Australian teacher educators and teachers have become increasingly familiar with the notion of ‘Productive Pedagogies’, itself the product of longitudinal research on school reform recently undertaken in Queensland, Australia (Lingard et al., 2001a, , 2001b) . One of its strengths has been its efficacy for in-service teachers to use as a language to talk about their pedagogical work and hence a way of reclaiming some of the ground on what constitutes good teaching. In part, this can be attributed to the numerous observations of teachers’ classroom practice that informed the construction of Productive Pedagogies (PPs). That is, many teachers understand these as naming what ‘good’ teachers have always done. In this paper the value of PPs as a metalanguage for developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding of teaching is examined; whether PPs is a language that is intelligible for pre-service teachers without access to this prior teacher knowledge or whether its elements and dimensions merely constitute an isolated vocabulary. A case study of four pre-service teachers provides the context for this exploration and its empirical data. Drawing on their fieldwork observations of teaching practice, voiced in the language of PPs, the paper argues that PPs language is indeed useful in the development of pre-service teachers’ understanding of teaching, particularly in assisting them to name evidence of teachers’ recognition of and engagement with difference
