological framework is qualitative method as it is the appropriate method to

get a clear and accurate picture of the nature of how the graduate students of Bukidnon State
University during the school year 2017-2018 illustrate the use of productive pedagogies (Drew,
Hardman & Hosp, 2008) that makes the process visible (Denzin & Lincon, 2011). Another
reason to position the study within the field of qualitative research is it explored in-depth and
utilize somewhat a phenomenological approach using narrative tradition in obtaining individual
information with its own set of philosophical assumptions and principles (Bryman, 2012;
Creswell, 2008).

Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were the twelve (12) BukSU-DepEd fellows officially
enrolled in the Mathematics Education program of Bukidnon State University during the school
year 2017-2018. Of the twelve participants, five (5) were males and seven (7) were females. Of
these number, five (5) were from Bukidnon, one (1) from Sultan Kudarat, one (1) from Misamis
Oriental, two (2) from Davao del Norte, one (1) from General Santos City, one (1) from Davao
Oriental, and one (1) from Davao del Sur. All of these teachers were handling Mathematics in
the Senior High School.

These graduate students took a course in Methods of Teaching Mathematics with 54-hour
duration. During the first half of their course they were introduced to the Productive Pedagogies
framework. The framework was elaborated and demonstrated and students were required to
have their journal reflection where they provided reflections on each dimension of the
framework. In addition to this, semi-structured interview and focus group discussion were

5
conducted. On the second half of their class, they were given their topic to teach implementing
the Productive Pedagogies framework.

The Instrument

The instrument used was the prompts derived from the four dimensions of productive
pedagogies. The first dimension, Intellectual Quality with six elements, namely: Higher Order
Thinking, Deep Knowledge, Deep Understanding, Substantive Conversations, Knowledge as
Problematic and Metalanguage was given with the two prompts. The second dimension,
Connectedness with four elements, namely: Knowledge Integration, Background Knowledge,
Connectedness to the World and Problem-based curriculum had only one prompt. The third
dimension, Supportive classroom environment with five elements, namely: Student Direction,
Social support, Academic Engagement, Explicit Quality performance criteria and self-regulation
got two prompts. The fourth dimension Recognition of difference with five elements, namely:
Culture Knowledge, Inclusivity, Narrative, Group identity, and Active citizenship also got two
prompts.

In order to answer the formulated research question the instrument with eight derived
prompts, class observations, unstructured interview, and focus group discussion were used.

Results and Discussions

Graduate Students’ Views on the Use of Productive Pedagogies

Graduate students (GS) expressed very positive views about the potential of productive
pedagogies as a useful framework that provides a good foundation for learning. Four graduate
students commented:

I like the Productive Pedagogies principles as a basic model for teaching. It can
be considered as a tool to guide teachers to the right steps from the preparation
of lessons to be concerned with developing the Higher Order Thinking Skills of
the learners, the connection of the competencies to the real world to feel the
usefulness of Mathematics, and in considering the differences of the learners.
(GS1, GS4, GS5, GS9, focus group)

The teaching strategies implemented led me to prepare the assigned tasks that
would develop and enhance the higher order thinking skills of the learners. It
enabled me to learn new techniques and innovations in my teaching career. (GS5,
prompt’s reflection)

These participants valued the potential of the Productive Pedagogies framework as a tool
that can be used to guide teachers towards successful teaching practices in this 21 st century.

6
Becoming a good teacher is everybody’s goal in the teaching world and the Productive
Pedagogies framework was seen as very helpful in guiding them to use appropriate teaching
strategies. Another group of participants put it this way:

Productive Pedagogies as a teaching model guides us in choosing the appropriate

methods for the cultural diversity and differing abilities of learners. Actually,
working with people with background differences was not a problem in the
classroom. Respect of one’s right, shortcomings, strengths, as well as weaknesses
and carefulness of what to say by not offending others was constantly practiced.
Everyone showed professionalism in works and in deeds. Everyone was treated
equally and given equal chance to demonstrate their skills and share what they
have in the class. (GS2, GS3,GS6 focus group)

Another group of graduate students said that:

The framework guided us to identify the activities that would connect the concepts
discuss to the real life situation which lead to positive performance of students.
We observed that students realize that Mathematics is indeed a useful tool in
improving our way of life as evidenced by their positive reaction in the use of
equation to model the situation. Students even said that I completely understood
the concepts of Mathematics and I wished to know more of it (GS7, GS8 focus
group)

This group of participants identified the importance and comprehensiveness of the

framework as very useful in their teaching career. The four dimensions of the framework:
Intellectual Quality, Connectedness, Supportive Classroom Environment, and Recognition of
Difference were recognized to focus on the whole picture of the classroom practices. All their
classroom activities were prepared with the goal of including the four dimensions into their
teaching practice. They also noticed that students were always excited to attend the class and
become very much eager to perform the tasks prepared for every session. It was not only that the
four dimensions led into better understanding of the concepts, but it also increased the
motivation of the students to learn the content.

Productive Pedagogies: Change towards Student-Centered Teaching

The most effective way in which the focus on Productive Pedagogies influenced the
graduate students was in challenging their views about their lived learning theories. There was
an indication that their views of learning and teaching had changed after being exposed to
productive pedagogies framework. They stressed that their exposure to the framework is very
timely for the Philippine educational reform in this 21st century society. There is a need to shift
from the traditional teaching-learning methods to a more student-centered learning focuses.
They added that the framework really helped them achieve this shift. They even noted how the
Productive Pedagogies framework was useful in changing the traditional ways of teaching:

7
 The use of productive pedagogies made me realized that knowledge must be
expressed in various ways. Tasks for the students must provide them the
opportunity to become creative, develop their communication skills through
collaborative work, and be able to discern received information in an interactive
learning environment which ultimately optimize their learning. (GS1, GS4, GS5,
GS8, GS11, GS12, reflection from prompts)

We are very much thankful for having known this framework as this is necessary
for us teachers realizing the changing of our roles as being in the classroom for
the transfer of knowledge to a facilitator of the learning process. All activities
are centered to students’ investigations and or experimentation. (GS2, GS3, GS6,
GS7, reflection from prompts)

The views of the graduate students of the learning theories are very important influences
on their classroom practices. What the teachers do in their classrooms reflect their beliefs on
how the students learn. If they believe that they transmit knowledge for the students to learn,
there will only be one-way flow of information to students. However, if the teachers subscribe to
the constructivist view of learning, activities are designed and prepared to help students build
knowledge. It can be seen that Productive Pedagogies framework shift the focus of the graduate
students towards student-centered classroom. What follows are the comments that would
explain how the framework changed the old view of graduate student and how the model help
them to focus on students’ stock knowledge to build and explore new ones.

We owe so much from Bukidnon State University because in our stay here for one
summer and one year, we were able to maximize the upgrading of our teaching in
the 21st century. The use of Productive Pedagogies reminded us to consider the
background knowledge of the learners in order to build on the new information
and how the whole class could support each other particularly that we build on
our motto that “sa BukSU sama sama tayo maging successful” ready to be
educated to become innovative leaders in molding the youth. (GS4, GS5, GS7,
GS8, GS12 reflection from prompts)

The activities implemented were well prepared to develop the communication

skills of the learners, that learners could work collaboratively and make
reasonable decision, the tasks given encouraged creativity and problem situation
would lead to develop the critical thinking of the learners. The classroom
environment was very conducive for learning. In terms of social support,
everyone is being assisted with their learning needs. The class atmosphere in
general is learning-driven as everyone is guided and directed to learn
independently with confidence despite of the challenging tasks given.

With Productive Pedagogies, graduate students are in agreement that intellectual quality
was at stake inside the classroom as good preparations of lessons were evident with the well
prepared tasks and implementation of appropriate strategies. Learners look forward in every
session excited for the challenging tasks to be performed. As stressed by Oakes, Gamoran and
Page (2012), one of the main reasons some students do not achieve high academic performances

8
is that teachers do not always require students to perform work of high intellectual quality.
Conversely, when students from all backgrounds are expected to perform work of high
intellectual quality, with supportive classroom environment, overall student academic
performance increases and equity gaps diminish, relative to conventional teaching practices as
opined by Newmann and Associates (2014). Learners in this kind of environment tend to
become self-regulated and motivated to do their best. Connectedness of the topics and concepts
in Mathematics to the real world synthesizes a common concern that emanates from diverse
interests of the learners. Making the discussion relevant to the needs of the learners wherein
classroom practices address issues or problems which have salience outside of the school could
motivate the learners to do better.

Conclusion

The study aimed to explore the introduction of the framework of Productive Pedagogies
to the graduate students through a series of activities within their Methods of Teaching
Mathematics subject during the first half of the semester. Through the graduate students’
experience, an understanding of the implementation of the framework was developed during the
second half of the semester through their assigned topics to handle.

Analysis of the data supports two arguments: First is that the graduate students found the
Productive Pedagogies framework to be a valuable guide from their lesson preparation, selection
of tasks and strategies for delivery, connectedness of concepts to real-life situations down to
assessment for learning, assessment as learning and assessment for learning. Participants felt
that the different dimensions of Productive Pedagogies: Intellectual Quality, Supportive
classroom environment, Connectedness, and Recognition of difference have helped to direct their
teaching practice. Second, the framework assisted a shift towards an increased teacher focus on
student-centered learning. Teachers’ beliefs on the learning theories and learning styles
contribute so much on their classroom practices.

Productive Pedagogies need to be introduced to all the teachers in order for them to
immerse themselves within the framework to understand the situation and give enough time to be
engaged with the model to obtain positive performance of the learners.

9
References

Ahmad@Shaari, M.; Jamil, H., Razak, N.A. (2012). Exploring the Classroom Practice of Productive
Pedagogies of the Malaysian Secondary School Geography Teacher. Review of International
Geographical Education Online @ RIGEO Vol. 2, No. 2

Ahmed, S. (2015). Formative Assessment and Productive Pedagogy in Finnish Classroom Assessment:
In the Lens of Curriculum Materials.

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing School mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and
their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping– disaffection,
polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-
648.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Frankenstein, M. (1997). In addition to the mathematics: Including equity issues in the curriculum. In J.
Trentacosta & M. J. Kenny (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics
classroom: The gift of diversity (pp. 10-22). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Frankenstein, M. (2001, January 15-19). Reading the world with math: Goals for a critical mathematical
literacy curriculum. In B. Lee (Ed.), Mathematics shaping Australia (pp. 53-64). Proceedings of
the 18th biennial conference, Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. Adelaide:
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 115-141.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
Midenhead: Open University Press.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference:
Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools: Effects on pupils’ self-
concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 315-26.

Keddie, A. (2006). Pedagogies and critical reflection: Key understandings for transformative gender
justice. Gender and Education, 18(1), 99-114.

Keddie, A., & Churchill, R. (2004). Power, control and authority: Issues at the centre of boys’
relationships with their teachers. Queensland Journal of Teacher Education, 19(1), 13-27.
Lingard, R., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Hayes, D., Luke, A., Gore, J., & Christie, P. (2001). The queensland
school reform longitudinal study: A strategy for shared curriculum leadership. Teachers'
manual.

10
Malloy, C. (2002). Democratic access to mathematics through democratic education: An introduction. In
L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 17-25).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martino, W., & Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2003). So what’s a boy? Addressing issues of masculinity and
schooling. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Mills, C., & Gale, T. (2007). Researching social inequalities in education: Towards a Bourdieuian
methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies inEducation, 20(4), 433-447.

Newmann & Associates (2014). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, III. (2003). Young, gifted and black: Promoting high Achievement among
African-American students. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Sarra, C. (2006). Young and black and deadly: Strategies for improving outcomes for indigenous students.
In M. Keeffe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (pp. 63-79). Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson.

Skovmose, O., & Valero, P. (2002). Democratic access to powerful mathematics in a democratic country.
In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 383-
408). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

11
 Work Plan

Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Improve
proposal &
instrument

Classroom
Observation &
video
recording

Classroom
Observation &
video
recording

Classroom
Observation &
video
recording

Data
transcription

Data analysis

Data
interpretation

Paper
finalization

Presentation/
Dissemination

LINE ITEM BUDGET

12
 1. Personal Services Php 118,467.41
a. Project Leader (Php 76,913.18/yr. x 1yr.) Php 76,913.18
b. 1 Researcher (Php 41,554.23/yr. x 1 yr.) Php 41,554.23

2. MOOE Php 10,000.00

a. Supplies and Materials Php 1,700.00
i. 2 reams bond paper 200/ ream Php 400
ii. 1 cartridge black ink 400/ cartridge Php 400
iii. 1 cartridge colored ink 900/ cartridge Php 900
b. Plagiarism test (400/run x 2) Php 800.00
c. Grammar Test (400/run x 2) Php 800.00
d. Video Technician Php 5,000.00

GRAND TOTAL Php 128,467.41

13